Advice for new Republican Senate and House: Don’t be bi-partisan

Bob Siegel Bob Siegel 4 Comments


Written by Bob Siegel and originally published by Communities Digital News

SAN DIEGO, November 6, 2014 — In his Wednesday press conference, President Obama offered a predictable interpretation of Tuesday’s election results. It means Americans want their elected officials to “work as hard as they do.” I.E. The problem is not him, just Washington in general. What the people want is bi-partisanship.

Of course, long before the election, Obama reminded us that although he himself was not going to be on the ballot in November, his policies were. Evidently our president has evolved once again. Now he realizes that mid-term elections have nothing to do with his policies.

Republicans have much to celebrate after a wave bigger than anything the Beach Boys ever dreamed about. But to make the most of this historic opportunity, they would do well to ignore all talking points about “working together” and realize that they were put in power to stop a president who is out of control.

It always sounds noble to talk about “reaching across the isle.” Keep in mind that this sanctimonious unity lecture is embraced by Democrats only when they lose. When they win a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, it means “the people have spoken.” It means “elections have consequences.” But when Democrats are defeated by Republicans, it is NEVER a referendum on Democrats. Instead, it means “the people want bi-partisanship.”

Sure! That’s what’s going on! People placed Republicans in power on Tuesday night, not to stop Obama, but to merely get Washington working better on both sides.

In reality, they love Obama. After all, they put him in office twice. So they must be very happy with his job performance. The fact that they are now finally tasting his policies a little closer to the pocket book has nothing to do with it.

They haven’t stopped to figure out that although the Affordable Health Care Act was passed during Obama’s first term, most of it did not go into operation until after his 2012 re-election. They haven’t noticed that this maneuver is now starting to smell like nothing more than crafty, crooked, underhanded politics.

They aren’t bothered that their own president lied about being able to keep your own doctor and health care provider. Neither do his lies about Benghazi concern them, or the IRS scandal, or Fast and Furious.

They also admire how he ignores the Constitution and rules by fiat, illegally hiding behind a misused legal function, “Executive Order.”

And of course the president’s reaction to ISIS is not an area of concern. Nobody cares that he rushed to the golf course after offering a few obligatory comments about an American who had just been beheaded.

Because of this stellar record, people love Obama and loath Republicans. Yet, somehow, for reasons which don’t seem entirely clear, they want the man whom they admire to be held in check by the party they can’t stand.

Just imagine people stepping into their voting booths saying to themselves, “Obama has done a remarkable job and Republicans are too extreme. So what we need is to put more Republicans in office. That way, the good policies of Obama will be tempered with the bad policies of the Republicans.”

Does any thinking person really accept this as the true interpretation of Tuesday night?

Our new Republican congress would do well to listen to the people who put them in office instead of losing sleep over how their actions will be viewed the next morning by the New York Times editorial page, or Democratic pollsters, or the President himself.

That’s not to say that Republicans in office should offer nothing to Obama at all. Why not buy him a new set of golf clubs? That way he can have something to do while they run the country.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ 1170 San Diego and columnist. Details of his show can be found at


Comments 4

  1. I couldn’t disagree more. This article, with a few minor changes could have been written in 2010, but then what happened in 2012? Actually, the article could have also been written by a Democrat in 2008 or 2012. The pendulum will continue to swing wildly until one party or the other actually stops catering to their most extreme supporters and starts governing from the center where most of us reside.

    There are a number of very popular, common sense items that may not resonate with the extremes of one party or the other, but are favored by a vast majority of Americans. In no particular order and certainly not a comprehensive list:

    1. Raise the federal minimum wage.
    2. Build the Keystone Pipeline.
    3. Comprehensive immigration reform that STARTS with securing the border.
    4. Lower tax rates AND close loopholes.
    5. Modify (don’t repeal) the Affordable Care Act.

    If the new Republican Majority can pass laws that most Americans agree with, they may be able to break the “every two-year cycle.” If not, it will be a wrong-thinking Democrat writing a similar post after the 2016 election.

  2. I disagree Bob. The majority party should first send legislation which Democratic Congress members will embrace–let the President veto the bills.

    I’d start with these, in this order:

    1- Build the Keystone pipeline
    2- secure the border
    3- repeal unpopular parts of Obamacare (ultimately, it will require a full repeal)
    4- overhaul the tax code to have a flatter tax rates and less deductions so that everyone can file their taxes on one page.. This one should be BIG and should be designed to go to the President’s desk in the Spring of 2016.

    Tax reform will be wildly popular and Democratic candidates will be forced to go on the record of supporting it or not. If they do, Rand Paul can take credit for good Republican ideas. If they don’t, Rand Paul can use it against Ms. Rodham-Clinton in the general election.

  3. Post

    When did I say that they should not try to pass bills such as those? What they must not do is compromise their convictions. And when Obama does his veto, they must not soften on him.

  4. Post

    In many of my other articles I have defined “bi-partisanship” as it is used by Democrats and Obama himself. Namely, that Republicans should do things exactly their way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.