Define Bipartisan Please
This is simply a great catch by the folks at Powerline and it is a must read. We first noted the trend here and thought it was just peculiar to the thinking patterns of Chris Matthews. But Powerline notes the redefinition of bi-partisanship has spread to the Washington Post as well. Please click and read it all.
Is a deal “bipartisan” when only three members of one party support it? Not under the previously existing understanding of bipartisanship. For example, I don’t recall the Post reporting that Samuel Alito had bipartisan support as a Supreme Court nominee even though four Democratic Senators voted to confirm him. Nor was Joe Lieberman’s support of significant aspects of Bush administration foreign policy considered sufficient to make that policy “bipartisan.”
For reporters to assume the talking points, and may I say “key” talking points, of the Democrat party is journalistic malpractice. There is nothing bipartisan about the compromise, just as the American people are not clamoring for Republicans to accept a porkapalooza. As I said in my prior post I cannot find one case where the MSM referred to the votes against the House version of the stimulus bill as “bipartisan” even though 11 Democrats joined the Republicans.
Ooo! Ooo! I know Jim!! "Bipartisan," as defined by Democrats, is where Republicans bend over and "think of England" (to paraphrase what Victorian mothers used to tell their daughters before their wedding nights).
Seriously, "bipartisanship" only occurs when Republicans give up their beliefs or lower their standards, and Democrats give up nothing.