Populist vs Non-partisan

Filed in National by on February 12, 2009

Dana at Delawarewatch says this about Judd Gregg:

It seems that Obama’s attempts to make his administration bi-partisan in outreach and makeup have made it ineffectual. The Republicans are in no mood to cooperate. No surprise there. Obama has only been effective when he has made his appeal directly to the people of the US.

I prefer populist to non-partisan. The former preformed with integrity makes that latter largely irrelevant.

I second that.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Rebecca says:

    So I’m reading this morning’s NYT article about this and I keep thinking it is another case of Republican-Me-Firstism versus reality. As we know, where money or power are concerned, the R’s will always opt for the unicorn that brings them one or both of these, without any consideration of reality or consequences. Gregg must have been listening to the unicorn when he asked for this post.

    But the shocking thing for me is that the Times says that Rahm Emanuel supported this appointment. Emanuel is supposed to be the tough guy on this team. What was he thinking? If this is the sort of advice he is giving our president then we’re in for a tough time — at least until Obama fires his butt. And, oh boy, will the right-wing have fun with that when it happens.

  2. Unstable Isotope says:

    I think reaching out to the opposition is a good thing, and I hope he continues. However, you can’t have a bipartisan solution when one side is not cooperating. The Republicans are making it clear where they stand on the issue. They are 100% cheering for Obama’s failure. Hopefully Obama will appoint a progressive to the post. I there is a cult of bipartisan fetishists in Washington (especially the press corps) who thinks the best solution is (Democrat + Republican)/2.

  3. Dorian Gray says:

    The tough guys on the right seem to be flexing and BHO seems to be spinning his wheels… but I think it onlt seems this way. The stimulus passed, yes? And it hasn’t even been a month yet. It’s not a sprint. All of this politicing could pay off in the end.

    Plus this economic thing has every preoccupied. Other cool stuff is happenning. Salazar is dismantling all the environmental bullshit W tried… we’re good…

  4. Rebecca says:

    Good comment Dorian. You are so right, we’ve got four years here and we don’t have to get it all done this week.

  5. pandora says:

    True, DG. And as a bonus Republicans continue to cement their image as the party of No. They are making themselves irrelevant.

  6. Being the party of no when the ideas and legislation is bad for the country is a good place to be.

    For Sen Gregg, imagine being asked to be a Cabinet Secretary and then find out the vast majority of your department which serves the country will be taken over by a political appointee to serve the wishes of the Democratic Party.

    Pres Obama has again proven he is unfit to be President. If you are not sure, check out the lie he told the nation about Caterpillar not laying off workers if the stimulus bill passes. TOTAL LIE.

  7. Unstable Isotope says:

    Ummm….Protack. The Caterpillar CEO himself said that the workers would be hired back when the stimulus bill goes into effect. Gee, poor, poor Senator Gregg. He is shocked to discover that the elected Democratic administration is run by Democrats!

  8. pandora says:

    The TOTAL LIE came from the CEO of Caterpillar.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html

    Please, Mike, try and keep up. Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, Steve Newton debunked your last argument. Comment #10

    http://delawareliberal.net//2009/02/12/deep-incivility-thought/#comments

  9. cassandra_m says:

    You are the only one lying here Protack. As usual.

    Gregg offered himself for the position and started out saying that he would be able to support the President’s policies. You can listen to his explanation this AM to hear the sheepishness and the dishonor of his withdrawal. If he couldn’t do it, he shouldn’t have stepped up.

    I don’t think that Obama is looking for non-partisan. He is looking for bi-partisan, which is different. And I think that (so far) overall this is generally working for him among those that aren’t all that partisan. You can look at the last batch of polls from Gallup and Pew and see that people do see Obama trying to work with everyone (which is what he said he’d do) and Republicans are seen as not trying to work with him. If Obama can get the better part of his agenda passed while maintaining the perception that he is trying to work with everybody, who wins?

  10. anonone says:

    You guys trying to make nicey nice with Dana after he smeared Delaware Liberal on another blog?

  11. TommyWonk says:

    Obama has taken heat from all sides for his efforts to reach across the aisle. But polls show that Americans give him more credit for trying than they give the Republicans.

    As for appealing directly to the people, why can’t he do both? And when he does, he can make the case that he at least tried to work with some of the GOP in Congress, while drawing the line at accepting those outmoded ideas that got us into this mess in the first place.

    As for ineffectual, the stimulus bill is going to pass, despite the near-unanimous opposition from the GOP.

  12. h. says:

    I guess if the repubs were bipartisan they would be democrats. And vice versa. Don’t kid yourself, no politician has a single bipartisan bone in their body. On either side.