Bi-Partisanship is Overrated
February 25,2010 
Glenn Greenwald makes a very good point:
One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the
lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is
true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by
Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis — the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives– and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated.
The same obviously extends to the healthcare debate. One side is offering moderate reforms to a completely bankrupt, inefficient system, while the other side is offering nothing whatsoever. An attempt to bridge the gap (or make it 'bipartisan') would essentially render reform almost completely useless.
Glenn Greenwald makes a very good point:
One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the
lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is
true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by
Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis — the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives– and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated.
The same obviously extends to the healthcare debate. One side is offering moderate reforms to a completely bankrupt, inefficient system, while the other side is offering nothing whatsoever. An attempt to bridge the gap (or make it 'bipartisan') would essentially render reform almost completely useless.