This section of today's New York Times article about the Wall Street Reform debate is a sort of window into the oddball thinking that must take place internally in DC. It's DC-only thinking.
"The bellicose stance by Democrats, even as Republicans insist they are hopeful of a bipartisan deal, carries some political risk. Voters, often frustrated by the acrimony in Washington, could decide that Democrats, who control Congress and the White House, are being arrogant by refusing to make concessions. "
Does anyone think this is a politically astute assessment? Democrats have never been accused of arrogance by any serious voter or comedian or thinking human that I've noticed. They are accused of being wimps. It's Republicans whose boisterous posturing seems to be treated by the press as a win-win. The Republicans are admired by the press for making lies stick in the minds of the American public, despite how corrupt the behavior is. Democrats who try to be "bi-partisan" with this deposed minority party are accused of cowardice. If they attack, they risk being considered the reason for acrimony.
Most people don't think this way. The DC press, who use the horse-race, and not the substance, to fuel articles, love this type of Catch-22. Even if they contradict their own assessments of the politics a scant few months ago.
- Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.