Earlier this week, Nancy Pelosi assured Americans that a Democratic supermajority in Congress would translate into “more bipartisanship.”
Set aside for a moment the nonsensical nature of that statement, and let us consider what Democrats really have in mind when they talk of bipartisanship. A helpful case study can be found in my home state of Tennessee.
Early last year, State Senator Rosalind Kurita broke from her party to cast the sole Democratic vote in favor of Republican Ron Ramsey to succeed outgoing Democratic Senate Speaker John S. Wilder.
This angered the Tennessee Democrats.
Fast-forward to this year’s state primaries, which were held on August 7. Kurita held off challenger Tim Barnes – by a mere 19 votes, out of a total of 8,935 cast. A recount upheld Kurita’s narrow margin of victory, which was then certified by election officials.
This infuriated the Tennessee Democrats.
Lucky for them, Tennessee state law allows the party to arbitrarily decide who their nominee will be, regardless of silly things like election results. So party officials convened in Nashville, promptly deemed the election results to be “incurably uncertain” – and simply handed the nomination to Tim Barnes.
Delicious irony, coming from the same party that so bitterly accused Republicans of “stealing” the election from Al Gore in 2000.
Getting back to bipartisanship. Assuming Tim Barnes is elected next week (Kurita is now waging a write-in campaign; there is no Republican challenger), what are the chances he will be reaching across the aisle during his term in the state senate?
Try zero.
You see, Democrats really don’t mind bipartisanship at all – so long as it Republicans who are kowtowing to them. Bipartisanship amongst their own members results in the Joe Lieberman Treatment.
Just ask Rosalind Kurita.