Ry is angry, but not surprised

The (first) stimulus bill passed with zero Republican support. To those of us old enough to remember the last time we had a Democrat's first term in the Oval Office, this is just deja vu all over again.

The point of seeking bipartisan support, in a political context, is that, in the event of a massive failure of policy, neither side can entirely blame the other, and parlay that into electoral advantage. Witness the Right's last redoubt on the subject of the Iraq fiasco- that Democrats voted for the AUMF as well, which indeed many did, to their eternal regret (Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid, please stand up).

But kowtowing to every little whim of the opposition party isn't seeking bipartisanship, it's kowtowing to every little whim of the opposition party. Or, as Yglesias puts it:

The lesson I would hope the administration learns here is this: He needs to spend less time seeking political cover to mitigate the downside to possible policy failure, and more time trying to implement the best policies he can.

Sometimes bipartisanship is a good thing. It's always nice to make sure both sides get something. But on make-or-break issues, like a stimulus package in the face of a second Great Depression, I could care less if everyone gets a piece, especially if "everyone" means pleasing Rush Limbaugh. Conservative politicians have been beholden to the Dittoheads for nigh-on twenty years now, and look what that loyalty has brought us?

It's important to remember that this is NOT the first Clinton term, where the Democratic president was elected with a plurality in a three-way clusterfuck. A clear majority voted for Obama in this election, which is more than either of the last two presidents can say. We won overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, and got a black guy with Muslim heritage and a funny name elected by a big margin against a war hero with huge name recognition.

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, I'd like to see the Democrats act like it.