Not in practice, mind you, but as a codeword sop to the masses as justification for defending the status quo.

The end result of bipartisanship is paring down a bill until it changes next to nothing of import.  And then selling it as if it were the greatest thing since the last bucket of lukewarm spit to pass this way.

This is nothing new in politics. The money has always been on the side of the status quo, since change can be costly to one’s bottom line. 

And the status quo has perennially been about "I’ve got mine.  Screw you," now hasn’t it? 

One only need watch the FDR Fala speech (Youtube above) to get that. Or read a little history, you can pretty much pick any era.

What is new? That there is no real voice for change and the little guy capitalizing on this moment in our nation’s history.

And it shows.

Jean Edward Smith has a fantastic op-ed in the NYTimes today talking about FDR, the false sop of bipartisanship and the real value of a little more backbone:

. . .this fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.

Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process. It is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices.

He cites numorous examples of Roosevelt New Deal reforms which were enacted in spite of entrenched interests, and not because they’d been pared down to mere windowdressing to win their support.

Was Glass-Steagall passed in a bi-partisan fashion with entrenched interests on Wall Street given a seat at the negotiating table? Hell no. Social security?  Are you kidding me?!?

Were there membes of Congress consorting with moneyed interests trying to block the bill, much like Max Baucus’ lobbyist-filed anteroom? Undoubtedly.  Although, as Krugman points out, there’s a lot more of that lobbyist payola floating around these days.

But the real difference between then and now?

FDR sold the need for change at the grassroots by making that change actually happen.  And without selling the public’s interest down the river in the process.  Which made his grassroots support all the stronger, and enabled him to fend off opposition by painting them as being against the public, fueling more public support in the process. 

FDR drew his power for change from the people, not just from the people around him inside the Beltway.

Better political leadership in the Democratic party would help.  So would those leaders actually believing in the need for change instead of giving it political lip service and then undercutting it with their actions.

Can the Obama administration still make needed changes? Absolutely.

Will they? Well, that’s the big question, isn’t it?

Patterns via -sel-. Gorgeous macro detail and color.

Today, it’s another inane installment of the continuing saga of the GOP’s longest-running program wherein the buck stops anywhere but here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the overwrought and not-so-dulcet tones of Kit Bond and friends, in Accountability For Thee, But Not For Me:

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) was joined by U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators today to express concern about recent reports that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder intends to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists.

“We are deeply concerned by recent news reports that you are ‘poised to appoint a special prosecutor’ to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists. Such an investigation could have a number of serious consequences, not just for the honorable members of the intelligence community, but also for the security of all Americans,” the senators wrote in a letter to Holder.

Shorter GOP: "No matter what illegal and unethical policies we may have championed or enabled, no matter what illegal activities may have been perpetrated, no matter what agencies of the federal government we have helped to corrupt, manipulate or mangle…accountability is only for the other guys. Never, ever for us."

If they were at least manning up to the need for investigations of illegality that reach however high such misconduct may have occurred, I might have the slightest glimmer of respect for them. Because, frankly, leaving line agents holding the bag for Dick Cheney, David Addington and the neocon crew isn’t exactly appropriate, now is it?

But nope, that’s not their point.

It’s bad enough that the special prosecutor mandate doesn’t seem broad enough at this juncture to encompass policy making at all levels. Because that sends a signal that if you hold power, you aren’t held to account. Only the little guy is.

Is it any wonder that so many things in this country are a mess right now when "look the other way" is considered appropriate behavior from our leadership?

I wouldn’t condone that as an excuse from my 6 year old. And I’m sure as hell not going to accept it from a sitting Senator who takes an oath to uphold the laws of this country and its constitution.

Emptywheel, Spencer, CCR, Glenn and the ALCU have more on the CIA docs.  I’m still reading through — looks like it will be a highlighter and post-its kinda week. (more…)

And six self-important ginormous ego goobers in the Senate, including the ever-charming Chuck Grassley.  All of whom who apparently feast on chocolate covered potato chips on the public’s time.

Jeebus, talk about a Super Size Me nightmare in the making.

But something Grassley said yesterday struck a chord that I can no longer deny:

"I am negotiating for Republicans," he said. "If I can’t negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I’m not a good negotiator."

When NBC’s Chuck Todd, in a follow-up question on the show, asked the Iowa Republican if he’d vote against what Grassley might consider to be a "good deal" — i.e., gets everything he asks for from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D) — Grassley replied, "It isn’t a good deal if I can’t sell my product to more Republicans."

Yeppers, that’s right: the nation’s healthcare system reforms are being held hostage by a man who essentially says "It’s all about me and my party and how we can use this health care hubbub to our advantage. The rest of you?  Not our problem." 

Talk about yer good faith negotiation announcement.  Whooo-eee, that was totally unexpected. 

*cough*

Well, I’m taking this to heart.

Grassley’s right.  Life is all about getting something for me and saying screw the other guy. Yessirree. I have seen the light.

Moreover, I’m gonna get myself a government job so that I can get some of that cadillac insurance plan that Grassley and his pals have.

Wonder if those Obama Death Panels will be hiring any time soon? 

So long as we’re contemplating life in selfish political calculus la la land, might as well go full on Soylent Green mockery.

Because the political calculus missteps are giving me a headache from all sides at this point?  Full on snark just felt so right.

Listen my children and you shall hear, of the continued obstruction and gooberish fear… The Grand Obstruction Party and weak-kneed Democratic leadership. Still at it: Still unconfirmed are three circuit court nominees and four nominees for assistant attorney general positions, including Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Senate finally got to some debate on the Sotomayor SCOTUS nomination late yesterday, after an interminable wrangle on the agriculture bill. The Senate is expected to gavel back into session at 9:30 am ET this morning.

After morning business concludes, the SCOTUS debate should resume with a vote likely sometime late today or early tomorrow.

C-Span has been keeping a handy, alphabetized tally of Senator’s public statements on voting

The full Senate will take up debate on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS, with a vote likely sooner rather than later since a filibuster or other lengthy opposition strategy is not expected.

It’s almost as though the GOP wants to rush the vote off the floor. Too bad Sen.

This line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s H.M.S. Pinafore sums up the Beltway whole mess, doesn’t it?I grew so rich that I was sent by a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my Party’s call and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.I had forgotten how much I love a Gilbert and Sullivan farce until I was reminded of them over the weekend by, of all people,

An interesting pattern has emerged among the federal judges charged with reviewing the habeas petitions of Gitmo detainees. Chisun Lee of ProPublica explains: A close examination of the decisions shows that some of the fears about sending terrorism cases to civilian courts have not been realized.