RSS
Is bipartisanship already dead?
What the party-line House vote on the stimulus says about cooperation in the Obama era
T

he post-partisan era may have ended before it really began, said USA Today in an editorial. Democrats in the House wanted more spending in the economic stimulus package; Republicans wanted more tax cuts. "The Democratic majority refused to yield, so the Republicans all voted no," and the "same, tired partisanship" prevailed.

Republicans on Capitol Hill must be meeting in a "sound-proof room," said Eugene Robinson in The Washington Post. Americans have said loud and clear that the GOP's "familiar formula"—more tax cuts, fewer spending initiatives—"has already taken us as far as it could." If Republicans in Congress keep this up, they could "end up losing their jobs."

Maybe it is time for a GOP furlough, said David Harsanyi in The Denver Post. The House passed "the most expensive social experiment in history" after a single day of debate, and President Obama, for all his promises of bipartisanship, couldn't get a single Republican to vote with him. Despite the president's polite hat-tip to Republican concerns, "it's back to one-party rule."

What a "missed opportunity" for Obama, said Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. This isn't a good bill, and the vote—while a short-term win for the administration—only shows that "the old battle lines are hardening. Back to Crips versus Bloods. Not very inspiring."

Don't give up on bipartisanship just yet, said Christopher Beam in Slate. Republicans were just playing "good politics"—they showed they "can't be persuaded by charm alone, presidential or otherwise." Plus, they insulated themselves from blame if the stimulus fails. Yes, they looked stubborn by playing "hard to get," but "there will be time for bipartisan necking later."

EDITORS' PICKS

THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER

Subscribe to the Week