Sounds dirty I know, but it's pretty tame - unless you think of Republicans as dirty. I know I do.

Anyway, here it is: assuming passage of a bill, even with a compromise, a substantial number of Republicans will still oppose the conference report. So my fantasy is that during debate over approving the report one House Democrat and one Senate Democrat take time on the floor to invite all Republicans opposed to the bill to come on down and state right then and there that they will do everything in their power to ensure that not a dime of stimulus funds is spent in his or her state/district. It's quite simple, just come down and state right there, in front of the U.S. Congress and American public, that you will not be a hypocrite and vote against the bill but utilize its funds. And let's start with you, Mssrs. Boehner and DeMint.

And if they won't, they're either chickens or liars. So which is it?  

It is a misery these days in the field of journalism that reporters seem unable to figure out a basic fact-- just because political hacks put out press releases that say things, that doesn't make it "news." Today's Washington Post article on a recent local election in Northern Virginia, in which the Democrat running for chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors barely edged out the Republican, is a textbook example. The headline says it all: "Close Loss Cheers Republicans."

Right - a local board election on a snowy day in January, which the Republican candidate still did not win, is proof that Republicans are going to come back strong in northern Virginia and turn that newly blue state back to red.  

I nominate the reporter for editor of the sports page--I would have loved to see Monday's headline, "Close Loss Cheers Cardinals."

So in the elusive quest among notable DC wankers for bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill, the Wash Post helpfully explores the nature of "bipartisanship" in a front-page article today. The verdict--both the House stimulus vote and the Senate vote on the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization (SCHIP) "broke along party lines," and represent partisan grandstanding on the part of Democrats.

If you didn't already know, nine Senate Republicans voted with all Democrats present to reauthorize SCHIP. Nine Republicans, out of forty-one, means nearly a quarter of the entire caucus voted for SCHIP. But that apparently isn't bipartisan enough for the Post. So I wonder, what is the magic threshold, 10? 20? All of 'em? I sure wish the Post would tell me, because otherwise I won't be able to decide for myself.

Why is this important? Becuase it's obvious that as long as one single Republican can get knicker-knotted over a vote, and run to the Post and cry about how the meany Dems aren't being "bipartisan," this newspaper (and its widely syndicated articles) is going to continue to spread the falsehood that congressional Democrats are ruthless, partisan hacks running roughshod over the poor oppressed minority. And that Obama is apparently powerless to stop them. If you have a moment, please contact the Post as I have and help them learn how to count.