Only on Fox: "Are Congressional Democrats killing spirit of bipartisanship?"
On the January 3 edition of Fox News Live, during a segment that featured Newsweek contributing editor Eleanor Clift and former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) discussing the Democrats' "100 Hours" plan, the onscreen text read: "Are Congressional Democrats killing spirit of bipartisanship?" -- referring to the Democrats' reported intention of placing, as The New York Times reported, "limits on the ability of Republicans to offer alternatives" to their "100 Hours" legislative agenda.
Host Jane Skinner offered little to indicate that there currently exists a "spirit of bipartisanship" for the Democrats to "kill," aside from President Bush's January 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for Democrats and Republicans to "come together to find ways to help make America a more secure, prosperous and hopeful society." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, although several media outlets have described Bush and congressional Republicans as adopting a "conciliatory" tone toward the new Democratic majority, the president and outgoing GOP Congress have engaged in what Democrats have characterized as partisan maneuvering in the aftermath of the elections. For example, Bush renominated several federal judicial candidates whom Senate Democrats have opposed, and congressional GOP leaders did not address several government spending bills in the last weeks of the 109th Congress, instead punting them to the new Democratic-led Congress.
You lost. Now follow your own advice and shut up while the big boys govern.
Can't agree with that. The last thing we need in this country is one-party total control. Look how the Republican's got drunk on their power.
We need two strong willed, fight tooth and nail, parties to battle it out with each other........gridlock works best as the dust settles.
The point is is that Democrats will be proposing rules to help bipartisanship -- which was clearly needed under The Hammer Delay.
So that makes this misinformation... again. I don't know how MM can keep up sometimes.
I agree that the conflict of ideas and a structure which necessitates compromise is the system which our founders set up. Under such an adversarial balance of powers, it would be a miracle to get anything done -- and that's what the founders intended. ONLY legislation that enjoyed widespread appeal would make it to law.
Tommy hits on this point, and I agree. However, for the past six years, the very idea of compromise has been demonized as "weakness". Getting along was for losers, said the Republicans. The Republicans ruled with a virtual tyranny, and made a vast body of law which, without exception, structured America into a land of privilege for the few while the vast majority of Americans were cut out of any service from their government.
To UNDO this litany of class warfare, this installation by statute of an ideology that is BAD for America, but just fantastic for the privileged few, the Democrats cannot and should not compromise.
The Republicans didn't compromise setting it up (let's be CLEAR about that), so the Democrats must tear it down the same uncompromising way. Once this legacy of a virtual aristocratic coup is torn down, THEN the Dems can lighten up, and starting from scratch, be inclusive of the "ideas" of the Republicans (we already know what they are: cut taxes for the rich, get rid of regulations which might help Americans, but which might somewhat lessen corporate profits, run foreign policy as an imperialistic pillaging tool for gaining corporate raw materials, make every effort to smooth the availability of child and slave labor in 3rd world nations to put Americans out of work, get rid of funding for any program that might help average Americans ... tuition help, health care aid, a living wage, etc.
In short, law which was passed by the Republicans with no debate, must be repealled. That is job one for the Democrats. Where we go from THERE, we should get our guidance from the Constitution, and from common decency.
Think of it this way:Your neighbor steals all your furniture while you are out. When you return, he wants you to "just get along" with him, and forget the past. Now, "getting along" might be in your Christian soul, but the FIRST thing that has to happen is that the guy has to RETURN all your furniture. Get it?
I wish I had your prose. What you said is exactly what I believe! Mebbe I shouldna gone to school in Texas. :(
Thanx Tex....any reply should stop with your response cuz it's a beauty. Let's get busy Dems !!!
---the vast majority of Americans were cut out of any service from their government.---
That's pretty strong wording, Tex. Would you like to provide a few examples?
---To UNDO this litany of class warfare,...---
The tool of using "Class Warfare" is owned by the democrats. Who was it who not so long ago ran around the country screaming out of one side of his mouth "We have two Americas!!!" and out of the other side "George Bush is a divider, not a uniter"? Oh, that's right. It was Edwards.
It's time for pelosi and the other dem's to get busy. Americans will sort the whole mess out. We always do.
