The Post notes that the GOP tradition in the House of marching in goose step with each other is apparently waning in the new Democratic Majority era. Surely, they will still stand shoulder to shoulder on the issues their party worships like the golden calf (sweetheart deals for megacorps, anything remotely promoting racial and sexual equality, rational science, etc.) but it’s a good development nonetheless.
This doesn’t change the fact that we’re coming after your seats next year, however.
The Democratic version of BiPartisanship: The Republicans vote with us
The Republican party’s distinct groupings really don’t work well with each other. When they had the majority, there was enough pork and enough concessions to go around. Now we can expect them to fracture:
The Christian Right (whose social agenda is extremely unpopular with 85% of the population and even with most Republicans).
The anti-immigration crowd (who are at odds with big business and with Republican strategists who realize that an anti-immigration stance will alienate the rapidly growing Latino vote).
The big business shill Republicans (whose policies of tax cuts for the rich, lax environmental and labor laws, and giveaways to large corporations are endangered when the rest of the Republican party takes unpopular stances, and whose support for immigration is unpopular with the Republican base).
Neo-cons (whose war has very little support left, and whose agenda of further wars has almost no support at all – Republican strategists know that if Iraq continues into the fall of 2008 the party is doomed).
Iceman: A little bit off, but not a bad rundown.
You are definitely correct about Iraq — I would say 4th of July instead of Labor Day
The Democratic version of BiPartisanship: The Republicans vote with us
Republicans vote with Democrats? I’m pretty sure that’s the dictionary’s version of it too.
Hey, at least they’re voting on legislation that serves the people of this country.
Republicans vote with Democrats? I’m pretty sure that’s the dictionary’s version of it too.
Exactly. As opposed to the Democrats’ voting with the Republicans, which might be found under “fantasy,” or idioms like “When pigs fly,” or “When hell freezes over.”
Well then, I guess the Patriot Act was a case of pigs gaining aviation skills.
The Patriot act, or the Iraq war resolution, which people like Frank are always bringing up, in an attempt to pin equal blame for the Iraq mess on the republicans.
Frank, that has to be the most reality-challenged statement you’ve ever made here. And that’s saying a lot.
sorry, last word of paragraph 1 should read “democrats”
All I can say is: That’s two!
All I can say is: That’s two!
Fwank’s a cwever boy, isn’t he!!!
Exactly. As opposed to the Democrats’ voting with the Republicans, which might be found under “fantasy,” or idioms like “When pigs fly,” or “When hell freezes over.”
What? The legislation at hand has nothing to do with it? It’s only the voting that matters?
No, Quaker, the Democrats were notorious for voting in lockstep, when the Republicans were in the majority. This, at the same time that northeastern Republican liberals crossed the aisle many a time.
I was referring to the FACT that for Democrats, “bipartisanship” = you vote like us, we never vote like you.
The commenters here brought up two examples. So?
Nuts to your lousy evidence. Your evidence has COOTIES.
Um, how about Bush’s tax cuts? There’s three. How about funding authorizations for the Iraq war? there’s four. How about voting for Bush’s supreme court nominees? There’s five, there’s six. How about Bush’s No Child Left Behind crap? There’s seven.
In all these cases, many Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with Republicans. Many more examples and you might have to take off your shoes, Frank.
Meanwhile, I’ve got a proposition for you: For George Bush, “bipartisanship” means “you do things the way I want.” Can you provide _any_ counter-examples, Frank?
the Democrats were notorious for voting in lockstep, when the Republicans were in the majority.
I repeat: the legislation had nothing to do with it?
The GOP majority was similarly notorious for larding legislation with clauses that were entirely unacceptable to Democrats, and doing so intentionally for the purpose of dividing the vote along party lines.
OK, Quaker, now we’re arguing “chicken and egg.”
We’ll just have to see what bipartisan means, now that the Dems are in control. I’ll be looking for that much vaunted “recognition of minority rights” we heard so much about since 1994.
fd10801. you lost. get over it, stop whining, it makes you look like a little kid who can’t get his way. In other words, a typical WATB Republican’t. The Democratic Party owes you and the Republican’t Party absolutely nothing.
I’ll be looking for that much vaunted “recognition of minority rights” we heard so much about since 1994.
See, that’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans, Frank. A big part of me says “yeah, we should play fair now that we’re in charge,” even though the last 12 years have shown that to be the last thing that would ever cross the mind of a Republican.
Once again, Frank gives an excellent illustration of the Republican golden rule: Do unto others, then squeal like a pig when they do unto you.
Meanwhile, my question stands: “For George Bush, “bipartisanship” means “you do things the way I want.” Can you provide _any_ counter-examples, Frank?”
Wilbur, you shouldn’t ask a question when you know the answer: The answer is “No!” The Republicans are bad politicians; the Democrats are good politicians.
Republicans are evil, Democrats are angelic.
Democrats are incapable of corruption or partisanship.
You getting where I’m going with this?
/sarcasm
p.s. President Bush never vetoed a spending bill, no matter who sponsored it…
You getting where I’m going with this?
Yeah, I get it. You have no serious argument to make so you take refuge in a childish reductio ad absurdum
Case closed.
President Bush never vetoed a spending bill, no matter who sponsored it…
Bush never had a chance to veto a spending bill that hadn’t already been passed by his Republican congress.
We’ll see how long that record lasts.
This is your best example of Bush’s bipartisanship?
“Uniter not divider” my ass.
The Dems made a promise of bipartisanship. It’s their obligation to deliver.
The Dems made a promise of bipartisanship. It’s their obligation to deliver.
So long as the repubs understand that “bipartisanship” doesn’t mean “you do what we want”. Over the last decade or so I’ve seen no sign that they understand that.
And, by the way, will you finally agree that W never delivered on his “uniter not divider” rhetoric?
It’s hilarious seeing the Republicans whining about being treated the same way they treated the Democrats.
Yes, Wilbur, I am well aware that the dividers are now in the majority of the House and the Senate.
Unity of purpose as opposed to unity of country is their mantra.