Often, the strategy of tic-tac-toe is not to win, but to prevent your opponent from beating you at all costs. This victory often results in a “cat’s game” where neither player wins, but neither has been beat. After listening to President Obama call again for bipartisanship in his first State of the Union Address, the parallel between the childhood game and the way our government works became glaringly obvious.
If you didn’t catch the speech last Wednesday, one of Obama’s goals for the year was to foster a more cohesive, bipartisan government, something he had first called for upon his inauguration. He referred to the division between our political parties as the “stalemate between the left and right” and beseeched Washington to end “opposition for opposition’s sake.” To some, this brief segment of his speech was moving, and a sign that it was time to focus more on the issues at hand than party loyalty. To the politicians of Washington, however, it was a direct attack.
In his speech, Obama clearly stated that partisan politics have “stopped either party from helping the American people,” not pointing a finger at either group. He then went on to chide both the Democratic party for not using their “largest majority in decades” to its full extent and the Republican party for not displaying “good leadership” by “just saying no” to all Democratic proposals. His entire spiel on working toward a more unified government made up roughly 400 words out of more than 7,000 that he spoke, not even a tenth of his speech, yet it is the part media are jumping on.
Republicans seem to be the most upset over this part of the speech, and Fox News’ Sean Hannity best sums up their attitude with an article entitled, “No Bipartisanship for Obama” two days later, proving he thought long and hard over whether to play nice with the Democrats or not. On the other side, as a reaction to the speech as reported by the New Britain Herald, Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., stated, “The president called on the minority in the Senate to use their power responsibly — not just to obstruct progress…” — an obvious dig at Republicans. To further prove neither party would make an honest effort toward a more unified front, the day after Obama’s speech the Senate voted neatly along party lines to raise the nation’s debt limits. On a local level, that same day our own state Legislature voted to include teaching about contraceptives to high school health classes curriculum, with all Democrats for it and all Republicans against it.
It’s pretty clear change will be slow coming — it if comes at all. But what is most disheartening of all is that instead of considering Obama’s words, both parties seem to have become indignant and irate. Obama himself admitted the differences in political opinion are “the very essence of our democracy,” but that should not mean politicians stand united behind their party at the cost of seriously looking at issues. Obama also states there are “philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways,” but the differences should be reactionary, not premeditated. As one National Public Radio article stated, partisanship does not mean giving up ideals, but working together toward civility. Our government won’t accomplish anything if one party goes around thwarting the other just because they can. This year it looks like it’s the Republicans doing the thwarting, but it has gone back and forth between parties for nearly all of our history.
One of the pivotal moments in Obama’s speech was when he asked “How long should America put its future on hold?” As the nation’s youth, we should all hope the answer is not long. If we have to wait for the Democrats to stop bickering with the Republicans, for candidates from both parties to stop making empty promises and false allegations against each other for the sole purpose of being elected, or for parties to stop undermining a president that the nation elected because they don’t agree entirely with his politics, we will forever be living in a country where nothing gets done.
It seems as though party politics are leaning too far toward the childish mindset that “if I can’t have my way, then you shouldn’t either.” and the fear is that they have become more concerned with politics than issues, polls than the actual people. In response to the speech, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich has admitted to the Associated Press that “clearly, the American people want us to work together” and it is our job to remind the government who they are working for. Whether you support Obama or not, we should all agree what is important is America’s future, not maintaining arbitrary party divisions of the past.
Allegra Dimperio ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in theatre and intending to major in journalism.





IP hash: a5b4de9c
“Obama�s State of the Union does little to fix lack of unity”
Well, it took him a whole year to destroy any sense of unity we had left. How can we expect him to fix it in one night?
IP hash: 85265cac
Because it’s obviously Obama’s fault that the Republicans are filibustering 80-85% of all legislation to go through congress. Right?
IP hash: d90cd3a0
Can you tell us of one single Republicans filibuster?
When the Democrats have 60 votes it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Republicans to filibuster.
The Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress since 2006. Are we better off now than in 2006?
IP hash: 85265cac
When was the last time you read the news?
IP hash: 9e712b95
I don’t understand why the filibuster is so bad. Republican principles (wrong headed as you may think them to be) consist of lower taxes and smaller government. Now, if bills come across their desk that fly directly in the face of these principles, why should they vote for them? At least someone in Washington is showing a tiny bit of conviction for once. If Democrats had done this back in 2002, we may have avoided this Iraq-Afghanistan cluster**. Instead they rolled over for Bush without a fight.
IP hash: 85265cac
“lower taxes and smaller government.” << But Republicans are also complaining about the national debt. You fix that with taxes. You can’t have it both ways. And/or smaller government (ie, lack of regulation) caused the economic mess and thus the necessity of bailouts/stimuli in the first place.
