Bipartisanship. A word that today means getting what one wants in the political arena. Once bipartisanship applied to the mechanism of politicians working together for the common good.
Partisanship. A word that has come to signify a Congress that does not work. Partisanship does mean believing in and acting on a set of beliefs. To vote against those beliefs is not bipartisanship, it is the modern politics of quid pro quo.
Since our Congress is populated by lawyers, instead of farmers, businessmen, cobblers, technicians or other people that produce something, I will use a lawyer's definition:
QUID PRO QUO - Lat. 'what for what' or 'something for something.' The concept of getting something of value in return for giving something of value. For a contract to be binding, it usually must involve the exchange of something of value.
The concept of compromise in the name of bipartisanship for the common good, i.e., something sometimes is better than nothing, is not the same as quid pro quo where something for something is the rule.
Like malice, proving quid pro quo vs bipartisanship, is hard to prove. Patterns often give a good indicator of intentions because of the piece that doesn't fit the pattern or because there is no odd piece, but a continuity of facts, actions or items.
Specter, Snowe and Collins surprisingly have no odd pieces, but a continuity. A continuity that does not in fact show that the Republican tent is so large as to render needless the Democrat Party. They do not believe in the basic planks, let alone in toto, of the Republican Party that hold the Party together as a political movement. Nor are they centrists, nor mavericks and as much as they want voters to believe they move to the beat of a different drummer, they do not.
They are liberals. Why not admit it. Why do they not admit it? Their votes on the stimulus package proves that they believe not in just the idea of government as savior, but that they will go against their entire party of peers, but also their Party. Specter, Snowe and Collins do not share in even the basic core beliefs of the Republican Party. They do believe in Obama, the Democrats and their shared vision of America. That vision is a European Socialist future for the Untied States of America and is in direct opposition to the principles on which this country was founded and formed.
What to do.
Matt of Weapons of Mass Discussion wrote an insightful piece that has stuck in my mind about party loyalty.
Is Loyalty Overrated?
This morning's Enquirer is carrying a story about the Speaker of the House in Tennessee being bounced to the curb after allying himself with Democrats in order to win his Speakership. The story goes on to impart the following:
State GOP Chairwoman Robin Smith brushed aside questions about losing control, saying the decision to oust Williams was driven by principles and rules.
"You can call it 49-49, Williams," said Smith, who acted after the party's top leaders last week approved a resolution to oust the speaker.
"The politically expedient thing to do would be to overlook whatever he's done," Smith said. "If we claim to stand for something, and we continue to look the other way when people behave in such a manner, it really negates all that we stand for."
Ah, a state party that stands for something. How unique.
On the future of our country and our bold experiment called Representative Democracy, maybe the Republicans of the U.S. Senate ought to measure the strength of their backbones and decide whether the rules of a convivial club of gentle men is the rule by which our Senators rule or if they believe our country is worth something more, such as a set of beliefs.
As the loyal opposition Republicans can do something they haven't done in quite some time. Show that they believe in something and will fight for those beliefs. If the Democrats want the stimulus plan, then let them have it and make it a point to voters that it is a Democrat plan. In short, stop the CYA movement in Congress and make legislation that we believe in, not legislation that is ill conceived and rushed as to impart an immediacy to avert a crisis. That immediacy is a tactical part of an Obama and Democrat victory with the stimulus package. That is the Democrat plan, not ours and we should make that plain to the American voter, because we are about to step off a precipice into a known failure form of government.
Give Specter, Snowe and Collins to the Democrats. They deserve them and we, as a party, should have the necessary pride and determination to defend not only our form of government, but our beliefs as well.
Specter, Snowe and Collins do not share our beliefs, but know that there are no real repercussions for their actions, votes and their lack of belief in Republicam ideals.
They and we would be better off without them as members of the Republican Party.
Gateway Pundit, as always, has much more!
