Since "God is in the White House," there's really no alternative for the Dems than to pass the legislation that Bush wants. That's what Inerrant Boy writes in His WSJ editorial, anyhow:

Bush seeks cooperation from new Congress

Illustrating, once again, that the editors are an even worse problem than the reporters, since the editors write the headlines. All of these "cooperation" stories are vacuous: If the Republicans can't get their agenda passed when they control all three branches of Congress, why would anyone expect them to be able to pass it when they've lost Congress? Hello? Anyone?*

President Bush pushed his signature agenda in a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday while asking Democrats, in charge of the House and Senate for the first time in his presidency, to work with him on legislation over the next two years.

"Signature agenda"? What, an illiterate, drunken, bloody scrawl? That kind of signature?

Bush repeated his long-held policies on the war in
Iraq, tax cuts, entrepreneurship and changes in
Social Security and other entitlement programs in a guest column published in The Wall Street Journal.

He can't change. He doesn't know any other way to be.

However, the policies came wrapped in an appeal for bipartisanship the day before Republicans turn over control of Congress to wary Democrats.

So, the AP editor who wrote the headline really has an odd idea of what "cooperation" means, eh? If Bush just uses his indoor voice, the Democrats should fall over themselves to start playing nice. I don't think so.

Here's the real point of Bush's WSJ screed:

"[BUSH] If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate."

Translation: Don't hold try to hold me accountable. This is the framing the Republicans are going to use.

Oh, and the war?

Bush is expected to announce this month a new direction for U.S. policy on Iraq. In the column, he gave no hint of change but cited as a priority his frequently stated goal of helping Iraq gain full control over its affairs.

That's the AP spin. But what did Bush actually say?

"We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war," he wrote.

Grover Norquist was right about Teh Bipartisan.

Presumanbly, no Democrat is foolish enough to fall for these blandishments. The Op-Ed is a framing device for SCLM stenographers. It will be interesting to see how virulent these memes are.

* I think the answer is that the SCLM regards the Republicans as the natural ruling party, whether they have formal, electoral power or not. Probably most of the creatures in the Beltway cesspool feel the same way.

UPDATE Now here's an agenda I can get on board with. Paul Waldman, back in November 2005:

What Democrats need to do is spend the next two years crushing their opponents like bugs. It’s not about mercy, it’s not about manners, it’s about three fundamental goals: limiting the damage the Bush administration can do, passing whatever legislation they can in the short term to help the American public and laying the foundation for future progressive victories.

Democrats should wake up every day thinking, “How can we keep Republicans on the run?” Never give them a moment’s rest, never let them advance their agenda, keep them on the defensive so they have to apologize for being the standard-bearers of a discredited ideology and a disgraced president. Do that, and every legislative battle and election to come will be that much more likely to swing in your favor.

Exactly.

UPDATE The bottom line according to Jerome a Paris:

[Bush's arrogant and whiny screed] is a declaration of war. Which should be good news, right? Bush is unable to win any war. Time to wage this one.

Well said.