As usual, GG nails it.

Typified by the posterboy of "bi-partisanship," Joe Lieberman, bi-partisanship means that Dems must compromise on Republican policy initiatives -- never vice versa.

As GG illustrates, there is never a GOP compromise on Democratic legislative priorities.

The Democrats should forget "bi-partisanship" and concentrate on muscleing their agenda through -- and let the Republicans demonstrate "bi-partisanship" for a change.

Bipartisan Unity (Not Safe For Work)

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/bipartisan.gif

I hate that word, but like everything else in our defunct political process, rhetoric is more valued than action. Saying "bipartisanship" is more important than actually practicing the method. The funniest use of bipartisanship is that of the same politicians (Bush) who rammed issues through congress when the Republicans were in the majority. To be able to say, with a straight face, that Congress needs to practice more bipartisanship (especially when Glenn points out that most of the time Reps are getting what they want anyway) is laughable at best since the administration and Republican party ensured that no bipartisanship occurred for the past six years.

I will add that Glenn should have included SCHIP reauthorization (Motion passed 67-32: Reps 17-32 against, Dems 48-0 for) in his list when numerous Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for the measure in spite of the Presidential threat of a veto.

This "bipartisanship" goes back a long time, especially on tax policy. The huge tax cuts for the rich enacted during Reagan's presidency and again during G.W. Bush's could have been stopped by Congressional Democrats, but many Democrats actively supported them. The evidence shows clearly that "Reaganomics" has been a complete failure - see Paul Krugman's recent columns and blog, and other economic blogs referred to there.

Democrats have two constituencies with different interests - the people and wealthy donors.

Politics isn't about bipartisanship - it's about having a distinct philosophy and outlook that applies to many problems and phenomena.

Truly bipartisan positions do exist, but both parties recognize them as such and so they are never debated. For instance the notion that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning gets bipartisan support. As does the notion that the United States is a republic.

Beyond those 'big picture' facts and ideals, everything else is up for debate and decision. That's what politics is about.

Bipartisanship is a big fine sounding term for cronyism and backroom deals and silent agreements.

Sound familiar?

We only hear calls for "bipartisanship" when the Republicans are in the minority. Also, no matter how many times the Dems vote exactly the way the Repubs want them to, they are never praised for "bipartisanship" but still accused of "obstructionism."

"Gas prices remain high, but we still have no real energy policy."--Bob Graham

Has Cheney yet to release who was at his 'Energy Policy' meetings from a years ago?

"more and better Dems", "throw the bums out", or some combo of the two? I am, obviously or not, open to alternative suggestions.

I know you really didn't write about this .. but I get the feeling that all the Unity '08 talk .. and post-partisan nonsense is because those in power(whether political or media among others), don't want to see people whom they consider DFH's getting any power. It's an exercise in ego and self importance.

Backed up by evidence. Great job.

Edwards is out.

the solution is more and better Democrats .. more Russ Feingolds ... more Jim Webbs ... more Bernie Sanders .... more people like Chris Dodd

What is spoken of as "bipartisanship" is, as Glenn notes, almost exclusively applied to events in which conservative interests dominate an issue with the help of some assistance of presumably more liberal groups. Those of us who lived through Reagan I and Clinton recall this clearly -- after all, the Republican NAFTA initiative was passed with overwhelming Republican support and against a Democratic majority; yet somehow now has been reconstructed as an untouchable "bipartisan" and sacrosanct policy.

Domhoff summarizes an earlier "bipartisan" domination, back when regional politics had a more clearly recognized set of identities and agendas:

The alliance between the Southern segment of the upper class and the Northern ethnic rich [by which he meant less-WASPy Republicans] usually was able to freeze out the policy initiatives of the party's liberal-labor coalition through its control of congressional committees, although there was a time (1940 to 1975) when labor unions had significant influence on the Democrats. When that alliance broke down on certain issues because the machine Democrats sided with the liberals and labor, then the [then] Southern Democrats joined with Northern Republicans to create the "conservative coalition," AKA "the conservative voting bloc," wherein a majority of Southern Democrats and a majority of Northern Republicans voted together against the [more liberal] Northern Democrats.

This conservative coalition most often formed around the issues that reflect class conflict in the legislative arena -- civil rights, union rights, social welfare, and business regulation.

Legislation on any of these issues weakens employers in the face of workers and their unions, so it is not surprising that the conservative coalition is based on the shared interests of Northern and Southern employers. This alliance won far more often than it lost in the years between 1937, when it was formed, and the 1990s, when it disappeared for the simple reason that many of the Southerners had become Republicans.

Once the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was in effect, the Democratic Party was slowly changed because African-Americans in the South were able to vote against the worst racists in the party primaries. The gradual industrialization also was causing changes. As a result of these two forces, Southern whites started to move into the Republican Party, which thus became the party of wealthy employers in both the North and South. In that context, the Democratic Party is slowly becoming what many always thought it to be, the party of liberals, minorities, workers, and the poor.

In summary, the special-interest process, policy-planning process, and campaign finance make it possible for the power elite to win far more often than it loses on the policy issues that come before the federal government. The power elite is also greatly over-represented in appointed positions, presidential blue-ribbon commissions, and advisory committees within the government. In terms of both the "who wins" and "who governs" power indicators, the power elite dominates the federal government.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/national.html