Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
At the conclusion of Newt Gingrich’s speech as CPAC a colleague and I discussed the Republican chances for the White House. That day we heard from Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt and we both agreed that winning in the fall should not be hard. But a couple of conditions had to be met.
As a conservative, I can’t help but admire Newt Gingrich’s performance in the Republican debates and lust for the opportunity to see him debate Barack Obama head to head. But then I have a nagging doubt that if Newt were to become the nominee, which Newt will show up?
I find it extremely disappointing that so-called conservatives have jumped on Mitt Romney about a comment he made about firing people. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and some others took the comment entirely out of context to score some cheap political points. In their attack from the left they are writing the script for Obama, should Romney win the nomination. I can see Ronald Reagan shake his head and mutter, “Did I teach you nothing?”
As if sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming wasn’t enough, Newt Gingrich seems to have taken a seat next to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to attack free market capitalism.
On the one side you have Barack Obama. On the other side you have a field of candidates who are fighting for the chance to take him on one to one. In that field of candidates there is a woman, with another in the wings, a black, and a number of white males with a great depth of experience. With Herman Cain saying, while embracing some Tea Party members, “To those who say the Tea Party is racist, eat your words.” The Democrats are desperate to find another way to create class warfare and divide and conquer. At the New Hampshire debate last night, they may have found their opening.
With the election safely passed so that nobody can make political hay of it, the poor excuse for courage known as the deficit commission released its preliminary report. I have to give them credit for not leaving a lot of stones unturned but bold it is not.
“marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties” — Miriam Webster Dictionary
The talk about bipartisanship and the accusations about a lack of bipartisanship are flying back and forth with such intensity, who could blame the casual observer for throwing up their hands and wishing a pox upon both houses?
President Obama and Bipartisanship
I believe that President Obama is sincere in his desire for bipartisanship. His willingness to meet with and listen to conservative columnists, and Republicans is indicative of his desire to change the tone in Washington. On the stimulus bill, I think he just painted himself into a corner by letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill while he held those meetings. Listening to the other side is a start, but it falls short of the definition. It remains to be seen if President Obama recognizes where this approach fell short or if it really is just window dressing.
Democratic Leadership and Bipartisanship
The Democratic Leadership has a very different view of bipartisanship. Their view is, “we stake out a position and you (Republicans) agree with it and that’s bipartisanship.” If they don’t agree, they are rabid partisans, doing it strictly for future political gain. But if you look at the definition of bipartisanship above, the Democratic Leadership is just not interested. The stimulus bill was put together solely by the Democrats and when asked by a reporter if the bill was bipartisan Nancy Pelosi responded, “That depends on how the Republicans vote.” That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
When President Bush came into office, he brought with him his experience in Texas where he worked very successfully with the Democrats in the legislature. However, the Democrats in Congress were so angry with the outcome of the election in 2000 that they never gave him a chance, voting against anything he proposed.
Republicans and Bipartisanship
The Republican leadership has expressed their appreciation to President Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle. However, as genuine as the gesture was they were still pretty much excluded from the legislative process. They fully understand that elections have consequences, but they want to be heard, they want to offer alternatives, they want the opportunity to persuade. If denied that by the Democratic Leadership, they will take their case directly to the American people and in 2010 get the public’s decision.
Is Bipartisanship Possible?
Is there such a divide that bipartisanship is just not possible? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is trying to tackle that issue through a non-profit organization called American Solutions. That organization polled Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find areas of widespread agreement. The key to bipartisanship is to first find areas where you agree. Then look for areas where you differ but not so significantly that there is not room for negotiation and compromise. Lastly, is to recognize those areas where the difference is so wide that you simply have to agree to disagree. This is a list of ten initiatives that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on.
- English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
- We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
- The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
- Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
- Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
- Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
- We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8 )
- We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8 )
- Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
- We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)
As you can see by the percentages, the support for each of these ten measures is rather substantial. Bipartisanship on any one of these issues should be very easy to obtain. You just have to ask yourselves: how many of these are supported by the Democratic Leadership or President Obama? You can see that a number of them are not only not supported, but adamantly opposed.
So what is your view of bipartisanship? Is it where you surrender your principles and fall in line with your opponent? Or is it trying to find common ground among all Americans and not pushing a partisan agenda where government runs the smallest aspect of your life?
