Search
Archives
Categories

For all of President Obama’s lofty rhetoric about being a postpartisan president, he’s done precious little to change how Democrats operate when they think the spotlight isn’t on them. This Hill article tells us everything we need to know about Democrats:

Democrats are preparing to attack those Republicans who oppose the $825 billion stimulus package but supported the $61 billion stimulus bill that passed the House last year, according to multiple sources.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is readying press releases to target the 35 House Republicans who were on board with the smaller stimulus bill in September, but who might balk at supporting the new economic recovery package when it comes to the floor on Wednesday.

The press releases will accuse those Republicans of abandoning their commitments to increase infrastructure spending, create jobs and turn around the ailing economy, a source familiar with the plan said Tuesday.

As we know, 11 Democrats joined all 177 Republicans in voting against Pelosi’s monstrous pork bill. It’s safe to assume that there’s no chance that the DCCC will accuse the 11 Judases of “abandoning their commitments to increase infrastructure spending, create jobs and turn around the ailing economy.” Here’s hoping that the NRCC targets every vulnerable Democrat for voting for a pork-laden bill that does nothing to put us on the path to sustained prosperity.

The goal of every spending bill that’s signed into law should be to increase America’s prosperity. PERIOD.

It isn’t just the DCCC that’s putting together anti-Republican ads:

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada, with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh, and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail, but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter.

Asked to respond, Limbaugh had a message for his party.

“Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me,” he wrote in an email. “It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a ‘brand’ and identity.”

Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic strategist who is overseeing the ad campaign, said: “The House Republicans put their Senate colleagues in the crosshairs because they decided to play politics rather than do the right thing.”

I’d love asking Mr. Woodhouse if Collin Peterson, Gene Taylor, Walt Minnick, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Schuler, Parker Griffith, Bobby Bright, F. Alan Boyd, Frank Kratovil, Paul Kanjorski and Jim Cooper “decided to play politics rather than do the right thing”, too?

Brad Woodhouse is a partisan liberal hack. Here’s what Jeff Birnbaum wrote about Mr. Woodhouse in May, 2007:

The convergence began in January of last year when USAction, a grass-roots organization with eager activists in two dozen states, was hunting for additional space and leased more square footage than it needed on the second floor of 1825. It ended up subletting to Americans United for Change, its rapid-response confederate in the successful fight in 2005 to defeat President Bush’s plan to add private accounts to Social Security. (Woodhouse is president of that group.)

Birnbaum’s article continues with this:

Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America’s Future, called this clustering of a critical mass of these groups “a happy accident,” and a very useful one.

“The ability to walk down the hall and see somebody and get things done is great,” agreed Jeff Blum, executive director of USAction. Then, sounding just as corporate as anyone on K Street, Blum added: “We believe in synergy.”

These are the same K Street lobbying organizations that helped Democrats retake the House and Senate in 2006. MoveOn.org’s Tom Matzzie shared office space with these groups, too.

If President Obama doesn’t do anything to distance himself from these organizations, it’ll be impossible for him to credibly say that he’s a postpartisan presidency. Why should I trust someone who talks a great postpartisan game but who tolerates the actions of the most hyperpartisan organizations in DC?

Fortunately, the NRCC is hitting back:

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) suggested Democrats are using the troubled economy as a way to advance their own social agenda, citing the liberal grassroots group ACORN and others as beneficiaries of the stimulus package.

“Spare us the phony press releases,” said NRCC communications director Ken Spain. “So far the Democrats’ idea of ‘protecting the middle class’ has consisted of taxpayer-funded contraceptives and billions of dollars in ACORN-stuffed pork.

“It’s hard to decipher which is the most fraudulent notion, the fact that ACORN is a law-abiding entity worthy of a $4.2 billion bailout or that $1.1 trillion in out-of-control government spending is going to defy the experts and have some sort of immediate effect on the economy,” Spain said.

Let’s hope Republicans realize that the Democrats have declared war on every elected Republican. Let’s hope Republicans understand that bipartisanship and statesmanship isn’t part of the Democrats’ game plan. The Democrats’ idea of bipartisanship is allowing Republicans to cave.

