If a Democrat voted against a bill that passed anyway and was signed into law by Bush, that counts as voting with Bush?
The point I was trying to make is that the Democrats have had the majority for the last two years. They have not had a veto proof majority, but a majority non-the-less. As such, they bear as much responsibility for the conditions of things as anyone. Thus, it could be said that without the Democrat leadership pushing or supporting issues, they would never see the floor for a vote and therefore everything passed in the last two years has had a strong Democrat stamp on it... 100% Democrat.
Was it as strong, as socialist an agenda as they would like? Of course not. Thats why they want to take the WH so bad.