MSM calls for 'bipartisanship' rather than the 'bipartisanshit'(sic)

which we had when the Rethugs controlled all 47 branches of the Government. This included the three obvious ones, the Cheney Branch, the Waterboarding branch, the Wiretapping branch, etc. Now, they're all excited that the Dems, god forbid, might have something to say, so here we are with demands for niceties.

I call 'bullshit', as they say...

the rationale that we're finally about to get OUR TURN and why should we let those nasty Republicans have any say in our next administration. Truth is, from Nixon 'til now, Republicans have dominated this country, except for two terms of a RIGHT-LEANING Dem President with exceptional political skills--why do we believe we'll have such a following. such a mandate in '08 that we don't have to attract or listen to people from the other side of the aisle?

:P

:-)

However, first I want to see some signs of GENUINE bipartisanship from the other side. The Democrats have been in charge of Congress for a little over a year now and Bush and most of the Republicans (the leadership, certainly) in Congress have PROUDLY made it their strategy to simply obstruct/veto several important parts of the Democratic agenda much of which enjoys strong public support even among some Republicans. They have obstructed even seemingly innocuous things such as increasing funding for children health insurance programs or demanded that Democrats cave (which they have done all too easily, unfortunately) on their demands for things like a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq or that they drop their objections and vote for Bush-favored legislation such as the so-called "Protect America (FISA) Act". While I agree that some compromise/negotiation is usually necessary in a diverse and democratic society, I have seen very little (if any) willingness on the part of Bush/Republicans to demonstrate "bipartisanship" in their dealings with us. In fact, many conservatives such as Grover "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape" Norquist seem to simply despise the idea of bipartisanship and view it as a "sell-out". They basically seem to believe in using whatever power they have to mercilessly crush their opponents and advance their own agenda. I'm not saying that everybody on the Democratic side is always genuinely interested in bipartisanship and there have probably been excesses on our side as well but our party seems overall to be more willing to seek out other viewpoints and craft legislation that takes into account other points of view than our own and will likely continue to do so regardless of the circumstances. However, what I am concerned about and what I think a lot of other people in the so-called "lefty blogosphere" are concerned about is that a lot of the Democrats in Congress seem to be TOO quick to simply cave in to whatever the Republicans are demanding and selling out our basic principles/values in the process. I believe that we we should start calling the Republicans out on THEIR apparent inability and/or unwillingness to seek compromise and genuine bipartisanship in service of the public good.

our agenda harder to advance, even with a slight majority in Congress. There were, however, examples of bipartisanship in legislation, whether or not those measures were ultimately successful--Grassley and some other Senate Repubs were very strong supporters of SCHIP--Chimpster vetoed that. McCain supports greenhouse gas/climate change measures. Both Repubs and Dems supported comprehensive immigration reform. Several Repubs supported restoration of habeas corpus, and closing Gitmo. My Senator, Hagel, co-sponsored several amendments with Jim Webb and Carl Levin to help end the war. My other Senator, Ben Nelson, routinely works with Repubs on appropriations. Obama collaborated with Tom Coburn on ethics and pork. There are moderates in both parties who routinely try to work with the other side of the aisle, so it's not true to say that Repubs are totally unwilling to act in a bipartisan manner--it's just that they have their stupid Preznit calling the shots, so they tend to fall in line behind him more often than not. When we have OURS, we'll be able to advance OUR agenda more effectively.

I wasn't trying to suggest that ALL Republicans in Congress are obstructionist but their leaders certainly ARE and they (and Bush) seem to have an uncanny ability to fear and smear a lot of otherwise decent and smart Democrats in Congress into submission to THEIR agenda. Fortunately, there are still a few (but dwindling number of) moderate Republicans that ARE genuinely interested in bipartisanship and willing to come together in good faith to solve complex national problems but too many Republicans, like you said, still have a tendency to fall in line behind their (P)resident when push comes to shove. The Republican party in general seems to have become somewhat of a "cult" or at least "cult-like" in that many of them seem to place loyalty to their party and its leaders over the common good. We most definitely NEED to have a Democrat in the White House next year in order to advance our agenda more effectively. I just hope that if we do manage to win the White House and maintain or expand our control of Congress (god forbid anything else should happen) our leaders in Congress don't continue to fall all over themselves to attempt to placate the Republican/MSM "noise machine" that will undoubtedly be ratcheted up.