More Democratic broken promises

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nov. 10, 2006:

“Election’s over. The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship and openness and to get some results. And we’ve made a commitment — the four [Bush, Durbin, and &?] of us here today — that that’s what we’re going to do.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 9, 2006:

“Democrats are ready to lead, prepared to govern and absolutely willing to work in a bipartisan way.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, November 8, 2006:

“The American people voted for a New Direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans.”

[…]

“We will work with Republicans in Congress and the Administration in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship.”

Speaker Pelosi now (emphasis added):

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

[…]

Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.

“We’ve talked about these things for more than a year,” he said. “The members and the public know what we’re voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we’re going to pass these bills.”

But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. “The test is not the first 100 hours,” he said. “The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do.”

LOL! Translation: We’ll start working with Republicans after we get these few bills passed we’ve been wanting to … maybe.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but liberal – and a complete phony.

Also blogging about this: AJ Strata, Coldhearted Truth, Atlas Shrugs, Ankle Biting Pundits, Texas Rainmaker, Rhymes With Right, GOP Bloggers, Gateway Pundit

Wed AM Update: The Prez. calls the Democrats’ bluff. Work with me, he asks them. How much do you want to bet that he’s already fully aware that they won’t and never had any intentions of doing so?

Prior/Related:

Politicizing the death of President Gerald Ford

I wish I could say that I’m stunned to see how the media has acted the last week over the death of President Ford but, sadly, I’m not. As I’ll explain below, when they want to advance their pet liberal issues issues, the MSM don’t mind using the death of a Republican president in order to advance it.

When our beloved president Ronald Reagan died on Saturday June 5, 2004 after a long battle with Alzheimer’s disease, the media didn’t waste a second before they began pumping up talk of embryotic stem cell research and how it ‘might have helped’ President Reagan. In this piece the day of President Reagan’s death, CNN quoted extensively from a fundraiser attended by Nancy Reagan the previous month, where the former First Lady touted the possible benefits from the research. And First Lady Laura Bush was asked about her husband’s position on embryotic stem cell research on June 9 in this interview conducted by MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell. Just a few days later, the NYTimes published a full length piece on the Reagan family (with the exception of Michael) and their opposition to the Bush policy on stem cell research. The MSM saturation of news stories on supposed “cures” that embryotic stem cells could come up with reached such a fever pitch, that three days after Reagan’s death, calls by some in Congress – including some Republicans – were being made to “review” the policy put in place by the President that limited federal funding on stem cell research. There are many more examples of the MSM shamelessly making stem cell research the focal point of Ronald Reagan’s death.

Fast forward two and a half years later and the MSM are doing it again, this time over the death of President Ford. It all started late last week after Bob Woodward’s tackily timed piece about Gerald Ford’s alleged stance (revealed to Woodward in July 2004) on the Iraq war was published. The anti-war MSM went wild writing about Ford’s stance, which as it turned out wasn’t as anti-war as Woodward and the WaPo made it out to be. I thought it was wrong for Woodward and the WaPo to publish that piece so soon after Ford’s death, and said so here.

The politicizing of Ford’s comments on the Iraq war are continuing to roll in. Media Research documented some examples of absolute chutzpah from members of the MSM on the issue of Ford’s alleged stance on Iraq. Check this out (hat tip: ST reader Ryan – emphasis added):

On Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Time magazine Washington Bureau Chief Jay Carney called “unpardonable” the late President Gerald Ford’s failure to share with the nation, as well as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — who worked for him as Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense, respectfully — his discomfort with the decision to go to war in Iraq. “Had he spoke out at the time,” Carney sighed, “it would have had an impact.” This Week opened the roundtable with audio of Gerald Ford in a 2004 interview with Bob Woodward: “I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraqi war. I can understand the theory of wanting to free people. I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people unless it is directly related to our own national security.”

Carney’s wife, ABC’s Claire Shipman, echoed what she expressed on Thursday’s Good Morning America (see link below to December 29 CyberAlert) as she scolded Ford for cowardice since “he could have made a real difference” if he had spoken out: “If this was a man who was unafraid to take the hit on something like the pardon [of Nixon], this was a man who had the experience of Vietnam, presiding over the end of the Vietnam war, he clearly felt strongly about what was happening in Iraq, he could have made a real difference if he had decided to speak out.”

Got that? Ford’s decision not to criticize a sitting president in a time of war was inexcusable to Carney and Shipman – but they don’t tell you what type of difference it supposedly would have made. No worry – we know what they meant: Ford’s position on the Iraq war would have made the administration “rethink” their Iraq war strategy in terms of what needed to be done in the future there, or if in fact we still needed to be in Iraq. Apparently to them, the only good former presidents are those who try to act like they still ARE president and who work to undermine the current president’s foreign policies, like Jimmy ‘Hamas isn’t a terrorist group’ Carter and Bill ‘my legacy must be preserved at any costs’ Clinton.

I can understand wanting to talk about the life and history of a president. I found nothing wrong with the question posed by many shortly after Ford’s death: the age-old question of should he have pardoned Nixon. What I object to is when the media uses the death of a Republican president to try and advance their hot button issue pet causes within minutes of their deaths. Can’t they give it a few weeks, at least?

Ford simply wouldn’t do the MSM’s bidding on the Iraq war, and for that, he gets scolded mere days after he passes away.

Freaking shameless.

Update: How could I have forgotten how the media will politicize serious health issues and deaths on the Democratic side, too … namely when it might affect the balance of the Senate, of course.

Mediot madness

…. the “Mediots gone wild!!” edition:

The Associated Press is still being questioned on the validity of one of their sources for news in Iraq,“Captain Jamil Hussein”, who the AP insists is a Baghdad police officer authorized to speak to the media.

The AP is still standing by their source, but conservative bloggers aren’t buying it. Bob Owens, who has extensively studied and researched stories quoting “Captain Jamil Hussein” has what I feel is the definitive post up on the topic.

Eason Jordan, of all people, has even gotten in on the act, and is urging the AP to further investigate. Curt at Flopping Aces has the details.

In related MSM news, Patterico has posted his annual LA Times aka LA Dog Trainer year in review post, which is a must-read.

Finally, in case you didn’t catch the news this weekend, NYT public editor Bryan Calame discovered that a piece written by NYT magazine contributing writer Jack Hitt was essentially a propaganda piece for the pro-abortion group IPAS. Michelle Malkin excoriates the Times – especially Hitt – here for not doing the follow up work it should have to verify the claims made by the “victims” quoted in the article.