Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM
THE GREATEST

***

  • ***

********


« John Boehner's star-crossed tears | Main | Self-promotion alert »

December 19, 2010

Comments

Timqz1

Sorry, but I have to side with Frank Rich on this matter. I can understand Obama taking a bi-partisan approach if it were just a matter of reconciling two different political philosophies, with both sides acting in good faith. However, when Mitch McConnell states that the number one priority of the Republican party is to bring down the Obama presidency, how can you reason with that? Just look at the Health Care debates. Obama made concession after concession to his opponents, and every time he caved, they just turned around and attacked him more. This is also evident in the Republican's unparalleled use of the filibuster to deadlock Congress. It seems that the major rule of thumb used by them is "If Obama's for it, we're against it". In that environment, for Obama to continue a bipartisan approach with the Republicans strikes me as crazy. And yet, he keeps doing it.

Bulworth

I also have a hard time appreciating the perspective of the public's wanting both sides to cooperate when it seemingly rewarded Republican obstructionists with huge electoral gains this past cycle.

But here's hoping that their new found power will bestow more obligation on the new Republican House majority.

The comments to this entry are closed.