This is turning into a weekend of political posts. This morning I watched Meet the Press with David Axelrod and John Boehner. (I haven't watched that show in a while, really since Tim Russert died.) Anyway, it got me thinking...
Republicans didn't actually vote no on everything in 2009. Obama highlighted a few of those instances in his Q&A on Friday, and Boehner made reference to some today, e.g. Afghanistan, extension of unemployment benefits, credit card reform, etc.
The votes we hear most about, however, are health care and stimulus. And on those they did vote no.
Now Boehner today again reiterated there is broad disagreement on health care, but there is some agreement too, e.g. offering plans across state lines, various types of insurance reform, etc. Obama said basically the same thing on Friday, asking to come together on at least those issues.
One of the problems though, is that these areas of agreement become embedded in these huge 1,000+ page bills that include massive areas of disagreement as well as all sorts of other unrelated things.
A seemingly feasible tactic on the path towards bi-partisanship would be to make smaller bills that are limited to areas of agreement.
This is a completely different process, and I realize that, as well as the trouble that comes along with it. You will have Democrats saying they want to do everything together or nothing at all, for example. However, if it really comes to a vote, I doubt they would vote against it.
And think for a second if Obama and the Democratic leadership had taken this approach over the past year. You might have had twenty different "bite-sized" stimulus and health care bills. Republicans would presumably have voted for some of them, and at the very least, we would have had both a) something accomplished (on health care) and b) both parties working together.
Follow my blog. I'd be eternally grateful.