Is owned by the GOP. I love the way, to republicans, giving tax cuts to the rich, cutting programs from the rest of America, sending our industry overseas, attacking labor and opposing a minimum wage hike ISNT class warfare but pointing out it is happening IS class warfare.
You just made my point by using terms like "the rich" and "the rest of America". I won't even address your use of the word "labor" - as though those who don't belong to a union don't work for a living. Here's a question for you and any other honest, open-minded American: Who brought us terms like "African-American", "Hispanic-American", "Rich" American", "Poor" American, "XYZ-(INSERT HYPHEN)-American"? You all know the answer. Nancy Pelosi just added to America's division by proclaiming that "the marble ceiling" was just shattered because "SHE" was elected speaker. Damn it, are we not ALL Americans?
another Leftist who is rich enough ( in the tradition of the Kennedys, Terry McCauliff--28 million made on one trade of Global Crossing--John Edwards, etc., etc.) to not be affected by the collectivist ideology they spout.
So what if they knock a bunch of wrungs off the ladder so ordinary people can't even START their climb--the power-hungry will be long-gone before the people wake up to the joke played on them by the purveyors of the Workers' Paradise.
Funny you mentioned "the power-hungry", Dorraine. I heard a clip of pelosi drinking in and gloriously basking in her new-found "power" (yes, she used the word) and I wanted to throw up. In all facets of life, it's those who seek "power" who least deserve it.
That Pelosi is power-hungry, an accusatian I have heard several times now, but which has never been proven. And who were the ones who made themselves more powerful 'to protect the American people', who are the 'deciders', who is power-hungry here. So Pelosi is barred from championing the poor because she's rich. Sure, she could start giving away her own money, but that wouldn't be a good long-term strategy. She doesn't have to be a saint, she just has to not hurt anyone in order to be considered 'not evil'. What has she ever done to the poor, she didn't advocate the tax cuts, or did she? What we do w/ our $$$ is our business, as long as we don't labor to suck it our of the poor. If she's going to increase the minimum wage, that's great!!! Seriously, what have you got against her, that she used the word 'power'. So all the people who strive for it and not say it are better?!? What the f***? All politicians are essentially going for power, and just because she says it she's bad? I don't see your collective points, guys, I really don't.
that for some, there is a wealth threshold that they're comfortable with, then the next thing they want is power. Nothing inherently wrong with wealth per se, other than the fact that for some it provides such a comfort level that cannot be affected by increasing tax load; that they fail to see that they are advocating for the kind of government and bureaucracy that make it hard for "the little guy" to get started.
Examples would be any highly Socialized country in Western Europe. My cousin is a tool and die maker in Sweden, and it took him until he was 53 to be able to get his own home. The tax bite kills the common man over there, cradle-to-grave security or not, and recent voting there shows people want less Utopia.
But they're finding out what it's like to even talk about feeding the beast less.
But I'm from, 'over there' (Germany) and most people are doing pretty good. Even those who can't buy their own house have health insurance, poverty is lower, literacy is higher, teenage pregnancy is lower. Sure, people complain, bu they always do. Trust me, Germany, Netherlands, France, Britain, Lux, Belgium and Skandinavia are doing quite well, and their problems are not nearly as big as the ones the US has-domestic and foreign policy. And the Scandinavians have the highest per-capita GDP. If you want to prove to me that most people are doing worse in Europe, you'd better have ***** sound data. Besides, what good is it to have your own trailer if it's really crappy?
The media at Faux news are attempting to taint the new Congress before it even really gets going, that must be the meme for the following weeks. No evidence, nothing but half-ass speculation.
They supply unsubstantiated conjecture on ghostly apparitions today while ignoring the hard realities of yesterday's years of undemocratic partisan conduct displayed by the previous Republican majority.
Who needs these empty calories? Watch Fox long enough and your brain will bloat and eventually decay, like the results of any unhealthy diet. (see "Super-size Me")
They're all for bipartisanship now.....After they've raped the country--bankrupted our country--and got us into a disastrous war, now they want to,
Kiss and make up.
I think Ann Coulter said somewhere (and I may be quite wrong) "God says to us 'The Earth is yours! Take it, rape it, it is yours!'" Well, this has now been partly accomplished.
