Spare us the bipartisanship

(Cross-posted from Think it Through)

Before President Obama prostrateshimself at the altar of bipartisanship, he should consider that working with political opponents should be a means to an end - not an end in itself.

When someone calls for bipartisanship, I immediately wonder:  Is the person not able to argue for the idea on its own merits?   Bipartisanship has come to mean putting aside your political convictions, if you have any.  This usually leads to disastrous results.

  • Bipartisanship kick-started the war in Iraq. So strong was the call for bipartisanship that Democratic and Republican Senators were willing to ignore the report from the United Nations weapons inspector who reported that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. The Senate voted a lop-sided 77 to 23 to give President Bush the green light for an unnecessary war.  This was not unlike the bipartisan Senate support - only 2 nay votes -- for the Tonkin Gulf resolution President Johnson used to send Americans to die in another lost cause.

  • Bipartisanship produced the Patriot Act, which the Senate passed 98 to 1 shortly after 9/11. Members of both parties admitted they did not read the act they voted on, even though they were warned it took away civil liberties.  The need to show bipartisanship overtook their responsibility to uphold the Constitution, protect the rights of their constituents, or even the duty to know what they were enacting.

  • Bipartisanship became an alibi for Democrats and Republicans on the Senate and House intelligence committees, and the leaders of each party, who remained silent for four years even though they knew the president was authorizing illegal wiretapping of American citizens.  When the New York Times uncovered the government eavesdropping without a warrant, the Democrats (Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, and Harry Reid) who had known all along about the surveillance on American citizens feigned outrage -- a bit like the Vichy general in the film Casablanca who is "shocked" that there is gambling going on in the casino.   In Washington, this type of behavior is excused because it is done in the interests of bipartisanship.  It reminds me of the words of the late comedian George Carlin, who said "bipartisanship usually means that a larger than usual deception is being carried out."

Where did we go wrong?  The word partisan took on darker connotations in the late 1980s and early `90s when Newt Gingrich showed Republicans that they could regain entrance to the halls of power through the doorway of the politics of personal destruction.  Instead of engaging in partisan debates on issues, Gingrich made partisanship synonymous with character assassination.

This page in the Republican handbook was practiced with gusto by President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft and many others in the Bush administration.  The vice president, in particular, often accused any Democrat who disagreed with him as helping terrorists.  After hearing these attacks for 8 years, Americans decided that the administration was a one-trick act.  Eventually they got bored and annoyed with the act.

Possibly in reaction to the Bush years, the public embraced Obama's non-belligerent personal style.   By being too cool to personally attack others, he gives people confidence that he can run the country better than those who relied on name-calling and fear-baiting to stay in power.

I'm not suggesting we can or should make politics overly polite.  Nor do I have much hope that we can return to a time when members of both parties actually listened to each other and formed opinions based on Congressional debates.  I can remember working on Capitol Hill when Democrats and Republicans would stop what they were doing to listen to Republican Barber Conable of New York talk about economic issues in the House chamber, or when senators of both parties would go to the Senate floor to listen to Senator Sam Nunn discuss military defense matters.

Those days may be gone.  But it is not too late to agree that there are some strong differences between Democrats and Republicans, and to suggest that Democrats and Republicans debate the differences rather than call each other names.

Refusing to personally attack your opponents' motives is a step in the right direction, but insisting that Democrats and Republicans have to take the same position on issues in order to create anything of value is simply wrong.

Congress and the nation have reached most of our important milestones through tough partisan debates, not bipartisan sublimation of debate.  Our civil rights laws, social programs, and decisions about America's international involvement have often taken years of serious disagreements and partisan votes before Congress formed a decision.  Progress usually comes about by attracting some support from across the political aisle, but landmark votes are not always consensus votes.

President Obama should continue to include Republicans when inclusion serves his goals.  But please spare us the angst over seeking bipartisanship for its own sake.  The president and the Congress are better off as partisans, fighting for their ideas.

