El Cid kicked off an excellent comment:

I think Glenn's found his next target for deep analysis

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.

This didn't happen overnight, however. I would argue that it happened in stages, particularly since the Dems controlled the House of Representatives up through 1994, and even many top Republicans were remarkably reality-based. This is particularly evident in the studies covered in the book Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Congress and the Public by Fay Lomax Cook, Edith J. Barrett.

While there are many interacting factors involved, I would say that the election of Reagan in 1980 began a process of consolidating a rightwing establishment culture in Washington. This was substantially aided by the establishment of the Washington Times in 1982. (The success of this establishment is why the Clintons were regarded with such horror as interlopers.) The elimination of the Fiarness Docrine in 1986 paved the way for rightwing talk radio, which in turn was crucial to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. After that, the unique mechanisms of control discussed in Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy combined to help unify the GOP Congress into a narrow right-wing governinig majority, despite being siginificantly to the right of the American public.

At the same time, there were much broader cultural forces at work, which Kevin Phillips has discussed in several books since 2000, most notably American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, in which he discusses how a culture of wealth- and celebrity-worship has developed, and Wealth and Democracy, in which he identified a similar pattern in the three previous world powers (Spain, Holland and Britain) following their unexpected reversals at the peak of power.

All this is changing now. Phillips noted that egalitarian realignments came about in all those previous examples, after a few decades--we are definitely due. Similarly, the mechanisms examined in Off-Center depend on being in control in order for them to all work together. The media is actually the most resistent to change, which is why we are seeing the outbreak of veritable war between the media and the Democratic leadership in Congress.

El Cid:

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 is part of the hegemonic meta-narrative. It's worth remembering that during the 2000 Florida recount, the CW was that whoever won would of necessity have to govern from the center as a bi-partisan consensus-builder. Of course, Bush didn't, and such talk was quickly forgotten. But who can doubt that Gore absolutely would have had to?

This is also closely related to the "Bush derangement syndrome" meme, in which substantive reasons for being appalled by the Bush Administration cannot be discussed in polite company, and so it must be claimed, instead, that those who do not like his policies suffer from said syndrome. Of course this is sheer projection on the part of folks who actually did (and still do) suffer from Clinton derangement syndrome.

The projection dynamic is likewise at work in the labelling of Democrats as partisan when they are trying to implement the recommendations of the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

you post online, of course.

Always with the unique melange of linked goodies, sysprog is. Of course to those who get the dead tree edition, The Washington Post is THE Washington Post. No substitutes need apply.

Years ago, out here in Long Beach, CA, I subscribed to the WaPo weekly edition, I believe it was. Something like 1996 or so. When I failed to renew, they pleaded with me for years afterwards. The internets was young back then, but there was clearly no need for killing all those trees when I could do so much better online.

Clearly, I'm of the pitchfork clan, and would never really understand.

But what really caught my eye this time was this:

I'm pleased to announce that Mary Ann Akers will be joining washingtonpost.com after the holidays to write about the the colorful personalities and unique culture of Capitol Hill and politics at large.

Let's get this straight. In their world, Fred Thompson is a larger-than-life "colorful personality" because he's on TV. On TV, he's a dull-as-dishwater character. The color they're referring to is grey.

This is just one more reminder of how big a stretch it is for them to ignore the actual policies involved in politics to focus instead on the personality side of things.

p.s. There are, of course, two other senses of "colorful"--criminal (see Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, et al) or batshit insane (see Newt Gingrich, Newt Gingrich, and Newt Gingrich).