Taking the "bi" out of "bipartisanship"
February 17, 2009 12:20 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Eric Boehlert and I have both written a lot lately about the media's fetishization of bipartisanship -- and the fact that they insist on attempts at bipartisanship from Democrats much more than from Republicans. I devoted my latest column to that fact on Friday.
Today, Digby provides a striking example: Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen -- ostensibly a liberal columnist -- praising Republicans for their principled opposition to President Obama after having blasted liberals for "The demonization of Bush" during the 2004 campaign.
Anyway: Go read Digby.
We've seen the "bipartisanship" issue forwarded by Republicans in Congress before: it reared it's minority-sized head in November 2006, after the historic reversal of the House's and Senate's composition and shift in status:
It's what Republicans cry out when they find themselves shut out, by the American People (as they were in 2006 and then again in 2008), they cry out:
"COMPROMISE your Majority with us the Minority"
Isn't that what "bipartisan" truly is supposed to mean in this particular instance, "COMPROMISE"?
Isn't "bipartisanship" where the majority compromises itself to the minority?"
I say the present Congressional Majority need not compromise any power of it's Majority, to the present Congressional minority: they are unrepentant, and therefore undeserving of any share in power, no?
We've seen and heard it before.
It's like these Congressional Republicans are bums panhandling on the street... Political BUMS... with their beggar's hands out, asking for a share in the Political Power they once held but maliciously squandered... the Political BUM asks for "spare change" of and in Political Power:
"bipartisanship, please sir?"
Full steam ahead, Majority! You have an electoral, and therefore Political mandate, you know?
Screw those Congressional Republicans: the American People shut them out, twice in a row, in the national elections!
Screw them, they're out.