President Obama's goal of a post-partisan Washington is looking more and more like a mirage.
Obama campaigned on a promise to change Washington and spent his first weeks in office hosting GOP lawmakers for cocktail parties and one-on-one meetings. But his efforts yielded no House Republican votes for the stimulus bill and just three GOP votes in the Senate. Most Republicans saw the debate as a chance to take a stand against the Democratic Congress and the new president.
White House aides now are shifting tactics, dialing back their expectations of big bipartisan majorities for future bills. They plan to capitalize on Obama's high public approval ratings and use public events to rally public support and put pressure on Congress.
The unexpectedly partisan stimulus debate foreshadows even more bruising battles over Obama's next major priorities -- health care reform, global warming legislation and a new energy bill, all issues over which the parties have long-standing differences.
Democrats in Congress are still seething at how Republicans took control of the debate by focusing on small provisions in the bill to argue that it was larded with pork.
"They're in combat mode because they lost the equivalent of 60 seats" in the last two elections, said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., who argued that GOP leaders never intended to actually compromise. "People have got to put their guns away and put their knives away. The American people want us to work together."
Republicans complained that, in the name of bipartisanship, they were being browbeaten into supporting a huge federal spending program that supported liberal policy goals.
"Does bipartisanship mean we all have to hold hands on the road to socialism?" said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "If this isn't worthy of a political debate, what is?"
Obama's bipartisan outreach might still be paying dividends for him personally. A recent Gallup poll found that 67 percent of Americans approved of his handling of the stimulus bill, while 48 percent said the same of congressional Democrats, and just 31 percent approved of the Republicans' stance.
Republicans are making a high-stakes bet on the future: By rejecting the bill, they forced Obama and Democrats to take full ownership of the plan and its aftermath. If the economy does not rebound by next year, the GOP will have a potent "I-told-you-so" argument heading into the 2010 elections.
But they also risk being seen as obstructionists. And if the economy revives within the next three years, Obama will have a powerful argument for re-election.
Obama's one-on-one negotiations with Republicans in the final days before the stimulus bill was passed could become the new model for the White House. Rather than try to sway the entire caucus or GOP leaders, he can focus on just a few moderates or lawmakers who agree with him on a given issue.
In the stimulus battle, "reaching out paid off -- we got three Republicans," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat. "Maybe the next time we'll get six."
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has a big enough majority to muscle through most legislation. In the Senate, Democrats control 58 votes -- 59 if comedian Al Franken is recognized as the winner in Minnesota -- so they need only one or two votes to avoid a filibuster and pass major bills.
Republicans are urging Obama not to take the narrow path. Rep. Mark Kirk, a moderate Republican from Illinois, said the president should include Republicans in helping draft legislation at the earliest stages, rather than let Democratic leaders dominate the process.
"The president has a significant opportunity on global warming, energy and health care to build a bipartisan majority," Kirk said. "We have substantial reason to work with him, but I don't think Nancy (Pelosi) will let us in" the negotiations.
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile(AT)sfchronicle.com. For more stories visit scrippsnews.com
Must credit the San Francisco Chronicle
Post new comment