“If Democrats had done this back in 2002, we may have avoided this Iraq-Afghanistan cluster” << re: Iraq, you’re missing/ignoring about all the WMD intel that Bush fabricated in a time when it was unpatriotic not to harass sandy people.
IP hash: 85265cac
And/or the filibuster isn’t inherently bad, but we’ve got Republican senators celebrating the ribbon-cutting ceremonies of programs that they voted against.
I have nothing against people using legislative tactics to support their principles, but the filibustering right now demonstratively (see above) has little to do with principle. It has instead become a vehicle to give a big ol’ “FUCK YOU” to the Democrats.
IP hash: 19ba285f
examples please
IP hash: 559deea8
Healthcare, specifically the gigantic flipflop on the medicare buy-in. There were a bunch of compromises where the Republicans would ask for something in order to get their vote, the Democrats would give it to them, and then the Republicans would ask for more.
IP hash: 83b6c53e
Pernicious nonsense! “Kill the Bill” was precisely what the extreme Leftist leadership among House DEMOCRATS cried when the Senate included abortion funding restrictions. Howard Dean demanded in December, “…honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House and start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”
Your lame attempt to lay Democrat leadership FAILURE at the Republican’s feet is intellectually dishonest.
IP hash: 559deea8
Funny, I watched that interview with Dean and it was only slightly about abortion. Most of it was about the technical failures in the healthcare bill that made it nothing more than a handout to insurance companies.
That said, I do blame democratic leadership for their failure. I just also blame Republicans for being impossible to deal with.
IP hash: 28dfe911
This would have been a good column to run last week. You know, when the speech actually took place. But Allegra, damn girl. Call me.
IP hash: f151ec33
The idea that saying “no” is anti-progress is routinely uttered by leftists who seem completely blind to the actual debate going on in American politics. Their call for compromise, so that government can get on with the business of “solving problems,” ignores the fact that the opposition does not want government to be “more effective” - it wants it to do less. This kind of “compromise” would be a total victory for big-government advocates.
Actual progress and America’s future demands saying “no” to about 99 percent of what is being proposed in Washington. It requires a government that protects individual freedom, dismantles the welfare state, stops manipulating the money supply and gets out of economics.
The debate is NOT over what programs government should adopt, but the role of government per se. If you are concerned with being able to work together then these are the issues that need to be addressed.
BTW: Just a few weeks ago Obama was trying to ram health care legislation down our throats without bipartisan support and against the wishes of the American people. Not that his plan has failed because of loosing a seat in Massachusetts, he’s coming out for “working together.” Go figure.
So this whole “working together” rhetoric is a farce. Let’s be clear, the Obama administration consists of power-lusters who will use any means necessary to get their agenda implemented.
IP hash: d90cd3a0
‘One of the pivotal moments in Obama�s speech was when he asked �How long should America put its future on hold?� As the nation�s youth, we should all hope the answer is not long.’
As the nation�s youth, you should all hope the answer will not involve crushing debt that will mean either taxes, huge spending cuts or runaway inflation.
Obama’s Doublethink Doubletalk (State of the Union Remix) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg0n0nIqgrc
IP hash: f151ec33
Yeah. When Obama asks “How long should America put its future on hold?” he really means, “stop opposing my policies and putting my socialist vision of America on hold.”
I’ll continue to fight against that future.
IP hash: 559deea8
If you think that anything Obama has proposed is leftist let alone socialist you need to take a basic political science class on political literacy.
Obama has been trying very hard for bipartisanship, in fact most of America realizes that he has functionally become a Republican in its pursuit. The fact that you cannot see this is a very worrying sign for the future of our nation.
IP hash: 83b6c53e
By shutting conservatives out of the negotiations from the beginning to the end, the far-left leaders in the White House, House and Senate have ended up with a bill that is absent of compromise, reason, or the moderate undertones necessary to successfully transform one-sixth of our national economy. By obstructing any true debate, any real dialogue, or any honest negotiations in place of buyouts, bribes and kickbacks for the moderates on the left, Obama and Reid have caused the legislative process to move at a snail�s pace.
When President Bush passed his significant overhaul of federal education initiatives, No Child Left Behind, it passed in the House by a 384-45 margin and in the Senate by a 91-8 margin, championed by former Senator Ted Kennedy himself. That was in 2001, President Bush�s first year in office. These pre-conference votes took place before the good-natured comity immediately following the attack on our nation in September. At this time, Republicans controlled the House, and Democrats controlled the Senate (after the defection of Vermont�s Jim Jeffords (I-VT) in May 2001). Bipartisanship is not a product of long-past eras like Ed Sullivan, black and white movies and the fashionable smoking of cigarettes. President Obama�s predecessor (as Obama likes to call him) was able to pass significant reforms, even if everyone didn�t see eye-to-eye simply by not closing down the process to the minority party.
