Here we go - NYT=President Obama didn't reach out to Republicans. The polarization is his fault.

[Pirate Smile]

They even have Democrats to say so. :eyes:

Obama’s Playbook After Nov. 2

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: October 24, 2010

WASHINGTON —

-snip-
Before Mr. Obama and Republicans can secure each other’s cooperation, people in both parties say, they must first figure out a way to secure mutual trust.
Mr. Obama came to office vowing to reach across the aisle and change the tone in Washington, a goal he quickly abandoned when Republicans stood in lockstep against his stimulus bill. Today, with each side blaming the other for their sorry state of relations, neither has “clean hands,” said Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia.

Yet even Democrats say that, as president, Mr. Obama has a special obligation to try to put an end to the vitriol — and that the future of his presidency may depend on it.
“Probably the biggest single promissory note he handed out during his campaign was the promise of trying to overcome Red America and Blue America into one America,” said Bill Galston, who worked as a domestic policy adviser to former President Bill Clinton. “I think the perception is that he didn’t work as hard as he could have to redeem that note, and I can’t believe that he wants to go down in history as the president who promised to overcome polarization and ended up intensifying it.”

-snip-
Much will depend on what happens Nov. 2, and some things will be beyond Mr. Obama’s control. If Tea Party candidates — who have spent the entire election season demonizing Mr. Obama — win big, Republican leaders who might be inclined to work with the president might have a difficult time persuading their members to do so. If Republicans take the House and Democrats keep the Senate, it could be difficult for Mr. Obama to bring the chambers together.

One question is what public posture Mr. Obama will take. If Democrats get trounced, will he emerge, sounding contrite, and take responsibility for their losses? Or will he insist the results were not a reflection on him? Will he follow the path of Mr. Clinton, who pursued a so-called triangulation strategy of moving to the center after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994?
“If he did turn to the center, as Bill Clinton did, I think there would be a lot of hope, but right now nobody knows what he is going to do,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah. Mr. Hatch says the strategy was likely to have saved the Clinton presidency. “Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been elected the second time had he not awakened and started to work with both sides.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/us/politics/25agenda.html?src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics

Truly nauseating beltway conventional wisdom. It's disgusting to see Democrats pushing it and/or playing along.

[elleng]

1. Yes, it is disgusting.

[DJ13]

2. If many Dems tried any harder to appease Republicans

They would have to re-register as Republicans.

[butterfly77]

16. Yeah,I just saw the guy who was Dean's

campaign manager talking down the Dems, as the host said the Dems have a lead in some places he started whining about how they MAY have a LITTLE lead but...

[jeanpalmer]

28. He could lie supine in Boehner's office

reaching out, and they'd just kick him in the groin.

[MadMaddie]

3. More lies and bullshit!

He did it numerous times and had private meetings with Boehner only to have Boehner come out and lie.

Fuck em! President Obama and the Dems need to show them what it really is like not to reach across the aisle.

[Pirate Smile]

12. I guess they wanted President Obama to have a few more times where as he was driving to meet with

Republicans to discuss something (like the Stimulus) and the Republicans put out a statement that they will opposed everything about the topic they are supposed to be meeting to discuss.

Why didn't President Obama just go ahead and do that a few more times?

I bet one reason is that Specter told the White House that the Republicans had already decided, before he was even sworn in, to oppose absolutely everything he tried to do - even if it was things they had supported or were still supposed to be supporting.

[GoCubsGo]

50. You mean like that televised meeting where he went to meet with them?

Where they all waved their BS "stimulus" eight page "plans" in his face? And, they tried to play "gotcha" with him because "You know, he just can't function without a teleprompter"? And, where he proceeded to wipe the floor with them, and embarrass them in front of the whole country? Yeah, I could see how they "forgot" about that.

[msongs]

4. obama has already announced his decision to continue his "bipartisanshiP" nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I feel like Alice in Wonderland

The whole thing is nuts.

Or maybe I'm nuts.

Or both.

[rufus dog]

13. Oh you are nuts

but a blind squirrel....

Seriously this is just more of the same.

[ProSense]

6. I was just reading that. Who the hell

said Mitch McConnell is owed a one-on-one meeting?

That is the caveat used to make this bullshit claim.

What about stimulus meetings?

