I almost fumed this morning on my way to work as I listened to 'morning edition' on NPR. I tuned in just in time to hear what I hoped would be a question regarding an opportunity for a teaching moment. What I heard instead was a guest who wanted badly to be fair but seemed hopelessly unable to once again.
The question was: "Who is to blame for the lack of bipartisanship?"
The guest opened with a very reasonable statement, which would have served as a perfect launching platform for a teaching moment contrasting the tactics of Karl Rove with the very public bipartisanship efforts of Obama, she basically left it at that. There was no repudiation of the republican howling that 'nothing's changed' or 'we've been shut out of the process'. If you want a perfect example of media bias to give to your friends, read on:
The guest lays most of the blame for the 'lack of a bipartisan bill' on the democrats, primarily by virtue of balancing the initiatives. She gives lips service to the open invitations by Obama for republicans to participate, but then seems to imply that republicans, by acting like petulant children complaining about not getting all of the demanded cookies, are somehow the aggrieved party. She takes at face value the claim that republicans have had 'no input' into this bill.
Here's why I disagree with her:
Obama has publicly reached out to republicans. They have been invited to suggest amendments that would be palatable to the majority party. Their amendments have been debated and considered by the full house, and a number of provisions many of us would like to see in have been stripped from the bill... as concessions to republicans.
I will agree with her that Obama has used (justifiably) an 'I won' mentality that will rub some people wrong. So what? The fact that the guest fails to address that the republicans are factually and demonstrably wrong regarding this bill irritates me to no end. Those provisions are logical counterexamples that show that those statements cannot be true; they are factually, demonstrably false.
Now, let's compare this to the tactics used by Bushco shortly after assembling his 'permanent republican majority' as a way of contrasting by example:
Karl rove became legendary for these tactics. Republicans became legendary for using their post-election majority to force late-night votes, or votes on legislation to strongarm legislation through without giving democrats even the courtesy of time to read the bill.
What tactics did republicans use publicly to justify their actions in the example above? Check this out. Threats of physical harm and misuse of capitol police do not an internal censure from one's own party make.
(I can't find the guest's name on NPR.org in a quick search, but I'll update with credit as soon as I find it.)