Sunday, February 11, 2007

Calls For Bipartisanship from Bush? Really?

The headline from Market Watch this morning suggested that Bush wanted a bipartisan approach to the new energy bill. Thankfully, six plus years of Bush's idea of bipartisanship had done it's work and I knew right away what would happen if I clicked on the article.

Bush spoke about his "Twenty in Ten" goal that calls for reducing America's gasoline use by 20% in the next 10 years. Americans should both increase the supply of alternative fuels and decrease the demand for gasoline, he said.
"I'm optimistic because the technology we need to achieve this goal is advancing every day," Bush said. "Every member of Congress who cares about strengthening out economy, protecting out national security and confronting climate change should support the energy initiatives I have set out."

Democrats, who won control of both the House and Senate in last November's elections, have said the overall budget plan omits key figures and will lead to bigger debt.

Note the bolded text. Bush has called for members of both parties to blindly follow his energy plan. You see, they would abrogate their responsibilities as a coalition of the willing (to not do their jobs).

It does not shock me in the least that Bush's idea of bipartisanship was to do what he says. His track record suggests that like Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

What is highly offensive is that Market Watch still allows him to get away with it. President Bush can call the Iraq Quagmire the War of 1812, but it's not the media's obligation to let his pronouncements go unchecked. Is context that much to ask for from the MSM? (Naive) people will read that headline only, and think that the Shrub has turned a new leaf. He hasn't changed, and neither has the stenographer media.