Subsequent to the stark party line vote on the "stimulus" package, scan the Internet or pick up virtually any news-oriented publication and you'll see commentary on the difficulty of bipartisanship.  A consensus of pundits and reporters agree that Obama's rhetoric about cross-party cooperation was well-intentioned, but in the end, probably naive.  The musings of an idealist.  They remark that it's simply too hard to get both sides together—the differences are too engrained, and the issues are too polarizing.  Really?

There are numerous historical examples of divergent sides coming together to pass important legislation.  Republicans in the Congress were largely responsible for passing LBJ's Great Society.  Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans came together on sweeping welfare reform.  And, Truman, with the benefit of strong bipartisan support, was able to push through the very expensive and controversial Marshall Plan.  It is clearly doable.

Isn't it amazing, particularly given the gravity of our current economic situation, that the media has been quick to ignore the very essence of what Obama campaigned on, and probably the single biggest issue that swayed Independents and liberal/moderate Republicans in his direction?  And, they disregard it without so much as a fleeting admonishment and/or cursory examination.

As we all know, and as Obama has pointed out somewhat arrogantly on several occasions, elections have consequences.  He, his administration, and his party certainly have the right to push through their agenda.  But, isn't it odd that somebody who wrapped himself in the blanket of change and bipartisanship would so readily cast aside what made him appealing to so many?

Make no mistake about it, there was a deal to be had.  The Republicans just needed a bone or two and large numbers of them would have willingly signed on.  Instead, Obama and the Democrats presented them with something that was impossible to support.  Near every element is antithetical to fiscal conservatism.  The GOP would have backed infrastructure spending and the extension of unemployment benefits, as well as a handful of other items, had the bill included one or two of any number of time-tested and truly stimulative incentives (e.g. reduction in the:  corporate tax rate, capital gains tax rate; payroll taxes; marginal income tax rates.  Meaningful incentives for home buyers would also have been agreeable.  Etc., etc., etc.).  A material number of Republicans were ready to grudgingly accept the near $800 billion price tag had a mere quarter or third of the total been targeted at their solution(s).

So, don't walk away from this "stimulus" debate believing that bipartisanship is impossible.  It was and is possible...and it wouldn't have been terribly difficult.  Obama simply chose a different path.  That's unfortunate for those who believe there are real problems to be solved and cooperation is essential.  It is even more regrettable that in this time of greatly diminished confidence, the President wouldn't be so forward thinking as to realize the advantages associated with a more unified government.

Let's hope the Obama experiment in bipartisanship is not over.