John Russonello is a partner with Belden Russonello & Stewart:Public Opinion Research and Strategic Communications in Washington, DC. He writes the blog "Think it Through."

Tags: Bipartisanship (all tags)



Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Sure, if you'll spare me the anti-postpartisanship.


by QTG 2009-02-03 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

How about we go PARTISAN.

by redwagon 2009-02-03 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

And break a campaign promise? That'll go over well.

by Nathan Empsall 2009-02-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Even if Obama works with the reprobate Repukes in congress, they will say he didn't.  So why bother?  The truth doesn't matter to those people, or the media who will report "both sides of the story," even if one is bullshit.

by reggie44pride 2009-02-05 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

well we can just add it to the already very long list he has compiled so far.

by Zapata 2009-02-06 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

I agree completely.  Bipartisanship is date rape.  The Republicans are not genuine negotiating partners; they just want us to let our guard done so they can screw us over.  

by TheUnknown285 2009-02-03 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Two thoughts come to mind. The first is that comparisons to something as heinous and awful as rape are completely inappropriate. The second, however, is even more inappropriate, but I'll say it anyway: the Republican caucus is so small and ineffectual, and will only get smaller in 2010 (in the Senate, anyway), that when I thought of the Republicans raping the Democrats, I thought of midgets ganging up on Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant. A stirring visual, no?

by Nathan Empsall 2009-02-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Some of our better environmental laws and agencies, like the EPA, FLPMA, and the Clean Water Act were created during the Nixon administration through bipartisan efforts.

Shocking, I know.  

by reggie44pride 2009-02-05 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

The Clean Water Act passed on a Congressional override of Nixon's veto.

But more importantly, Nixon was a Republican President with a Democratic Congress, so bipartisanship wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. Obama does not need to waste his time this way, and he should concentrate on undoing the damage the GOP has done to our country over the last 8 years.

by LakersFan 2009-02-05 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

The Clean Water Act passed on a Congressional override of Nixon's veto.

With nothing but Democrats?  Or did Republicans vote on this too?

Obama shouldn't waste his time appeasing the right wing.  They are a waste of time.  Unfortunately, he's already caving to them when there's no reason to, and congressional Democrats are even worse.

The stimulus bill is nothing more than repackaged failed Bush policies.

Some progressive congress/presidency.

by reggie44pride 2009-02-08 05:36PM | 0 recs

Date rape? That was really out of line and in case you haven't noticed, he isn't being bipartisan right now. He's yelling at the obstruction repugs!!! Geez louise.

by AlwaysALiberal 2009-02-05 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship
Dems are bending over... and for what? ZERO votes from repugs.
Bipartisanship only works when both parties are working in good faith.
by devil 2009-02-03 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

True. And I imagine we'll get a number of votes in the Senate, and probably (hopefully?) a few House votes after conference.

by Nathan Empsall 2009-02-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
It's gonna be a long 4 years

Because the O-man isn't gonna stop driving some people insane with his post-partisan mission for at least that long.

My advice: Embrace it.

by QTG 2009-02-03 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: It's gonna be a long 4 years

post partisanship is a completely meaningless catch phrase.

by Teacher1956 2009-02-05 12:29PM | 0 recs
No, thank you. I like it just fine

I voted for Obama in the Ohio primary because I expected him to behave, as President, in exactly this fashion.

I want engagement and partnership.  I want a  meeting of the minds in a marketplace of ideas.  This won't be easy to create as most Republicans (and no small number of Democrats) participate in bad faith in bipartisan undertakings.

I give Obama better odds than anyone else at maybe, just maybe, getting the two sides to constructively oppose one another to some useful purpose.

by Reaper0Bot0 2009-02-03 02:03PM | 0 recs
You see, I thought he was just

bullsheeting that stuff.

The Republicans simply cannot be trusted and cannot be negotiated with.  When in the minority, they have a single goal:  grind government to a halt.