What about the meetings on health care reform?

More BS media spin.

[angee_is_mad]

7. They shouldn't use any of clinton's people for quotes

I know the primary is over but I don't think some of them can be the most objective. The only one who would be is Hillary. Unfortunately they are not going to use any of her quotes and she probably wouldn't talk to them.

[DFLforever]

8. It's too bad the Repukes won this perception game

It's one of the chief reasons the Dems are losing the independent voters this election cycle.

[Clio the Leo]

9. THAT is hilarious....

.... remember when the chic asked him about that at the MTV thing? Asked him why he didn't try to try to behaving in a more bipartisaned manner toward the GOP.

CLEARLY she was not lurking at DU for the last year and a half! lol

[Safetykitten]

10. You know how that would of been solved? Day one "fuck you republicans",

Or maybe, pull a Bush. "I am President".

So see? This is what bending over backwards has gotten us.

[geek tragedy]

11. Oh, fuck that shit 7 days a week and twice on Tuesdays.

It's HIS fault that the Teabaggers and racists lost their goddamn mind?

[Amonester]

20. Yep.

Same old, same old. :hangover:

Amazing, isn't it?

I bet that dem is a centrist...

[ProfessionalLeftist]

14. Obama was ALREADY in the center, for one thing and for another

'reaching across the isle' is a damn two-way street. Pubes want to see Obama fail and their mantra has been "NO" on everything. Furthermore, WHEN did the pubes ever 'reach across the isle' when THEY were in power? Can you spell 'hypocrite'?

. . . ?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

15. Personally, I think Obama carried that 'bipartisanshit'

too far as it was. That is NOT the problem and is not likely to be, no matter what propaganda says.

[Lasher]

17. Sheryl Golberg has echoed this GOP talking point before.

The New York Times brings back the Obama bipartisan trap

July 16, 2010

You remember the one the Beltway press used so often and effectively last year. The bogus premise worked like this: When he was running for president, Obama promised to change the tone in Washington, D.C.; he practically guaranteed he'd end partisan bickering. But he hasn't done that because Republicans are voting against his bills. Therefore Obama is to blame for lack of bipartisan cooperation.

Nifty, right? In addressing the topic of bipartisanship (i.e. the shared cooperation of two political parties), the press blamed Obama (and Obama alone) for the fact that obstructionist Republicans refused to be bipartisan.

Well, today the Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg brings that chestnut out of storage:

Part of the problem for Mr. Obama is that he came to Washington vowing to change the partisan tone in the capital, something he has thus far been unable to do. Just three Senate Republicans voted for the financial regulatory bill on Thursday, continuing a pattern that began early in Mr. Obama’s presidency when just three Republicans joined him on the stimulus bill.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007160011

[FrenchieCat]

18. That's what the media does........

and then we act like it ain't apparent...
when it is. :shrug:

[Cosmocat]

48. fin a ...

just surreal ...

It is the victim's fault for face smashing into the fist of the person who beat the victim up ...

[Arkana]

19. He bent over backwards to include them and they spat on him at every turn

and then whined when they weren't included.

This is more or less how the negotiations for the stimulus bill, health care bill, and finreg bill went:

REPUBLICANS: WELL YOU HAVE TO PUT (long list of demands) IN THE BILL TO MAKE IT TRULY BIPARTISAN ARGH GABLARGH

DEMOCRATS: OK, um...if we do it, will you in turn vote for the bill?

REPUBLICANS: YOU KNOW WE CAN'T DO THAT ARGH BLARGH

DEMOCRATS: Then, er, why should we put all this shit in the bill?

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. The media also still characterizes the Boxer - Fiorina rout as a close race

So bullshit like this comes as no surprise.

[nevergiveup]

22. This idiot has obviously been living in a cave for the last two years.

[jillan]

23. And if Dems retain power in both houses of Congress, then what? you blowhard!

Have these people been living in a bubble over the last 2 years?

Did they write this when Bush was in office and claimed that he had a mandate when he won in 2004 with less than 2% by forgetting to count all the votes in Ohio?

I've had enough of this!

[Zoeisright]

24. That is total bullshit. President Obama bent over backwards to try to get the

fucking repukes on board, and they gave him the finger. God, I am so SICK of these lies.

