Bipartisanship with Progressives is a myth. But don’t take our word for it. We know this is true because Progressives tell us it is so.
Digging through the internet archives can be fun. For example, you must read this Nation article printed in January of 2001, and proudly distributed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The article maps out the Progressive-Democrat rejection of bi-partisanship with Republicans, and it proudly names names, quoting Socialist Democrat Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
Below are some enlightening excerpts, but the whole article is worth reading if you have any interest in understanding the aggressive Progressive powers that be.
The biggest concern of Sanders and other progressives is that the fantasy will be aided, not hindered, by Democrats who think they can play nice with Bush early on and then channel fury over the 2000 election into a Congressional sweep in 2002 and a reclaiming of the White House in 2004. “Either we break up this congenial, very nice, big-smile lie of bipartisanship or we will see our message corrupted by the suggestion that Democrats and Republicans really aren’t all that different,” says Democratic Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. “If that happens, we will make it look like Ralph Nader was right when he said there were no differences between the parties, and we will lose any advantage coming out of the 2000 election.”
“Florida is over. That fight is done. We can and we should continue the struggle for voting reforms that expand our democracy, but we have to recognize that this is just one of the issues we have to focus on in what is going to be a very dangerous period of great struggle,” argues Jackson. He’ll work with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus–where fury at the way in which Bush was elected bubbled over in late December with threats by veteran members to boycott the Bush inaugural. Jackson can muster equal fury, and he’ll be at January demonstrations led by his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume, but he says the primary focus must be on the legislative battles that could begin even before Bush is sworn in.
Kinda adds perspective to their contemporary demands for bi-partisanship, no? Also in the article:
The first real test for Senate Democrats will involve their handling of Bush’s appointments; GOP senators in 1993 showed with their aggressive, issue-oriented questioning of Clinton’s Cabinet picks that the approval process is ripe with opportunities for embarrassing a new administration.
Can you imagine if Republicans and Fox News openly communicated a strategy to embarrass a newly elected President Obama? They would surly face baiting charges of racism.
Also, don’t miss the part where the Nation refers to elements of the Republican party as “the party’s Taliban wing.” That’s 9 months BEFORE 9/11, when it was still permissible for the Left to openly liken to their fellow Americans to Islamist terrorists. But hey, now the Progressives love the Taliban, so that must mean they also look more favorably upon conservative Americans.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.