An Insight into Republican Intentions

Here is a wonderful post by Brad DeLong which helps clarify just what the intentions the Republicans have for bipartisanship...

Two Speeches and an Editorial:

President Obama, yesterday:

Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

President Obama, May 1, 2009:

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.

National Review, May 4, 2009:

Empathy is simply a codeword for an inclination toward liberal activism.

And let me add Grover Norquist, May 26, 2003:

We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals—and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship. Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.

It might help to point out that the National Review is a notorious right wing magazine founded by that notorious right winger William F. Buckley Jr.. And that Grover Norquist is a notorious right wing ideologue. From Wikipedia:

Norquist was instrumental in securing early support for then Texas Governor George W. Bush, acting as his unofficial liaison to the conservative movement.

Something can be deduced from the above, and the fact that Republicans love to use over-the-top names like "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" for their legislation. Naming bills in this fashion demonstrates that Republicans are not serious legislators. They are clowns tone deaf to their own fanaticism. They are vicious ideologues so poisoned by their own hate, they can't see straight. The Republicans have, over time, moved from being the "Party of Lincoln" then to being the "Party of the Rich" and now have become the "Party of Right Wing Fanatics".

So what chance is there for "bi-partisanship" with the new Congress?