There are several problems with this logic.

First off, the idea that somehow divisiveness and hyper-partisanship got us into this mess is misguided. Divisiveness implies both sides were working equally hard at each others' throats to obstruct progress. In fact, Democrats capitulated and acquiesced to Republican demands consistently during the 109th and 110th Congresses. There are many examples of this on everything from the various Iraq war supplemental budget bills, to the hideous FISA bill, to the Defense of Marriage Act.

One perfect example of this is the Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war Iraq Intelligence. This was Congress's half-assed effort to look into what went wrong with pre-war intelligence that led us to wrongly invade Iraq. From 2003-2006, the Senate Intel committee was run by Pat Roberts (R-KS) who stonewalled the report for years, going so far as to split it into two phases to kick the can down the road. Then, when the Democrats took over, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) took over, and what does he do? Sits on Phase two of the report, out of respect to the minority party. In other words, bipartisanship is the problem, not the solution.

One more example. When Democrats were the minority party, they used the filibuster only to block the most objectionable legislation, whereas when the Republicans were in the minority, they destroyed the filibuster record.

I'm all for the notion that "We should be the change we hope to see in the world," but the fact is, we can't fiddle while Rome burns just to pacify a minority party that's been sticking it to Democrats for years, going way back through the Clinton years. Truly progressive, liberal policies simply have not been tried in this country for decades, and believe you me, I don't see Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress reaching anywhere near where I'd prefer they reach, or even anywhere close to where the true "center" of public opinion is right now.

So, please, olive branches are awesome, and I love singing kumbaya around a campfire, but elections do indeed have consequences, and when elected representatives disagree about stuff, the best thing for them to do is fight for what they believe in (and what their constituents sent them to fight for.) Anything else is an abdication of their duty, and I will not shed a tear if a few feewings are huwt because the conservatives can't dish it in the way they dished it out.



I don't know what you mean by "rural Republican mindset" but I assume you're talking about social issues (gun control, abortion, gay rights, etc.) There are many factions in the Republican party that we've all talked about before, and the "theoconservative" bloc is the only one I identify with rural geography.

If that's the case, what exactly is it you think the scary Democrats are going to do to alienate these voters? When was the last time guns were taken away from anyone in this country? What percent of Americans do you think support a federal ban on abortion? How many of them want a federal law banning gay marriage?

I guess what I'm saying is I don't get why we're suddenly so concerned about Democrats "over-reaching" when Repblicans over-reached way beyond what a majority of Americans want (that's why they voted the Democrats in!) And, all of this concern before any of the new Dems have even taken office!

It's similarly depressing how in 2004, Dubya won by 3.5 million votes (34 EVs), which was largely hailed as a "mandate", but Obama wins by 7 million (and counting!) votes (201 EVs) and everyone wants him to govern from the center. What do Democrats have to do to get the same carte blanche as the Republicans have had for decades?