A local pol, via email, rightly rants about our media’s googly-eyed infatuation with bipartisanship:
What the stupid media don’t realize is that it’s a tactic, not a goal. The goal is to get something accomplished. If that something requires bipartisanship to do it, so be it. If it doesn’t, who cares. They’ve made the classic mistake of not caring what the goal is, as long as it’s bipartisan. It’s not a surprising conclusion, really, as long as you frame in the media’s so-called “objectivity” frame. That frame forces themselves to gravitate to the holy grail of bipartisanship, because they are too lame to call some actual goals bullshit, or praise some as actually being worthy. Thus their choices comes down to partisan=bad, bi-partisan=good. No wonder why people have stopped reading their drivel.
And in my opinion, it’s even worse than that, because good or bad, the very notion of “bipartisanship” is usually as illusory as that whole “objectivity” crap.
For example… Obama goes to the Hill. He meets with Republicans on their turf. The Dems compromise, making the stimulus package smaller, less progressive, and less effective. And then House Republicans still vote unanimously against it, including our own local, conscience-driven independent, Dave Reichert. Bipartisanship my ass.
See, the problem is, even as a tactic, bipartisanship is pointless if not counterproductive if you don’t have an honest, trustworthy partner across the aisle. And currently, the Dems don’t.