The Republicans were poor winners, now they are poor losers

(Via Fox News [no, I'm not kidding!])

Barack Obama's designated chief of staff -- responding to Republicans' concerns that his tough, partisan approach might run at odds with Barack Obama's administration -- said it's up to the new president to set a bipartisan "tone."

Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, appearing Sunday on ABC News' This Week, dismissed such charges by saying Obama will maintain his pledge to govern in a bipartisan manner.

Last week, the Republican National Committee put out a press release calling Obama's choice of Emanuel, "Obama's Broken Promise" because the Illinois politician has a reputation for being "hyper-partisan."

And Republican House leader John Boehner called Emanuel "an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil, and govern from the center."

Now, it doesn't take too much to see the irony of the party of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove whining about "partisanship". The horror stories over the last years of Democratic committee members not informed of important votes or being locked out of hearing rooms aren't all THAT ancient. But really, where the hell do these people get off?

I also remember Bush calling his 3% win over Kerry a "mandate" (he can only be forgiven for this because he really doesn't speak English all that well), while Conservative pundits like Robert Novak pull things out of their ass like: "He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities." A 7% lead in THIS race is not a mandate? What would be a mandate? Is there a separate, partisan way of defining mandate?

I'm just askin' . . . .