They are obstacles to be overcome, not partners in policymaking.

by Geekesque 2009-02-03 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: You see, I thought he was just

Not all of them, Geekesque, just most of them.

by Reaper0Bot0 2009-02-03 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You see, I thought he was just

Who are these "good faith" Republicans in the U.S. Senate?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-02-04 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You see, I thought he was just

Dead and/or retired.

by reggie44pride 2009-02-05 03:40PM | 0 recs

do you not know where you stand?  Are you ashamed of being a democrat?

by Teacher1956 2009-02-05 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: why?

Maybe because he does not thing republican is synonymous with evil. Maybe because, like Obama, he believes good things can come out of a constructive debate.

Maybe also because he believes that it is bad when one party, regardless of whether it is us or them, crams their entire agenda down the throat of America without legitimate debate, opposition, or negotiation.

We just got done with 8 years of that. Do you really think 4 years of doing it in the other direction will make things any better?

by JDF 2009-02-05 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: why?

The flaw in your argument is that there is no indication that the Republicans are acting in good faith.  Not one rep. representative agreed with the stimulus bill?  Do you really believe that?  And the arguments being made by them against the stimulus bill are the same old republican tricks- lie, obfuscate, etc.  Let the republicans come to the table in good faith and I bet very few people would complain.  But you seem to confuse bipartisanship with condoning the republicans' obstructionist behavior.  And please don't default to straw man arguments- eg, people who think the Dems should stand for their principles believe the republicans are evil.  We can have a more elevated discussion than that, can't we?

by orestes 2009-02-05 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: why?

That's fine that Obama thinks something can come out of a constructive debate, but you are kidding yourself if you think that's what Congressional Republicans want.  They want to make sure the least amount of his agenda passes, point to his failures (which they'll label everything, including the stuff they support), and hope the brain dead media buys into their side of the story.

by reggie44pride 2009-02-05 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

What is it with everyone wanting to go all Tom Delay on the Republicans?  If it makes no difference either way, then I have absolutely no problem with making the GOP look like the assholes.

by Jess81 2009-02-03 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

I don't hear anyone on this site arguing that the Dems should behave like Delay.  They are arguing that the Dems should not fall into the bipartisan trap of compromising on core issues/values.  Your equation of this approach with Delay's thuggery demonstrates that you have bought the media meme on this one- if you don't compromise your core values you are being an obstructionist partisan.  That's simply the wrong way to view this, in my opinion.

by orestes 2009-02-03 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Unfortunately, as you seem to believe that I was arguing in favor of compromising core principles, you've obviously been uncritically swallowing a few too many Sunday morning political shows.

by Jess81 2009-02-03 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

No, my point is that the diarist is arguing that we should not be bipartisan for the sake of bipartisanship; that Dems should stick to their values/beliefs.  You are the one who conflates this with Tom Delay's tactics.  That is the media meme I believe you have bought into- that not being bipartisan is the same as being like Delay.  Nowehere did I accuse you of being in favor of compromising core principles.  For the record, I cannot be bothered with the Sunday morning talk shows.  

by orestes 2009-02-04 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

I think you've clearly bought into the meme that the Obama administration is being unreasonably post-partisan then, or is compromising any more than your standard White House.  You've probably been watching too much Wolf Blitzer for your own good.

by Jess81 2009-02-04 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Why are you acting so defensive?  Are you 12?  Your comment is completely unresponsive.  If you are able to demonstrate how my comments reflect those memes you mention, feel free to do so.  But it doesn't add anything to the discussion to respond with, I know you are, but what am I...

by orestes 2009-02-04 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

because the goal is protect obama first.

by bruh3 2009-02-04 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship
Not going all Tom Delay on the GOP? YOu want to bet?
I don't know about going all Tom Delay on the Republcians, but everybody in the liberal blogosphere certainly want to go all John Birch on Obama.
by spirowasright 2009-02-03 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Very enjoyable post.

by Charles Lemos 2009-02-03 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

You better think this through. A guy named bush and cheney already tried your idea.

by Politicalslave 2009-02-04 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

And the bipartisanship now is no different, from what happened with bush/chaney.

Repugs getting what they want in the stimulus bill ... and still not voting for it.

by devil 2009-02-04 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

That's a bit of a strawman argument.  We're not in this situation necessarily because of Bush and Cheney's partisanship but because their ideas sucked.  It was more of where the partisanship led as opposed to the partisanship itself.  Democrats being bipartisan now leads us in the same general direction that Bush and Cheney's partisanship took us.

by TheUnknown285 2009-02-04 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

If Team Obama believes in a stimulus bill they should pass a good stimulus bill.

If it's just something to do to prove they're trying then... let's go slowly.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-02-04 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

AND PULLED THE COUNTRY RIGHT! Jeesh, this is how politics works.  You win you get to pull back in the other direction.  To do otherwise is just cutesy posturing for re-election.... or a total lack of party ideals.

by Teacher1956 2009-02-05 12:33PM | 0 recs

This is a very insightful diary. Notice that the Republicans are always partisan when they are in power and bipartisan when the Democrats are in power. The Democrats are always bipartisan.

I've been following the news for decades now. I've noticed that a Republican president can dominate politics when the GOP has about 40% of Congress, while a Democratic president needs about about 70% of Congress to be Democratic. For whatever reasons, Republicans are better bargainers than Democrats. This really breaks my heart.

by Zzyzzy 2009-02-04 07:42AM | 0 recs

As I have said before when the stimulus passed the house.  This bill has turned into an opportunity to build on Obama's political capital by vetoing the junk bill.  On the other hand it has become something that will cost him political capital to sign and he has lost his mantra of hope over fear.

Many may like all aspects of the bill, but don't treat the American public as idiots and sell the bill as a stimulus package.

The only thing stopping our economy from bouncing back is a punch of stuffy politicians trying to assert their importance.  It takes a progressive to turn a recession into a depression.

by Classical Liberal 2009-02-04 11:59AM | 0 recs

The only thing stopping our economy from bouncing back is a punch of stuffy politicians trying to assert their importance.

Yeah, all these job losses because people are too busy watching C-SPAN.  Lolz.  Lolz.  Lolz.

by JJE 2009-02-05 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Also About Branding

I agree with this diary.  But it's also an issue of branding.  The Democratic Party has had weak branding for years. The Republicans have been defining the Democrats since Reagan.  You can see this happening currently regarding the stimulus package.

"Bipartisanship has come to mean putting aside your political convictions, if you have any.  This usually leads to disastrous results."

Bipartisanship is a tactical trap and plays into the Republicans hands.  Standing up for Democratic principals will be portrayed as partisan but it's the only way to win.  Contrast wins.  This will help define the Democratic brand by Democrats.

We Democrats have to push our politicians to represent our political convictions.  Our Democratic politicians think of themselves as the brand.  They should be representing the brand as Republican politicians do for theirs.

by nycdem 2009-02-04 03:21PM | 0 recs
how Dems should pass bills

Democrats should never advance a compromise bill without a more progressive bill waiting in the wings.

Either a block of Republicans support the compromise of the Democrats fight hard for the truly progressive bill.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-02-04 04:36PM | 0 recs
Rec'd, for this sentence, alone....

It reminds me of the words of the late comedian George Carlin, who said "bipartisanship usually means that a larger than usual deception is being carried out."

And, the rest of the diary's pretty damn good, too!

by bobswern 2009-02-04 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Great diary. But, I wonder what will change if his circle of advisors continue to ignore how their strategy affects outcomes?

by bruh3 2009-02-04 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Brats

The adults are in charge. The brats are still around. Becoming bratty is one approach, but not the adult approach.

The Republicans are thugs, and believe in spanking first, reasoning later (when they are in authority). Democrats tend to be like the parent who we see in public who tries to reason with a kid having a tantrum. Sometimes we shake our heads and say under our breath: "Smack him, already!"

