As soon as Democrats win, NOW everything is about bi-partisanship

[jsamuel]

Just venting...

:mad:

I am not sure how I feel about the media's sudden concern about bi-partisanship now that Democrats are in control.

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Did you really believe the MSM would be nice to us?

They will always kick us around as long as their monopolies exist.

[Duer 157099]

2. And here's the irony: the nicer we are, the more it confirms what

they suspected

They don't respect "nice" and "cooperation" -- the respect ruthless and cutthroat

This is how the Dems are perceived as going to be weak on security/terrorism, and how they deal with the Whitehouse will be the first indication.

It's not pretty but it's true

[Erika]

4. Yeah, the GOP and Taliban are very much alike

But now we have adults in charge and can spank the GOP into submission. At last.

[Erika]

3. Exactly, Rant

They refused to listen to the Dems at all or even include them in hearings, and now they want bipartisan feel good meetings. Screw them.

[casus belli]

5. As soon as Democrats win, we start eating each other alive

First, impeachment. No not impeachment, first stop the War. No, not first stop the War, first alternative energy. No, not first alternative energy, we've got to repeal the tax cuts.

Fuck.

I know it's been awhile since we were in power, but please God let us sort this shit out soon.

[Erika]

9. What are you talking about?

There's been no such discussions.

[Anser]

11. Not really seeing that

Disagreement over top priorities is not a big deal. That's our role, to keep discussion alive about the issues that are important to us, the majority.

Of course instead of worrying about what the new congress will or won't accomplish, we could instead get our own acts together and try to line up a president who won't veto them at every turn for '08.

[Erika]

12. Huh? What disagreements?

A president who won't veto?

[Anser]

16. The pres who won't veto...

point was just a reminder that the biggest stumbling block to change we have right now is the current pres and his power to veto (go figure.)

[Erika]

17. Did you just notice he's in office? n/t

[Anser]

20. No...

But before Democrats weren't the majority in congress. Therefore there weren't many bills getting passed for change that he'd want to veto. The republican rubber stamp went both ways.

[Erika]

22. Republican rubber stamp went "both" ways

Huh?

[Anser]

24. Both ways - Executive Legislative

The repub congress rubber stamped the repub president's actions without any oversight. The repub president rubber stamped the repub's congress without vetoing for his first 5 years only to have his first be the bipartisan stem cell bill.

[lapfog_1]

26. so many trees, so little time - n/t

[On the Road]

6. It is a Quality of Empty, Selfish, Unprincipled People

They can turn on a dime and shamelessly promote the opposite of what they said thiry seconds ago. It's really breathtaking to see.

[Bucky]

7. What's encouraging is that Democrats believe in bipartisanship when they're in power.

It's almost like God is saying the Republicans belong in the minority; bt really it's just the voters saying that. There is order and harmony in the universe when Republicans take the back seat.

[Anser]

8. To be fair...

We now have a Democratic legislative branch. We also have a Republican in the executive branch. It sort of makes some sense to talk about bipartisanship.

When we win back the White House in '08, then we can replace talk of working together to get things done. Then the discussion can move on beyond shoring up the liberties that have been eroded over the past 6 years. We can move forward once again toward increasing liberty, furthering equality, having a society that the rest of the world envies rather than hates, and taking care of the members of our society who need it.

In a word, back to Progress.

For now, lets do what we can in a bipartisan environment (i.e. what can we get passed despite presidential veto power.)

[Erika]

10. Why didn't W bring up bipatisanship 6 years ago?

Now, you comment on it?

[Anser]

13. I think my prior title sums it up

"To be fair"

That's what seperates us from them, we're fair.

That's why Bush didn't bring it up 6 years ago. But it was still a factor. The feces really hit the fan when the repubs took congress. We didn't lose habeas, approve torture, and instate a theocracy (to name just a few things) until after the repubs had all the branches.

[Erika]

15. Then why didn't you bring it up six years ago?

Out of curiousity.

[Anser]

19. Hmm?

How do you know I didn't? (Other than that there was no DU at that point perhaps)

But really, I'm not sure what you take exception to in my post. It is just a simple matter of the form of our Gov't. If the Congress tries to pass a truly progressive bill it will likely get vetoed by *. It will then go back to congress and only pass with a 2/3s majority. Sadly, we do not have that. Therefore, whether we like it or not * still plays a role in the legislative process.

[Erika]

21. W has his legacy at risk

That is what he'll be bartering with. He's lame duck and can only hope to salvage something through bartering.

[Anser]

23. I agree

I thought that the bartering process you speak of was what democrats like Pelosi are talking about when they use the word bipartisanship. No matter how you look at it though, things are on the move in the right direction.

[me b zola]

14. Amazing, init?

[Erika]

18. Yep Utterly amazing

[tiptoe]

25. Dems *must* pursue prosecution to the fullest extent. *Co == murderers.

To hell with Pelosi and Conyers and Fitzgerald, if they do not protect and defend life.

This is more than Politics.