the White House should pretty much stop returning Republicans' phone calls and start pretending the minority party doesn't exist.

Hear! Hear!

Taken out of context, but I support that statement!

Let us hope that the Post-Partisan Unity Schtick will be abandoned soon and we can start governing as Democrats.

did, the White House should pretty much stop returning Republicans' phone calls and start pretending the minority party doesn't

I believe the opposite.
The more Obama publicly listens to the Republicans and shows a willingness to hear what they're saying, the more the general public will realize what a joke the Republicans have been and still are.

Let them dig their own grave: give them enough shovels, allow them ample room, and let the spectacle begin.

Most of those Republicans love to hear themselves talk in front of the cameras. They're just providing more ammunition proving how wrong they are and how little they understand America.

As much as they've been changing their minds on so many issues - depending on what they perceive Joe the Plumber wants - the more it starts looking like their favorite flip-plopper John Kerry, was the most dogmatic, inflexible politician alive.

And that's what we need to do -- at least start in a bipartisan fashion.

I hear dead people.

Bipartisanship is a strategic dead end. You want to claim victory by being bipartisan? Gonna need your opponents' help with that. But why would your opponents want you to win?

Bipartisanship is only a virtue when the parties are sincerely interested in good governance.

The problem, of course, is that the national media will continue to characterize these guys as though they matter. How many Republicans have you sen on TV in the past few days? How many Dems?

Instead of simply being flabbergasted that the Republicans come up with these ludicrous stories, and hoping that if we ignore it so will everybody else, it would be better if Democrats and Progressive have a concerted Sunday news schedule and talking points that hammer in just how ludicrous this is.

Don't disengage when the opponent fights with lies or you've ceded all the hot air to them already. Go straight after the lies instead: calmly, pleasantly, and consistently.

Republican "bipartisanship": when they are ahead its date rape, golddigging when they are behind.

Bipartisanship only works when both parties are acting in good faith. The Republican definition of bipartisanship is, "Roll over and do what I tell you or else I'll throw a giant hissy fit and call you un-American." Who in their right mind wants to reach out to THAT?

Clearly, for the last 2 elections Americans have voted for massive tax cuts, elimination of Social Security, an end to abortion, denial of gay marriage, reduced infrastructure spending and more war in the middle east. Why are Democrats so deaf to that?

"GOP leaders are accusing Democrats of acting like they won sweeping election victories three months ago, when they should be acting in a "bipartisan" fashion."

My God, HOW DARE THOSE DEMOCRATS ACT LIKE THAT?
They think that they had the majority of the country vote for them.

Seems to me that THOSE WHO SHOUT LOUDER should be the ones that get all the attention.

Not.

The media likes to blast us with the blathering pontifications of a few who are from the "right."

The actions of the past 8 years, and the dire economical consequences to the entire planet, speak far louder than the stonewallies who seem to think that their belligerence is tantamount to, dare I say, gospel.

But if folks like McConnell and Ensign are serious, and they think Democrats should pursue policy goals the way Bush did, the White House should pretty much stop returning Republicans' phone calls and start pretending the minority party doesn't exist.

Conversely, if they think the Democrats behaved well in bending over for Bush on tax cuts, and badly in refusing to do so on Social Security, then they themselves should adopt the former example instead of the latter.

That aside, bruno is exactly right about the strategic value of Obama's 'bipartisan' or 'post-partisan' positioning.

Obama's outreach policy appears more and more to be turning out to be "rope a dope" strategy.

Democracy means everyone voluntarily does what we tell them to.

Why hasn't anyone in the corporate-controlled media asked Boner about how "bipartisan" he and Tom Delay were when the Republicans were in the majority?

I know, it's a rhetorical question.

I have a bipartisan idea: Let's all unite behind Sarah Palin in 2012. . .

"President Bush, newly re-elected and with expanded Republican majorities in Congress, had the courage to put Social Security reform on the agenda. When he asked for bipartisan help, not one Democrat in Congress stepped forward. Every single one of them turned his or her back, reflexively choosing politics over governing -- and the nation lost out on an opportunity to fix a crucial program in desperate need of reform."

I'm sure McConnell's voters would have been just overjoyed with that kind of "bipartisanship" (had it happened) these past five months.

Bipartisanship is only a virtue when the parties are sincerely interested in good governance.

That's incorrect. Bipartisanship is NEVER a virtue. The only purpose it serves is to remove the awkward tensions from the Beltway cocktail parties. That's why the Villagers promote it so much, so that they don't have to hear any squabbling when they rationally discuss how awesome they are.

People interested in good governance don't care about partisanship at all and there is no need for the two sides to make any overt mention of it. But as it is, we're engaged in a political power struggle between two sides, and as long as one side is insistent on using all their might to obtain a certain objective, the other side is forced to do it too.

And in this case, Obama is using the weapon of bipartisan rhetoric against the Republicans; showing it to be a two-sided sword. And while we don't necessarily like the concessions he's made, they are important to democracy. After all, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority, and it's important to get some input from Republicans in order to deny them support. By adopting these concessions and openly reaching out to Republicans, Obama is not only fulfilling a campaign promise, but also exposing what partisan hypocrites the Republicans are. And it was necessary because we needed to make sure they took the first punch at Obama. It might be messy, but this is what it takes to make things work in a democracy.

"There was very much Democrat, leading up to, it was working together." I think that says it all.

Don't stop to think about it, or give your splurb an object, or your whole weaselly argument unwinds. Just bluster and fairytale and some of your core will buy it. Modern Republican intellectual methodology.

