Let's face it, compared to the alternatives, the Senate bill they're about to approve is pretty conservative. That's why complaining about it not being 'bipartisan' is almost adding insult to injury.
It's not getting a single GOP vote? So what? That's more a reflection on the GOPers and how they've reduced themselves to an irrelevant ideological rump. Most of the action -- at least the part worth paying attention to -- is happening within the confines of the Democratic party. It's about time people -- particular in the Media -- readjusted their settings.
UPDATE: Paul Starr brings up the same point in Monday's edition of the Brian Lehrer Show.
Paul Starr (24:35): In a longer historical perspective, this is really a bipartisan bill. If you look back to the earlier decades when there were debates over health insurance, back to the Truman era, back to the 1970's, many Republicans put forward proposals in those days
for the government to subsidize private insurance.At that time Democrats were calling for what is now known as a 'Single Payer' plan -- that was the Truman proposal, that's what Ted Kennedy favored in the 1960's and 70's.
And this was the Republican alternative. Actually, what Democrats are moving ahead with now is much closer to what Republicans favored in the past.
So this is a bipartisan compromise. It's just a bipartisan compromise with an old Republican Party that no longer exists.
The whole interview is worth listening to. They go on to discuss how the Democratic Party functions both as the moderate _and_ liberal party in American politics today.
UPDATE II: Wow, even Dave Ross, the king of knee-jerk cheap shots is seeing the light:
If the Republicans had wanted to stop all this special treatment, they could have. Maybe they still can.
Remember -- it's basically a Republican bill now anyway!
No public option, no federal financing for abortion, protection for insurance industry and drug industry profits -- the thing is so conservative you have liberals like Howard Dean actively campaigning against it.
So suppose a Republican Senator offered to vote yes... on condition that the bill be stripped of the expensive giveaway that Ben Nelson got for Nebraska? And suppose another Republican offered to vote yes on condition that the bill be stripped of the giveaway Mary Landrieu got for Louisiana.
You'd still have 60 filibuster-proof votes, except they'd be bi-partisan votes, and the bill would be a lot cheaper. [transcript here].
