The end of bipartisanship?

Bill Frist is going to deliver a speech to the Heritage Foundation this afternoon on judicial nominations and how the Senate should approach the likely Supreme Court vacancy. According to The Note, which obtained a copy of Frist’s speech, the Senate Majority Leader will emphasize the need for “civility.”

I won’t be on hand for the event, but one wonders if he’s planning to wink while saying this. After all, this is the same Bill Frist who insisted, during a debate over the nuclear option, that Senate Dems want to “assassinate [Bush’s judicial] nominees.” Civility, indeed.

But the whole notion of a Republican congressional leader emphasizing respectful language got me thinking about how difficult it is to even try bipartisanship in the current political atmosphere. It’s not necessarily the case that consensus solutions are out of reach — on the contrary, there are opportunities for compromise on most policy issues — it’s that lawmakers have created an environment in which no one even wants to go to the negotiating table.

Consider what Democrats have been told in just the last seven days.

* Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove accused Sen. Dick Dubrin (D-Ill.), among others, of actually wanting to put American troops in danger. In effect, treason.

* From the floor of the U.S. House, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) accused Democrats of helping to wage a “long war on Christianity,” which hopes to “eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage.” He added that Dems “can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.”

* Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Republican Conference, argued that congressional Dems have engaged in a “growing pattern” of demoralizing American troops. Pryce added that Dems “promote the interests of terror-camp detainees,” and represent the interests of “foreign criminals” and “would-be terrorists.” No one even seems to have noticed this one.

That’s just the last seven days. In recent months, Republicans — office holders, not just bloggers and Fox News talking-heads — have also accused Dems of being racists, misogynists, and anti-Hispanic for blocking various Bush judicial nominees.

Belligerent rhetoric is sometimes part of the game and hashing out political differences isn’t always going to be pleasant. I get that. Name-calling, finger-pointing, base-rallying attacks have been the norm for a long while.

But in all sincerity, I wonder how, exactly, Republicans can expect Dems to come to the negotiating table to work on anything when they’re accusing Dems of being terrorist-sympathizing bigots.

It’s not just that Dems may no longer believe they can work with Republicans towards common solutions; it’s that they may no longer want to. Someone can only be accused of treason so many times before they decide they no longer want to deal with their accuser.

It’s not just that Dems may no longer believe they can work with Republicans towards common solutions; it’s that they may no longer want to. Someone can only be accused of treason so many times before they decide they no longer want to deal with their accuser.

I truly hope you are right. Normally I’m a fan of bipartisanship, but its time for the GOP to get a little of their own K-Street Project medicine: if they won’t treat us decently and work with us, then there will be no work done.

  • They are sowing the seeds of their own fall. Check out this editorial for an example of the Republican values that have been left behind. I pulled it off of crooksandliars.

    What an opportunity! I think welfare is a miserable failed experiment, I think the populace should have the right to bear arms (and bare arms, for that matter), I think we are over taxed, abortion is terrible (but sometimes necessary)and I think religion has an important place in the public sphere. Ten years ago, that would have made me a Republican. But now that the party leadership (i.e., BushCo) has abandoned the best parts of their platform, the time is ripe to realign Dem thinking to take on some of the most pragmatically popular positions.

    So instead of playing ACLU and simply fighting against everything, Dems might actually fight for something. Instead of “abortion rights” we can have an “abortion reduction strategy”—keeping abortion legal but actually making positive steps to make it unnecessary whenever possible.

    When the Right doesn’t have taxes and guns anymore, all they’ll be left with is the ignorant machismo of hatred.

  • I”m with Edo. Bipartisanship should be the goal, but the past couple of years have been too much.

    What do they expect, Dems not to have any pride?

  • Frist’s idea of civility is for Dems to roll over for republicans.

    F**k them!

    I say give republicans no support. And save any strategies for next year’s elections.

  • I agree with Frank – fuck them and leave them to fester in their own shit. Why should we help them clear up the mess they’ve made of civil discourse?

  • Read the Carpetbagger post The McCain-Norquist Smackdown further on down the list of today’s posts if you would like to know who one of the cheerleaders of the wave of Republican civility and statesmanship that we are seeing today.

    One of Grover Norquist’s more noxious quotes “I think that politics should be bitter and nasty” and another favorite of mine “partisanship is like date rape”.

    Now I don’t know if young Mr. Norquist thought of these gems by himself, but he sure seems to have found some like minded friends.

  • Reuters (06.28.05):

    “U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid suggested on Tuesday that four of his Republican colleagues be considered by President Bush if a vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Seeking a possible consensus nominee, Reid recommended Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

    Reid described them all as bright and able lawyers who would be strong additions to the nation’s highest court.”

    Another senator who has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee is Republican John Cornyn of Texas, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court and the only senator with appellate court experience.

    Asked if Bush should consider Cornyn, Reid shrugged and said, ‘I’ve told you (the ones) I think he should consider.’

    Graham and DeWine were among seven Senate Republicans who joined seven Senate Democrats in reaching a compromise last month on Bush’s most contentious appeals court nominees.”

    The accord cleared the way for the confirmation of a number of Bush’s nominees, but preserved the right of Democrats to block others ‘under extraordinary circumstances.’

    Cornyn was among those who have criticized the accord, which could face a major test with a Supreme Court nomination.”

    Butter up four influential Republican Senators, make Reid look very bi-partisan, could open up a Senate seat, plus it puts the White House on the spot. How can they say no without insulting one or all of them?

  • Comments are closed.