Many who have heard Republican leaders in Congress proclaim their opposition to almost every piece of Obama's program are saying, "To hell with them." Instead of seeking to enlist Republican support, they urge Obama to tailor everything to the wishes of his Democratic allies.
Yet when it comes to the big initiatives -- energy, health care and the rest -- the risks of such a choice are obvious. When no Republican votes are in play, the price individual Democratic legislators can extract from the White House goes up. We saw plenty of that with the stimulus bill and the energy bill, both of which were weakened substantively by the concessions Obama had to make to get the last Democratic votes.
This simply does not make any sense. Broder thinks that the stimulus and energy bill were weakened substantially by concessions made to get the last Democratic votes, which is why Obama should seek Republican votes.
Huh? Does Broder really think "big initiatives" would be weakened less if Obama were attempting to woo Republican Senators? And if so, is there really anybody at the Washington Post who honestly believes that David Broder's increasingly nonsensical observations deliver greater value to readers than, say, Dan Froomkin's White House Watch?
That record has been clouded by a fog of rhetoric -- especially the excesses of Republicans decrying the president's "socialist" schemes and the Democrats calling the GOP the "party of no."
Democrats call the GOP the "party of no" because they've been opposing everything, en masse, and rarely offering up more than a bumper-sticker of an alternative. Republicans have been calling Obama's plans "socialist" because ... well, because they feel like it, and because they know gullible and weak journalists like David Broder will fail to call them on the absurdity of the claim, not because Obama's plans actually constitute socialism. And yet, to David Broder, those two rhetorical gambits are equivalent. Again: this is nothing short of nonsense.