Leonard Pitts (Miami Herald) on denialism. Sound familiar to anyone?

In a political context, "bi-partisan" is just a polite way of saying "monied and corporate interests have to be given equal if not greater consideration than the greater good of the vast majority of the population."  I see no reason to continue that charade unless you are part of the former group.  The only reason we even believe there is such a thing as bi-partisanship is because the right-wing is so effective at convincing stupid people that monied and corporate interests give a damn about the greater good for anyone but themselves. 

Quote:
The current political spectrum in the U.S. is slanted so far towards conservatism that this conversation borders on insane:  Pelosi only looks like a liberal to you because you, like so many others, are perfectly content to let the right-wing media tell you what a liberal should look like.  The health care proposals, for instance, are so tepid that they do nothing, and the only reason the Republicans are blocking them is to make the Democrats look bad since they have no real valid policy objections (and Republicans themselves proposed many key points not so many years past (I suspect the Democrats could adopt every single plank in the RNC platform, and the Republicans would still block that legislation, and you would still moan over the problem being that the Democrats were too liberal, because that's what every mainstream political commentator like David Broder was saying)).  In that sense, by my definition above Congress already got bi-partisan agreement in that nothing that has been proposed will make a real difference to people earning a living wage, but will protect a majority of the profits made by the insurance industry.  That you think the administration needs to move more to the "center" only shows how effective the right-wing media is in framing the debate, and how willing people are to ignore reality for something more convenient so long as they can see that their immediate self-interests are not threatened (putting this into the context of this particular forum, this is also the same reason why meaningful controls on CO2 emissions will be impossible). 

So you tell me, why do you think corporate profits should be protected above the interests of the majority of the people and why you think it is too liberal an idea to consider that people ought not to profit from providing health care?  Pelosi sure doesn't think that, but hey, maybe my definition of what a liberal should be is too skewed from reading Krugman and true socialists like Michael Aberti.