When Faux News has a question in the graphic it often reveals FNC's take on the "story." Just remove the word "Are" in the graphic on this story and you have "Congressional Democrats Killing Spirit of Bipartisanship." In other words, the answer is suggested not too subtly by the question. On the other side of the aisle, I don't recall FNC asking while the Republicans were in control of the House: "Is GOP Leadership for Sale to Special Interests?"
"Fox News has discovered that by using a ? they can say fu***ng anything!"
This two year period between election cycles will see one of the most frenzied campaigns by the right wing to undermine the concept of "bipartisanship" while publicly paying it lip service. You can bet the farm that this will be a continual theme in all mainstream media. Democratic strategy should address this line of attack by repeating the mantra of "Republican obstructionism." Force Bush to veto some legislation. The frame game works both ways.
I love it...
after six years of telling anyone who disagreed with them to eat it with the proverbial fork, the various and sundry right-wing nuts, with their long-held disdain of "the culture of victimhood" find themselves out of the majority both in terms of thelr legislative seats and general mainstream perception and suddenly they are crying foul and pleading for the same "bi-partisanship" they previously scorned noe that even the tiniest measure of their tactics may come back to haunt them.
Excuse me while my heart fails to bleed for them.
Republicans took the spirit, beat it bloody, hanged it, shot it, burned it and buried it. Now they're trying to dig up its ashes and pretend it's still alive.
If the Dems capitulate, they will live up to the spineless moniker bestowed on them by the right.
I am pretty sure Mr. Change the Tone in Washington and his cronies killed The Spirit of Bipartisanship in the cloak room with the candle stick about 5+ years ago.
The Republican definition of "Bipartisanship;"
a) When Republicans are in the majority, "bipartisanship" means "Democrats who stay out of the way and keep quiet while Republicans do whatever they want." b) When Republicans are in the minority, "bipartisanship" means "Democrats who abandon their party's platform and agree to do whatever Republicans want."
Any Democrat who does not meet one of the foregoing definitions is not "bipartiasan." Rather, he or she is a "zealot," "left-wing idealogue" or "rabid, partisan, lefty, loon."
Unfortunately, you could use "Republicans" and "Democrats" interchangably in your post above.
Neither party has much bipartisan spirit when they hold the majority.
While your comment may be historically true, the repubs took it to a whole new level in 2002. They displayed a level of childeshness and shelfishness that far exceeded even the loose standards of congressional behavior.
It's something similar called a 'Cavuto'.
John Stewart masterfully explains it in this vid at Crooks and Liars:
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
That's Jon Stewart.
My bad.
Good clip.
God Bless Jon Stewart!!
Where Bush is asking for line item veto now that Democrats are in the majority. I already know how he would use it. First get Dems to pass legislation that would include something he wants and something they want. He would sign the bits that he wanted and veto the bits the Dems wanted. That's G's "spirit of bipartisanship". I wonder if he knows, that congress gave Bill Clinton the line item veto and the Supreme Court ruled is unconstitutional, ruling that it violated separation of powers? Does he know that? I don't think so, considering that his attorney general told him his warrantless wiretapping program was legal, despited the fact that legal scholars across the length and breadth of the nation have said otherwise.
and there were three top of the hour cnn newscasts that i heard. the first one noted the democrats taking over, but it had bush calling for [hold your sides] a "balanced budget". the second noted the democratic takeover and had the newscaster quoting bush calling for bipartisanship. the third, same thing, another bush sound bite, talking about controlling spending. at no time was a democrat played or quoted.
if they came to pass (balanced budget, controlled spending), would actually show some bipartisanship. The Rs couldn't/wouldn't do it when they had control, will be interesting to see if the two parties can get together on these with a split government. Or will we simply wind up gilding the State of West Virginia instead of Alaska? Make a serious attempt at balancing the budget and controlling spending before looking at revenue enhancement sources. Sell me first on fiscal responsibility.
the point was that a radio network gave all their time on the subject of a democratic takeover to quoting bush, and him alone. i've also heard cbs radio news do the same thing. and you can look up the last time we had a balanced budget, some guy named clinton. all the republicans who voted against his balanced budget proposals in 94 when the democrats last held the majority, predicted a recession or even depression. i will agree there is too much pork.
were sleight-of-hand. Social Security receipts were included on the revenue side to enhance the balance sheet.
