And damn right it's revealing: it reveals I'm not some coward unwilling to point out that a bunch of cowardly poseurs are what they are, vain and incompetent boobs. What's even more revealing is that the guys I work with -- big tough guys who Harvey Mansfield would like to spend time embracing for their manliness, and whose former colleague was recalled one again into active duty to Iraq -- who for a while liked Bush Jr. and his tough talk, now they can't stand Bush or any of the Republicans. One guy said -- and no prompting from me -- "all these guys talk so tough about Iraq, maybe they oughtta get their a**es over there and see what the hell it's like, I bet that would shut their a**es up for a while." I think that's a fairly healthy ability to distinguish between the dangerous fake men who are desperately trying to convince people they're manly, versus the kinds of real-world experiences which set the genuinely courageous apart.

I realize you prefer the fake macho pro wrestling version of 'courage' to actual courage, I just don't share your obsession.

I think we could all greatly benefit from an analysis (by Glenn, because it would be extremely well written) on exactly what is meant by "partisan" and 'bipartisan' (or other phrases implying other-than-partisan) when those terms and views appear in our major news media, analyses, and commentaries.

For the last 26 years or so, a default position has been defined by the major U.S. news media, editors, and commentators such that a general center-right + hard-right consensus is to be seen and accepted as normal, American, bipartisan.

Anyone who suggested that individuals, politicians, and organizations move from a center-right + hard-right consensus was being 'partisan', and all the other thoughtlessly negative adjectives of US politics.

On the other hand, anyone who suggested that individuals, politicians, or organizations move from their liberal positions toward the center-right + hard-right consensus was 'bipartisan', moderate, etc.

This applies regardless of the actualy party identity in question; Democrats may be part of the center-to-hard-right consensus, and Republicans may (rarely) dissent from it.

Glenn has covered this extensively with regard to Iraq policy and national 'security' issues. But it applies to nearly all political and governmental activity.

For someone pushing the center-to-hard-right consensus to do something described as partisan, his or her view has to be way, way, way out there, so crazy right wing and oviously destined for failure that the punditocracy seems to recognize its madness.

For anyone departing from the center-to-hard-right consensus to do something described as partisan, his or her view can be an eminently sensible idea, perhaps even shared by a large minority or even a large majority of Americans, such as opposition to NAFTA or support for single-payer health care.

If there's a divided Congress, successful passage of a right wing piece of legislation is proof of its bipartisan reach, an example of a can-do attitude, etc. Successful passage of a liberal bill is an example of a partisan act of arm-twisting which in these divided times will come back to haunt us, etc.

Now, whether one likes using some systemic institutional view of our nation's news media or not, I would venture to point out that this is exactly what you would expect if all major news, analysis, and commentary were rooted in highly centralized, concentrated, and economically powerful institutions.

Anthropologically, it is the general view which you would expect to see flowing from such organizations, particularly organizations which foster the kinds of social connections and peer identity among the ideological institutions, wealth-backed political classes, and the super-wealthy themselves. That is what is implied by Glenn's use of the term Versailles (h/t Paul R.?) and by noting the personal interactions between the individuals mentioned.

Any analysis of human behavior, group identities, social tendencies, and institutional social cultures will contain myriad complexities, contradictions, individual departures, and certainly there will be analysts more interested in the actual events & interactions than other levels of reflections, but it is okay for us to see the issue from the particular, concrete, and empirical, as well as from the generalized, institutional, and analytical levels.

The hard-right Reaganite revolutionaries succeeded in convincing our ideological institutions that the 'natural' and 'bipartisan' consensus of Americans was center-to-hard-right, but they did not face extraordinary opposition from those institutions, either, nor does it seemed to have harmed the ability to have very close personal and social relations between significant figures from the news media institutions, the wealth-backed political classes, and the super-wealthy themselves.