The Patriot Post® · Pelosi Explains What 'Bipartisanship' Means

In the wake of the Hope ‘n’ Change Health Care Summit last Thursday, Democrats are conniving over how to get a takeover bill passed in both chambers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sunday that she expects to have the votes for passage, despite retirements, death and cold feet plaguing the Democrat caucus. Of course, when she says she expects to have the votes, she means only Democrat votes. But according to her, that’s still “bipartisan.”

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Pelosi described bipartisanship as a “two-way street.” True, “But let me say this,” she added, “the bill can be bipartisan even though the votes might not be bipartisan. Because [Republicans] have made their imprint on this.”

As laughable as this is, we wish more Republicans would make the case that the problem isn’t whether the bill is “bipartisan.” A few Republican ideas sprinkled in won’t fix it. The problem, at its core, is that a plan for Congress to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy is unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. We’ve searched repeatedly and still can’t find health care among them. But Democrats generally operate under the assumption that if an action isn’t expressly prohibited, they can do it with a majority vote. Indeed, when asked about the constitutional authority of the legislation in October, Pelosi indignantly replied, “Are you serious?”

Her outrageous weekend comments didn’t stop with bipartisanship, either. She claimed that Democrats “share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interests in Washington.”

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund responded, “That would certainly surprise every Tea Party leader I’ve ever spoken to, who unanimously view Ms. Pelosi as a tool of such ‘special interests’ as labor unions, rabid environmentalists and ACLU lawyers.”

This would also be the same Pelosi who said of the Tea Parties last year, “What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now. What we want is a new direction.”

A new direction would be nice. And by new, we mean one that’s about 221 years old.