White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had an interesting quote a few months back on bipartisanship, as President Barack Obama was earning widespread acclaim for his appointment of a surprising number- despite a strong mandate for Democrats in the 2008 contest- of Republican advisers to his cabinet and executive office.  "The public wants bipartisanship," the former Illinois Congressman and Clinton staffer said.  "We just have to try.  We don't have to succeed."

The health care fight, despite Democrats' efforts to secure support from Republicans, has turned into the very knockdown political battles majority parties tend to avoid by steamrolling the other party and pushing their legislation through by any means necessary.  And it didn't have to be.  But Because Congressional Democrats and the White House wanted a bill that they could present to the public that reflected a broad range of views, opinions, and honest debate, they went through the typical legislative process, which requires a 60-vote minimum to invoke cloture, snipping any opportunity for Republicans to filibuster the bill.  With Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts still away from his Senate business in the midst of discussion of his own marquee issue, Democrats theoretically only have 59 votes.

But had Democrats taken the health care bill through the budget reconciliation process- where use of the filibuster is forbidden by Senate rules- they would have only needed 51 votes.  They could easily have jammed the legislation down the throat of the other party and the American people who elected them.  But they didn't.  And Bush Republicans who were in the majority during the years of narrowly divided Congressional power from 2000 to 2006 chose that route frequently.  What's more is that if Democrats had gone straight to the budget reconciliation instead of seeking GOP backing first, they likely would never have had the PR nightmare this has become, the will-it-or-won't-it pass ping pong match.

Sadly misinformed town hall protesters claim that Democrats have dictatorially pushed the legislation through Congress (hence, the references to Hitler and Nazi Germany).  But if anything, Democrats- in making concessions, granting time delays, and permitting extensive debate on the subject- have reaffirmed to the American people their commitment to bipartisanship.

And again, they probably didn't need to.  Voters gave Democrats and their agenda a clear mandate back in 2008, upping what had been strong majorities in both chambers of Congress to a near-supermajority in the House and a flat out supermajority in the Senate, not to mention the White House.

For their part, Republicans have done nothing to meet Democrats anywhere in the middle, which is fine: Democrats promised to seek bipartisanship, but they can only go so far.  If Republicans refuse to work with Democrats on behalf of their constituents, they'll have to answer to them at election time.  But the campaign wing of the national Democratic Party has to point that out as clearly as possible, and legislators must continue to push for the change they promised on the trail, even if it means not compromising every key piece of landmark legislation to appease obstructionist Republicans.

The benefit to bipartisanship is not so much the success of healthcare reform in 2009, but rather success of Obama's policy agenda in subsequent years, whether on healthcare or other issues. When Bush was in the White House and his allies in control of Congress, they froze the Democrats completely out of the picture. This had short term success, but down the road set the stage for the Democrats retaking control of Congress, and Bush unable to get much of anything done. The question in my mind is whether the Republicans are more interested in having some role in shaping policy, or in trying to bring down Obama, regardless of the damage that might be done to the national interest. Senator DeMint is obviously in the latter category, and has virtually admitted as much. My (possibly naive) guess is that there are at least a handful of Republicans in both the House and Senate who would prefer to work with Obama and the majority Democrats if a few concessions could go their way.

I would like to see if bipartisanship on healthcare reform is still possible, because I believe that overall it will work to Obama's advantage, even if it means watering down healthcare reform in the short term. On the other hand, Senator Grassley, who ostensibly is negotiating to achieve a bipartisan bill in the Senate Finance Committee, gives us plenty of reason to doubt his good faith. He has admitted that he could wind up voting for a bill, even if it contains the provisions he wants. Besides that, of course, he has echoed Sarah Palin's false claims about the supposed death panels.

If the moderates and progressives within the Democratic caucus could reach an agreement, Republican opposition would make no difference. Unfortunately, there are too many on both sides who are unwilling to budge.

The Bard of Wilmette Website Link

o through reconciliation. And Schumer's comment from this morning, again poo pooing bipartisan approach.

The past tense is not the right tense. Reconciliation only happens when you are voting on budgets. Since the Congress is not to the point of voting on budgets there has been no chance to go with reconciliation.

1000 radio stations make bipartisanship impossible, and democracy too.

they used the radio megaphone to purge nearly all 'moderates' , rational thinkers and non- flat earthers from the GOP and ruin their own party and will still use it to threaten any republican who tries to cross party lines.

your first paragraph. They still can use reconciliation, I'm not sure why you're using past tense

The point is that they could have held off on health reform until the budget reconciliation process, and then pushed it through there.

Is that they tried for the typical legislation process first. They could have gone straight for the jugular and took it to budget reconciliation to begin with. Of course, they can still go that route, but the fact is that they tried the hard way first, and took a major PR slam for it.

That will all look brilliant in a months time...

But they can't just go Snap! and pass something in the budget, you still have to write it and get it out of committees.