Social Security receipts are already hypothecated when received; Enron officers and other criminals are routinely prosecuted, and should be, for such conspiracies and lies.
Republicans would have made a bigger deal out of the Clinton "balanced budget" sham, but they have done the same thing, and wouldn't want to be reminded of it.
So, the deficit under the Bush Administration is actually larger than what's been reported? You know, because of the hypothecated SS receipts. Or, has the Bush Adminisration been altruistic and not included the hypothecated SS receipts in their calculation?
They were definitely included every year. Apparently, while the treasury body in the trust fund were considered "useless pieces of paper" by him for his social security reform photo-op tour, they were plenty useful for the purposes of making his deficit look several hundre billion dollars smaller each year.
treasury bills
He takes budget items like Iraq OFF the budget as if the money we spend there doesnt exist.
the defecit AND the National Debt are always a lot bigger than the gang in DC (both parties) will admit to. Only a few have the cahonys to tell it like it is.
Ron Paul (Texas) would be one. Those from other political parties than Repub or Dem might.
The establishment thinks we are not capable of dealing with the bad news--it might make us want to find who's responsible.
Let's hear it for bipartisan impeachment proceedings against every member of this administration! Start with Cheney, approve some moderate Republican Senator (Maine, anyone?) as VP, then take down the rest of the vile creatures. There are already several who might join the Dems in that effort, and only Lie-berman on our side of the aisle is sure to oppose.
We'll never get the votes if we insist on Pelosi taking the WH too, but may be better to ensure there is a Rep in the WH for '08, to TRY explaining to the nation, why it took impeachment to get us out of Iraq.
I just can't figure out why they lie all the time. Seriously why do "reporters" on Fakenews lie all the time. Why do they just make up things and more importantly how does anyone with two brain cells to rub together actually put up with listening to the garbage fakenews spews?
I remember when fakenews was GLOATING all the time about the Thug party being able to keep democrats from doing a danged thing in congress and the huge chuckle their morning idiots got when the Thug decided to close a meeting and was going to have the democrats arrested because he didn't want to hear anything they had to say.
Does anyone remember when the Thugs wouldn't even let democrats have any meeting rooms and relegated them to some basement. AND NOW THEY ARE CRYING ABOUT BIPARTANISHIP? Seriously?
What a load and bunch of hypocrites the Thug party is.
sounds like a great idea but don't tell the wacko Religious Right about it...they will think the worst, as usual. How do I know this? My yearly board meeting with God.
Actually, the concept of a Congress working for the people as one government is possible. But the Dems had been stepped on by the Repubs when they had the POWER. To establish a free-voting Congress, the Repubs should first be forced to take as Civics lesson on Government. Then and only then will they be permitted to become American Statesmen/women again. It is the same as your child getting strung out on drugs,(in the Repubs case, POWER), you intervening, you correcting the problem and getting the kid straight. Upon the first new day of the kids life, you hand him some coke and expect to trust him. Sorry FOX news, the junkies lost. The country intervened. Follow the rules until you can be trusted again. Don't sob, democracy works.
we haven't had that spirit here since 1969...
You think government is bad now? Just think if these crooks put there heads together. May partisanship live a long and happy life!
too damn much. I agree with Walter Williams (George Mason University economics Prof.): best thing we could do is pay the whole DC gang a million bucks apiece to STAY THE HELL OUTA TOWN!
Walter Williams is a national treasure. We're blessed to have him.
Walter williams is a national treasure. We're blessed to have him.
"Neither party has much bipartisan spirit when they hold the majority."
Mark and Jawill,
You're both right. Bipartisanship is always honored much more in the breach than the observance. However, Dennis Hastert took partisanship to new heights when he instituted his policy of allowing no bill out of committee unless it was supported by "a majority of the majority." To see the party that did that now whining about the "rights of the minority" is almost as delicious as hearing Tom "The (bawlpeen) Hammer" Delay whine about "the politics of personal destruction."