Uh oh. “Bastardry” is what bastards do. “Bastardy” is where bastards are.

Fair enough. Especially considering the recent evidence that even moderate internal enforcement efforts, meant only for appearances’ sake, were enough to cause significant “self-deportation”.

Anyway, yesterday marks a bipartisan moment which will cheer many Democrats, and outrage many Republicans, to the point where Democratic prospects in the coming election may have improved: The Bush ‘Justice’ department filed it’s brief in the Heller 2nd amendment case: In favor of the District.

Since 2001 in the U.S., bipartisanship has been the problem, not the solution.

Let’s make 2008 the year of good old-fashioned partisan politics. Democrats seemed poised to take back the white house and to expand their power in both the house and senate.

Furthermore, trends seem to be point toward an overall decline in republican influence and conservative doctrine.

Wouldn’t it be fitting if the party which “stole” into power at the beginning of the century were to become broken, abandoned, irrelevant, obselete, and resigned to the history books by 2100?

These bums richly deserve our contempt—and complete marginalization.

http://www.leftopia.blogspot.com/

“Bipartisanship” is often code for “Don’t change the status quo, awful though it is.”

Really?

Look at how the Democratic party has given up on the idea of forced busing in public schools.

Yes, now the battle is in drawing district lines.

The Democrats stole welfare reform (remember President Clinton).

Yes, Democrats had no interest in welfare before Clinton.

Look at how the Democratic Party has to ease off of racial quotas at universities.

Yes, states like Texas use the “10% rule” to achieve the same results without the stigma of quotas. Elsewhere, race is still a factor in admissions.

Look at how even during the primaries, the Democratic candidates have to distance themselves from the Congressional Black Caucus.

How?
.

Schumpeter may have been an elitist, but the notion that competition for power is central to democratic arrangements surely need not be. Unless, that is, you think democracy can operate without political leaders.

As the analogy with economic competition indicates, political competition is in fact anti-democratic – if by democracy you mean political equality. (For Schumpeter, democracy was defined as political competition by means of elections.)

Certainly, the notion of leadership is by definition anti-democratic: leadership means some few people are leaders – wielding significant political power – and most people are followers – having very little power. Thus, democracy (if it is at all possible) not only can operate without leaders, but it must operate without leaders.

Then it would appear that we agree. I would, however, amend your “border enforcement” to “immigration enforcement,” since most illegal aliens merely overstay their visas after entering the country legally.

As it is, illegal immigrants are being used to screw American labor, which is the oldest story in American labor history. It wasn’t too long ago that my ancestors were used to keep wages flat here.
.

Your broader point is certainly true, but a more narrow reading of his comment is probably accurate, and less problematic. You don’t have to think your ideas are perfect to recognize that someone elses are lousy. This particular set of opponents hasn’t really had much in the way of good ideas, and has put most of its effort into strenuously implementing bad ones.

I think bi-partisanship won’t work, we need to work to have a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in both houses for a progressive agenda to take shape..!

Hey, if you’re already perfect, great.

But human experience suggests that most people who think they are perfect are in fact just arrogant.

When Democrats gained a small majority in 2006, we expected checks and balances, but got capitulation. The majority is too thin, we’re told. We need sixty Senate votes, we’re told. Never mind that the now minority is holding sway where Democrats in the minority never could. Now in the majority, that majority is not enough, and they demand more power to act.

And now, the Democrats may get what they seek. We’re on the cusp of a Democratic landslide in both houses of Congress and the Executive. But now that the excuse of an all-powerful Republican minority holding up reform is about to vanish, now we’re being spoon-fed this call for bi-partisanship.

We’re expected to offer a seat at the table for a party who has shred our Constitution, facilitated crony taxpayer ripoffs, gutted regulatory oversight, shielded criminals, persecuted people for being different, conducted an illegal and immoral occupation of a nation that was no threat to us based on a pack of lies—a party who when in the majority disrupted Democratic-sponsored meetings, or relegated them to be held in basement closets.

The media is trumpeting this bi-partisanship as the will of a weary electorate tired of partisan wrangling. But I see it as the excuse-du-jour for a Democratic party beholden to the same corporate bosses that have traditionally owned the Republicans, thanks to the Clinton / McAuliffe / Emanuel / Shrum / Hoyer / Carville “Third Way” DLC Democrats that have taken over the party to benefit the wealthy benefactors they court for donations.

When we endured a Republican political monoculture, there was no media cry for bi-partisanship. We were told that elections have consequences, and indeed they did.

Now I say: no more excuses. Once we have the ship of state headed in the right direction, then and only then, and only maybe, should we share power, and then only selectively. That makes Democrats accountable, and we should hold them so.

But sharing power prematurely is a sure sign that the two parties are indeed working together to undermine the interests of the working stiff in America.