GOPers: Key Aspect Of Kennedy’s Legacy Was Embrace Of Bipartisan Compromise
With Democrats already invoking Ted Kennedy’s passing to rally the troops behind health care reform, Republicans are tentatively floating a response of sorts: Kennedy should be remembered for his willingness to embrace bipartisan compromise.
Senator Judd Gregg is already hinting at the idea. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Gregg hailed the bipartisan support for legislation he and Kennedy created together, adding that Kennedy knew how to “move the ball down the road with conservatives like myself.”
Meanwhile, Karl Rove hailed Kennedy on Fox this morning for being “willing to compromise.”
Other GOPers are floating the idea in The New York Times anonymously, in a discussion of how to navigate the politics of Kennedy’s death:
Republicans also noted that Mr. Kennedy, though an ideological liberal, was a legislative pragmatist who worked with Republicans to strike compromises on difficult subjects like health care, education and immigration. They said they saw little such reaching across the aisle in his absence.
Dems are invoking Kennedy to galvanize themselves on health care; GOPers are pointing that bipartisan compromise is a key aspect of Kennedy’s legacy. Not particularly hard to see where this is going; the battle lines are already perfectly clear.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Maybe the GOP needs to realize that the public option is a compromise.
I heard Lanny Davis pushing this line on XM radio yesterday. Just another data point to prove that Davis is no Democrat.
@greg
What does “filter” mean in your comment below?
Greg Sargent | August 27th, 2009 at 07:00 am
“amk, please don’t leave yet…I’m talking to our tech people to see if we can tighten up our filter”
We saw this coming, yes? It had been going on for a couple of weeks already (”if only Ted Kennedy were active now…Ted, that great man we all respect and love, so unlike most Democrats” etc. Disingenuous enough to make one throw up but it’s the obvious ploy.
Funny how people love speaking for the dead. Jesus hated **** and the founding fathers loved guns on the streets. So now it should be no surprise that Ted Kennedy wants to leave healthcare the way it was.
An off topic item, but important. Gerson and Wehner have a piece in Commentary on how to revitalize the Republican party. It’s predictably assinine in predictable ways (eg the obvious evidence that the administration did NOT lie us into war in Iraq). What worth noting is their prescriptions of what Republicans ought not to do. Effectively – less talk radio and Palin craziness, less racism and “uncareful” anti-immigrant sentiment/statements, less anti-intellectualism, less vacuity in policy, less knee-jerk and extremist anti-government notions and talk.
They are right, of course. But they are a million miles from naming names (Limbaugh, Norquist, Tancredo, Palin – and the “base”) and they are just as far away from getting any of those I just named to do as they suggest.
But their correct assessment of these things also tells us what we ought to work to keep up front and in full view – the extremism, wackiness, paranoia, obstructionism, anti-intellectualism, the lack of empathy/compassion for others and the pervasive bigotry.
Sorry to go off topic so badly, but I thought it important. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/special-preview–the-path-to-republican-revival-15212
Greg – Thanks for the information you post and the reporting and writing you do. Some of the trolls yesterday were a bit much to take, and I think I will go back to lurking; I hope they leave soon, because I learn a lot from the comments too,and frankly, they make the comments a bit painful to read. Anyway, I appreciate what you do here and most of those who comment.
The Republicans will now vest all sorts of persuasive powers on the late Senator; and sadly, now that he no more, they have no one with whom they can do the biparisan dance. The time for subtle nonsense has come and gone. Either the Dems do reform which includes a public option or they don’t. Then we can judge if we have the Gang That Caves representing us.
Real Talk
For as great of a deal maker Teddy Kennedy was he never dragged a single Republican across the finish line on health care reform. Not even on MediCare which they demonized just like they currently are demonizing health care reform. Teddy Kennedy’s deal making ability shone more during the out years for Democrats than the in years and I would love for somebody to calculate how many bipartisan deals on big issues of his became law when Republicans ran the Senate versus when Democrats ran the Senate.
The question is how many bipartisan bills have Republicans attached their names to when they weren’t in power? How many deals did McCain make in the out years? Hell McCain ran away from his own bipartisan bills as soon as he decided to run for President. How many deals did Hatch put his name on when the GOP was flailing?
This whole notion of bipartisanship on health care reform was bullsh*t from the start. In the last 40 years we have never gotten Republican support in the Senate and we never will. Its precisely because this fight is not about health care for Republicans. Its not even really about campaign contributions except peripherally. Its about political survival. They know if a Democratic president and Democratic Congress passes comprehensive health care that results in almost everyone having insurance and people’s premiums going down along with outcomes getting better then the GOP will be the out party for a generation in Congress. And they are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent that.
