The Washington Post's "bipartisan" = "in the interests of Republicans and big business"
In an editorial
about Obama, the Post writes:
Mr. Obama was not part of the bipartisan Gang of 14 that tried to avert a showdown on judicial filibusters; he was not among the 68 senators voting for a bipartisan agreement on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; he dissented from the part of the bipartisan immigration deal that displeased unions.
- The Gang of 14 worked to undermine established Senate rules permitting filibusters against Supreme Court nominees
- The FISA bill referred to is exactly what Bush wants
- The immigration bill was in the interests of business
The Post calls those positions bipartisan, but that's only because some Democrats and some Republicans are on board. Broadly inclusive bipartisan measures are rare these days. In the past, "bipartisan" may have meant something that had wide support, but that's not the case in today's political environment.
Aren't these the same issues that David Brooks used to back away from Obama after speaking so glowingly about him for so long?
So, the "bipartisanals" at the WaPo feel the same as the conservative David Brooks. Why do I feel the bipartisans are just conservatives in sheeps' clothing?
Also, when I'm forced to respond to people who say "Obama is a Liberal!" as if it's an epithet, I like to argue that for his whole senate term, 'liberal' largely equals voting against the whims of George W. Bush. Fine by me.
The most disturbing--and telling--part of this op/ed was the implication that "bipartisan"="disagreeing with your own party". I imagine that we'll be hearing a lot of this "bipartisan" framing if its Obama against McCain in the general.