- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Greenwald: "To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus."
Wow. Where to start? On his first day of office, a "compassionate conservative" decided to ignore bipartisan consensus on a wide variety of issues and try to ram through an ultraright agenda that had nothing to do with his campaign.
For starters, he pursued tax cuts for the rich, devising his program to suit the GOP in Congress (at that point, the GOP had a majority of ONE in the Senate, including Cheney, and something like a 222-213 majority in the House). There was NO input from Dems and about 75 percent of them objected.
The strategy from Day One was to ignore the Dems, bully every GOP member into supporting GOP programs, and threaten several southern Conservative Dems just in case there was a GOP defector or two.
This approach was so far removed from bipartisan that one GOP senator, Jeffords, bolted the party because of the bullying tactics, and at least a couple of others, including John McCain, fairly openly considered leaving the party (a few of McCain's top aides did bolt).
THIS WAS THE MOST UNBIPARTISAN ADMINISTRATION IN MEMORY.
The anger among Dems was certainly anti-Bush. Then, Sept. 11 came and Dems united behind Bush -- for about six months. During that time, Bush decided to take advantage of his newfound popularity and push a radical, right-wing agenda rather than unite to solve the nation's problems.
The anti-Bush rhetoric among Dems re-escalated. NO bipartisanship there. Yes, a few weeks before the 2002 election, about half the Senate's Dems and about 25 percent of the House's Dems buckled and voted to give the president power to launch a war, but they clearly were responding out of political fear. There was NO bipartisanship there.
The comments of the Dems after the 2002 election clearly showed that they were NOT in favor of the war against Iraq. Some of the other civil liberties causes Grunwald cites? Same thing. Political fear governed their votes, but the anti-Bush feeling among Dems has been toxic.
Who is to blame? I think The Incompetent One is to blame. I'm guessing that most people who share my progressive views blame Bush. Those who are not progressive probably blame the Dems.
But make no mistake about it -- there is WAY, WAY, WAY TOO LITTLE BIPARTISANSHIP. I would bet that 95 percent of political independents, the most objective people in the USA, agree with this. I would bet that 95 percent of the people who want the myriad problems in this nation solved would agree with this.
I could go on and on and on. VIRTUALLY EVERY Dem and Repub I've seen interviewed is angry about the tactics of the other party and says partisanship has been WORSE THAN EVER during the Bush administration (it was admittedly really bad while Clinton was prez too).
But Grunwald knows better.
And what exactly do you want? There are 58 Democratic senators, including Begich. Fifty-seven supported Obama. That's not good enough for you? So ONE (quasi)-Dem opposed Obama. So what? Even Obama doesn't care. And if you check their voting records, they're nearly identical.
Punishing the ONE dissident is CHILDISH. Grow up!!! A diversity of opinions in the Democratic caucus is better.
In this nation, Dems and Repubs think of the other side as traitorous. In the campaign, GOP crowds were rabid, shouting things like "terrorist" and "kill him." On the other side, the absolute hatred of Bush is beyond anything I call recall (although I personally believe it's Bush's fault)
And yet you ask "Is it even possible to have more (bipartisanship) than we have now?" The right question is "Is it even possible to have LESS than we have now."
You're simply delusional.
Shalom,
ZWrite