The sooner Dems, liberals, and progressives realize that the sooner we can push this through and go on about our business. You will never win a Republican in Congress over with a practical argument for health care reform. They aren’t interested. Its about politics pure and simple. It is what it is.
Both McCain and Hatch were out this morning and McCain went as far to say he feels he has a responsibility to carry on the compromise spirit of Kennedy.
I can imagine it out….”but Kennedy wouldn’t have wanted it this way. He would have wanted to compromise…bla bla bla.”
They have no intention on compromising. Enzi and Grassley are getting hammered by their own party for being in the same room with Democrats.
Am I the only one tired of Nazi references and Republican hypocrisy when it comes to health care?
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2694
kev, it’s their playbook.
Attack attack attack, then feign victim.
Attack attack attack, then feign victim.
It’s what they do.
Jack, I didn’t mean anything specific. We have a screen for curses, as you know, but nothing more…all I meant was that I was gonna talk to our tech people to see if they think we should do something to screen out spam.
The public option is a compromise.
so greg text from hr 3200 is spam according to this site?
figures, yeah talk to the techs you surely don’t want the actual text of hr 3200 posted here for your followers to see.
Republicans say Kennedy’s willingness to work with Republicans was key aspect of his legacy. Fair enough. The Republicans’ unwillingness to work with Democrats on health care reform will be key aspect of their legacy.
post a link like everyone else troll
@yipee: I just think that it’s good posting etiquette to not hog an entire thread with one post. Give a quote and then a link for anyone that’s interested in reading it. Other than that and you’re just a troll who’s craving attention.
I crave no attention I do crave the facts not being distorted something that seems to needs to be filtered out on this site.
As far as etiquette I will only post links from now on understanding they will not be read and also understanding that etiquette on this blogs only apply’s to those you insult and call a troll. In otherwords you have no etiquette but demand others do.
okie dokey it appears it is true liberals/dems/progressives have no tolerance of anything or anyone that doesn’t drink they kool-aid!
they have to apply their filter to protect them!
got a busy day ahead, but wanted to quickly note:
@sg, spot on analysis as usual. Why doesn’t some plucky Congressman grab you up and put you out front as a spokesthing? Any interest?
@schrodingerscat, a link would require that the diatribe be evidence-based, non-wingnut news sources and that won’t happen because no one could believe the stuff they believe and be a non-wingnut news consumer.
I don’t understand why these right-wingers think we will consider their analysis of legislative language when they can’t comprehend basic history and political science (Liberal Fascism anyone?). I know the goal is that by calling Obama a social-ist it’s to move the Overton Window even more to the right, but geez, it’s still nonsense.
Speaking of McCain:
“After McCain opened it up to questioning, one man angrily pointed at him and asked the senator why he deserves a better health care plan than him.
“I’m trying to get it for you,” McCain told him. “We’ll do it for you. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/27/mccain-evicts-angry-woman_n_270194.html
Can we hold you to that, McLame?
How disgusting and disrespectful. The Senator passed away just a day ago, and already the Republicans exploit him for political gain via insincere eulogy that benefits their message. Their shamelessness is boundless.
That said, let the Republicans embrace the compromise they are now preaching. They can put up or shut up. Our side could not be more bipartisan than it already has been.
sgwhite
You’re right, of course. The fundamental game in oppositional politics is two-fold – denigrate the opponents strengths and elevate his weaknesses. Obama’s electoral success and popularity grew, in great part, through his calls to foster a more civil and bi-partisan approach to US politics. On that rationale alone, the strategy evolved to try to convey the narrative that Obama is NOT really partisan at all and much of what we’ve seen seems to have resulted from that.
Further, we have the ideological stance, voiced by Norquist (and others in his ideological camp) that “bi-partisanship is a like date-rape”. For these guys, government must not be permitted to demonstrate that it has a real or helpful role in domestic affairs. Where government is seen to succeed, it eviscerates their fundamental premise that government is the problem.
Third,for the propagandists of the Coulter or Limbaugh sort, bipartisan cooperation with liberals/liberal policy ideas can never have consequences which are not destructive or evil because liberalism is destructive and evil. Bargains with the devil.
But none of that makes Obama’s attempts to move in that direction unwise, so long as he isn’t, in his words, a “chump”. The value of bipartisanship has to, I think, be forwarded for two reasons. One, the alternative means politics/governance becoming nothing but partisan warfare and single-party authoritarianism. Two, it positions Obama and the Dem party as reasonable, as moderate, as civil and as dedicated to governance greater than extremist in ideology (which also positions the Republicans as opposite those things – which indeed they presently are).
