2009, the year of Bi-partisanship

'Though the verdict on Coakley may have had much to do with her deficiencies as a candidate and the local political culture, there seems to be little question that it will also serve as a referendum on Obama. More than anything, Coakley's defeat should mark the end of Obama's efforts to create a new, bipartisan political climate in Washington. If he is to avoid the fate of Bill Clinton in the midterm elections of 1994, Obama will need to embrace the populist anger now surging through the country rather than seeking to defuse it.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/20/obama-brown-massachusetts-senate [My emphasis]

I literally laughed out loud at this statement.

Here is Kennedys (presumably) complete list of Obama bipartisanship forays:

1. Obama's $787bn stimulus bill was 'heavily weighted toward tax cuts'
2. nominated a 'moderate, pro-prosecution' Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor
3. Obama ruled out a single-payer system ahead of time and never strongly backed a government-owned insurance alternative
4. ...oh wait, thats it

To quote an old ad, where's the beef?

If that is really your best evidence of a strong quest for bipartisanship, you have failed dismally to persuade.

Let us quickly peruse the facts. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 had $275 billion of tax cuts, and $550 billion of boondoggle. There was $147 billion of spending on healthcare, for instance. Not sure how that was going to stimulate the US economy, but whatever. So, $275 billion vs £550 billion- that isn't 'heavily weighted in favour of tax cuts' it is 'heavily weighted in favour of Democrat-populated public sector spending'.

Sonia Sotomayor was a bipartisan candidate? Really? What cases can you cite to show she is 'pro-prosecution', whatever that is? The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee had reams of stuff about her consistent mixing of her political slant with her court judgements. The 'racist' stuff was just fluff. No Republican would ever vote for a supreme court nominee with such a terrible track record on the bench (numerous staff from lower courts called her stupid and light-weight). Her 'wise Latina' schtick is a part of her Democrat identity politics- the only reason she is where she is today.

I thought after the stupid 'Obama ruled out a single payer system' comment that Kennedy must be British. I checked and he isn't- he's a yank. So he must be the last person in America to know that Barack Obama didn't 'rule out a single payer system'; Obama knew that not even lefty Senators and congressmen would ever vote for that. Obama, and every lefty in America other than Kennedy, knows that the public option health insurance gimmick is the STALKING HORSE for what they really want- the single payer system. Obama, and every lefty in America other than Kennedy also knows that passing ANY healthcare legislation will do, because all the hideous elements which can't be strapped into the bill as written can be craftily inserted after it passes, as 'amendments'. Nothing, nothing whatsoever, about 'healthcare reform' is bipartisan. It is all one enormous smokescreen to get accomplished what the progressives in America are devoted to- the socialisation of America.

No sentient being with a modicum of objectivity would ever call the Obama premiership bipartisan. Ok, the ad hominem and disgusting demagoguery have been toned down slightly since George W Bush retired, but then these people are in charge of the White House. From 'We Won', to 'Tea baggers', to the war on FOX news, to the war on the 'hatemongers' of talk radio, the Obama White House have acted like sixth graders. They have their little gang, and the people in their little gang get what they want, and they call the people who aren't in their gang lots of names, like tea baggers and religious extremists. It is a good job Kennedy told us they are bipartisan, because without that information we would never have known.

I just want you to know, Mr Kennedy, that for policy to be bipartisan, it must be tolerable to at least some mainstream Republicans. If it isn't, it is because it is extremely far left, and therefore intolerable to any Republicans whatsoever. Just thought you might need a recap.