bipartisanship

Way to go Mr. President:

Faced with an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate, the President announced his intention to recess appoint fifteen nominees to fill critical administration posts. While the President respects the critical role the Senate plays in the appointment process, he was no longer willing to let another month go by with key economic positions unfilled, especially at a time when our country is recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Many of these fifteen individuals have enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but have found their confirmation votes delayed for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications. It has more to do with an obstruction-at-all-costs mentality that we’ve been faced with since the President came into office. Because of political posturing, these fifteen appointees have waited an average of 214 days for Senate confirmation.

And I guarantee there will be wingnuts this week calling this unconstitutional, despite Bush doing the exact same thing and the Constitution allowing it.

This is bipartisanship you can believe in:

Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel will soon have a new role in the Obama administration, he will be named co-chair of President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

In that capacity, Hagel will be charged with overseeing the work of the intelligence agencies for the president and investigating violations of law by the clandestine community. The panel, formerly known as the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, was renamed and stripped of some of its powers in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration.

Hagel never endorsed Obama or Arizona Senator John McCain for the presidency, but he often spoke out on in favor of Obama's foreign policy ideas during the campaign and his wife endorsed Obama just before the election.

Hagel is a very strong pick when it comes to foreign policy. I’m sure a lot of Republicans are seething over this, but let them. Hagel is a Republican and one who came to their senses about the Iraq War. He’s willing to go against the party if he feels something is right, and that’s the kind of leadership we need.

There has been some disturbing developments on the healthcare battle. First we are seeing the normal GOP ploy when it comes to “bipartisanship” in that their definition of the word means they get everything they want and the Democrats pass it. Case in point – Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo):

“I also need commitments from Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, as well as the Administration, that the bipartisan agreements reached in the Finance Committee will survive in a final bill that goes to the President.”

The whole notion of “elections have consequences” just seems to fly over the heads of the GOP. Joe Sudbay has more on this.

Next we see a new battle brewing with Senate Democrats, and this is one battle I can get behind:

In an apparent warning to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), some liberal Democrats have suggested a secret-ballot vote every two years on whether or not to strip committee chairmen of their gavels.

Baucus, who is more conservative than most of the Democratic Conference, has frustrated many of his liberal colleagues by negotiating for weeks with Republicans over healthcare reform without producing a bill or even much detail about the policies he is considering.

“Every two years the caucus could have a secret ballot on whether a chairman should continue, yes or no,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. “If the ‘no’s win, [the chairman’s] out.

Bipartisanship is another name for date rape

-Grover Norquist quoted in the Denver Post 2003.

This was right after the Republicans took control of Senate in 2002. It seems back then that the Republicans had no desire for bipartisanship. Something else Norquist said in the same interview:

We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship

Of course this all happened back when they were talking of being the “permanent majority”. So how’s it feel now? All the crying and bitching about there being no bi-partisanship – well that is exactly what you wanted. The Republican Party busted their ass for this kind of politics, and now that the shoe is on the other foot they are crying foul.

I think it’s time we remind people of what the Republicans worked so hard for just 6 short years ago. They dug their own grave and now they can lay in it.

For all those out there who I knew would be worried about the future of John McCain, fear no longer. We now have official confirmation that he is running for re-election in 2010:

I want you to know that I do intend to seek re-election. The magnitude of the financial crisis that many American families are facing makes it clear to me that I want to continue to serve our country in the Senate.

The economic challenges currently confronting our nation are immense and unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress propose addressing these challenges through increased spending that wastes billions of taxpayers dollars and saddles our children and grandchildren with a staggering debt. Their proposals will not stimulate economic growth or create jobs. While the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, has pledged to change business as usual in Washington and spoken of bipartisanship, I have been saddened to watch as Congressional Democrats try to use their majority to advocate more of the same failed policies and wasteful spending of the past. With so much at stake, now is not the time to step away from my work in the Senate.

As always, I anticipate a tough re-election challenge. But with your help, we will counter those efforts and put forth an aggressive campaign by registering new voters, reaching out to Democrats, Independents and Republicans, and again earning the support of Hispanic and Native American voters in Arizona.

I am honored to serve the people of Arizona as their United States Senator. I would be most appreciative of your support of my re-election efforts and hope you will click here to join my re-election team. Thank you for your consideration.

I wonder if Hannity will accuse the New York Times of "torturing" Lieberman now:

Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

The entire editorial lays out great reasons to support Lamont and also shows what Lieberman has done to his party, his constituents and his country.