it's not that there aren't diffs worthy of a distinction, but rather whether the distinctions ALWAYS make for much of a difference in fact or perception-wise in "bipartisan" efforts.
Carlin made a very narrow case here involving "bipartisanship", which of course means that a significant portion/proportion on both sides are unified on a political/legislative goal, good or bad, which he qualified with "usually". Given that was the narrow case made, I'd say the only way to determine the validity of his observation would be to compare and contrast ALL of the "bipartisan" legislative efforts in recent times to determine if "usually/more often than not" is a valid characterization.
In other words, in his opinion, "usually" when that happens, but not always, it means you should look for your tube of KY jelly.
It's not a statement meaning that both sides are identical on ALL issues or even approximately so. I've long argued that we have a faux duopoly, good cop/bad cop condition in DC, but that's not an argument for the parties and their political goals being "identical". It does however, certainly come close on foreign policy issues more often than not.
The Iraq War for example, was a bi-partisan effort, no doubt in part because of all the Bill Clinton lies on the matter, which paved the way for Bush selling his. But their shared evil somewhat ended at our shorelines, given the diffs on domestic policy, e.g. tax raising v cuts, etc, with other similarities Clinton's DLC goonage on that front notwithstanding, e.g. desire to privatise SS, the repeal of Glass- Steagall, etc.
Another bad one is here http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
then we have the good http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0531/House-approves-veterans-health-measures-in-bipartisan-vote
there's no false equivalence here, there's merely you conflating the observation that "usually" as Carlin observed, both sides work together to screw us all, with a case for both parties being identical that nobody has made.
this is the origin of the "lesser of two evils" concept voters like me base their decisions on.
as a side note, as such a voter, I've argued for years now, that the fear of the far more evil rightwingnuts insures BHO's reelection, because it will eclipse and bury the many disappointments BHO has accumulated in the voting booth.
But by all means, keep thinking that he/the dems should be free of criticisms (which was implied by Carlin there) because of the enthusiasm-dampening effect that might have, and keep ignoring the lack of any motivation on their part to change silence would certainly result in.
That's what Bushbots did for 8 years, and look what happened...
The idea that Carlin would be supportive of giving the dems or BHO a pass based on fears of election losses, is ludicrous. I'm real sure for example, that he's have been wholly supportive of BHO's drone strikes, assassination of US citizens, or current defense he's mounting of the right to tap your phone. http://dailykos.com/story/2012/05/31/1096289/-Open-thread-for-night-owls-Civil-liberties-be-damned
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
= new reply since forum marked as read
