Sorry, Nancy, but how can you possibly proclaim that "if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan"

Easy, Steve,

I'll Let Grover Norquist explain it to you:

On Wednesday, President George W. Bush expressed his desire to heal the nation's bitter partisan divide, telling Americans his second term is "a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation." That same day, a major Bush ally -- Grover Norquist, President of the Americans for Tax Reform -- told the Washington Post that Democrats must accept the finality of their powerlessness. To illustrate his point, Norquist compared Democrats in Congress to farm animals that have been neutered, saying, "when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate."

Whatever the next four years holds, I seriously doubt it will involve a bipartisan spirit.

The liberal Chicago political machine does not share power. It is also being heavily represented in Obama's transition team, and his executive appointments.

The leftist illuminati will not be characterized by a spirit of sharing.

Not surprising. Pelosi's idea of bipartisanship is bringing KY for her nightstick.

New definition of Bipartisan

The Senate and the House agree on everything.

Conservator -

Don't really care a whit what Grover Norquist did or didn't say. You cannot tell me or any conservative that President Bush did not make a concerted effort at reaching across the aisle, not only in 2004, but from the very beginning of his first term. And you cannot, in honest reflection, say otherwise.

Who did he ask to write and sponsor key education legislation? Why, it was - hold your hat, sir - Ted Kennedy.

Immigration ring a bell?

He held fast on National Security, yes. And that angered no small number in DC.

But on the whole, he was much more accommodating than he is given credit for.
Ask a conservative, not Nancy Pelosi.

But they know he can get back at them by joining the welcoming arms of the GOP, which could help them regain the majority in 2 years. They are so childish, like all those who remain Democrat today. Sad.

Steve is correct: President Bush held out the olive branch to Democrats, and the Democrats responded by taking the branch and trying to hit him with it. Speaker Pelosi is nothing but a bomb thrower. As a political leader she's a total failure. The Democrats in general, and Pelosi in particular, may find that being a bomb-thrower is much easier that actually doing something positive.

For one thing, the Democratic party has no governing principles save one: they are against the Republicans. For more than a decade their governing philosophy has been to wait for Republicans to propose something, and then they oppose it. After 2006, they were the party that controlled the budget. Using the power of the purse, they could control the political agenda in numerous ways. In particular, theywere supposed to have pulled the plug on the war in Iraq in a matter a weeks by de-funding it. They didn't.

Pelosi is just positioning and trying to act tough. Democrats know that she and Senator Reid may not be the kind of people that they need to actually implement policy, and she's probably concerned that people will be considering who will be the next speaker of the House in the next Congress. Could be time for a change. Let's hope so.

Steve

Good points.

I'm still trying to figure out the dynamic between Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel, the COS.

On the one hand, I can see the traditional honeymoon between the newly elected POTUS and Congress (even if they are of the same party) lasting until after innauguration given Emanuel's relationship with Pelosi and his former House seniority.

On the hand, you have to wonder if Pelosi is going to cooperate with this White House at all? Or is Emanuel giving up such valuable seniority in the House to be her minder?

Should be interesting.

{ { { { { { { { { {{{OBAMA SUPREME COURT}}} } } } } } } } } }

Put on your Floaties® there's a Progressive tsunami washing over every one and every thing.

Forty years of unbridled Liberalism -- wooohoooooooooo!

Reject Obamunism

Forty years of unbridled Liberalism -- wooohoooooooooo!

Is that what those clowns keep telling you? "You been hosed, Tommy!"

The Dems are the party of "No!" Without something to obstruct, it's not an effective M.O.

If anybody is familiar with improv, you know how far a scene can go when you say "no."

Bipartisanship accoprding to the dhimmies means recruiting RINOs to sellout the GOP. For Republicans it means surrendering to the dhimmies even while holding a majority.

I have no use for this concept. Democracy means a contest between ideas. How can one compromise principles without adopting a bastard result that statisfies no one?

"Forty years of unbridled Liberalism -- wooohoooooooooo!"

Someone has been reading lee ward again.

Why should the democratically elected Democratic congress pander to a noisy minority (conservatives/Republicans)?

Know what word is easy to type really fast even when you're pretty high and euphoric and sh*t? Mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate mandate

(Acting like an 8 year old is more fun than being bored. Sorry.)

Bipartisanship to the Democrats mean only one thing - Washington will be a bipartisan town when there is only one party to deal with and that is the Democratic party. The total destruction or at least the perpetual relegation of the Republican Paty to minority status is the only way to true bipartisanship.

"(Acting like an 8 year old is more fun than being bored. Sorry.)"

And you've demonstrated that aptly on too many occasions. Why apologize now?

Actually Marc, Lee is over at Blue calling for the ousting of Lieberman right now.
Hitler and Stalin consolidated their power before they pulled out the knives on their former allies... but Lee and his ilk have always had the same impulses, but lacked the patience and discipline needed for success.

You must understand that to Pelosi, "bi-partisan" is a codeword for "Republicans surrendering to the Democrats' will on every issue". That's how she can forecast more "bipartisanship" in the next Congress, as she expects the Republicans to simply surrender so that the Democrats can ramrod through every bill they ever dreamed of. That's the kind of change SHE can believe in!