Qball
Corner Pocket
No that is not what your OP said. You made the argument that Obama shouldn't be re-elected because he isn't bi-partisan enough.
That leads to the implication that Romney is better in that regard. Thus you're arguing that Romney is better suited to be bi-partisan.
To be bi-partisan requires compromise, reaching across the aisle, working with the Democrats, crafting moderate, centrist policies, etc.
Tell us why Romney is better suited to do that. Tell us why Romney will do what amounts to the last thing that conservatives want him to do, i.e.,
give way towards the Democrats.
Well, I don't know that Obama isn't bipartisan enough. I mean, he'd love more than anything for Republicans to capitulate and give in so he can show how open to compromise he is. That's exactly what he, and all Democrats really, want to believe about themselves.
The problem isn't so much that Obama isn't bipartisan enough, it's that he doesn't really know what that means and he tends to lie about wanting it.
Bipartisanship, to Obama, means "Republicans contradict their principles, agitate their base, risk their re-election efforts, and create discord within their own party all to help me make good on my campaign promises".
It all fits with the rest of his pie-in-the-sky rhetoric. Someone who spent ten minutes in Washington before becoming President likely would have strange ideas about what constitutes bipartisanship and "obstructionism". To Obama, Republicans driving a hard bargain is obstructionism, because he thinks only bad people would play hard ball with him over his wonderful ideas. And this is the "adult-in-the-room".
Last edited: