I recent weeks, the concept of working across the aisle to achieve change, as Obama has so heavily emphasised, has begun to take it's share of flak on this site. And perhaps with good reason. House Republicans spent weeks negotiating with their Democratic counterparts and the Administration, extracting useless tax cuts and other concessions. And then they voted unanimously against.
Obama's formation of perhaps one of the most centrist, bipartisan and experienced cabinets in history was lauded by many. He appointed a generally conservative Republican congressman (as Transport Secretary, albeit) and retained Bush's Independent/Republican SecDef. He also appointed an ex-Republican, now just Independent, Wall Streeter to Treasury. He appointed a whole load of qualified moderate Democrats, including Janet Napolitano, who's nomination handed Republicans the AZ governorship and ensured Senator McCain's reelection, and Ken Salazar, which may have made the Colorado seat more contestable for the GOP. And to top it all off, he tried to appoint Gregg to Commerce. Much of this pissed off his own progressive base, but Obama was (and still probably is) determined to govern from the centre and meet the GOP half way.
Again, the GOP scorned him. They nearly defeated Geithner, the best type of SecTreas they could have hoped for under a Democratic president. They delayed Solis over labor issues, in spite of how moderate most of the other nominees were; she was one of the only solid, known progressives. They also delayed and threatened on Holder. They gleefully pontificated over Daschle's demise. And now, worst of all, Gregg has now betrayed Obama in what seems to be a despicable stunt, even though it's hard to see how Gregg or the GOP could actually gain from this move.
So is bipartisanship worth it, on the Commerce nomination going forward and with governing in general? Maybe, and I still hope so.
In the House, the unanimous anti-stimulus vote by House Republicans is perhaps indicative of their long-term strategy. The losses of the last two cycles have left the House GOP with barely any substantially moderate Republicans to negotiate with, and even those people (Mike Castle etc) voted against stimulus. The upside is of course that in the House, it's 218 votes for anything and Pelosi now has a 35 seat majority and a Democratic White House to work with. Even if House Republicans choose to be petty and ineffectually obstructionist, then Pelosi still only ever has to do any real negotiating with the Blue Dogs (and some of DLCers) in her caucus. As a side note, I don't entirely mind that system; it's the lesser of evils. Moderate Democrats holding the balance and threatening/weakening legislation is inconvenient. But its the preferable alternative to Republicans having a majority/near majority and being able to massively compromise or even defeat, key legislative. Also, if Republicans aren't willing to perform their democratically neccesary role of acting as a sensible check on executive power, Democrats may as well do it to amongst themselves rather than run roughshod.
In the Senate, genuine bipartisanship is needed, although still to a small degree. Again, most Republican senators voted down the line against stimulus, even some of the supposed moderates that are left. Specter, Collins and Snowe helped it's passage, after bipartisan compromises with moderate Democrats like Nelson, and that's important. I don't like the compromises that had to be carried out, I doubt anyone of this site does, but that's why it's called compromise. There wouldn't be any bill at all, a much worse outcome, if it weren't for that deal. Plus, it's been improved somewhat in conference anyway, due to the protestations of Pelosi and her House Dems. Point is, that there are some Senate Republicans who will be reasonable and break fillibusters and meet Democrats halfway, and that's what everyone has to remember. House Republicans may keep acting like children, but as I said, that just confirms that the essence of House passages will just be relatively small liberal-Blue Dog compromises, not larger Democrat-Republican compromises.
To me, that proves that there is still some value in bipartisanship. But a greater point is also the principle, and public perception. House Democrats at least tried to reach out to their counterparts, and were burned for it. Most Senate Republicans have acted the same way, on the confirmations. And yet Democrats, and Obama in particular, can still stand to gain from rising above it. If Democrats continue to try to be bipartisan, and most Republicans continue to act petty and partisan, Democrats can spin it in their favor. If Democrats respond by backing away, then they're being no better than the GOP, and killing any chance that some Republicans will come around. Also, as a practical point, Obama can't back off his pledges to be bipartisan. He's stated them too many times, and it would be the mother of all flip-flops. The GOP would be wrong to try and exploit that, given their response to Democratic olive branches, but it doesn't mean that they won't try it or even that it wouldn't work. IOKIYAR often rules supreme, and reasonable Democratic justifications that "we tried to be bipartisan, they snubbed us" will get drowned out.
On the Commerce confirmation in particular, here is the state of play as I see it. Obama graciously offered a cabinet post to a Republican, who in fact lobbied for it, and then suffered at the hands of GOP manipulation. He could now choose to just appoint a Democrat, perhaps even a staunchly progressive one, and the GOP would be stupid to complain or oppose it. Obama tried, it's that simple. But Obama could prove that he is the bigger man and appoint another Independent or Republican. It might not sway any House Republicans, or even any of their Senators, to be more bipartisan in future. But it to the voters, it will keep confirming what they already seem to know, that Obama and the Democrats are responsible and commited to effective bipartisan governing. Even after the GOP use his offer to attack him, he still goes that little bit further and reaches out. If the Congressional Republicans want to be adults, great. If not, it's their loss. Democrats will make sure of that.
Either way, I will respect Obama's new Commerce choice. But let me just pitch my own favorite. How about Lincoln Chafee? Best of both worlds; a former moderate Republican senator, but one who is now an independent and who backed Obama. He's still not a Democrat, and despite his liberal votes on most prominent issues and his firm status as the most moderate GOP Senator, in overall aspect he still ranked slightly to the right of most Democrats. Republicans hate him, mind you, but that will just make their response to Obama's reasonable, post-partisan choice seem even more irrational.