Are Democrats admitting they refused to work with Republicans?
Over the last year the Democrats have tried to portray the Republicans as the party of no, claiming that all the Republicans do is obstruct and have no proposals of their own; while Republicans have said that they have tried to work with the Obama administration but were not being listened to. They claim that their proposals have been shot down and that they have been shut out of negotiations.
So which side is right?
Looking at a couple of quotes in this article about the new jobs bill may provide us with an answer.
“We are completely changing the strategy to go for a bill that can get Republican buy-in and pass”
Changing the strategy to “go for a bill” that Republicans can vote for? If they have to change strategy to include Republicans, it would seem to me that Republicans were being closed out before.
But the condemning statement to me was made by Max Baucus:
“It’s just that I’d like to get something done, something passed. That means we have to talk to Republicans.”
That certainly sounds to me like an admission that Democrats were not talking to Republicans before. Note the words “have to.” That suggests that the Democrats did not want to talk to and negotiate with Republicans– and they probably still no not WANT to talk to Republicans, but now they are forced to; now they “have to” talk to them.
I think that the Democrats grew arrogant with their 60 vote majority; they felt that they could pass whatever they wanted to without Republican support so they tried to push a bill that was so far to the left they knew Republicans would oppose is. They then could use that opposition to brand the Republicans as the party of no while pursuing a far left agenda. Republicans were powerless to stop them.
Democrats stopped themselves. The problem for the Democrats was that the bill went too far to the left and they could not gain enough support without “negotiating” sweetheart deals with other Democrats. As the bill dragged out and stalled while deals were being cut the American people had time to see what was going on here. And they did not like it.
The end result? The election of a Republican– Scott Brown– in one of the bluest states in the country. If the election of Scott Brown has done only one thing, that one thing would be that it has forced the Democrats back to the negotiating table with Republicans. The Democrats will now have to work with, and negotiate with, Republicans instead of just between themselves. Scott Brown’s election has forced the Democrats back to the negotiating table with Republicans, something they were unwilling to do when they thought they could pass whatever they wanted without Republicans.
America's Watchtower 
I think you are exactly correct. But I’ll add that it was the radical Progressive Democrats that thought they finally had the power they crave.
Luckily the Republicans did stand together as one. And some of the Democrats started to realizing that their party is being taken over by radicals. They did stop themselves. The Democrat party is imploding as we speak. But there is still one very big problem…Mr. Obama.
LikeLike
Very true, it was the radicals who tried to over-reach, but they did so because of the radical that is in the White House. It was a united Republican front, flanked by more centrist Democrats who stopped this radical agenda.
We still have to watch Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and others, I am sure that the Democrats are going to see them as a potential yea vote with a little “incentive” thrown their way.
LikeLike
You are so right. The Dems had all the majorities that they needed, and they locked the Republicans out of the process. They had no need for them, and they could have passed anything they wanted, and the Republicans could have done nothing more than sit back and watch. They stopped themselves.
LikeLike
It really was fun to watch, wasn’t it?
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how this proceeds. The GOP is at a disadvantage because the media and the Democrats have been portraying them as the party of no since Obama was sworn into office. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t necessarily the truth, as that is how the general public perceives it. In spite of being called obstructionist, I hope they stick to their guns and force the Democrats to negotiate with them.
LikeLike
True Larry, the media is always on the side of the Democrats and we live in a soundbite age. Many people get their political information from 1 minute clips on television and on the internet instead of reading and following it the way that we do. To these people the perception will probably remain that the Republicans are the party of no. But given what the Democrats have been trying, I am glad that they have been united against it.
LikeLike
I totally agree with you Larry!
LikeLike
” Democrats stopped themselves. ” That one line said it all for me. The Democrats did this to themselves. Maybe they “can hear us now.”
LikeLike
If they are listening, I am not sure they are.
LikeLike
When the extremes of a party gain control, as was the case with the democrats they always, always tend to over reach. I saw this happen after the democrats landside victory in the 1964 elections and the passage of the Great Society legislation and the punative voter rights act. The democrats over-reached then as they have over-reached now and are having to pay the price. The general electrate is a fickle bunch and can only be pushed too far right or left. I doubt the republicans will be seen as the party of “no”, but rather the party of “no more”!
LikeLike
“Are Democrats admitting they refused to work with Republicans?”
Now in their second phase CNN and Huffington Post are calling for violence against G.O.P.
http://56rebels.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/is-it-fair-to-threaten-republicans/
LikeLike