In this one thing, Grover Norquist was right: as practiced in Washington, bipartisanship really is a form of date-rape.

Let's review what we've re-learned about Congressional Republicans since January 20th:

1. Pious denials to the contrary, they agree with Rush: they want President Obama to fail - even if that means the country fails, too.
2. They will work hard to wrest every possible concession from the Dems in negotiations over the stimulus bill, thereby weakening its impact and undermining any intellectual coherence it might have possessed.  Then they will walk away, denounce the bill, and demand that the Democrats implement a Bush-style response to the recession.
3. And, as always, their sole answer to any fiscal or economic question is to propose giving more money to rich people, and to cut spending for working families.

I wish I were being even slightly hyperbolic about this, but I'm not exaggerating in any way.  These guys still can't even call our party by its right name.

Yet despite all the evidence to the contrary, the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress are continuing to behave as if passing a stimulus bill is about reaching a reasonable accommodation between two fair-minded, mutually respectful, well-intentioned and honorable parties.

Now, to be fair, Barack Obama won the presidency by being unfailingly polite and conciliatory in public, sticking to his deep electoral strategy, and resisting the enormous temptation to engage in a slanging match with this various opponents.  He stayed on plan and on message even when hotheads like me were begging him to go for the jugular.

But now he has to govern, and the game plan has to change.

By whittling away at vulnerable Republican seats in both houses of Congress, the Dems have actually reduced the number of people they could have hoped to engage in compromise.  The remaining GOP members almost all represent hard-core red states or districts.  With a tiny number of exceptions (Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, for example), they have no incentive to compromise.  Indeed, most believe - with good reason - that   their constituents will likely reward them for intransigence.  If the majority of Americans live in the "communist" part of America, that's our problem, not theirs.

The good news, however, is that President Obama doesn't need the Congressional Republicans - and he should stop behaving as if he does.  He should develop the bill he wants, strong-arm the Blue Dog Dems (because they actually have a stake in his success), and make his case directly to the American people - through his still-extant network of enthusiastic supporters and even via paid media if necessary.

If the Republicans filibuster, he should attack them for playing partisan fiddle tunes while America burns.  He should, with every means at his disposal, tell the GOP remnant in Congress that their names will live in infamy for generations because they'd decided that their discredited policies were more important than the lives and futures of the American people.

Then, having broken the filibuster (because it will break), he should repeat the same steps with a health care reform bill, and a financial industry regulation bill, and an education reform bill  - and on and on until he is done.  (The conservatives on the Supreme Court may end up reversing some of his agenda, but we can't have that battle untill the bills are enacted.)

for now, the Republican Party has forfeited its opportunity for a bipartisan administration.  No more GOP appointees in the White House or the Cabinet; no more concessions to the GOP in the legislative process.

No more making nice. It was a lovely idea, but it just doesn't work.

And if the Republicans continue to refer to the "Democrat Party" and "Democrat policies," then I propose we open the floor for discussion of a new label for the GOP. 

Personally, I'm torn between "Creepublicans" and the "Con Party" (or simply the "Cons").  But I'm open to compromise. 

Watching the largely favorable national reaction to Barack Obama’s mild-mannered performance last Thursday night, even a hard-bitten, cynical old pol like me must finally give in and admit that Obama understands the dynamics of this race much better than I do.  The clincher is that, while I knew the Republicans would create an ad from Obama’s string of “John-is-right-when-he-says . . .” moments, I would never have guessed that – as a message to undecided voters – such an ad is already obsolete. 

Like many Democrats, I stand amazed that the race has remained this close this long.  And, like many Democrats, I have assumed that Obama’s difficulty in closing the deal – even after eight years of appalling GOP mismanagement – derives in large measure from the twin factors of latent racism and an ingrained American preference for leaders who talk tough and play rough.  For me, one of the clearest lessons of the partisan and culture wars of the past 30 years is this: No matter how badly they may screw up, we seem to like Presidents who say “Bring’em on.”

Except maybe that isn’t as true as it once was – and maybe Obama is proving it in this campaign.

It’s not that Obama isn’t a tough guy.  No one (let alone a person of color) could get this far, this fast in American politics without genuine toughness and resiliency to match his intelligence and charisma.  But, as my wife keeps reminding me, Obama knows that he cannot ever, ever allow himself to appear to be an “angry black man,” so he can’t resort to some of the traditional knockdown moves of American campaigning.  Rather than sucker-punch, at most he can only counter-punch – and, sometimes, he just has to stand there and take it.

Yet there’s more at work here than the imperative that a relative newcomer (especially a non-white newcomer) needs to reassure voters of his fundamental thoughtfulness, decency and judgment.

The new insight at work here – the one that keeps Obama serene and even-keeled through the McCain campaign’s frenetic barrage of stunts, lies and taunts – seems to be that the old rules are “inoperative,” and that he, Obama, is writing the new ones.

Now, Obama hasn’t exactly hidden this insight from the rest of us. Back on the night of May 6th, speaking after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, he said:

[W]e have seen that it's possible to overcome the politics of division and distraction; that it's possible to overcome the same old negative attacks that are always about scoring points and never about solving our problems . . . [W]e know what's coming. We've seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain . . .

The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they'll run, it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. I didn't get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.   I trust the American people's desire to no longer be defined by our differences . . . I've found that while we may have different stories, we hold common hopes. We may not look the same or come from the same place, but we want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren . . . I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history.”

Honest to God – I’m beginning to think that Obama can actually win (and maybe even win solidly) by staying on-message about hope, and cooperation, and the inescapable need to put our differences and our cynicism aside; to come together to solve our common problems as a nation – and as part of the community of nations.

This is what got us so excited about the guy in the first place – and it’s clear he thinks it’s the only way he will be able to govern once he does win.

By the old rules, Obama lost this first debate.  That so many people see him as the winner shows us that something really has changed since 2000 and 2004.

So let’s let Obama be Obama.  Instead of asking him to score political points – and to drive home the reality that McCain is a grumpy, sour old man who lives in the past – let’s let Obama call Americans to a new era of decency, civility and realistic, tough-minded optimism.

Obama has clearly decided that America is at last sick and tired of the posturing and chest-thumping.  I thought I’d never see this day, but he’s making a believer out of me all over again.

I watched tonight’s debate in what, for the Republican base, is surely the belly of the Beast. I was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at a gathering of highly respected and accomplished academics – including a noted economist, a sociologist and a political scientist with expertise in leadership theory and mediation.  (For the record, I am neither respected nor an academic.)

While all of us are ardent Obama supporters, every one of us thought McCain had the better of the evening. We were troubled by McCain’s deceptive and sometimes meaningless (but still effective)  use of words like “victory” and “defeat,” his relentless recitation of the phrase “What Senator Obama fails to understand . . .,” and his assurances that he could and would cut spending (along with his specific reminders of past accomplishments and breaks with his party).  We thought Obama let McCain off the hook on the fact that the Iraq surge was now history and that the next step was to withdraw intelligently (something the Iraqi government now says it wants us to do).  We thought Obama began far too many of his comments with variations on the phrase “John is right when he says . . .” and we predicted that the McCain camp will assemble an ad consisting of all these many occasions strung together.

We thought Obama was too willing to be discursive and detailed instead of folksy and direct – and that McCain (with one huge misstep in his rambling and overlong story of Ike and D-Day) made better use of anecdote.

You can imagine our surprise and pleasure when the commentators we saw generally rated the debate a draw, and the snap polls and focus group data gave Obama a convincing win.  (Aside from the usual partisan Republicans, the only commentator I heard who echoed our initial reaction was James Coomarasamy of the BBC World Service.)

Where our expectations for Obama too high?  Has a majority of American voters already decided in favor of Obama for many good and sufficient reasons and therefore gives him the benefit of the doubt?

I have long believed that the GOP has prospered by practicing what Josh Marshall has so memorably called the “Bitch Slap Theory of Electoral Politics” which suggests that the nastier and more unfair your attacks, the more respect you will achieve from the media and electorate for your toughness, determination and skill.

Is it really possible that we have entered an era in which civility, thoughtfulness and nuance are positive attributes for a political leader?

Or were we right after all: did McCain speak effectively for and to a fearful, angry and essentially conservative electorate that believes deeply in American power and exceptionalism?

Did we see a different debate the one watched by everybody else?

Here’s an old story, recycled for your delectation:

Surrounded by ideologues who ruthlessly suppress dissenting voices, a Republican leader with the values of a riverboat gambler makes an unexpected, risky and impulsive move based on inadequate intelligence.  Faced with a major decision, he decides to confound the expectations and rush into action.

Anyone who questions the wisdom of his choice is shouted down – often with outright lies that go unchallenged by a cowed and unreflective media that focuses instead on the entertainment value – the sheer drama – of his unexpected move.

And for a while, everything seems to be going swimmingly.  The wisdom of his decision seems to be validated, and his standing goes up sharply. The leader and his handlers mock their opponents, challenge their patriotism and bully the media into continued silence. “Who cares if he got the facts right?” say many of the Shouting Heads. “This is the kind of hard-nosed leadership, the gut-based decision-making, the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead style we like in our leaders.”

At the high point, the leader basks in the adulation of joyous crowds.  His maverick, fighter-pilot credentials restored, he appears in front of banners proclaiming his courage and his success.  Victory has already been achieved.

And then it all goes wrong, and we all suffer the consequences for years to come.

Not long from now – and for the sake of our nation pray that it happens before November 4th – John McCain will discover that the early success of the Palin nomination will turn into another GOP “Mission Accomplished” fiasco.  The plain, stubborn, irrepressible truth will come back to haunt everyone who went along with McCain’s reckless willingness to risk America’s future for short-term political gain.

Now it may be that Sarah Palin has the good judgment, the seasoned wisdom, the common sense and the political sophistication needed to serve as President of the United States.  Certainly, there are reasonable doubts about her, especially given her willingness to play so fast and loose with the truth about her own record and the positions of her political opponents.  It’s a matter of opinion, and beauty is in the eye, etc.

Besides, we’ve all learned the hard way that experience is overrated: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (and all the other GOP architects of our damaged and sputtering foreign, economic, energy, health care and environmental policies) proved beyond doubt that you can have lots of experience and still be completely wrong in all the ways that matter.

But the real, undeniable issue here is that John McCain could not have known very much about Sarah Palin’s actual experience, wisdom, knowledge or record when he chose her.  There just wasn’t enough time.  He’d barely met the woman. He liked the idea of Sarah Plain, but there was no way for him to have a handle on the reality of Sarah Palin.

Did that give him pause?  Naah.  He gambled all of our futures by making a rash, impetuous, faith-based choice for vice president.  He violated Ronald Reagan’s beloved Russian proverb: he trusted without verifying.

So even though he currently may be strutting around under his own personal “Mission Accomplished” banner, it’s all too likely that, within months,  McCain and his nasty, bullyboy campaign staff will be in full Palin damage-control mode.

It probably won't be over Palin's ignorance of the Bush doctrine, but there's plenty of other stuff out there.  It may be over Troopergate, or then-Mayor Palin’s forcing Wasilla’s sexual assault victims to pay for their own rape kits.  It may be about her hiring of a Jack Abramoff associate as a DC lobbyist to bring home millions in earmarks even as McCain denounced both earmarks and Abramoff-style lobbyists as "corrupt."   It may be her continuing willingness to claim that she helped kill Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” when the record clearly shows that she was for it before she was against it – and that she kept the money even after the project was killed.

But whatever the reason, and whenever the reckoning comes due, the bottom line for McCain is that, in choosing Palin, he proved once and for all that he not only shares George W. Bush’s policies: he shares Bush’s reckless and irresponsible management style.

Mission accomplished?

Here’s an old story, recycled for your delectation: Surrounded by ideologues who ruthlessly suppress dissenting voices, a Republican leader with the values of a riverboat gambler makes an unexpected, risky and impulsive move based on inadequate intelligence. Faced with a major decision, he decides to confound the expectations and rush into action. Anyone who questions the wisdom of his choice is shouted down – often with outright lies that go unchallenged by a cowed and unreflective media that focuses instead on the entertainment value – the sheer drama – of his unexpected move. And for a while, everything seems to be going swimmingly. The wisdom of his decision seems to be validated, and his standing goes up sharply. The leader and his handlers mock their opponents, challenge their patriotism and bully the media into continued silence. “Who cares if he got the facts right?” say many of the Shouting Heads. “This is the kind of hard-nosed leadership, the gut-based decision-making, the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead style we like in our leaders.” At the high point, the leader basks in the adulation of joyous crowds. His maverick, fighter-pilot credentials restored, he appears in front of banners proclaiming his courage and his success. Victory has already been achieved. And then it all goes wrong, and we all suffer the consequences for years to come. Not long from now – and for the sake of our nation pray that it happens before November 4th – John McCain will discover that the early success of the Palin nomination will turn into another GOP “Mission Accomplished” fiasco. The plain, stubborn, irrepressible truth will come back to haunt everyone who went along with McCain’s reckless willingness to risk America’s future for short-term political gain. Now it may be that Sarah Palin has the good judgment, the seasoned wisdom, the common sense and the political sophistication needed to serve as President of the United States. Certainly, there are reasonable doubts about her, especially given her willingness to play so fast and loose with the truth about her own record and the positions of her political opponents. It’s a matter of opinion, and beauty is in the eye, etc. Besides, we’ve all learned the hard way that experience is overrated: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (and all the other GOP architects of our damaged and sputtering foreign, economic, energy, health care and environmental policies) proved beyond doubt that you can have lots of experience and still be completely wrong in all the ways that matter. But the real, undeniable issue here is that John McCain could not have known very much about Sarah Palin’s actual experience, wisdom, knowledge or record when he chose her. There just wasn’t enough time. He’d barely met the woman. He liked the idea of Sarah Plain, but there was no way for him to have a handle on the reality of Sarah Palin. did that give him pause? Naah. He gambled all of our futures by making a rash, impetuous, faith-based choice for vice president. He violated Ronald Reagan’s beloved Russian proverb: he trusted without verifying. So even though he currently may be strutting around under his own personal “Mission Accomplished” banner, it’s all too likely that, within months, McCain and his nasty, bullyboy campaign staff will be in full Palin damage-control mode. It probably won't be over Palin's ignorance of the Bush doctrine, but there's plenty of other stuff out there. It may be over Troopergate, or then-Mayor Palin’s forcing Wasilla’s sexual assault victims to pay for their own rape kits. It may be about her hiring of a Jack Abramoff associate as a DC lobbyist to bring home millions in earmarks even as McCain denounced both earmarks and Abramoff-style lobbyists as "corrupt." It may be her continuing willingness to claim that she helped kill Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” when the record clearly shows that she was for it before she was against it – and that she kept the money even after the project was killed. But whatever the reason, and whenever the reckoning comes due, the bottom line for McCain is that, in choosing Palin, he proved once and for all that he not only shares George W. Bush’s policies: he shares Bush’s reckless and irresponsible management style. Mission accomplished?