The Myth of Obama's "Bipartisanship"

How revealing the lede was from this story in yesterday's The New York Times:

[T]he White House is intensifying its push to engage Congressional Republicans in policy negotiations as a way to share the burden of governing and put more scrutiny on Republican initiatives.

It really says it all, doesn't it? They're not working with Republicans just because Obama emphasized bipartisanship during the campaign and is trying to live up to his pledge. They're not consulting them because it might -- gasp! -- be the right thing to do, rather than simply jamming down hard left legislation.

They're doing it because, apparently, the "burden" of governing is too great, despite big majorities in Congress . . . and, of course, so that they can find a way to blame Republicans (or their ideas) if they don't get their way. A purely political exercise, it seems, with no genuine bipartisanship behind it at all.

How inspiring the Obama White House is, no? Especially given the President's March of 2008 declaration that

"it’s very important to listen to Republicans, to respect them" and his insistence on working with them "actually trying to solve problems away from the TV cameras, not trying to score political points.”

Perhaps we should have seen this coming when, just four days after taking office, the President responded to Republican concerns about the level of spending in the stimulus plan simply by saying, "I won."

It's always ugly when Obama rhetoric collides with reality.

The Myth of Obama's "Bipartisanship"

Recommended

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos