Saturday, May 05, 2007
A follow up to the last post via TPMCafe. The Washington Post drags Leon Panetta out for the second time in the month to argue that the democrats need to be bipartisan.
The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted ... will pay a price."
One again, where was all this concern with bipartisanship for the past six years? Al Gore won the popular vote, Florida was in dispute, and George Bush ran the country as if he won a wide mandate to be a right wing crusader. We didn't hear all this bipartisan talk back then.
Bush also refuses to compromise. On Iraq, he has said that he will not budge. When the Washington Post refers to bipartisan compromise, it basically means the democrats should ignore the will of 70% of the voters and do what George Bush wants. That is not bipartisanship. I am all for compromise. If President Bush said, I won't sign a bill that is this stringent. I want the benchmarks pushed back until summer 2008, and more flexibility, I would support compromising with him. That really isn't what is at play here.
The Washington Post needs to quit pretending that reality is any different. If the paper's reporters want to follow the lead of their editorial board and stay in Iraq for as long as Bush feels like, they should go and admit it, without continually dragging Leon Panetta out as their "democrat" who sees things the way they do. I guess since Lieberman is now officially an independent, it's all they got. Pat Cadell and Dick Morris are still available too if you guys want to continue this dishonest style or reporting.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
|