Bush, Senate Dems Vow Cooperation
Both Sides Promise Bipartisanship As President Hosts Sens. Reid And Durbin At White House
-
Play CBS Video Video Bush Meets Top Senate Dems The top Senate Democrats visited President Bush at the White House, making the same pledges top House Democrats made in their meeting with the president. Aleen Sirgany reports.
-
Video Bipartisan Is Now The Word Only On The Web: Bill Plante reports that President Bush will be meeting today with the Senate's top Democrats, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. They'll be discussing a bipartisan summit on Iraq.
-
Video Bush Welcomes Democrats President Bush and incoming House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi met at the White House and pledged to work together. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
-
President Bush, center, watches as Democratic Senate leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., second from left, shakes hands with Vice President Dick Cheney, right, as Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., left, looks on, following their meeting in the Oval Office, Nov. 10, 2006. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
-
Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid, left, talks with President Bush in the Oval Office, Nov. 10, 2006. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
-
President Bush, right, shakes hands with Rep. Nancy Pelosi during their meeting in the Oval Office , Nov. 9, 2006. (AP Photo)
-
-
Photo Essay Winners And Losers Images of some of the victors and vanquished from Election Day 2006.
-
Photos Election Day '06 Images from around the country as Americans exercise their right to vote.
-
Interactive Election Briefing Book Info on the races, voting statistics, and more from the CBS News Election & Survey Unit.
"I assured the senators that we'll cooperate as closely as we can to solve common problems," Mr. Bush said after a 45-minute meeting with soon-to-be majority leader Harry Reid and the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin.
It was a sentiment seconded by Reid.
"The only way to move forward is with bipartisanship, openness and to get some results," Reid said. "And we've made a commitment, the four of us here today, that's what we're going to do."
As a start, Reid proposed a one-day bipartisan summit on the war in Iraq, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.
"The American people need to know that there's something going on back here with the leaders of this country — that we're talking about it rather than just talking past each other," Reid said.
Mr. Bush noted that both he and Nevada's Reid are from the West and "tend to speak the same language." He said that bodes well for their relationship.
Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, appreciatively observed that both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had chosen blue ties — perhaps in honor of the Democratic victory on Tuesday?
"I was hoping you would notice that," said Mr. Bush.
But the bonhomie before the cameras could quickly disintegrate.
Even while courting the Democrats who will control Capitol Hill beginning in January, Mr. Bush is pressing for the current Congress, while it is still ruled by Republicans, to pass items deeply controversial to Democrats. These include legalizing his warrantless eavesdropping program, stalled in the Senate because of a Democratic filibuster threat, and confirming John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, which Democrats have opposed.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said both items are crucial, and that Democrats should see their merits.
"I don't think you should look at these as necessarily provocative," he said.
Bolton has held the post on a temporary basis for more than a year, and Mr. Bush cannot make a second recess appointment of him. Without confirmation, he would have to leave the job in January.
"Look at his record. The point is, what complaint do you have with a man who has been so successful?" Snow said.
He left open the possibility that Bolton could remain at the U.N. but just give him a different title.
"I'm not aware of that but I am not going to rule anything in or out," Snow said.
Mr. Bush was as good-natured as he was when he spoke to reporters on Thursday after lunch with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., expected be the next speaker of the House.
But Mr. Bush will be leading the nation with a Congress entirely controlled by the Democrats for the first time in his presidency.
It could have him reaching back to his experience as governor of Texas when he cultivated friendships with other top Democrats in the state government — and to his 2000 campaign promise to be a "uniter, not a divider." But his critics say working with conservative Democrats in Texas is far different from working with a House and Senate lead by liberal lawmakers like Reid and Pelosi.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The secrets of tennis legend 




- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 43 CommentsBi-partisanship and smiles for the camera.
"McConnell Had Hoped to Be Majority Chief
(AP) ... While the Kentucky Republican regrets Democrats' control of Congress denies him the chance to become the next Senate majority leader, he sees the GOP carving out a significant, albeit slightly different role.
"We'll be able block or shape legislation. My preference of course is to accomplish things," said McConnell, who is now running unopposed to be Senate Republican leader
.
When the new Senate convenes in January, Democrats will control 51 seats to Republicans' 49. The close split means Republicans still will have significant power, because it often takes 60 votes to pass legislation."
