We know what to expect out of Bush Co. - not so much because of the party he belongs to (although that is a contributing factor) but because of the arrogant sense of self-entitlement and unmitigated selfishness we saw on his face and in his demeanor way back during the Summer of 2000. Things have not changed - even I could not have predicted how incompetent and downright evil this man and his henchmen could be.
What I did not expect was for our Country to elect Democratic majorities in 2006 only to see them do nothing - or worse, aid Bush Co. in almost every dastardly policy initiative he and his cabinet could possibility think of.
Instead of seizing upon an historic moment in U.S. electoral history in order to emphatically define, on a national stage, what our party stands for, federal Democrats took the easy way out (with a few notable exceptions) and did nothing but raise money and bask in the glory of their electoral victory.
Instead of passing well-considered legislation detailing effective and progressive solutions to the social and economic problems festering within our nation, the House and Senate leadership took an almost deferential attitude towards the worst (and most unpopular) chief executive in U.S. History.
The greatest cause of this disaster has been the election of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker. The House Speaker wields tremendous procedural clout in that Chamber; Pelosi could have shut down the federal government by refusing the call the chamber to order or to bring up critical bills for a vote. What we needed a good politician with power to stand up against Bush and, for once in his life, NOT give him what he wanted. Instead, Bush successfully made Pelosi and House leadership ashamed of their own party and what it has stood for since 1933. I cringe every time I see that picture of Nancy Pelosi embracing the great Tip O' Neill. Ms. Pelosi does not seem to understand that there is a fine line between bi-partisanship and willful collusion with forces opposed to good government. News that Ms. Pelosi is consolidating her power amongst the Democratic Caucus is not good.
Ms. Pelosi could have stood against the Bush Administration by defining what her party sees as the best solutions to our nation's ills - solutions diametrically opposed to the malevolent policies of the Bush Administration. I suspect that Pelosi was so afraid of being labeled an obstructionist by the Bush Administration that she adopted what I call a policy of appeasement towards Mr. Bush. "Appeasement" is the most politically-charged and insulting term I can think of to describe Pelosi's leadership (or lack thereof) the past two years. Standing up against Mr. Bush would have taken personal, professional, and political courage, but it was what this country desperately needed in one of its darkest periods of government. Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neill would have stood up against the Bush Administration without regard for his own personal fortunes in order to "win one" for democracy, freedom, and good public policy - Nancy Pelosi can't even imagine what that would be like.
UPDATE: There is a reason that Congress is established in Article I of the Constitution and the Executive in Article II. Congress is supposed to have supremacy over the executive. It is the job of Congress to write the laws and to either entrust enforcement to the Executive or to establish a federal agency to administer the provisions of the act. It is not the job of Congress to make sure that the President likes what they are doing before they even have a vote on the damn bill!