Bipartisan Politics

Engaging "wayback machine" this is Jan22,2007

Here's a phrase that seems to be getting big play, it started shortly after the '06 election results and has gained ground ever since. It has a nice ring, bipartisan, it sort of rolls off the tongue with lovely strong syllable breaks and an element of cadence. I'll bet it would sound good if you did it with a mouth full of marbles and it looks nice in print - bipartisan - hey even in italics - bipartisan. It seems such a long time time since it had any currency.

You may be familiar with the name Frank Luntz, he of the Republican dictionary, well now he's decided to tell the Democrats how to use Words that Work over at HuffPo. The idea is to bury the hatchet...not in the Republican's heads, but actually bury it. He's on to the spirit of bipartisanship (-ship kind of spoils the cadence) and even notes, "Democracy is at its best when its practitioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack." I also think it works pretty well when "Clean Air" doesn't mean pollution and estate tax means that and not "Death Tax" which means you get charged for not living anymore, um, dying. It would be pretty crass to charge for the dubious privilege of being dead. He just doesn't think being vindictive will work out for the Democrat Party (sure he knows better, he just can't help himself), that the Party should figure out how to work with the Republicans. He's actually right, the Democrats cannot afford to be perceived as vindictive. What I find odd, though, is the idea that it's the Democrats who are supposed to be bipartisan. Maybe it's the bi- piece of the word that's throwing me. All the way through Webster's 9th Collegiate (again) bi- has two involved, I think the part about "both sides" (2) may just be what's up with the word. Well, anyhow, thanks Frank.

I have a little different take on this Congress deal, nobody on that side wants to get along, what they want is a chance to score points for '08 and make Democrats look bad. When you reach across that aisle, if you get your hand back, you better count your fingers. What Democrats can do (listen up Hillary) is come up with good policies, make sure everybody knows they're good, ram them through, be seen ramming them through, and make sure the Republicans get the blame for their failure to happen. The President says he can do as he pleases, well now, that's an idea, but hauling them up before investigative committees makes that a bit tougher and when the dirt falls out impeachment really ties you up. Jail can give you time to reflect on hubris.

You already know that the Republicans would like very much to undo the 06 damage and hang onto the Presidency, since they're the minority their only hope is to be obstacles and then blame Democrats as "do nothings." You can thank Mr Luntz for showing you the genesis of how it will be played, "We were reasonable but all they wanted to do was keep hitting us with a bat." Just make sure that it's obvious that the Republicans stopped the game by stealing the balls, the bases, and the scoreboard. Then whack 'em with that bat again.

That's not being vindictive, it's culling the herd.

The Brady Bunch

If you're big into anti-gun stuff or support the Bill of Rights and would like to see what your opponents like to say HuffPo has Paul Helmke's review of Private Guns, Public Health up for your perusal, I think the comments section is better reading. This Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Handgun Violence shill, excuse me-President- gets his knickers in a knot telling us about the public health costs of firearms. They're going to address this public health menace...well how exactly isn't real clear. You don't suppose they'll do something about medical misadventures do you? I mean, after all, those licensed physicians kill more people than guns do, no I don't mean people have a tendency to die under a doctor's care, I mean they out and out kill them. He even mentions swimming pools, nicely done, you're more likely to die from having a swimming pool than a gun. He doesn't like Gary Kleck - he's unfair - oh for pete's sake, Brady classes 25 year old males as children to make their stats work and they call unfair?

There are some of the old tired ideas, gun registration - that magically makes guns safe? Or, I like this one, licensing. Let's hang these ideas on the First Amendment and see how it works out, you have to register your religious preferences or your mouth or paper in order to have one, then you need to have a license to use them. Now that certainly wouldn't have a dampening effect on freedom of speech, religion, press, or assembly would it? Wouldn't that have a certain tendency to let the government regulate those things and find the people doing it in a way the government doesn't care for? Maybe make them disappear?

I don't care if you want to own a gun or not, if you do, for pete's sake learn how to use and keep it safely and become proficient with it. And yes, doing that makes you a patriot to the ideals of America, just remember that the folks who set those up weren't the safe low key type.

The article is typical garbage from that Brady Bunch, we're all five years old and they'll take care of us, but the comments are illuminating, and they're not right wingers or even odd ball lefties like me. No, I didn't comment, they don't like me. And you can guess what they can do with that...