Digby on those awful, partisan Dems.

Digby is much more eloquent than I am. Like that's any big surprise, eh? This meme that the Dems are responsible for all the partisan hackery, and that the only way they can govern is to do so by meeting the Repubs halfway, well, I usually stick with "Fuck. That. Shit."

Which is why I now present Digby's thoughts on the subject.

As regular readers know, I've been pondering this infuriating fixation on bipartisanship and moderation for the last couple of weeks and watching aghast as the press does the wingnuts' bidding, setting up the Dems as failing to fulfill their promise to the American people that they would be moderate and bipartisan if they won the election. This was simply not on the agenda during the election, other than that the House Democrats would restore some sort of fairness to the rules and pass anti-corruption legislation. In fact, the entire election was about the Democrats taking power to provide some needed checks and balance on the Republicans.

Oddly, however, in the last couple of weeks, the media has been obsessing that the election reflected a desire among the American people for the congress to stop fighting and work together, which makes no sense. The Republican congress didn't fight --- the Democrats just caterwauled ineffectually from the sidelines, while the Republicans did what they wanted. There was no gridlock, they passed virtually every piece of legislation they wanted and the congress was perfectly in sync with the president. If comity was what people were concerned about they obviously would have kept undivided government.

The American people voted for the Democrats because they wanted them to stop the Republican juggernaut. Look at the poll numbers. Look at the election results.

So, where is this coming from? First, it's obviously coming from the Republicans who have much to gain by whining incessantly about being trod upon by the horrible Democrats who are betraying the citizens who voted for them by being big old meanies. No surprise there. They make their money and derive their power among their mouthbreathing base by portraying themselves as being victimized --- whether in power or out, the liberals are always keeping them down.

As far as I can tell, the Democratic Party was overwhelming elected to be an opposition party, particularly with regard to the war, and the President's usurpation of powers. I'm okay with bipartisanship, but you don't split some things down the middle. Period.

And if you have some idea that the Repubs are just itching to work together with the Dems to change the tone in D.C., allow me to disabuse you of that notion. The R's had a lock on passing just about any legislation they wanted for the last six years. There was no talk of bipartisanship. Questioning the Congress or Junior was likely to have you branded coward or traitor.

"Elections have consequences." He proceeded from that election as if he had a mandate, instead of a slim fucking majority.

How should we proceed when we took the majority by a landslide?