This letter is associated with the following article:
Letters
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:00 AM

Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?

The reward Joe Lieberman will receive today is justified by the claimed need for more bipartisanship harmony. Is it even possible to have more than we have now?

Read other letters about this article

  • Tuesday, November 18, 2008 07:54 AM

    Good point, Glenn.

    Either way, when the two parties support the same positions and act in harmony, that is the very definition of "bipartisanship," regardless of what is motivating it.

    I was thinking of "bipartisanship" more like TreeRol's definition: the two parties work together and reach a compromise that's acceptable to the majority.

    But I guess "one party continually rolls over for the other party" would qualify, too. It's still bipartisanship, just a different variety. There's certainly something to be said for the idea that the Democrats are using the old Brer Rabbit - Tarbaby tactic where they bitch and moan about being forced to do what they wanted to do in the first place.

Most Active Letters Threads

680

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
543

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
440

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
287

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
254

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon