Rachel Maddow Exposes GOP Obstructionism, While Media Is Shocked By Democratic Bipartisanship

Conservatives have been hammering at President Obama for having promised that anyone who wants to keep their health care plan would be able to do so after the implementation of ObamaCare. That turned out not to be entirely accurate. Although, for the most part, those who would lose access to their existing plans would gain access to better, cheaper plans, there would be a few for whom that would not hold true.

Republicans took great joy in blasting the President over this anomaly that probably affects only 3% of the population, dismissing the fact that ObamaCare will benefit tens of millions more than it allegedly harms. They demanded that he take remedial action to permit people who have plans they like to keep them. So Obama announced that he would do just that, which led Republicans to criticize him for doing precisely what they asked.

Not content to take “yes” for an answer, the House GOP drafted legislation to fix the problem. However, rather than simply permiting people to keep their current plans, the GOP bill would allow insurance companies to sell those junk plans to new customers who never had them to begin with. That would seriously endanger the viability of ObamaCare because it take people out of the larger pool of covered individuals necessary to make the program work.

Nevertheless, the bill passed in the House with 39 Democrats voting along with the majority Republicans. The media response to this act of bipartisanship was surprise and characterizations of Democratic defiance and betrayal. It is exactly that sort of closed-mindedness that produces the unprecedented dysfunction we currently see in Congress. Any measure of cooperation is regarded as treason rather than teamwork. And that is also the guiding principle of the modern Tea Party Republican junta.

Fox News

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

While Democrats behave in a manner that is consistent with advancing the country’s best interests, Republicans are fixated on crushing the Democrats. Even legislation that enjoys broad support by majorities of the American people is snubbed the GOP simply because it is also supported by Democrats or the President. Rachel Maddow illustrated this brilliantly on Friday’s program (video below).

The examples that Maddow highlighted were all issues that have extraordinarily wide support by the American public. From background checks on gun purchases, to immigration reform, to ending discrimination against gays, to raising the minimum wage, these are all issues that are backed by majorities of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans. But the GOP in Congress refuses to even bring these bills up for a vote, even though their own constituents want them to do so.

Rachel Maddow

This makes the media reaction to Democrats behaving bipartisanly all the more disturbing. It’s as if they prefer the sort of hostility that is routinely exhibited by Republican and Tea Party extremists. And of course, that is precisely the problem. The media does prefer open battling and distrust because it serves its purpose both for manufacturing the sort of drama that generates ratings, and for obstructing national policies that their corporate boards oppose. Here is a sampling of the reporting that followed the House vote:

  • NPR: With Democrats’ Help, House Votes Against Obamacare
  • Politico: With 39 Dems behind it, House passes Obamacare fix
  • Wall Street Journal: Democrats Defect on Health Rules
  • ABC News: 39 Dems Defect as House OKs ‘Keep Your Health Plan’ Bill
  • U.S. News & World Report: Democrats Break With Party to Support GOP Obamacare Fix
  • Los Angeles Times: Dozens of House Democrats back Republican healthcare bill
  • Fox News: Dems in disarry over ObamaCare fix [Note: Fox Nation also ran the same item. For more Fox Nation lies see Fox Nation vs. Reality]

Clearly the tone of the reporting is one that implies a negative result for a small number of Democrats who are portrayed as traitors simply because they had the temerity to agree with Republicans. It is reporting like that that discourages politicians from being productive in concert with their colleagues across the aisle. It reinforces the notion that bipartisanship will be punished in the press, so there better not be any of it.

Apparently, Republicans have already learned this lesson and have staunchly refused to cooperate with Democrats for at least the last five years. The real betrayal is that of the GOP against the nation and their own constituents in order to avoid media criticism, primary challenges, and most of all, to retain power, even at the expense of the national welfare. That’s the thinking that causes Republicans to shut down the goverment and defy the will of the voters. And they have the media to thank for enabling that destructive behavior.

Advertisement:

9 thoughts on “Rachel Maddow Exposes GOP Obstructionism, While Media Is Shocked By Democratic Bipartisanship

  1. “…turned out to be not entirely accurate…”

    Obama lied. Step away from the bong.

    “…gain access to better, cheaper plans…”

    If and only if they get a government subsidy – which makes them more dependent on the government. A recipe for disaster. Beside, all the lefties are ignoring just how insulting this line of thinking is: “Well, the plan you paid for was lousy, anyway – becuase we the Obama administration said so.” You are telling these people that they were too stupid to know which plan was good and which plan was “substandard”. Bovine excrement.

    And by the way, do you think Maddow is still laughing at the ratings war, especially since Megyn Kelly has been kicking butt for the past several weeks?

    • When that promise was made the republicans had not yet added all the bullshit to the plans that they did, I encourage you to study the timeline of the bill all the way through until it became law before making an ass of yourself.
      And no, I will not do the work for you.

    • That first paragraph is some of the most dishonest propaganda and unapologetic disrespect for individual rights and choice ever written – it just happens to be parroting of administration talking points – totally ignoring the fact that people must be the final decision makers in their choice for health insurance – and “better” is not for you or some lawmaker to decide. Progressivism at its best – right?

      • You’re hyperbolic criticism negates the reality that there are some things that are objectively true, and that fact doesn’t obviate individual rights.

        But what’s worse is that your comments are such a broken record of endlessly repeating the same complaint that it makes me pretty sure you are a paid shill. No real person could be so fixated on a single concept and continue to revisit a website where they disagree completely with the content, unless they were being compensated. You’re here every day saying the exact same thing. Who’s paying you, man?

        • Mindless left-wing insults like “Who’s paying you to troll?” (which is a tactic/insult that E-V-E-R-Y left-wing website I have visited has resorted to) simply points out that you have no concept on how to debate. We have effectively sliced and diced your blog entries again and again. You can’t run away from this.

  2. Hey Mark it took me 4 tries to get here today, I hope that means you have lots of traffic.

  3. The underinsured serves the same problem as the uninsured, they cost everybody money when their coverage falls short. The ACA was partly aimed at fixing that money siphoning problem. Better covering the underinsured was always part of the plan, if you think he lied then you weren’t paying attention. That ‘keep your plan if you like it’ soundbite was relevant to those that were adequately covered, in other words it was relevant to those that didn’t serve the problem…why is that hard to understand? Where is the lie?? Why would those that serve the problem the aca was aiming to fix be able to keep serving the problem?? It was only a lie if you had no idea what was going on and little to no grasp on logical place of relevance. I guess the president should’ve spelled and tapped everything out for the less focused and interested.

  4. Scott says:

    If and only if they get a government subsidy – which makes them more dependent on the government. A recipe for disaster.

    Yes, that recipe for disaster has destroyed the oil/energy business’s who get subsidies and have world record profits. Shouldn’t gas prices be about a dollar a gallon with those subsidies in place? Oh wait, that’s a PRIVATE business and is not beholden to anyone to lower prices when they get subsidies. When an individual gets healthcare subsidies, which will also be going to a private Insurance business, it is a disaster?
    Even if it lowers premiums for “most” folks?
    It sounds like you’re saying that it’s OK for business(including the most profitable companies in the history of the world) to get subsidies if it helps business profits, but, it’s not OK if it helps individuals get more affordable healthcare in order to survive.
    I hope that’s not the case…but.

Comments are closed.