On Nov 5, 8:20*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:44:34 -0800 (PST), BobR





wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:29*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Bush made it quite clear that his idea of bi-partisan was when
everybody agreed to go along with his position. He was not interested
in any other viewpoints.

* Which is pretty much the Dem's view of bipartisanship too. GW's trust
in the concepts of bipartisanship were forged in Daddy's administration,
especially the outcome of the Budget Mugging... er Summit 1990. The Dems
said they wouldn't come to the table without a "bi-partisan" agenda that
included both tax increases and budget cuts. When Daddy responded in a
bipartisan manner and gave in on tax cuts, the Dems proceeded to pound
him soundly about the face and head with "read my lips". Oh, and they
sorta forgot to get around to the cuts.
* Both sides have for a long time viewed bipartisanship as "you lay down
and take it whilst I do whatever I want". *And this was pretty much
independent of the party's majority or minority status at the time.

Sort of reminds me of those great Texas Democrats a few years back who
left the state to hide out rather than compromise. *The democratic
answer is always to run from responsibility.

Boy, are you ever uninformed. Texas Democrats are basically
Republicans. That's why it was such a joke when GWB bragged about his
ability to "reach across the aisle" when he was governor in Texas. It
wasn't much of a reach.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yes, that is what they want the majority in Texas to believe but
make no mistake, they are liberal democraps in every way possible.