From
WaPo, this is what we want to hear:
As President Bush prepares for his second term, Democrats in Washington and around the country are organizing for a year of confrontation and resistance, saying they are determined to block Bush's major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory last November. The Democrats' mood and posture represent a contrast to that of four years ago, after Bush's disputed victory over Al Gore. Then, despite anger and bitterness over how the 2000 election ended, Democrats were tentative and initially open to Bush's calls for bipartisan cooperation. Today, despite Bush's clear win over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Democrats across the ideological spectrum say they are united in their desire to fight.
Yes sir. This is exactly the right thing to do. Draw the contrasts. Fight for our principles. This is a time to fight the noble fight, not to make the "pragmatic" compromise. Why?
Bush has opened the year with calls for bipartisanship, telling newly elected members of Congress last week that he hoped to work across party lines to solve the country's problems. Democrats, however, appear to have little interest in building bridges to the White House, saying they do not believe Bush is genuinely interested in cooperation or compromise with the opposition. "The president's idea of bipartisanship is, 'Here's what I want to do, join me,' " said Rep. Robert Menendez (N.J.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "It isn't about negotiating. It isn't about compromise. It's almost this belief that they have the monopoly on what's best for the country."
They seem to have finally gotten it. BTW, the first fight should be against the outrageous nomination of Alberto Gonzales, the architect of BushCo's push for legalizing torture, for Attorney General.
Update [2005-1-10 0:44:0 by Armando]: And Iraq. they must demand answers on Iraq!
More on the flip
Why this new feistiness? Frankly, I think all of us, the blogs and progressive Dems, have pushed the Party where maybe it did not want to go. But Bush has helped also by his completely arrogant approach:
Kerry's defeat left Democrats demoralized, particularly because so many of them believed the Massachusetts senator was going to win, and it has triggered a period of introspection and debate over how the party needs to change to win elections in 2006 and compete for the White House again in 2008. That internal debate has not caused Democrats to shrink from a fight with Bush -- if anything, Democrats' willingness to challenge him has increased in the past month -- nor do they see a serious political cost in doing so. Harkin said Senate Democrats, who met privately Wednesday, were resolved "not to let the Republicans intimidate us or roll over us." Several events have contributed to Democrats' belief that Bush can be challenged at little political damage to themselves. They include the embarrassment over the withdrawal of Bush's nomination of Bernard B. Kerik as secretary of homeland security; the speculation, fed by anonymous administration leaks, about whether Treasury Secretary John W. Snow would stay or go; and the uproar over Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's remarks in Iraq about whether the military was equipped properly to go to war.
Whatever it was, it is welcome. Hey Kid O, we may have ourselves some Fighting Dems. And that is very welcome.