Author: Tom Robertshaw

I was reading Mark 3 and came across 24-25.

²⁴ If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ²⁵ If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

These verses were used to discredit the Pharisees who were telling Jesus healing on the Sabbath was sin and that He had to getting his power from Satan.

But, they have been purloined by many, ole’ Abe Lincoln among them.

Today our politics are divided, wrapped with vile accusations on both sides, inflamed with “Op Research” or fake news, on and on. Both sides have moved away from the center, in equal measures, see study by Pew a couple of years ago. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/.

We need a leader, or leaders from both sides to hit Washington upside the head with a wet cod. We have always disagreed about what to do about a problem, always will. My goodness, can’t we move towards one another a bit.

Go to Problem Solver Caucus, https://www.nolabels.org/blog/problem-solvers-caucus-calls-legislation-tackles-tax-reform-infrastructure-together/.

God Bless to all, and to our experiment in government, may it not fall,  per the admonition from Ben Franklin.

QUOTATION:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION:

The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention. McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

 

The WSJ, October 17, 2017, headlined an editorial with the above title. Since SCOTUS decided 5-4 that corporations can spend money on elections (not directly to candidates) the Democrat Party and others have been dodging the pieces of sky falling on them.

The issue was large in the 2016 cycle, HRC and BS (I love his initials) were all over it. “Special interests are going to buy elections….”

Well, the results are in. And as usual in politics, the facts trash all the hype. The top twenty donors in the 2015-16 cycle donated $607 million dollars, $398 million went to Democrat focused super PAC’s, $208 million went to Republican focused super PACS’s. The top donor was Thomas Steyer-$89 million (D); the second was Sheldon Adelson, $77 million (R).

Of the $1.8 BILLION that was sent to super PAC’s, only $85 million, 4.7% came from corporations. WILL SOMEONE WHO CATERWAULED SO MUCH ISSUE A RETRACTION, BERNIE, HILLARY, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, WASHINGTON POST, NYT, ANYONE!!!!!!  Of course they won’t;

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  M Twain

Maybe John Paul Stevens’ 90 page dissent against the ruling can be used in law schools as a caution about blathering on without understanding the facts.

The No Labels organization has been around for a number of years, Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman being the headliners; they promote bi-partisanship in our Congress, https://www.nolabels.org/.

Recently thirty or so congressmen formed the problem solver caucus, with equal numbers of republicans and democrats, to promote bipartisanship.

The PEW Trust did a study 2 years ago that detailed the drift from the center, by both sides in equal measures.

Tired of the caterwauling in DC? Look into the National Strategic Agenda promoted by the caucus, all ideas with surveyed data, bi-partisan support.

The following article appeared in the WSJ on March 29th.

How Trump Can Break the Gridlock

Bill Galston, WSJ, March 28

Donald Trump wasn’t elected to perpetuate the ideologically driven gridlock of the past six years. But his decision to pursue a one-party approach on health care threatened to do just that. Now that this approach has failed, however, Mr. Trump has an opportunity to begin again with a more inclusive strategy, as many members of his own party are urging.

Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent, a leader of the center-right Republican Tuesday Group, told NBC on Sunday that “in order to reform health care in this country, we are going to have to do it in a durable, sustainable way and in a bipartisan manner.”

Ohio’s Gov. John Kasich declared the same day on CNN that “you cannot have major changes in major programs affecting things like health care without including Democrats from the very beginning.” Mr. Kasich placed this point in a broader context: “The Republicans tried to do it with just Republicans. It doesn’t work like that in our country. We are not a parliamentary system.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking Saturday at a town hall in Columbia, S.C., said that what should happen next is that “the president should reach out to Democrats, I should reach out to Democrats, and we should say ‘Let’s get a shot at doing this together, because it ain’t working doing it by ourselves.’ ” Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins expressed optimism about this strategy: “With the demise of the House bill, there’s a real window of opportunity for a bipartisan approach to health care.”

Why didn’t the House Freedom Caucus support the GOP health bill? “I have no idea,” Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget director, told NBC on Sunday. “I know the Freedom Caucus. I helped found it. I never thought it would come to this.” Mr. Mulvaney must have slept through the events that culminated in John Boehner’s resignation.

The question now is whether the Trump administration will allow its entire agenda to be held hostage by a minority faction of Republicans who will accept nothing less than policy purity—as they define it. This is the inevitable consequence of trying to legislate with the votes of only one party. But there are signs that the White House is contemplating a course correction. “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told Fox News. “It’s time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board.”

It is not clear, however, that Mr. Priebus understands the implications of his statement. Real bipartisanship means getting the parties together around a table at the beginning of the legislative process. Asking Democrats to sign on to bills that Republicans have already drafted won’t work; not enough of them will break ranks to change the dynamic.

In today’s polarized climate, real bipartisanship needs to make it impossible for the most intransigent forces to veto potential agreements. This means building coalitions from the center out, beginning with the forces in both parties that do not reject the very legitimacy of compromise.

If the White House gets serious about this approach, it won’t need to start from scratch. Thirty-six representatives, evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans, have formed the independent Problem Solvers Caucus, co-chaired by New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer and New York Republican Tom Reed. (Full disclosure: I am a co-founder of No Labels, a bipartisan group that some years ago set in motion the process that led eventually to the formation of this caucus.)

Many of these elected officials have been working together across party lines for years and can boast some modest legislative successes. Now they are developing common approaches to many of the forthcoming issues, beginning with the resolution to continue government funding beyond its current expiration date of April 28.

On Feb. 8, all 36 Problem Solvers sent President Trump a letter requesting a meeting to discuss where they could work together with his administration. The signatories pointed out that “the most consequential and long-lasting reforms are usually bipartisan, from the passage of Social Security and Medicare to the last time comprehensive tax reform in 1986 was achieved.”

They declared their willingness to begin working immediately with the White House on tax reform and infrastructure legislation. “Addressing either issue on a broad bipartisan basis,” they said, could “give a significant boost to our economy and provide Americans with confidence that government can work for them.” As Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.), a member of the Problem Solvers, recently said: “I think that’s going to have to be the new coalition.”

If Mr. Trump wants a strategy that can break the gridlock and promote the common good, he knows where he can start.