Is what's happening in California--climate change, healthcare, etc.--an example of bipartisanship Broder-style? Or is it a Republican governor behaving basically as if he were a Democrat in the service of policies that because of the diktats of reality simply have to be made. I'd say the latter. Broder? Not so much. To him everything Schwarzenegger and the Democrats have accomplished is a shining example of, well, Broderism in action. However, now that Schwarzenegger wants to pass a bad policy--gerrymandering Congressional districts--Democrats are less excited about playing along. This could be because, with the power to pass good policies, California Democrats don't see the need to acquiesce to bad ones. Or it could be because Democrats are wretched partisans who should stop acting like children and, like adults, pay back the Republican party out of gratefulness. Which way do you suppose Broder sees the impasse?
My idea of the day: If 3/5ths (a veto-proof majority, right?) of a WaPo columnist's readers vote for the 'retirement' of the columnist, we could relieved of the agony on the new Know-Nothingism of the 21st century.
This should be the new reality show: vote the blatherers off the island.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | June 21, 2007 at 12:56 PM