There's a thread over at IlliniPundit about McCain winning Florida. In it, the Pundit himself complains about the unwillingness of Democrats to be bipartisan and compromise with Congressional Republicans:
...many Democrats want to see the end of partisanship by having Republicans adopt Democratic positions. I have not seen any Democrats who lament partisanship urge Democrats to adopt Republican positions, nor have I seen anyone urge Democrats to compromise to move closer to Republican positions.
I almost laughed out loud at the idea that the lack of bipartisanship in Washington is due to the intransigence of Democrats. Glenn Greenwald pointed out this week what "bipartisanship" means in Washington. Here's a few examples:
To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:
GOP - 48-0
Dems - 12-36
To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
GOP - 0-49
Dems - 24-21
Declaring English to be the Government's official language:
GOP - 48-1
Dems - 16-33
The Military Commissions Act:
GOP - 53-0
Dems - 12-34
To renew the Patriot Act:
GOP - 54-0
Dems - 34-10
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
GOP - 48-1
Dems - 29-22
The moderate position is not the midpoint between the two extremes, as TheSquire pointed out a couple of weeks ago with reference to the Overton Window.
Greenwald concludes with:
On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.