But it isn't really what we believe, is it?

by QTG 2009-02-05 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Man, I've absolutely loved these last few days.  The amount of funny coming from the left-leaning blogs and press is at an all-time high.

Please, please keep it up.

Thanks again for another LOL read. :)

by RussTC3 2009-02-05 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Spare ME the Republican (and Democrat) bashing! Better yet, let's refrain from typecasting people from either side of the aisle. I believe that only a few percent of self-acknowledged Dems or Reps are pig-headed namecallers with extreme agendas, yet these are the loud-mouths who give moderates from either side a black eye.

The truth is that the fight over politics being partisan (or bipartisan, non-partisan, or post-partisan [whatever the hell that is], ...) is just a smokescreen.  It diverts our attention from the real problem, which is that money controls government; in turn, since government sets monetary policy, the really big industries with their omnipotent lobbies get to impose policies that keep money and power in the same uber-elite hands, and force society to bear the cost.

Until we do away with all-powerful lobbies and have sensible campaign funding reform, all the name-calling is just a tool used to keep us from turning our anger (at government corruption) into action.  It's a pacifier, much as religion was Communism's opiate for the masses. Politicians don't really mind the public's impression of them as partisan hacks. They are more than willing to take a tongue-lashing as long as their lifeline (campaign contributions and Party donations) continue unabated. Mony and its intricately linked co-conspirator Power are the only things that matter to the political parties.

This is not to say that there are not any well-intended individual members of Congress; it's the fact that our two-party system has morphed into a two-headed monster with the same malevolent heart. No real change will be possible until the power/profit motive is removed from government. So-called "retired" government officials leave office one day and are working for political lobbies the next day. Power may change hands, but both hands still belong to the same creature.

How can we change the system? It becomes apparent that we must slay the two-headed beast, and to do so requires cooperation.
So long as we continue fighting amongst ourselves and not against the beast, nothing will change.

Real (and honest) Republicans and real (and honest) Democrats generally agree that the best government is one that uses a minimum of social resources to ensure and enable civil liberties, safety, and self-fulfillment. There will always be meaningful and helpful debate as to the extent to which government should guarantee certain minimal "entitlements", or minimum living standards - to put it another way. But few would likely argue that today's government is corrupt and highly wasteful, and I dare say that most Americans would prefer a government restructuring to minimize waste and corporate influence. The savings in unaccounted budgetary spending would be better directed toward social programs that can make a difference.

However, until we agree to stop being mis-directed into Blue vs. Red flame wars, we have little chance to root out the real evils (excessive corporate influence and self-serving egomaniacs) in government.  If we care to have a say in our future, we need to work together and slay the beast. The blame game and name-calling waste precious energy that could otherwise be used to tame (or even kill) the beast. Call and write your congressional  officials as often as you can, and demand accountability for their actions. Seek out third party organizations (Green Party, National Party, Libertarian Party, etc.) and refuse to support the two-headed beast. Most importantly, think and act for yourself; be your own advocate! The two parties in power now no longer truly represent the will of the people (otherwise, where is the outcry overy $350 billion dollars that both groups allowed to slip through the fingers of Paulsen and Kashkari?) Where is the requirement for any part of the new stimulus bill to show economic viability just as the Big Three automakers were required to present (and for a hell of a lot less tax/funny money)?  

Every minute that we allow this circus to continue its present course, we are tacitly endorsing the massive future indebtedness of our children and future generations. The time to act is now! The time to put aside childish name-calling and petty differences is NOW! We owe it to ourselves and future generations to put a stop to the rampaging beast!

Peace and good luck to us all; we sorely need it.

P.S. Don't even get me started on the reckless course of action our military has set for us. We voted for a President to end North American hegemony for the purposes of enriching our petroleum megacorporations, yet POTUS Obama is continuing the sham wars. Speak up now, people, or stay silent forever!!


by ruaqtpi2 2009-02-05 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

So what brand of completely out of your mind are you anyway?