It will take a while to turn all this around and we have to win this initial fight not only for the moral reasons of giving a damn about fellow citizens but also to prevent the bad guys from succeeding through the use of tricks that encourage and magnify the worst human tendencies.
Greg, on the subject of trolls – yippie has a habit of posting egregiously long comments over and over – I’m for banning that.
yes yippie was a little yappy yesterday (sorry couldn’t help myself)
Jenn D – hahahahahahahahahahaha! I just wish I’d thought of it first.
oh now it’s time to ban! this takes the cake.
As far as the Nazi reference why does it not bother those complaining that top elected officials are calling American’s nazi’s, brownshirts and evil mongers? Can you seriously call out americans and ignore your own leaders? yep apparently liberals/progressives/dems can filter out anything that does not favor their agenda and when the filter doesn’t work then just BAN!
you folks had a chance to show your tolerance, unbiased supposed willingness to work with other americans and you have blown it big time! Don’t think for one minute that you are nothing more than what you sling at me!
It is very obvious that anything not feed to you by greg is spam by a troll! Thanks for the up close and personal into what I was told but did not believe until I experienced it on this blog!
I’ll be sure to link this blog as an example of the so called opened minded tolerance of the “progressive” world.
ttfn
you never know how you are dealing with on the internet! punkd!
“It will take a while to turn all this around and we have to win this initial fight not only for the moral reasons of giving a damn about fellow citizens but also to prevent the bad guys from succeeding through the use of tricks that encourage and magnify the worst human tendencies.”
Bernie – supporters of health reform are now pretty consistently outnumbering the opponents at town hall meetings. I’m not sure this will take so much time because I’m not at all convinced anything has to be “turned around.” We needed to show up and now we are.
s/b “who”
Yippie – when a commenter is rude enough to post whole articles in comments, then that’s what you get.
Free speech doesn’t mean you can burn bandwidth all you want while the rest of us suffer through your 1000 word-comments.
Community standards rule.
@ Teena
oooh, you said Community Standards, you lib-commie-socialist!
Tena – sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. I’m speaking longer term than healthcare or even next election or two.
America grew to its position as wealthiest and most dominant political force on the planet during the period of time when New Deal political policies and values were in place. The unraveling of those began with the modern conservative movement as voiced by Goldwater and the resurgence of corporate anti-governmentalism which was facilitated by the social upheavals of the late fifties and the sixties, particularly civil rights and womens’ rights.
I’m really speaking of establishing conditions where the Republican party might have the opportunity to re-imagine and rebuild itself in some sane and constructive manner. Demographics will drive things that way in any case but the possibility of ugly stuff in the interim looks pretty high. It would be nice to avoid that.
Bernie – sorry. I confess I didn’t read it as closely as I could have.
But in a sense, my comment is still valid. I really think all the noise is the death rattle of that thinking. ANd that’s why it’s so damn loud.
Bernie
Look at the history of our country. Time and time again Democrats have had to go it alone to put in big programs to help the population. Programs that nobody would ever do away with now. That will never ever change in our lifetimes. Im just being real about it. You make the gesture of bipartisanship as a token effort but it should be just that, a token effort, not anything serious by any means. Baucus and Conrad keep saying passing a health care bill with bipartisan support makes it more likely to last but thats bullsh*t. Medicare passed with out Republican votes, so did Social Security and yet here they are still around after decades of demonization. Not one Republican President nor Congress has tried to abolish Medicare or Social Security and none ever will and neither would they attempt to abolish health care reform after its up and running. Look at the British where every right winger here loves their conservative David Cameron. He couldn’t wait to praise the NHS after it came under fire from the wingnuts over here. And it would be the same case here once its up and running. Its simply not true that bipartisanship woudl make the difference in the programs lasting.
Greg, you might want to research or ask somebody to research, when the last time it happened that a Republican Congress and or President repealed a major policy enacted by a Democratic Congress and or President. I have a strong suspicion you won’t find an instance in the last 100 years if ever.
sg- I think I appreciate the present necessities, the present being a unique opportunity AND being highly polarized.
But let me put it to you that the present polarized model will not serve us well (and surely will not serve citizens well) when the Republicans again gain dominance. They will. My argument is that we need to establish a better model of governance and political imagination and in the past, such models are available to us to view.
There aren’t absolutes in this. It’s matters of degree.
