Topic: Political Parties
Republicrats: Why Working Across the Isle Doesn't Work If there is one issue that seems to supersede the importance of Iraq and the economy to the voter it would be the candidates ability to work across the isle and “get things done.” At least, that is the most important issue to the candidates, but do average voters really seek such a platform?by jposty
(Libertarian)
Friday, May 2, 2008
If there is one issue that seems to supersede the importance of Iraq and the economy to the voter it would be the candidates ability to work across the isle and "get things done." At least, that is the most important issue to the candidates, but do average voters really seek such a platform?
On the surface passing legislation in a bipartisan manner might seem like an ideal solution but once the underlying philosophical issues are addressed it reveals a weak nature behind the candidates and their respective platforms. Working across the isle or a bipartisan effort, whatever the preferred nomenclature for comprise is, simply put is - sacrificing your moral and political ideology to pass legislature.
Do candidates really want bills that would seemingly strike at the heart of their political fiber to pass? Evidently. Working together has become the biggest buzz word on Capital Hill since earmarks. Most politicians no longer care about their principles but would rather have the appearance that they are making a difference and are doing their constituency's bidding.
The longer they are on the 24-hour news cycle while ratcheting their rhetoric to ever greater heights, it is mission accomplished, whether they actually say anything or not.
However, two pieces of news the Politico covered this week caught my eye. It seems the rhetoric of working together has now given way to simply doing the other parties bidding. No longer do the democrats espouse leftist principles, no longer do the Republicans even cite their own neocon platform, they seem to have both taken a page from the others playbook.
It seems Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has decided to take it upon herself and not only bypass what would assuredly be a drag out battle in the house appropriations committee over funding the Iraq war, to bringing it directly to the floor with a $70 Bn increase to what the Bush administration has asked for.
The Politico properly surmised that this was a power grab on the speaker's behalf, although they neglected to fully analyze the irony of the situation.
Political science professor and congressional expert at Brown University, Wendy Schiller, recently quipped that, "Nancy Pelosi is speaker because the Democrats ran a national campaign in 2006 and their key focal point was Iraq. The Democrats as a party have to show their base they are still trying to get out."
The democrats must either have a uniformed constituency or they are simple no longer looking. Pelosi took this right out of Bush's playbook. Yet Republicans in congress are up in arms about violating precedent and tradition by bypassing the committee, which is also ironic since they took America to war by violating precedent and tradition.
The other story Politico reported on was McCain's interest in becoming a full fledged health-care socialist. He announced a "Guaranteed Access Plan," during the second day of his "Call To Action" health-care tour.
If the Bushs' and McCain's initial maneuvering are any indicator, long gone are the days of the small government Republicans. Not only has McCain announced his desire for government subsidized biofuel production, wage control and a willingness to readdress the Kyoto treaty, he recently stated that the government should make health-care its business on a federal and state level.
Lowering taxes or giving tax credits to fund health-care is a positive step in the right direction but once its coupled with a mandate to have the tax payers pay non-profit organizations to assist them with health-care, the positive step takes a giant leap towards statism.
His purpose in consistently mentioning the free-markets is offensive at best to people who truly understand the term and its greater implications. State assisted anything can not by definition be apart of any kind of a free-market, especially once private companies are required to do anything by a government.
It however doesn't effect his remarks as he continues to emphasize a quasi free-market approach to health care, saying that "cooperation among states in the purchase of insurance would also be a crucial step in ridding the market of both needless and costly regulations, and the dominance in the market of only a few insurance companies."
Apparently, neither party has any real strategy for leading America. Pandering they have down, but making reasoned and ideological coherent policies that match their platforms, not so much.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 jposty, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, May 2, 2008
Last modified: Friday, May 2, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of jposty only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. jposty is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Alex Wallenwein
Date: 2008-05-02 09:51:10
Quote:
"However, two pieces of news the Politico covered this week caught my eye. It seems the rhetoric of working together has now given way to simply doing the other parties bidding. No longer do the democrats espouse leftist principles, no longer do the Republicans even cite their own neocon platform, they seem to have both taken a page from the others playbook."
But Centrism wins elections! The more outside the centrist box a candidate is the less popular that he is. (See Ron Paul)
Bush is the best example of a politician that is mislabled as a conservative, gets no credit for his environmentalist beliefs, gets no credit for his crusade against AIDS/HIV, and is more than likely not going to get any credit for it.
McCain has the same ideology of Bush. He has to show so many different sides that you don't think that he encompases any of the political extremes, but rather a Centrist Candidate that is slightly for free trade.
Gridlock is too often detested as a bad thing. If only the American people would use logic a bit more often...wait, that would require them to be intelligent...
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 jposty, all rights reserved.