I don't even know where to begin so I guess I will just leave it at this: This is not a libertarian site. We are not interested in your libertarian agenda, and nobody but a complete lunatic thought the wars we were in could be ended over night.

Thank you, and don't forget to tip your waitress on the way out the door.

by JDF 2009-02-05 01:32PM | 0 recs
Lindorff has a great article on this subject

February 5, 2009

Obama's Betrayal
Small Change

Just two weeks after his historic inauguration ceremony, Obama's presidency is lurching towards failure, and not because three of his administration picks have been found to be tax cheats, but because nearly all of his administration picks are corporate whores and shills.

The problem with the new Obama administration is that it is turning out to be not about change at all, as he claimed during the campaign, but rather about more of the same--and these are not times that call for more of the same. Nor is more of the same the reason Obama won the election.

The economic team President Obama has put in place is composed of the same Wall Street hacks and conservative economic theologians who helped produce the current crisis, many of them as part of the Clinton administration, and some, like Timothy Geithner, actually as appointees of the thoroughly discredited Bush administration.

Obama's military team is essentially composed of holdovers from the Bush administration, starting at the top with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and retreads from the Clinton administration.


One can puzzle over why a Democratic president would so quickly abandon his base, when Republicans, in contrast, have always strived so mightily to cater to theirs. My guess is that people like Obama cling to the long-discredited theory that the way to win elections is to appeal to some mythical "middle-of-the-road" electorate, and that thusly, he and his advisers, their eyes already on the 2012 election, are trying to position him as the candidate of the center.


The "Kumbaya" and "This Land is Our Land" singing is over, and unless Obama starts singing a different tune soon, he will spend the next four years presiding over a shattered economy and a nation mired in a distant, pointless and unwinnable war.

by suzieg 2009-02-06 12:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Lindorff has a great article on this subject
the problem for me is that some republicans are making good points and we are focusing on style rather than substance.
There IS a lot of crap in the bill.
by Teacher1956 2009-02-06 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

I just finished listening to Lamar Alexander on PBS and I hate to say it but the Republicans are doing one hell of a job in framing the argument regarding the stimulus package. I don't agree with him but his use of key phases such as "this is a Democrat spending bill not a stumulus" clearly demonstrates the Reps plan on swaying public opinion.  There are many other comments that they are using that narrowly define the argument in simple terms that reach the American public.

My point and my frustration isn't with Obama but it surely is with Pelosi and Reid.  For a long time I've felt that these two leaders are as out of touch with the American Public as Bush and Cheney were.  We need change in leadership now! If we don't get it soon we will be sadly disappointed come 2010.

by bentlife 2009-02-05 12:06PM | 0 recs

no more tax cuts, universal health care that gives anyone the option of getting medicare, and that subsidizes every lower income person or child thereof, and nationalize the new loans only and oversight them to be used only for new business loans that will provide new jobs, and for homeowner to stay in their homes as a reduced price, to be recouped if they sell it for a profit.  

by anna shane 2009-02-05 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

I think the stimulus bill should not have been treated by the house as just another spending bill by including unrelated spending measures (however much I may agree with those expenditures).  This bill should have been prepared and presented as an omnibus stimulus bill and Pelosi should have explained the direct links between the items in the bill and their intended economic benefits.  I think the average American is viewing this (rightly or wrongly) as just another spending bill, but bigger.  And I don't think they should be tarred as idiots for doing so.  This problem can be fixed, if our Dem leaders tighten the bill a bit and then present it to the American people.  

by orestes 2009-02-05 03:12PM | 0 recs

clearly stated and sadly true.

by Zapata 2009-02-06 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Spare us the bipartisanship

Little babies that are throwing tantrums, need a 'time out' and that is what the american people gave them. The world can see that obama has tried, now just get on with it and let them all sulk in the corner.

by nikkid 2009-02-06 05:15AM | 0 recs
have fun?

now how is that kind of language helpful?

by Zapata 2009-02-06 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: have fun?

It's all the Repugs understand.

by nikkid 2009-02-06 05:00PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads