A little more talk and alot less action...

Like I do on most days, today I picked up a copy of the New York Times on my way to class. While I generally only glance over most political hoopla involving the War in Iraq (mainly because it is alot of yelling and screaming without action by politicians) I decided to read the front page article over a Senate vote Monday to bring about debate on the President's "troop surge" plan.

Sen. Harry Reid was quoted on the floor as saying to Republicans, “You can run but you can’t hide. We are going to debate Iraq.” Didn't we just do that this past summer? I sat in on those debates in the gallery of the House, and the same debates occurred in the Senate. The arguments have not changed much since the first non-binding resolutions were debated. Republicans want to stay in Iraq, and Democrats want out. Why do we have to debate it again?

Before I go any further, lets just say I love the art of the non-binding resolution. It is so tactful, so safe... so much bullsh*t. Here are our newly elected Senators, who might I remind you ran on platforms of CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, voting on and debating resolutions that in effect accomplish NOTHING! Oh, but it sends such a strong political message... yeah, and so do the obscenities I shout from my couch at various politicians on TV every night.

Ultimately, all this resolution is going to do is give Senators one more chance to stand up and express their disapproval of the war on Congressional Record before ELECTION 2008 roles around. We ask for change... and we get more rhetoric. Here's an idea, if you want to send a political message how about voting on something that might actually change the President's plan - like removing funding!

Secondly, what the threshold for bipartisanship? Because you get someone of the opposite party to agree in writing a bill - does that make it bipartisan? One person, two? How many does it take? What meaning does this term have left? It seems to me that bipartisanship requires a little bit more muster than we give it on Capitol Hill to be meanigful. Bipartisanship engenders a sense of cooperation between the parties on a much larger scale than simply a few republicans or democrats crossing the line. Rhetoric used in the Times article characterizing the resolution as bipartisan I think misses the point. When only 2 republicans voted for the bill, it says something. The bill is partisan! It divides the Senate. This is not a bipartisan issue. If it were bipartisan politicians would not be arguing so fervently. So lets not sugar-coat it. This is a bitter partisan struggle.