I guess payback is more important to a lot of people then getting things done.
It's more about whether the right things are going to get done. IMO giving Lieberman great power, even if the benefit of a filibuster-proof caucus is acheived, is going to make it less likely that the right things are done. I don't think it's necessary to placate him at all, or play some ridiculous favor-currying game.
It looks as if Obama is serious about bi partisanship, and that will drive the Kos Kids crazy.
Hey guys guess what: Obama was not elected to transform the US into the People's Republic of America.
Frankly, that he has both the Militant Left and the Militant Right angry at him now is one of the things I am really liking about him.
I'm a lot more critical of Congress than Obama. The latter hasn't even been in a governing position yet, but the former has already demonstrated incompetence over the past eight years. In particular the then-opposition Democrats to Bush were weak-willed in countering policy.
Maybe the author of this piece is a militant leftist. Don't know him, I'm not, but he succinctly raises the issues that some of us are trying to get at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/18/bipartisanship/index.html
Glenn Greenwald said:
Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on.
Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.
[...]
As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin observed at the end of last year: "Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed." How much more harmonious -- "bipartisan" -- can the two parties get?
Even though the Dems now have a majority in both House and Senate and a President, I wonder if they're too scared and spineless to actual act as a majority party. Bipartisanship is fine, but winning and holding power should result in some serious changes. The GOP lost no time from Bush's election in '00 in wrangling Congress to support their agenda (wasn't it only one veto in his first 6 years?) The Democratic party was unwilling to take serious policy stands, even after gaining control.
I'm pretty sure the GOP minorities
will take stands. Good for them. My issue is that the Dem leadership, and most of the legislators, are incapable of wielding their majority power effectively. That they will capitulate enough that it's even in doubt whether Congress is effectively Dem or GOP-controlled.
A prediction based on that, would be that by the end of '12:
Gitmo is still holding some of the same prisoners it has in the last 7 years
DOMA still exists
FISA is not changed or done away with
Bush's tax cuts remain
"Nominal" US bases are still in Iraq (with at least several thousand troops)
No health reform package has passed
No comprehensive energy policy has passed (both support this so that would be entirely on Congress massively sucking)
Etc.
Some stuff I expect to not happen as Obama has to deal with the financial meltdown, and may prefer to wait until his second term. And I'm certainly not expecting or desiring crazy militant leftist stuff. But I'm getting skeptical if anything substantive is actually going to change. Not really because of Obama, but because Congressional Democrats are weak-willed, wishy-washy, and more concerned with their reelections than making good decisions.
charge if/when it happens or stifle already.