Sadly, some otherwise credible Democrats like Chris Dodd still get sentimental over the memories of Democrats and responsible Republicans working together. Those rRs are practically extinct. Until the Repubs shrug off their parasites, or, more likely, are destroyed by them, bipartisanship as Chris remembers it is dead.

Funny, but I remember the last eight years as being quite bipartisan. The Democrats joined with the Republicans in large numbers on the following:

- The FISA legislation
- Redeployment of troops from Iraq
- The confirmations of Michael Mukasey and Leslie Southwick
- The resolution to go to war with Iraq
- the Protect America Act
- The Military Commissions Act
- The renewal of the Patriot Act

and on and on and on it goes. So the Republican point of the Democrats failure to act in a bipartisan manner is just another case of short political memory.

There's a profound difference between bipartisanship and Kumbaya. Unfortunately, President Obama seems to think that the latter can be a substitute for the former. And all he's achieved is to make his administration and the Congressional Democrats look weak, their legislative objectives easily thwarted by an obstructionist Republican minority. The President must understand that the Republicans are not his friends -- by their words and actions they have shown that they are his ideological enemies. This will not change, no matter how much good will he shows, and no matter how many concessions he makes. Further, he must understand that true bipartisanship isn't a game of solitaire. Unless Republicans are willing to make concessions -- rather than just demands -- concessions by the Democrats are going to look an awful lot like appeasement. Last, Obama has to remember that -- whatever noises are made about a "new politics" - he won election as a partisan candidate running on a partisan ticket, in a highly partisan political environment. Obama wasn't elected to be the moderator of a Sunday morning panel discussion, he was elected to lead the country. I'd like to see him do that.

So in McConnell's brain, a bipartisan democrat would be one that introduces a bill to privatize social security? What a complete tool. It's a shame they didn't bump him off in November. I had such high hopes for a new senator from Kentucky.

And, maybe if the Republican leaders and lackeys would quite referring to the "Democrat Party" in speeches and press conferences, we'd believe in their "bi-partisan approach" a little more.

Republican "bi-partisanship", my fat white ass!

Can somebody please explain to me how and why anybody should listen to these blithering idiot republicans? Isn't it the agenda that they've been promoting for years that got us into this mongolian clusterfuck?

The President must understand that the Republicans are not his friends

I find it mind-boggling that anyone would assume that Obama, who pulled the political coup of the century last year by out-maneuvering far more experienced politicians (including the Clintons), could possibly be the naive simpleton you people think he is.

My god, Obama won a stunning victory in ways that most folks thought was impossible, yet STILL you believe he's a political novice? Really?? What Barack Obama were you watching last year? He faced-off against the dreaded GOP smear machine and came out of it smelling better than ever. Even many Republicans like him now. Disagree with his tactics all you want, but please don't assume the man is a moron. You might not like his plan, but it's obvious he's got one.

Why not wait and see how the President and his administration handle these people? Change comes slowly, like it or not. Republicans have had their way for a long time. Of course they want to continue that. Of course they're going to push and test a new Democratic administration. McCain got 47% of the vote. It's not as though there's a complete mandate to become a progressive country.

Shoving a progressive platform down their throats will just piss people off and create the type of divisiveness that excludes and obstructs. The shrub wasn't my President for eight years. I don't think that the world is served by President Obama being the President to 53% of the country.

Steve, this is at least the second mention of dismissing Republicans. I'd be pissed if you recommended my congressperson to be ignored. Why not let the President try to work with opposing views? Haven't many of his actions in the first week been remarkably fresh and encouraging?

Hey dannyshenanigan have you ever dealt with a little kid that wants to eat ice cream all day long. Maybe it's time for the adults to do what's best for all of us and firmly deal with the children.

"President Bush, newly re-elected and with expanded Republican majorities in Congress, had the courage to put Social Security reform on the agenda. When he asked for bipartisan help, not one Democrat in Congress stepped forward. Every single one of them turned his or her back, reflexively choosing politics over governing -- and the nation lost out on an opportunity to fix a crucial program in desperate need of reform."

President Obama, newly elected and with expanded Democratic majorities in Congress, has the courage to put an economic stimulus package on the agenda. When he now asks for bipartisan help, not one Republican in Congress is stepping forward. Every single one of them is turning his or her back, reflexively choosing politics over governing -- and the nation may lose out on an opportunity to fix an economic system in desperate need of reform.

have you ever dealt with a little kid that wants to eat ice cream all day long. Maybe it's time for the adults to do what's best for all of us and firmly deal with the children.

That'd be nice, Gandalf, except they're not actually children. They're powerful, manipulative people with a sizable following and a still adoring media base. Treating them like disobedient children would be an epic blunder that would most definitely backfire.

Would we get the stimulus bill we wanted? Most probably. Would we be able to continue to bulldoze them for two more years? Probably not. And the more we did it, the less it would work. We need to cut these guys off at the knees, not try to beat them at their own game. There's nothing wrong with using a little strategy, people. You might win by trading punches with a brawler, but you're still going to end up bloody and hurt. Obama showed last year that he can fight without getting bloody. I think we need to give that a try.

BTW, I use strategy when dealing with disobedient kids too.

I like what Stefan did, by using McConnell's very own words and tweaking them just a little bit and update them to the CURRENT situation, instead of living in the past:

President Obama, newly elected and with expanded Democratic majorities in Congress, has the courage to put an economic stimulus package on the agenda. When he now asks for bipartisan help, not one Republican in Congress is stepping forward. Every single one of them is turning his or her back, reflexively choosing politics over governing -- and the nation may lose out on an opportunity to fix an economic system in desperate need of reform.

Sorry to go vulgar, but, the Republican's idea of bipartisan is that they will use vaseline when they put it to the Democrats.