CONTRITE? For WHAT? Doing a good job but being stymied by a bunch of asshole hacks who hate this country?

[girl gone mad]

25. That was always the danger in romanticizing the idea of bipartisanship.

It's often an ineffective method of governing, even under the best of circumstances. Add to the mix an opposition party full of stubborn partisan hacks - corrupt, inept and uncivil to boot - and you've got a recipe for political disaster.

Bush was rarely, if ever, criticized for his failure to compromise because he played up his mandate and "decider" status. This allowed him ample opportunity to use his bully pulpit and bash the opposition party when we failed to acquiesce to his demands. It was an effective political strategy, with tragic consequences for our country.

By selling the President as a post-partisan change agent floating above the political fray, rather than as a party leader with a popular agenda for progressive reform, his advisers very naively set the stage for this accusation.

[jeanpalmer]

26. Classic

LOL. The "vitriol." LOL again. What else to expect from the MSM?

[kentuck]

27. Now that the Repubs have obstructed everything for two years...

...and they may win the House, it is time for "bi-partisanship". It is Obama's responsibility. Uh-huh...

[Mojorabbit]

44. +100 nt

[reggie the dog]

29. what the fuxx

????


obama damn sure has tried to work with the republicans, they are the assholes who would rather block everything than try to get the usa out of a depression

[BeyondGeography]

30. He has been in the center, assholes

and it wasn't enough.

This country is politically lost.

[Skittles]

46. CORRECT

[budkin]

31. How can anyone write this shit and be ok with themselves?

[flamingdem]

32. Now we see why he had to make so many attempts to reach over the aisle

.. imagine if he had not done that, total vilification

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Fuck you, New York Times!

They didn't say the same thing about Bush when he went so far as corralling people who disagreed with him.

[kentuck]

34. They are setting the table for the Repubs.

Ahead of the election. So they can blame Obama for not working with the Republicans. After we have had nothing but two years of obstruction. Unbelievable!

[BootinUp]

35. Maybe he should have autographed the Obama is Hitler signs. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. I call BS on this

It's even worse that a Democratic Senator is giving any credence whatsoever to the LIE that Obama hasn't tried to work with the Republicans, particularly when he's actually tried SO HARD to work with them that he's angered many progressives in the process.
What REALLY burns me up is that during the eight years that Bush was running around the country calling himself "the decider" and declaring his ability to make whatever decisions he wanted (particularly in terms of foreign policy) infinite and absolute because he was the "commander-in-chief" virtually nobody criticized him for not consulting with Democrats on just about....well.....anything. Democrats were barely even considered relevant when the Republicans were running Congress unless most Republicans happened to be in agreement with them on something or other.

How is it that Republicans always seem to get a free pass from the media, pundits, et. al to do whatever they want to do bipartisanship-be-damned while Democrats are routinely chided and scolded to be "bipartisan" and play nice with the Republicans? How is it that Republicans are never chided nor scolded for not allowing "up-or-down" votes on legislation? Pretty much their only response to working with President Obama is to simply discard all of the work that has already been done and to "start over" with a blank sheet, which seems to me like more of a stalling tactic than an interest to actually work with President Obama and the Democrats on anything. Frankly, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that the Republicans- save for perhaps a handful of them- aren't interested in genuine bipartisanship or compromise unless it reflects 99.9999999% of what THEY want. Legislation that falls short of that is pretty much guaranteed to somehow be too much for them to support despite the actual merits of the legislation and/or the number of Republican *ideas* incorporated into it. If it's not on what is considered to be on their "terms", Republicans do not seem motivated to support anything that might appear to be a Democratic "success"- though I suspect that President Obama would be more than happy to share the credit where credit is due.

I suppose that President Obama has a greater than usual responsibility to attempt to be "bipartisan" since he did, in fact, promise to attempt to move beyond the "Red State, Blue State" framework and partner more with the Republicans on moving this country forward on a better path, however he can only be as bipartisan and work with the Republicans as much as THEY are able and willing to work with HIM. Republicans have, on balance, demonstrated little or no desire to "work" with President Obama on just about anything since his inauguration despite his efforts to bend over backwards, frontwards, and even sidewards to try to listen to and accommodate their "concerns" about his legislative and policy agenda and President Obama's agenda, though progressive, has been, by no means been "radical" IMHO. From the moment he was inaugurated, the Republican's chief ringleader declared that he wants President Obama to "fail", which pretty much set the tone for the rest of the Republican Party to follow since. Since then we've had Congressional Republicans admit that they only "negotiated" with President Obama and the Democrats in order to substantially weaken and/or kill legislation, that they hoped certain pieces of legislation would wind up being his "waterloo", that government should be "shut down"- not to mention the efforts of Senate Republicans to continuously obstruct via filibuster in order to bring even previously routine Senate business to a grinding halt.

