How?
How does one reconcile making an argument lastweek that increasing taxes by 3% and passing a large stimulus plan is tyrannical fascism and argue thisweek that the government has the unfettered freedom to crush the testicles of small children NO MATTER WHAT under the constitutional power of the presidency without suffering from intellectual whiplash?
I mean, how?
How do they do this? How can they argue about the horrible intrusions on their freedoms brought on by a small increase in taxes (that most won't pay) or a possible nationwide program to allow access (not actual, mind you) healthcare to all, but have no problem with that same government reserving the LEGAL right to torture ANYONE they decide needs to be tortured?
Which of those two scenarios is scarier? Which is a terrifying overreach of governmental power worthy of the F-Word?
You cannot honestly engage in a meaningful policy debate when the opposing side is this irrational. It's like trying to engage in a meaningful debate about the merits of tax reform with a bowl of oatmeal. In this kind of a climate, bipartisanship could best be illustrated with a photo of Barack Obama trying to negotiate a compromise on tax policy with a drunk, homeless guy down in the Tenderloin.* That's about where the Republicans are at right now in terms of making coherent arguments. And that's why it's long past time the Democrats stop trying to meet Republicans halfway on issues. You can't meet halfway if the otherside isn't even on the same planet.
*With apologies to the denizens of the Tenderloin.