Yep. That’s straight from the mouth of the new president, Captain Bi-Partisanship. Obama, Pelosi (who, I swear to our collective oneness, straight-faced told the American people she thinks of herself as non-partisan), and their ilk have made it quite clear that they’re only willing to discuss and debate with the GOP on issues as long as the result of the debate is a foregone conclusion. They absolutely do not need Republican support to pass a damn thing in this Congress. So why are the Dems are in such an uproar over the unanimous Republican “nay” vote on TARP II? They didn’t need a single House Republican vote to pass it and could apparently even spare 11 Democrats’ votes. This is part of a public perception strategy to demonize the Republican party. I’ll have to give the Dems this: the last century or so has proven them to be far more effective in terms of shaping public perception than the Republicans could ever hope to be.

Take as a for instance the civil rights progress made in the 60′s. Common knowledge would tell you that it was all thanks to the Dems, and they’ve been quite successful in shaping history to reflect that sentiment. It was, however, a far weaker version of the bill that passed in ’64 by the Dems than was introduced previously by Republicans. It was the Democratic majority who’d been filibustering and blocking attempts to pass the civil rights bill. Thanks only to JFK—who foresaw a massive return of black voters to the party of Lincoln if the Republicans were successful—a weak, over-night version of the Republican bill was introduced by the Dems. JFK was shortly assassinated, and LBJ placed passage of JFK’s initiative a top priority. It was pandering at it’s finest—a familiar motivation behind so many political maneuvers. Dems had control of Congress then as now, and had such control over a large unbroken period of time beginning with FDR and the New Deal. If the Dems thought civil rights was so important, why didn’t they pass it sooner? Why did it require years of failed Republican bills and pressure from the GOP to get the Dems to move on the issue?

Speaking of the New Deal, this is on the reading list for all of you still convinced that it was government work programs that brought us out of—rather than caused and extended—the Great Depression.

UPDATE: Let me add that Obama’s apologizing to the Arab world about our apparent effrontery over the last 20 to 30 years is a great example of rewriting history. It not only ignores American lives and blood shed for the benefit of Muslims in places the world over, it vindicates and legitimizes the terrorists’ beef with the Satan and the Great Satan. From the Krauthammer piece linked above:

[I]t is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized… In these seven years since Sept. 11 — seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons – there’s not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the massacre of 3,000 innocents. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

So who should be apologizing? A culture of openness, respect, and opportunity hailing from the freest nation in history? Or a religious culture that forces film-makers, journalists, and cartoonists to take pause before invoking the name of their prophet for fear of supremely disproportionate retribution?