Bernie
I think the problem with your premise is that it assumes that the polarization of today is somehow different from the polarization of earlier generations. You do realize that not to be the case don’t you? Cable talkers will try to make it seem as if this is some kind of earth shattering news that Democrats and Republicans are acting in a partisan fashion but its simply not the truth. The socialism cannard has been around forever. We have had a Democratic President shot and killed over his policies and to some extent the demonizing of them. Republicans have been fearmongering against health care for decades. Like the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun and this is really just the same old same old. If there was all this great bipartisanship in years past we would have had health care reform by now, no?
sg – by various measures (I can dig them up for you later if you wish) the present period is more highly polarized than most of our past. Of course, it isn’t that there was some perfect past (which was what I meant by no absolutes). Perstein’s book on Nixon would disabuse anyone of such romanticisms. But, yes, there is variation and its not insignificant.
But let me clarify if I hadn’t previously. In this case (health reform) I want the administration to get as much done as they can and to use reconciliation, serious arm-twisting and whatever (ethical and honest) is needed to get it done. I have no illusions as regards the nature of the animal in opposition. Once in place, if it is significant reform, it will have the consequences which both Kristol and Norquist both fear. It is, in my view, VERY important. But it isn’t the whole enchilada in terms of the future.
“(I can dig them up for you later if you wish) the present period is more highly polarized than most of our past.”
I don’t think that’s true, actually. There have been a number of highly polarized periods in our past. I’ll slide on by the Civil War to the Depression/Dust Bowl. We were so polarized then that armed citizens of California sat in their cars on the state borders waiting for Dust Bowl refugees to try to enter their state. That period was soooo polarized that on the one hand, you had Father Conklin, and on the other you had Socialist Party candidates doing well on the east coast.
And that’s just one example. When we off the gold standard there was a tremendous outcry.
Prohibition – you think everyone agreed with Carrie Nation and Calvin Coolidge? Yah, that was so popular.
Our system of government almost sets us up for this.
Sometimes I wonder if y’all want Democratic h/c reform to pass because it’s a good thing for the country, or because it will “destroy” the Republican party. You keep pointing to Medicare and Social Security – their passage does not seem to have destroyed the GOP. h/c reform will pass but it seems that it will either be a watered down bipartisan bill you won’t much like, or a bill essentially crafted by the parliamentarian via reconciliation – I don’t think you’ll much like that one, either. I don’t believe for one minute that Ted Kennedy was much for bipartisan compromise – he was fiercely partisan and extremely liberal. It’s smart politics for the Repubs to paint him that way, though.
Regards polarization – there’s virtually no doubt that bernie is correct. Commentors here quite regularly try to make the point that the Repub party is more conservative than it has ever been before. I believe Yglesias can point out the impact of gerrymandering and how it supports Bernie’s point.
“sbj | August 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Sometimes I wonder if y’all want Democratic h/c reform to pass because it’s a good thing for the country, or because it will “destroy” the Republican party.”
Ahem – that’s called Projection. What was it they were calling Health Care Reform vis-a-vis Obama – hmmmmmmmm
what’s that famous battle?
O yeah – Waterloo.
sbj – dude.
“Regards polarization – there’s virtually no doubt that bernie is correct.”
I totally disagree.
The 60s were more polarized than we are now. I already cited the 30s, which was more polarized regarding right and left than now because the left then was wayyy left.
I could go on, but I don’t need to tell people here our history – y’all know it.
“Sometimes I wonder if y’all want Democratic h/c reform to pass because it’s a good thing for the country, or because it will “destroy” the Republican party”
A southern gentleman, then.
“Destroy the RP”. You’re not a careful reader, sg. Or you want to play the straw man game. Both seem rather purposeless.
Tena… http://polarizedamerica.com/
and, in support of a thesis more like yours or sg’s… http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/04/ezra-klein-on-ej-dionne-on-political-polarization.html
@tena: I’m not trying to say that the Repubs seek Obama’s failure. I am saying that some commentors here seem to want to see any kind of h/c passed at all because it will mean the repubs are permanently cast into the wilderness.
Regards polarization:
“It’s important to be careful about what you mean by “polarizing.” The New Deal, I would say, was very contentious in the sense that it was a major policy shift that provoked a huge amount of anger on the part of vocal and well-financed minority, but it wasnt all that polarizing because, as witnessed by the blowout result in 1936. The Vietnam Era is slightly more relevant, but again I would say that it wasn’t exactly polarizing. What you had in the late 1960s and early 1970s was an extraordinarily large range of political opinions. You had segregationists holding political office, the Black Panther Party running a credible local campaign in Oakland, street protestors shading into terrorist groups, a Republican Party that switched from Barry “Repeal The New Deal” Goldwater to Richard “Wage and Price Controls” Nixon with stunning speed, etc., etc., etc. It was a time of great contentiousness, much radicalism, a seeming breakdown of the social order, and so forth.