Since his term began, President Obama has held dozens of meetings and strategy sessions at the White House with Members of Congress— and Republicans haven�t been invited to a single one since April. They weren�t invited even after they wrote the President begging to find �common ground.� That�s hardly similar to President Bush and Ted Kennedy calling each other to hammer out education reform details, or their meeting on a host of other issues such as border security (in which President Bush also worked closely with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who could hardly be called a moderate). In fact, the story of Ted Kennedy and First Lady Laura Bush learning of the September 11 attacks together while working on education reform is part of the legend of Washington itself.
This Leftist meme— that conservatives have obstructed and offered no alternatives— is literally and factually debunked nonsense. It simply isn�t true nor does it make any sense. Ideas like selling insurance across state lines or allowing individuals to carry their insurance from job to job aren�t ideas of the past or �more of the same,� as Leftsts like to falsely describe conservative alternatives. They are meaningful conservative ideas that cost nothing and possibly would have broken the logjam we see in the Senate today. Real reform has been obstructed, and unfortunately the obstructionism has come from the very authors of the legislation that nobody in Congress or America can stand to see passed.
The Obamateur’s Leftist toadies need to take a little ownership for their failure to lead and stop pointing fingers at Republicans.
IP hash: f151ec33
What? Do you not remember that Obama said he would ram health care through regardless of the fact that it is wildly unpopular with the American people and has no bipartisan support? How is that trying hard for bipartisanship?
Or that he is advocating forcing people to buy insurance as a condition of living? Or that he wants to dictate what private companies can sell and how much they can charge? Or that he wants to have socialize medicine?
Obama has created more cabinet-level “czars” to manage every detail of the economy than exist under some dictatorships. Czars in America?!
Obama has snubbed his noise at the separation of powers - saying that the court should not have upheld the Constitutional right of free speech and that he would personally do something about it.
He said he was against preferred creditors getting their money out of Chrysler and advocated voiding homeowner loans - demonstrating his contempt for the sanctity of contracts and rule of law.
He has advocated controlling the salaries of CEO’s and has nationalized parts of the car industry and banking industry. He is on a rampage of spending for government make-work projects to “stimulate” the economy.
He has contempt for the average American, saying that they just don’t understand how things work, that they are needy, confused, and frustrated by the slowness of his majesty to provide for the people’s needs, wants and wishes.
If this isn’t leftist/socialist/facist (or a little of each), I don’t know what is.
IP hash: 4300b3b5
Stop just blatantly rehashing Republican talking points without researching them at all.
Czars were first used in the Reagan administration, and every executive group since then has extensively used them.
Also both former Bush/Reagan executives have defended Obama’s use of “czars”.
IP hash: 83b6c53e
sigh More pernicious nonsense from the Left. The informal political term “czar” is employed in American media and popular usage to refer to high-level officials who oversee a particular policy. The practice dates back to FDR. There have NEVER been any US government offices with the title “czar”, but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname “czar” rather than their actual title.
IP hash: f151ec33
Who said anything about Republicans? It is true that Obama has massively increased the use of “czars.” If that’s a Republican talking point, so be it. Republicans have no right to complain when they advocate much of the same destructive stuff as Obama does, only not as brazenly.
IP hash: d90cd3a0
Yeah, Czars are wonderful - just like fillibusters were great when it was Dems doing the fillibustering.
Blah, blah, blah - a pox on all their houses!
IP hash: d90cd3a0
The Democrats have the Presidency, a huge majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate.
What good have the Democrats done with their complete control of the Federal government? What have they accomplished other than increase spending, taxes and debt?
The Republicans can’t be blamed - they’ve been frozen out of the legislative process and don’t even have enough seats to filibuster in the Senate.
IP hash: 85265cac
When was the last time you read the news?
IP hash: bd6b2d38
What an arrogant and deceitful exhibition we witnessed, from Our Dear Leaders State of the Obamanation address!
He decries �lobbyists�, yet his administration is rife with them.
He speaks of open and transparent government yet the health care debates he assured would be on CSPAN were kept closed by Mr. Obama and the democrats.
He speaks of controling spending after tripling the annual deficit and doubling our total national debt. He speaks of a spending �freeze� as Billions of taxpayer dollars are handed out in special interest bribes to secure house and senate votes on nationalizing our health care system.
Requestors for White House guest lists are forced to use Freedom Of Information Act suits to secure his promised �transparency’, and then only in incomplete form, provided grudgingly months later.
His call for comity and bipartisan cooperation are immediately refuted by his own partisan attacks within the SOTU speech. This legal backbencher of no portfolio even offered the first ever direct attack on the Supreme Court Justices and our Constitution during the SOTU speech. What a political prat! He openly demonstrated his contempt for our highest court and the Constitution!
As we US citizens grow increasingly alarmed at this unending duplicity and nation bankrupting waste on european style socialism, the polls show Obama and the democrats plummeting. But Mr. Obama�s assertion that �I don�t quit!� is surely true. We will either have to vote him out or impeach him before then. His continued arrogant duplicity will greatly aid us in that.