During the 90 minute back and forth and mostly pointless bantering of last night's first presidential debate, one minor Romney comment caught my ear: "I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. We had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together".
what eye thynk: Why is it that Republicans are all for bi-partisanship in theory but find it anethema in practice? I am so sick of hearing Mr. Romney and the rest of the Republican party talk about the need for bi-partisanship if the country is to move forward. If Mr. Romney, in particular, is really so fond of this "togetherness", he should have encouraged his fellow Republicans to try a little of it during the past four years.
When President Obama took office, he invited leaders from both parties to the White House in an effort to begin the job of working together. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, voiced his response in an interview with National Journal's Major Garrett: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." And that has pretty much been the Republican party's answer to bi-partisanship for the past 45 months.
As Richard Mourdock, Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Indiana was quoted as saying in an MSNBC interview earlier this year, "I certainly think bi-partisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view".
Despite Mr. Romney's self-serving endorsement of bi-partisanship, the current Republican party frowns upon moderation and sees compromise as a four letter word. Mr. Romney may like the way he "did it in Massachusetts"; but Washington Republicans measure progress, not by what is accomplished, but by what has been denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment