I hope D.C. Democrats understand that Republicans don't have any intention on being "bipartisan"

[redstate_democrat]

or working with them on anything. They're trying to get the WH back in 2012 and they're gonna have their strongest horse running this time. This is not a joke to them. All this unity and change don't mean a damn thing to them. The next four years will be all about positioning themselves to place all of the blame for the coming deep recession on Democrats. They will block any meaningful change while we hem and haw over being bipartisan with them.

I was watching Tweety this evening and some presidential historian was on there talking about Obama should not try to "change too much" because of the financial crisis. He said Obama shouldn't try to do Healthcare Reform or his energy plan, or his tax cuts or basically anything he ran on. He suggested minor changes, something that could be done with an executive order. Tweety didn't like that. He said that if Obama didn't get his stuff through in the first year, it wouldn't get done.

Think about 2010. If Obama doesn't get through even one of the things he ran on, Republicans will run on that. Then after that, the presidential campaigns will kick off. By then the atmosphere in D.C. will be TOO partisan to even get anything done. Here comes 2012. If Obama hasn't done anything about Health Care, Energy, or these tax cuts, the Republicans will run on that with their strongest horse. They are in it to win it in 2012.

That's why Obama shouldn't really be timid when it comes to pushing his agenda. It's okay to try to be bipartisan, but obviously Obama was given a mandate. I hope Democrats in D.C. understand that the Republicans have no intention on returning the favor. I hope they act accordingly.

[sampsonblk]

1. K & R

Damn straight

[Not a robought]

2. Believe it n/t

[AndyTiedye]

3. Republicans Don't do Bipartisan, Republicans Don't Do "Honeymoons"

[redstate_democrat]

6. I hope the Democrats understand this by now.

Republicans just don't do that. First of all, 97% of Republicans in D.C. don't respect President Obama. And a lot of the traditional MSM figures also don't respect him either. Forget about this so-called "liberal media" crap that's been spun out there. These jokers knew that America was gonna take a timeout from the Republicans after Bush a long time ago. Obama seemed like a good "stand in" for them until America could once again forget how horrible Republicans are with running government. The MSM will be more than happy to assist the GOP with the undermining that is sure to come. Every mistake will be highlighted. Every stumble will be given enormous amounts of press. Every little thing will be nitpicked. If Obama doesn't deliver on what he promised in his campaign, they will literally crucify him in the media. They'll forget all about their own pundits suggesting that he not rush his agenda through. Then the tables will be turned in 2010-2012. And to add insult to injury, they'll take Obama's 2008 campaign playbook, tweak it, and run it against him.

That's why we should not be lulled into some false sense of security here. They don't want Obama changing anything they can't easily reverse.

[AndyTiedye]

8. The MSM Also Gives the GOP a Pass When They Filibuster EVERYTHING

[political_Dem]

11. I hope they do too.

No more rolling over and playing dead for these fools. Enough is enough!!! :grr:

[4themind]

4. Cooperate when necessary but that's it

That's the way I see it. And by "necessary" I mean when you need to get 60 senators on your side, if you get that you're golden, if not, there needs to be an alternative to doing nothing or having all night sleep overs preventing other shit from getting done; Ideally you give up just enough to get enough people to your side but no more.

[Trajan]

5. They are all about 'Bipartisanship' when they are the minority party ...

But when they take majority control, they cannot seem to get enough of SHOVING DEMOCRATS FACES IN THE MUD .... and walking over their motionless torsos ...

I don't mind Obama 'pretending' to be bipartisan (and there are deft ways of promoting that image), but I expect the Democratic party is going to ACT Democrat, and shove aside the protestations of the 'minority' republicans as they implement a reasonable LIBERAL agenda ....

[RagAss]

7. ...and start by removing Lieberman from that chairmanship....

[redstate_democrat]

9. If they have an ounce of sense they will

I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

[annabanana]

22. I'm with you there. . It's too convenient a spot for undermining Barack's

direction on the Iraq mess.. to say nothing of a roadblock in what are NECESSARY investigations into the rampant lawbreaking of the "loyal B*shies".

How will we be able to put any trust in the Justice Department again after their blatant politicization?

[political_Dem]

10. That's why we cannot let them have one inch--especially in an Obama administration.

The Republicans are too busy mistaking "kindness for weakness" right now. They underestimated Obama during the campaigns. They are underestimating him now. We cannot afford to go easy on them, nor forgive their excesses during the Bush Administration.

To do so would only bring our country down further. The conservatives are simply not to be trusted in any way, shape or form--especially when they think that Obama is not "worthy" of being President. That's their party line, even now.

[MadBadger]

12. The Democrats dont need 30 Republicans to support each bill. They can get 5 and claim bipartisanship

[No Elephants]

13. Not to worry. Obama will not be timid--or foolhardy.

[depakid]

14. I guess we'll find out in the next several months

whether they've learned.

Two things that will be early signs- and send a message:

1. Harry Reid;

If he's still the majoroity "leader" after amassing such an astonishingly poor record; and

2. If Lieberman retains his chairmanship of Homeland Security

then look for it to be a long two years.

[cameozalaznick]

15. Who praytell, do you consider their "strongest horse?" nt

[annabanana]

23. right now?. . . lol

[WinkyDink]

16. Exactly. To a Republican, "bi-partisan" means "Republican". Why should we compromise with EVIL?

Sure, McCain "reached across the aisle"; why not? He reached to US, to DEMOCRATS.

It would be UTTER FOLLY to include FAILED and DESTRUCTIVE REPUBLICAN "ideas" (AKA, plans to loot, spy, cheat, pollute, poison, corrupt, you get my drift) in any Democratic programs!!

MUST WE STAY STUPID FOREVER??????

[rucky]

20. Just like "unite" meant "go along with everything we say"

right after 9/11

[quaker bill]

17. No one seems to get it

You do what you can to invite them to get on board with rational plans to address the problems the people elected you to fix. It is far easier to point out their irrational obstructive behavior if you have given them a clear and simple rational alternative that would actually serve the people.

Efforts toward "bipartisan" cooperation are not necessarily designed to obtain republican votes. Sometimes they are designed to simply showcase irrational opposition to reasonable and beneficial change.

[Romulox]

18. Congressional Dems are using the Repubs as "bad cops"

Notice "bipartisanship" wasn't even an issue when Dems and Repubs were agreeing to hand over $2.2 trillion to Financials in closed door sessions.

But now, Chief Bailout Orchestrater Chris Dodd can blame the lack of cooperation from the Repubs for preventing a measly $25 billion to Detroit? Not credible. :eyes:

[rucky]

19. Fortunately we have a bunch of new Senators and Congress critters

who aren't caught up in that cycle of abuse.

And many of the abusers are out on their ears.

[slackmaster]

21. Sounds amazingly similar to McCarthy-era anti-Soviet ravings

"Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even his own."