Democrats’ narrow view of bipartisanship

“Stand for something, or fall for anything.”
—John Cougar

Republican President George Bush has delivered the State of the Union speech and Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons the State of the State speech. Ironically, both chief executives will face women-led opposition come the next legislative session. Namely, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives and Barbara Buckley as Speaker of the Nevada Assembly—both of whom are Democrats and the first women to attain their respective positions.

Virginia Democratic Sen. James Webb, D-Va., whom you may recall got himself elected as one of the “fighting, anti-war, blue-blood Democrats,” gave his party’s response to the president’s speech. He spent about one-quarter of it preening over his and his family’s military history before going on to criticize the Iraq war—because after all, only warriors are credible to opine on such matters.

“This country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years,” he said. “Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.”

To which he should have added, “And yet in all that time, Democrats still haven’t found the intestinal fortitude or moral fiber to advance and actually vote on any legislation that would de-fund the war and force its early conclusion.”

Although I suppose it could have been worse. Webb could have worked in a stripper doing the splits on a banana like in one of his books. (Something to Die For, William Morrow and Company, 1991, p. 36).

Part of Speaker Pelosi’s top agenda during the first 100 hours of legislation was to raise the minimum wage. And yet Democrats still prattle on about “troop deployments, troop redeployments, troop draw-downs, troop increases, changing course, changing direction, changing strategies” and the ever-popular “maintaining an over-the-hill presence.” Let’s face it: Democrats have managed to find more positions on Iraq than can be found in the Kama Sutra.

In Nevada, Speaker Buckley was quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Buckley said Gibbons’ proposals were a mere starting point, and the Democrats had proposals of their own to bring forward, such as ethics reform.”

Buckley said, “The governor recommends, suggests. The Legislature works with the governor, works with the other house, decides what they think is best and passes it on.”

So much for bipartisanship in this legislative session. Although, let’s be honest, when Democrats says they want “bipartisanship,” what they mean is for Republicans to sacrifice their ideals and vote with them. Otherwise a Republican is nothing more than a right-wing ideologue. (And that’s a bad thing?)

Also this week, Sen. Hillary Rodham-Clinton, D-NY, officially announced her intent to seek the office of queen—I mean president. Unless you’ve been in a coma, this was the single-most unsurprising revelation since “If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened.”

Currently Ms. Clinton is considered the Democratic front-runner and has already nuanced her previous vote in favor of funding the war in Iraq as “a mistake.” It remains to be seen whether Democrats will prefer a pedigreed, issue-flopping white woman who married well as their particular champion.

We all know how well that strategy worked out for their last contender—but at least John Kerry had three Purple Hearts to brag about.

That perhaps brings us back to the aforementioned quote.