Combined with George Bush wanting votes on John Bolton apparently lacking committee votes and his wiretapping measure while expecting the Democrats not to object in the same fashion as announced by the potential new Senate Minority Leader. Between now and January is the time for the Republicans to demonstrate the type of government they expect from the Democrats -- overall it appears the Republicans expect to be allowed and the Democrats are proposing a better deal next year than the Republicans are willing to give now. Especially given the order for the comments given by Senator McConnell emphasizing obstructing and blocking over accomplishing. Bi-partisanship would be to advance and shape reserving obstructing and blocking for significant differences.
When a medical service provider bills for a medicare covered service, the billed amount is higher than the medicare approved amount. For example, a doctor provides service x, bills it at $100, the approved amount is $30, Medicare pays $24 the amount the patient or his/her supplemental insurance owes is $6. Why bill for the $100 in the first place? Can the provider deduct the $70 difference between the fee and the approved fee. I was told that the deduction allowed is one of the reasons providers accept medicare with its low payment rates. Is that basically correct?
Burns & Allen, the Senators, not the comedy team, were aware that many of the machines recording and reporting votes used in their states produce no paper trails. Any supposed %u201Crecount%u201D would consist of having the machines report the same results. An attempt to recount would expose the weaknesses of these machines in a real election, maybe causing the electorate to question the result. Burns & Allen had both suffered from foot and mouth problems during their campaigns, but to their credit, both gentlemen conceded. Conceding was the norm until 2000, but recounts are still around for sound reasons. In 2000, it was Mr. Baker, acting for the Republican, who asked the Supreme Court to intervene to stop ongoing recounts, so Republicans are also willing to use attorneys in elections.
You said, %u201CTo liberal democrats, %u2018Bipartisanship%u2019 means forcing you to agree with them, ... or else.%u201D When democratic members complained of being left out of important negotiations and decisions throughout the 107th through the 109th Congresses, the leadership%u2019s response was, %u201Cwhen you control Congress, you can run things the way you want to.%u201D I don%u2019t think you meant to call Hastert, Boehner or Blunt liberals but there actions are those you ascribe to liberals.
To liberal democrats, "Bipartisanship" means forcing you to agree with them,
or else.
Why do you think illegal immigrants are coming to America?Could it be because of the mutiple WTO,NAFTA and other treaties coupled with tax breaks to US corporations to move overseas or south of the border where they pay $60 a week for the same job that an American would make $600 dollars a week at.That is Mexico,in China they work 85 hours a week and bring home $12 dollars.All of these treaties and tax breaks create illegal immigration and rob Americans of their jobs.The treaties were supposed to enable the citizens of other countries and promote democracy instead they have become nothing more than a new form of slavery.There is my liberal side showing even though I am an independent.I just happen to beleive from taking classes to obtain my degree and participating in the stock market as a day trader as a supplemental income that the treaties coupled with the tax breaks have done more harm than good.
LOL... loser.
If Allen & Burns had been Democrats, here's what would have happened.
They would have demanded recounts, gotten lawyers, claimed the electronic voting machines were rigged, and CBS posters would be claiming the elections were stolen.
I guess that's the difference between Republicans and Democrats
Posted by processor2 at 07:36 PM : Nov 10, 2006
No, the fat lady was sitting on both their chests singing, that's what.
The wealthy elite and corporate elite have negavity and disrespect for you. They have started this process. The anger I see around me is a real anger; an anger born of our humanity and rights stolen from us by master manipulators. That we turn on each other is regrettable, but certainly part of the plan of the manipulators.
The anger is real; the fake dichotomies we get caught up in are not real. There is nothing civil in a world where 1% own 50% outright of everything, and make 100% of the rules. That is war to the death, either we will free ourselves or lose our right to determine our destiny.
They have thrown down a challenge to humanity - what civil discourse can there be when we don't own the houses we live in, or have the right not to be spied on by cameras at every traffic intersection. When we don't have the right to live in peace in our own land without foreigners being imported by the millions.
The right to self-detemrination is the first and most fundamental right, from it all other powers flow. We are the occupied country, not Iraq. Sorry I have nothing civil to say about it.
Remember, we are the ones with the guns.
Just kidding. ;)
Posted by One_American at 03:53 PM : Nov 10, 2006
/quote
Note to all true Americans: the biggest caliber firearm in the world doesn't mean anything when it is used to shoot the owner in the foot. A well-placed .22 is infinitely more effective than a miss with a .44 magnum.
Have a nice day.
If Allen & Burns had been Democrats, here's what would have happened.
They would have demanded recounts, gotten lawyers, claimed the electronic voting machines were rigged, and CBS posters would be claiming the elections were stolen.
I guess that's the difference between Republicans and Democrats
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 43 Comments