Bush, Senate Dems Vow Cooperation

(CBS/AP)  Looking to put the bitterness of the campaign behind them, President Bush on Friday cozied up to the Democrats who'll be running the Senate in the new Congress, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.

"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.

[misha131]

Bi-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.

[firststate]

thank you, that has been a nagging question that I never thought to ask at the same time when someone who could answer was available.

[radiob-2009]

You are correct in them writing it off,sorry I failed to answer that the first time around.It is getting late and I am not quite as sharp as i am in the morning.I get up everday at 4 out of habit and sleep about 3 to 4 hours on average.i have done this for almost forty years.I am getting tired I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily.Good night and god Bless

[radiob-2009]

The doctors have prenegotiated with the goverment and insurance companies to accept a lower fee.If you look at a statement from your insurance or medicare statement you will see three prices one the doctor normally charges,two the price negotiated and three your liablity.What you ahve to watch for is some Doctors/Hospitals although they have agreed to accept a lower rate will try to bill you for the difference.Always keep copys of your statements.

[firststate]

radiob, thanks for taking the time to provide real information instead of slogans. I have a general medical/tax question for you or anyone else who actually knows.

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?

[radiob-2009]

Oh by the way when i am referring to foreign investment in Mexico i am speaking of the oil industry.I think I need to clear that up fast.They have no problem with American corporations moving to Mexico they just do not want any foreign investment in their oil industry.

[radiob-2009]

ozilot You are correct in the american public not funding an education system.I am not talking about European companies or Asian companies growing.I am speaking of the American corporations that have shipped American jobs overseas at the expense of the American taxpayer and the labor force which has subsequently received less and less in wages due to inflation.Real inflation the core rate of staple products we buy ecveryday.I am not advocating protectionism, a free economy is paramount to the US and the world.However how about making those tax loopholes disappear?And if the WTO,NAFTA and other treaties are supposed to enable the citizens of those countries then why not give them a comparable wage in realtion to their economy and ours.That would enable them,promote more purchasing power and stop the influx of illegal immigrants.I have no issues with the Mexican people,I have issues with the trade deals that keep them in poverty and prevent foreign investment.And yes who was at that cabinet meeting and what was it about 11 days into Bush first term?I have my own copy of the book but the question is asked to the relevance of the story we were posting at.

[firststate]

processor2,
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.

[processor2]

You can't trust the left-wing Neo-Commies.

To liberal democrats, "Bipartisanship" means forcing you to agree with them,

or else.

[bellal-2009]

Good points, radiob and SharnCedar.