Define, "bipartisanship."

Election, Inauguration, Obama's media blitz. While the new administration capitalizes on Obama's popularity in pushing its agenda publicly, Republican leadership cries foul. House Republican Leader John Boehner's blog insisted that stimulus package was more expensive than it needed to be, and cited the repeated the frequent appearance of Republicans on television appearances as proof positive that the public sides more with the GOP than with Democrats and their plan.

Further, a February 9th post on TheHill.com demonstrates similar ambivalence toward Obama's bipartisan message. Remarks by Sen. John McCain lead the reader to the conclusion that, if the remarks are taken at face value, the stimulus bill was assembled with no Republican input. McCain's justification for his remarks? Cited as responsible for the supposed lack of bipartisanship are the measly 3 centrist Republican supporters in the Senate and the total lack of Republican support in the House.

I can't help but think that this is more of a political strategy than a tactical policy decision by Republicans in the national assembly. Articles that I've read (but naturally can't find when I need them) have cited the new administration as being even more gracious toward Congressional Republicans than the White House's previous occupant. Is the lack of bipartisan support necessarily indicative of a lack of bipartisan input? Or is the lack of Republican votes simply a strategem to highlight a presumed absence of Republican input in the bill (now a law)?

Leia Mais…