Well that's just not true. A quick search of articles from the first month of the Bush presidency proves that Democrats were making an effort to contribute to bipartisan governance. Sure, they were angry about the stolen election, but rather than call for the failure of the Bush administration they looked at their own mistakes and tried to find a way to contribute.
:roll:
Just quit with the tired stolen election crap. It contributes nothing and just deflects from the actual topic, which isn't surprising that you're doing it because your initial topic is bunk.
Again, you've yet to show me an official statement by the GOP stating they wish the failure of the Obama
Administration.
As well, the situation is strikingly different. In 2001 Republicans did not have control of the entire congress, with Democrats having equal footing [and soon after majority] in the senate. This caused them to be forced, politically, to take a different approach which is shown in your articles that you cherry picked.
Additionally, there was no major legislation coming down the pike like this Stimulus Bill in 2000 that is so radically charged in regards to the views by each party on how to go forward with it.
Finally, as will be noted in the cherry picked articles again, Bush's administration right out the gate wasn't coming out going "We won the election" when the other side was giving input that they didn't want to listen to or telling their party who and who they should be listening too. He was not getting up making speeches roasting the previous administration in every paragraph. Bush was making strong pushes to actually be bipartisan and be respectful and open to both sides.
Lets see what else was in here, other than a quote from a guy that ended up essentially being thrown out of the party.
Now, since you still haven't provided an actual official documentation that the elected GOP's stance is to obstruct and cause the Obama Administration to fail I must imagine you're speaking of the constituency. If that's the case, what does your article say about the Democrat constituency during this time?
the party's core constituency, enraged by the presidential standoff in Florida, is demanding muscular opposition to Mr. Bush.
and in regards to the people in power?
That sentiment has already been signaled by the challenges to some of the incoming president's most ideologically charged cabinet selections, notably his choice of John Ashcroft for attorney general.
In regards to it being a completely different climate and thus politicly they could not be as vocal of obstructionists as they, or their constituents would like.
''Look, we don't control any part of the Congress and we don't control the executive branch,'' Mr. Gephardt said. ''Just by definition of things, we have to rethink everything we were out there on in the election, and think what our agenda should be now.''
And as to why they didn't want to be
seen as obstructionists? Was it because they were trying to cut the president slack? No, it was political for fear of having this happen to them.
Newt Gingrich and his uncompromising Republican followers were punished at the polls when they were blamed by the public for the government shutdown of 1995 and for the partisan zeal of impeachment.
along with further political reason
Yet if Democrats fight hard and then splinter significantly when they vote, some strategists say they risk sending an early message of weakness to Mr. Bush. Democrats say they are well aware that their only negotiating leverage with the president is their ability to use filibusters in the Senate to stop legislation
And what else did Lieberman say?
''On the other hand, we have to be prepared to draw the line when there is no real agreement and not just reach an agreement for the sake of accommodation.''
Seems like the Republicans drawing a line on the stimulus due to the large amount of non-stimulus things added to it instead of reaching an agreement for the sake of accomodating the new president.
Not to mention, this sentiment was pretty much only in the Senate which is not surprising as it was the only place where politicly it was the smart move. In the house:
While Democratic House members on the left want the party to fight uncompromisingly against Mr. Bush
with statements from representitives such as this
Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat, has been warning senators that they ignore the strong feelings of the party's base at their own peril"...He lambasted the Senate as ''the only group in town talking of bipartisanship.''
It was clear from your article that if you read it instead of cherry pick it that the Democratic Base wanted Bush's failure and to impeed him, the Democratic House Members wanted to fight uncompromisingly against him, and only the Senate for purely political and not noble reasons wanted to act bipartisan with him.
As to your second, as I said, Bush's tone was far different than Obama's and was percieved as such:
Mr. Bush's use of soothing words and symbolic acts has not been matched since Ronald Reagan's first days. In addition, the new president has surpassed both Mr. Reagan, his own father and Bill Clinton in making Congressional diplomacy an opening priority.
Not to mention this being a wonderful example of an early (albiet backhanded) insult to Bush right out of the gate, showing they're as petty as current republicans can be
Democrats who had envisioned him stumbling into town are now admiring him for staying ''on message,'' even if they dislike the message. Mr. Bush has also seemed smarter and verbally sharper than they expected.
Not to mention both point out that Bush did little of anything controversial in his first two weeks; far different than Obama and the Stimulus package. And the one thing that was controversial was Ashcroft. What was the vote by Democrats in the Senate?
8 yays, 42 Nays. 84%. More than the Stimulus got, but by under 10%. And still moer than 3/4th's against it.
Sorry, you're flat out wrong. Save for the Senate who was doing it pretty much through public channels more than through votes and for political reasons primarily if not only, the majority of Democrats in this country seemed to be roundly in favor of Bush's Administration to fail in regards to its policies. Gephart, as shown in your article, warned him against tax cuts. He was roundly told there'd be opposition to misile defense. He was warned against further stances on abortion. He was opposed on his changes to environmental laws and his appointment to Aschcroft.
No, much like today, Democrats then for the most part wanted the failure of the Bush Administration's policies just as many republicans wish that for Obama's now. The simple fact was politicaly at that time they had to go about such in the Senate in a different way then the current situation.
Quit with all the personal attacks. On the other hand I do need some practice handing out infractions if anyone insists on keeping it up.