Post 9-11 Bipartisanship A Chimera Created by MSM

How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split

By David S. Broder and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 16, 2006; Page A01

It was the moment that was supposed to change everything. But almost five years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, American politics has reverted to many of its old habits and patterns.

The bipartisanship that appeared spontaneously in the aftermath of the attacks was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians. National security emerged not as a source of unity, but as a new fault line between the two parties, creating a set of issues that have led to bitter disagreement.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath played out in two national elections, in 2002 and 2004, as President Bush and his team skillfully used the issue of terrorism to expand Republican congressional margins and to retain the White House. And with midterm elections looming in November, Sept. 11 still resonates politically, with fears of terrorism and memories of a nation bound together in shock and sadness capable of affecting the attitudes of some voters.

But in the intervening period, the war in Iraq has assumed a far more prominent role in the political debates and in shaping what have become the negative views of Bush's presidency that have defined much of his second term.

Whether the return to national rancor and partisan conflict was avoidable or inevitable remains a topic of debate, although the evidence tilts in the direction of inevitability. The deep divisions that produced the disputed election of 2000 never disappeared and quickly reasserted themselves shortly after Sept. 11. In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation.

Get real guys, there never was any "spirit of bipartisanship" following the events of 9-11. Democrats have never gotten over the 2000 Presidential election, and at best, there was a brief strategic respite taken by Democratsunder the realization that any attacks against the President would be counter productive. That brief moratorium had nothing to do with any "spirit of bipartisanship." It lasted only as long as the Democrats thought it necessary.

Witness the efforts by President Bush to be inclusive in virtually allowing Senator Teddy "the Chauffeur" Kennedy to write the administration's education bill, euphemistically called "no child left behind" and the virtually immediate attacks by that same Senator on the Presidents policies. There was no period of grace whatsoever.

It has been the same with each naive overture by President Bush to the Democrats in Congress. Each effort by the President has been greeted with the same unfelt words of acknowledgement followed by an immediate attack by them of their surrogates in the MSM or their advocate groups like MoveOn.org or the nut-rooters from dailyKos and democraticunderground.


For Broder and Balz to assert that there has been any "spirit of bipartisanship" is as ludicrous as for them to claim to be objective providers of information, or for them to claim that the Washington Post is not one of the most pro-Democrat news organizations in America.

Full Story: Bipartisanship? When? Where?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below