According to many pundits “bipartisanship” is one of the watch-words of America’s new administration. The Liberal media lauds President Obama for his attempts to be bipartisan and to involve the Republicans in current legislation efforts. This same Liberal media denounces those GOP members for refusing what has been reported as President Obama’s overtures of cooperation.

Of course the Liberal media isn’t well known for telling the unvarnished truth…

True bipartisanship would be an attempt to actually involve both the Democrats and the Republicans in the legislation creation process. This would necessarily involve compromises in the details of said legislation. So far there’s little objective evidence that such things have occurred.

President Obama’s definition of bipartisanship seems to be different from the norm. He spends a great deal of time speaking to Republicans, but not in an attempt to work out a means by which they can support his efforts. He seems to speak with them solely for the purpose of cajoling or coercing them into supporting current legislation as it has been written by his Liberals without input from any Conservatives.

Perhaps Harvard teaches a different language from American Standard English. It certainly seems that they teach Saul Alinski’s version of politics…

This behavior is more of an example of punitive adversarial politics than of bipartisanship. I can only conclude that President Obama, the Democrats, and his MSM outlets are labeling it as “bipartisanship” in an attempt to paint the GOP as being stubbornly obstinate and obstructionist.

It quite easy to see the correlation between this behavior and the behavior of any new regime that has taken power through a coup. The specific methods are different – there’s no blood in the streets – but the goals are the same, the purging of the previous administration and its supporters.

Tags: | | | | |

3 Responses to “Bipartisanship”

  1. snaggletoothie Says:

    He is not speaking a different language. He uses Orwellian distortion. Just as when he says ‘transparency’ he means his determined effort to control information and keep it away from the public. When Bush said ‘press conference’ he meant a bunch of impolite reporters asking whatever they wanted and sometimes trying to close in for the kill. But Obama means by the term a few preselected reporters asking pre-approved questions with nothing interesting or threatening happening: the reporters must check their testicles at the door. (And apparently they are looking forward to shucking that masculine baggage. A bunch of ravening wolves transformed into groveling slaves at midday on January 20th.)

  2. Bipartisanship Revisited | Reflections From a Murky Pond Says:

    […] Bipartisanship […]

  3. jonolan Says:

    Possibly true, snaggletoothie – Obama and his cronies do seem to be using some derivative of Newspeak.

Leave a Reply