Bush couldn't even pick his nose successfully.
He worked over Kerry pretty good.
You only prove that the Dems can be bi-partisan. Repubs rarely were when they held power .
There are some Dems that are willing to be bipartisan. I think you will see more of that with the Conservative Dems in the House that Rahm Emanual recruited which got the Dems their majority. But, unfortunately, many still march in lockstep to appease the wacky left wing base. Like when they were filibustering Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees.
I was wrong about Bush not being able to pick his nose. He actually does it quite well:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifilm.com%2Ffilmdetail%3Fifilmid%3D960813And YOU are, as usual, wrong are wrong about the Dems that were elected:
t’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided
By FRANK RICH
Published: November 19, 2006
ELECTIONS may come and go, but Washington remains incorrigible. Not even voters delivering a clear message can topple the town’s conventional wisdom once it has been set in the stone of punditry.
Right now the capital is entranced by a fictional story line about the Democrats. As this narrative goes, the party’s sweep of Congress was more or less an accident. The victory had little to do with the Democrats’ actual beliefs and was instead solely the result of President Bush’s unpopularity and a cunning backroom stunt by the campaign Machiavellis, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, to enlist a smattering of “conservative†candidates to run in red states. In this retelling of the 2006 election, the signature race took place in Montana, where the victor was a gun-toting farmer with a flattop haircut: i.e., a Democrat in Republican drag. And now the party is deeply divided as its old liberals and new conservatives converge on Capitol Hill to slug it out.
The only problem with this version of events is that it’s not true. The overwhelming majority of the Democratic winners, including Jon Tester of Montana, are to the left of most Republicans, whether on economic policy or abortion. For all of the hyperventilation devoted to the Steny Hoyer-John Murtha bout for the House leadership, the final count was lopsided next to the one-vote margin in the G.O.P. Senate intramural that yielded that paragon of “unity,†Trent Lott. But the most telling barometer is the election’s defining issue: there is far more unanimity among Democrats about Iraq than there is among Republicans. Disengaging America from that war is what the country voted for overwhelmingly on Nov. 7, and that’s what the Democrats almost uniformly promised to speed up, whatever their vague, often inchoate notions about how to do it.
Even before they officially take over, the Democrats are trying to deliver on this pledge. Carl Levin and Joe Biden, among the party’s leaders in thinking through a new Iraq policy, are gravitating toward a long-gestating centrist exit strategy: a phased withdrawal starting in four to six months; a loosely federal Iraqi government that would ratify the de facto separation of the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and fairly allocate the oil spoils; and diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy to engage Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in securing some kind of peace.
None of these ideas are radical, novel or much removed from what James Baker’s Iraq Study Group is expected to come up with. All are debatable and all could fail. At this late date, only triage is an option, not “victory.†There’s no panacea to end the civil war that four years of American bumbling have wrought. But the one truly serious story to come out of the election — far more significant than the Washington chatter about “divided Democrats†— is that the president has no intention of changing his policy on Iraq or anything else one iota.
Already we are seeing conclusive evidence that the White House’s post-thumpin’ blather about bipartisanship is worth as little as the “uniter, not a divider†bunk of the past. The tip-off came last week when Mr. Bush renominated a roster of choices for the federal appeals court that he knew faced certain rejection by Democrats. Why? To deliver a message to the entire Senate consonant with the unprintable greeting Dick Cheney once bestowed on Patrick Leahy, the senator from Vermont. That message was seconded by Tony Snow on Monday when David Gregory of NBC News asked him for a response to the Democrats’ Iraq proposals. The press secretary belittled them as “nonspecific†and then tried to deflect the matter entirely by snickering at Mr. Gregory’s follow-up questions.
Don Imus has been rerunning the video ever since, and with good reason. The laughing-while-Baghdad-burns intransigence of the White House makes your blood run cold. The day after Mr. Snow ridiculed alternative policies for Iraq, six American soldiers were killed. It was on that day as well that militia assailants stormed the education ministry in Baghdad in broad daylight, effortlessly carrying out a mass abduction of as many as 150 government officials in some 15 minutes. Given that those kidnappers were probably in cahoots with a faction of the very government they were terrorizing, it would be hard to come up with a more alarming snapshot of those “conditions on the ground†the president keeps talking about: utter chaos, with American troops in the middle, risking their lives to defend which faction, exactly?
All I can say Bush is gonna fight. He's picking people the Dems have to oppose. Bush is not a good loser, not even a bad loser. He's gonna act like the GOP still controls both houses.
And he's gonna have to lose those fights to understand.
As far as dividing Iraq goes, well Maliki keeps calling for "unleashing" the Iraqi Army (read anti-Sunni pogrom). So if that's the thinking, nothing is getting split.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19rove.html?ei=5090&en=e1365e25d9923685&ex=1321592400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=printYou make me sooo happy to anticipate beating up Repub whack jobs that the Bushidiot will try to stack the judiciary with.
