Bend-over bipartisanship for DC Republicans

Republicans in D.C. regularly are lectured on how important it is to work with members of both parties to get important things done.  We hear this mostly when Republicans are in charge.

Do you remember Obama working with Republicans on Obamacare and allowing everyone to see the bill before it was passed?  Do you remember Obama calling Republicans to work with them on the Iran deal?  Or did he do these things behind closed doors, in secret?  Was the Paris climate agreement done with Republican agreement, or was it done without Congress at all?  Did Obama ask for Republican input before his administration approved the sale of uranium to the Russians?  Did Republicans get any kickbacks?

The following excerpts from a Catherine Rampell opinion piece in the Washington Post illustrate the conventional wisdom foisted onto the GOP.

Republicans may have unified control of government but they seem curiously incapable of getting major agenda items through. 

Maybe it's because Republicans have insisted on cutting out Democrats and doing things unilaterally. Or at least they had been until Thursday, when a bipartisan coalition of 24 senators signed onto a bill to patch up Obamacare. 

This is not a patch to fix Obamacare.  It is a bailout of insurance companies to mask price increases.  It helps a small percentage of people and continues to punish the rest of us.  The patch is necessary because Trump is enforcing the law of the land while Obama was stealing the money that was not appropriated.

If you actually want to reform and simplify the tax code, you have to close loopholes benefitting some constituents. If you want to cut rates without increasing deficits, you need to find money elsewhere, either through spending cuts or other tax increases. Which some affected group is going to be unhappy about.

I am baffled why journalists won't tell the truth that Bush's tax cuts generated massive amounts of additional money for the government.  The only times media and Democrats seem concerned about deficits and debt is when anyone decides that it would be good for individuals and businesses to be able to keep more of the money they earned.  It seems there is never enough for the greedy government and Democrats. 

Republicans are similarly stuck with the blame for everything that goes wrong in the health-care system. 

It is amazing that Democrats and their puppet supporters have been able to take a program that has been collapsing spectacularly for seven years and deflect blame to a president and other Republicans who had nothing to do with it.

Right now, Republican leadership is beholden to the craziest members of its own party. Someone such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) knows he can make unreasonable demands because McConnell can't afford defections. 

So people who want smaller government and more power for the private sector are crazy.

Aiming for a bipartisan coalition of the middle 60 or so votes, instead of requiring the vote of nearly every Republican, would avoid giving undue power to any one legislator (crazy or otherwise).

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi don't allow Democrats to get off the reservation, so where will Republicans get the votes?

Finally, if the majority party successfully achieves meaningful support from the minority, it's less likely that a major policy initiative would be undone or sabotaged when the balance of power shifts.

That's a lesson the Democrats have of course learned with Obamacare, which passed along party lines (despite Obama's efforts to woo Republican votes).

Where is there any indication that Democrats learned that lesson?  I also don't recall Obama giving in to any Republican ideas on Obamacare.  They would have been against the individual mandate, which Obama said he was against in 2008; against all the new taxes; against the birth control mandate; and for tort reform, freedom of choice on what kind to buy, etc.  So where did Obama make an effort?

Where has a Republican bending to the left won Democrat support, especially in a presidential election?  And where have reporters told Democrats they should give in and compromise with a conservative president?

Bipartisanship to the media means that Republicans give in.  Republicans have won over 1,000 seats nationwide the last seven years by continually advocating smaller government, lower taxes, and less regulation.  It is a shame that Republicans like McCain, Collins, Bush, and Corker fall for the garbage spewed forth by the left. 

Is any Republican ignorant enough to believe that reporters and other Democrats want them to win an election?  If not, why would they take their advice?  How often do journalists advocate that Democrats move right, no matter how many seats they lose?

If you experience technical problems, please write to