Has bi-partisanship spoiled

The chances for a good healthcare program?

Was the strong insistence on bi-partisanship a bad mistake that doomed the Healthcare bills from achieving the denocratic objectives of the legislation? For example, a program such as a go’vt healthcare plan to compete with the insurance co’s and to give an insurance option to those with very limited resources to buy insurance.

The strong insistence on bi-partisanship seems strange since the Republicans had shown no interest in bi-partisanship. The Republicans fought hard against any Democratic initative such as the bailout bills, the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sotomoyer, even the clunker auto program. Secondly the Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee appeared to use their discussions to stall Healthcare momentum and get provisions they did not like eliminated, Perhaps they hoped to use the promise of bi-partisanship to talk about the bill so long that the momentum for it would be exhausted. Certainly Senator Grassley’s comments have been very unencouraging.

Did the Republicans see the emphasis on bi-partisanship by Pres Obrama as a sign of weakness and a person unsure of himself, or lacking in conviction, whose need of bi-partisanship could be exploited to limit the bill or even to kill it?

Historically major changes in our gov’t have come with aggressive leadership over the strenuous objections of those against. a) Would Thomas Jefferson have written the Declaration of Independence if he sat down with the British for a bi-partisan discussion? Would Abraham Lincoln have written the Emancipation proclamation if he approached the Confederates to seek a bi-partisan solution? Would FDR have committed to Social Security if he sought out the Republicans for a bi-partisan program? Would Lyndon Johnson have pushed thru Congress a Medicare bill if he asked the Republicans for bi-partisan help?

Come on guys! Let’s get with it. Let’s pass the best democratic bill we can.