Professor Chaos finds bipartisanship in action in the local newspaper:

The AJC’s idea of bi-partisan means Newt Gingrich and a guy who works for Newt Gingrich.

Meanwhile, Obama will be holding his monthly festival of bipartisanship next week.  How does it make him look Leaderly, or Desperate?

Obama has stepped up both his outreach to Republicans and his attacks on the GOP following the Democrats’ loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts last month.

And what are the prospects for this outreach?

I’ve missed almost all the punditry this past week… but what I’ve seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of ‘why no bipartisanship?’ There’s really nothing more to be said about “why no bipartisanship,” once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it’s absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise).  It’s doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections.  Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again…

If someone said I could either have an outbreak of raging bipartisanship in Washington, or an outbreak of raging chlamydia in my penis, I would choose the social disease.  Because someone figured out a cure for it.

Advertisements