I've always been supportive of Obama's calls for bipartisanship and I believe he is genuinely concerned about bringing America together, however I don't fault him it not happening yet. Until Republicans are held accountable for their blatant obstructionism and THEIR unwillingness to be bipartisan and decide to work together with President Obama and the Democrats to do what needs to be done FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, nothing will drastically change in Washington, unfortunately.

[BootinUp]

39. in 2000 Dubya used all kinds of bi-partisan rhetoric nt.

edited to remove elected. (sorry I am feeling under the weather.lol)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. Right

and, save for a few initiatives (i.e. No Child Left Behind) a few 9/11-related things, I saw no real bipartisan outreach- just a lot of efforts to put the Democrats into politically tenuous positions such as with legislation creating the Homeland Security Department that included the "poison pill" denial of civil service protections amendment and, of course, the politically timed vote on the Iraq War Resolution. The Republicans in Congress took their cue from President Bush and didn't encourage any sense of bipartisanship either. Wasn't it former Speaker Dennis Hastert who (in)famously declared that he wouldn't even bring legislation and/or amendments to the floor for a vote unless a "majority of the majority" wanted something? :shrug: :puke:

To add to my original response, I would like to challenge Republicans and any other pundit, blogger, journalist, et. al whom seriously assert that President Obama hasn't been satisfactorily bipartisan to cite SPECIFIC examples and incidents of Republicans genuinely seeking bipartisan consensus on a particular issue but Obama refusing to work with them and I refuse to accept any example or incident that includes the Republican's oft-heard demand for President Obama and the Democrats to "start over with a blank piece of paper" tripe that they used repeatedly during the health care reform debate. I wonder if anybody would be actually able to do this but until or unless they do, I consider their assertions to be unproven with no basis in reality.

[treestar]

37. Er, but I thought he spent the last two years caving to the Republicans?

:silly: :crazy:

[bigwillq]

38. Obama has done too much to reach out

to the repukes. Obama really has tried to be bipartisan. Too bad the repukes haven't reached out in return.

[denimgirly]

40. Obama and the Dems are in the Mess they're in BECAUSE they abandoned their Base for the Right.

Way too much bending for the right..so this story is BS....if he had stayed left he'd have accomplished more and would have a better turn out right now.

[jenmito]

42. Joe Scarborough was going on and on this morning about Obama allegedly

not having a one-on-one meeting with Mitch McConnell for 18 months. :eyes:

[Frustratedlady]

43. How many times did Obama need to be slapped in the face...shunned?

He tried a lot longer than I would have.

The Repugs were acting like a bunch of old farts sitting on a park bench in front of the country store, sayin'..."Dance, boy...faster, boy!"

He even went into a closed session with them and they shunned him...made him sound like he was lecuturing them.

Shame on them. THEY didn't work across the aisle.

What a stupid article and shame on Warner.

[Jakes Progress]

45. Just shows the NYT still gets the republican talking points memos.

[rucky]

Between "You Lie!" and "Hell no you can't"

I don't see the room for compromise here.

Yet the Blue Dogs provided the perfect buffer for voters to believe that Obama was shutting out the Republicans. The GOP was simply using Blue Dogs to negotiate by proxy, then come back and say they were shut out and only Dems got a say in the lawmaking.

I gotta hand it to them. They have turned chickenshit into an art form.

[rucky]

47. Dupe

[Vinca]

49. I've never seen a POTUS try to reach out to the opposition the way Obama has.

Quite frankly, that's the one thing that has really pissed me off about him. When Republicans take over again, there will be no reaching out to Democrats . . . guaranteed. We're doomed to live in a country that will never, ever do what is right and adopt a more liberal agenda.

[polichick]

51. LOL - nice try! nt