If the Democrats’ highest priority was to make America the most prosperous country in the world, it wouldn’t have included $4.2 billion for ACORN and likeminded organizations in the spending bill. It wouldn’t have included $1 billion for Amtrak in the legislation. It wouldn’t have included $335 million for STD prevention and education in the legislation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

5 Responses to “That’s The Face of Postpartisan Politics?”

  • J. Ewing says:

    Republicans have to learn how to fight fire with fire. For example, if Democrats put up an ad saying Republicans “voted against 4 million new jobs,” they should put up an ad with the video of the committee staffer who testified that, essentially, there were NO jobs in the bill. Let the Democrats lie, then show them telling the truth. Hot stuff.

  • eric z says:

    It’s a long post, but the gist is you, Gary, don’t believe spending money now on jobs and on weaning the nation from foreign oil dependency (other than by risking ocean pollution off our coast and building conventional coal and nuclear power plants) is a good idea?

    What would you spend money on? More Halliburton contracts in Iraq?

    On one of your other themes, the GOP need to advance its technocratic capabilities to be more competitive, there’s been news that way in the last few days. It looks like some people swift-boated themselves and blamed it on Drudge traffic peaks.

    Gary, they won.

    Decisively. People wanted change.

    Now a GOP effort to hinder and waylay their reforms and then blame them for the failure would be disingenuous, as well as transparent. And Rush has yet to be disavowed by anyone wearing one of those GOP lapel flag pins, Made in China.

    Finally, the blue dogs will be a nuisance; no doubt; and you’ve recognized that factor correctly.

    Just as the Dems were non-partisan in going along with the Bush-Cheney-Paulson massive funding of the Wall Street and bank bailout; the GOP has to own up to responsible demands of a blighted economy rather than turning to more partisan postural conduct. It’s their turn. They’re lurching now in the way of what the people want and voted for. That’s unwise.

  • walter hanson says:

    Eric:

    Where to begin with your silliness. Obama talked about the campaign how we had to sacrifice and stop using energy. So what does he do on his first full day of the job. Take off his suit coat because he has the temperature in the oval office set to over 70 degrees. At least Jimmy Carter wore a sweater when he talked about sacrifice.

    Yes we can free us of foreign energy. The best thing about nuclear is it doesn’t give off those evil green house gases and France endorses it yet you don’t want to use that.

    Why can’t we build coal plants in the United States? Won’t that give jobs to construction workers? Won’t that give more work to coal miners? Apparently you want more jobs in industries which you think is politically correct.

    Eric people wanted bickering to stop and work together. That is what Obama talked about. Now he’s president he’s imposing not working together. If you want bi-partisan Rush said Obama spends 54% and the Republicans spend 46%.

    Furthermore Eric people were annoyed with spending they overwheleming opposed the bailout. Yet what is Obama’s idea of a stimulus package even more spending which is pork. At least the previous expenditures were for a real purpose.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, Let’s go through your comment point-by-point.

    I’m a proponent of weaning our nation from foreign oil. What I reject is the notion that drilling on the OCS is a terrible disaster. The massive oil spill of California’s coast HAPPENED ONCE. It happened decades ago. Technology & safety improvements have changed that dramatically.

    2) “Decisively. People wanted change.”

    That’s true. They did. That was then. This is now. The legislation passed through the House is losing support daily. Just because people voted for change doesn’t give the Obama administration carte blanche to do whatever they want.

    People are rejecting this legislation because they see it as Democrats paying off their special interest allies. That isn’t something that the American people are buying into.

    3) “Now a GOP effort to hinder and waylay their reforms and then blame them for the failure would be disingenuous, as well as transparent. And Rush has yet to be disavowed by anyone wearing one of those GOP lapel flag pins, Made in China.”

    A) I don’t see a single reform in the bill just passed by Pelosi. I see this as a blatant attempt to pay off political allies, some of whom are corrupt.

    B) Had the GOP not offered a thoughtful alternative that costs less money, the GOP would’ve been rightly criticized. Since they offered a thoughtful alternative, it’s impossible to criticize them for being obstructionist.

    C) Rush won’t be disavowed because he’s about promoting policies that make us prosperous. People understand that that’s prefered over giving people a chance of living day-to-day.

Leave a Reply