But for all those reasons, it wasn’t an especially polarizing moment. Opinion was stretched out across such a broad range of political possibilities that would could hardly detect two coherent camps. What we have now is, properly speaking, a high degree of polarization. It’s not, as polling on the issues demonstrates, a huge quantity of disagreement about what should be done, but there’s a lot of stasis in the system and most people have basically decided which camp they stand with.”
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/10/polarization_ve.html
sbj – Ok, the point is taken. It may be more polarized now in that people are set in concrete, but it’s hard for me to imagine that views haven’t always been pretty well-gelled.
And basically I’m not sure why this matters so much. We still have a majority who voted for reform vs. a small but very well-armed and noisy minority.
I’m not sure this is any different from any other time that we or any other society was poised on the edge of significant change.
We aren’t so very special.
@tena: “We aren’t so very special.”
Well, maybe YOU aren’t!
It is more polarized now and I say that because NOW those who choose to can inform ourself and not rely on being spoon feed by a select few, ie one of the two parties.
I can read what is claimed as the facts on this site and find out real quick if it is really the FACT or just a bias opinion not based on fact.
So in that regard when Obama tells us he will do this and infact does the opposite we find that out pretty darn quick and we are being lied to continously and not just by the DNC. So most average Americans are outraged and we are sick and tired of being handed bs after bs from the left and right! The left can’t even comprehend it and instead insult those who question anything that comes from that side of the fence. The FACT that top elected officials including the president have taken it upon themselves to single out Americans to insult them for DARING to questioning their legislation is the most polarizing thing I have seen in my 49 years on this earth.
The founding fathers did not lay the framework out for this great nation to have a president that answers only to one group of people and that is exactly what is happening right no in this country. To the point that this group of people think they are the only ones that matter and the bigger polarization is that they also think they are the only ones that know what is good for America.
You can’t get any more polarizing then that. Take me for instance I am a member of no party you would think that the DNC would like to sway folks like me to vote their ticket but nope they would rather insult me instead of explaining what their legislation that will control my choices in life means.
I listen to the left for 8 years scream over others talking and act like spoiled little brats and now they just can’t seem to take what they dish out.
so we will become more polarized and this blog is working to keep us that way like many others on the net.
we are Americans first atleast that is how I was raised.
Not sure if anyone’s still hanging out in this white-haired thread but…
Tena – “we aren’t special”. There’s a tricky aspect to this. On the one hand, we can be prone to errors in our assumptions by assuming we live in a unique period (which we commonly tend to think…ask any older/teacher who has attended lots of school graduations – each year thinks they are particularly unique). But there’s the other side to this too. Some periods/situations are unique. We just can’t presume either the case.
sg – “I am saying that some commentors here seem to want to see any kind of h/c passed at all because it will mean the repubs are permanently cast into the wilderness”
If some hold this notion/hope, it’s short-sighted and pretty obviously a species of authoritarianism. One party rule, extended for a long time, isn’t a prudent idea. As a wise writer for The Westwing wrote, “Democracy means that sometimes the wrong guys win.”
I personally don’t want the Republican party cast into the wilderness for any longer than it takes for them/you to become again a constructive player rather than a destructive player.
yippie said: “those who choose to can inform ourself”
I for one would be very interested in knowing your daily reading habits and seeing your home library.
I bet you would Bernie! I obviously read here that’s a start for ya. But as far as seeing my home nope not happening!
So is it that you don’t agree that one who choses can become informed or are you just curious as to what my reading habits are?
s/b “home library”
OMG guys your party is not showing democracy they are showing tranny/totaltarian calling your own party members brain dead? goodness has this party no shame? It seems not along with no moral compass. I’m sure greg would not dare post this as one of his headlines.
WASHINGTON (AP) – A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who’ve pushed for changes in health care legislation are “brain dead” and out for insurance company campaign donations.
Moderate Blue Dog Democrats “just want to cause trouble,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
“They’re for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they’re just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process,” Stark told reporters on a conference call.
boohoo you dare disagree with us so you are “brain dead”
Advantageously, the post is really the greatest on this worthy topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantasti c lucidity in your writing. I will right away grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Genuine work and much success in your business enterprize!