Bipartisanship is when you recognize that you can put together a voting block in another way, rather than just political affiliation.

A classic example is in CA. It may surprise you, but many GOP politicians in CA are very concerned about the environment and clean water. Why? Because it's a helluva issue in CA. So many water bills have participation from both sides of the aisle.

The House, with it's hundreds of members is a difficult body to tame in this way -- it's very big. The Senate, a mere 100 people, can be tamed in theory, at least. It's exceedingly difficult, however, but one master politician (LBJ) figured out how to do it. It required knowing, on a day-to-day basis, the personal/professional agenda of *every* Senator. You would then tell a Senator that his state would get some key roadworks project, for example, in exchange for a vote on the Civil Rights Act. This is not the stuff they tell you in school, but it is the way the world works. (Just another reason why earmarks are important.)

The House failed to pass the bill because they didn't have the votes to do it. When you deal with major legislation, you have to count carefully -- and control the voting (LBJ as Senate Majority leader did this exceeding well). You can't just ask someone to vote on something because it makes sense -- humans don't work that way. (This is the equivalent of asking why we tell white lies ... it's because humans aren't as rational as we like to claim.)

Here is a memo circulated by Sherman arguing against passage (and I'm glad he circulated it!):
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2008/09/why-some-democrats-said-no-to.html

Now here's where it gets interesting: the Dems who voted the bill down are now going to have to be courted somehow: bullied, maybe, or given a sweet earmark for their district. Or maybe threatened that the party won't back *their* key legislation coming up in the Rules committee. Or having the Chair of the Rules committee putting your special bill to the back of the bus -- so it never makes it to the floor.

And Pelosi will try to get the votes. But once you give these "pains-in-the-asses" who voted nay last time in line, the ones that voted yea will ask: don't *I*, too, deserve something for being a good soldier? You reward the pains-in-the-asses but not the loyal stalwarts!

So a few *more* deals will be cut to round up the votes -- and hopefully when it settles, Pelosi will have (a) a better bill and (b) the votes properly counted.

GOP is incredibly disciplined, the Dems not. Part is historical -- the Dems were always sectionalize via geography, and part because the Dems aren't that bright as a party.

In fact, the Dems could have passed this bill if they had a huge Dem block + the 33% of the GOP that voted. But they didn't.

Now, we also have to look more carefully at the numbers besides the Dems and the GOP. For example, who is in a safe vs. non-safe House seat? How did *they* vote?

This site is revealing:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html

To quote from that site:

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

VULNERABLE GOP = 3 YEAS, 17 NAYS (15%)
VULNERABLE DEMS = 5 YEAS, 13 NAYS (28%)

Viewed in this way, we see, that the House didn't really break down into party lines as much as you might think. In fact, the vulnerable Congressman were more worried about representing the people rather than tie in with the party leadership. Had Pelosi offer the vulnerable Dems something to take home to their districts, perhaps they wouldn't have been so vulnerable and voted yea.

Of the safe congressmen, it was split about 65-35 nay for GOP, and 65-35 yea for Dem. Note the roughly 2/3 majority following the party leadership? This, too, is typical when you have a free-for-all.

Bottom line: wasn't a lot of strong leadership from either the Dem or the GOP -- and what tipped things were the scared reps who wanted to be re-elected.

The House expressed the will of the people: just how it was designed.

I truly didn't expect any responses to this blog especially not one as imo honestly cynically reality based. Thanks for the interesting read.

But I'm relatively sure this is not what Obama or most of his supporters mean when they talk about Obama ushering in a new era of bipartisanship.

Was my post cynical, or reality based?
---------------------------------------------------

Both. I'm guessing you've heard Colbert's line about reality having a liberal bias. Well I tend to think the version of a real event that is closest to truth, most one reality based, is likely to be the cynical version.

Oh, I know you haven't abandoned Obama for the refreshing naivety of sister Palin. Nor am I saving you a place next to me in the chorus of cynics. I was just a little surprised to see that level of cynical analysis from you with in the frame of my post.

Hi folks- newbie here. As a liberal/progressive, I have watched in horror for the past 8 years as the word "bipartisanship", has devolved into the opposite of what it once meant.

(Interestingly, I just wrote an article on this subject for my local newspaper, but haven't sent it yet.) I don't mind ruffling a few feathers, as that is my nature, so type away.

My stance: I most certainly am not in favor of this newest Dem habit of joining the Dark Side of The Force for a buck, a wink, and a smile, at the expense of those Americans who have little-to-no voice in our society. I'm speaking of the poorest, frailest individuals who never quite catch a break.

Nowadays, when the word "bipartisan" is spoken in the halls of Congress, the Dems become stuporously lethargic, as if hypnotized, and the Repubs become filled with a blood-lust.