This week’s print column on the latest, sad–but sort of hopeful–attempt at bipartisanship.
Why this fetish for bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake? Bipartisanship is a means, not an end. Why this pointless elevation of form over substance?
What do you want to do that requires Democrats and Republicans to come together and sing kumbaya? What is your goal that requires turning a system that already has too few parties into an indistiguishable mush that eliminates all voter choice? What, at the end of the day, do you actually stand for?
Mann an Ornstein have written that "It's Even Worse than it Looks", Joe. You should read it.
There's no "moderate" ground between sane and crazy. The GOP needs to focus on purging its crazies. The Dems need to be patient.
Finding "middle ground" at this point in time is premature...
Bipartisanship like Bibi vs. Palestinians?
We've been there, and done that, only here, in this country, the Dems had greater relative strength.
And then there was the lockstep liberalism of the assorted identity caucuses.
It wouldn't be a Joe Klein article if he didn't punch at least ONE hippie! How DARE women and gays and Hispanics and seniors think that equal treatment isn't a special privilege?!
How can Little Red Riding Hood (bill moderation) get to Grandma's house (Pres. desk) when the woods is full of Gee-O-Pee Big Bad Wolves?
@paulejb Really?? Most successful presidents have been middle of the road. Clinton, Reagan (to an extent). Even Lincoln was moderate for his times.
I see you make a good case for Al-Queda.
That's why the GOP keeps reminding us that the civil rights act is an act, and not an amendment.
...that can pee around corners, no less!