|
Does this make the Republicans "unipartisan", or does it make the Democrats look like very sore losers?
"Bipartisanship" basically means "play along with us on the major issues, and we'll let you have some influence around the fringes". That's what it meant when we were in power, and that's what it means now.
We can refuse to co-operate in any way, and it might work. It might backfire, too, if the Repukes succeed in getting their agenda passed without our help, and they realize that they don't need us. Besides, if we can stop the rock-slide falling on the Democratic village, shouldn't we at least try to divert it?
Besides, all this, do you think the RW isn't making its own plans to "expose left wing bias". For example, Rathergate, while not as hot as it was, can be dragged back out into the public view. Then there are the Greens, which can, and probably will, split the Dems in 2008. Then what about the PETA wackos? Will these split the party?
All told, I think it is better to maintain some semblance of co-operation with the governing party, mainly so we can present ourselves as responsible adults to the voters.
|