FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Bipartisanship in Washington is virtually non-existent these days - except for President Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/art.marines.afghan.gi.jpg caption="U.S. Marines are pictured wading through a canal in Afghanistan's Helmand Province."]
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll - conducted after the president's speech this week - shows his plan wins approval from 63 percent of Democrats, a whopping 72 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Independents. Gee, with a consensus like that you could actually run the country.
The president is getting thumbs-up from people more inclined to extend their middle fingers when it comes to things Democratic. Karl Rove says that the president's speech "deserves to be cheered" and insists victory is attainable.
Newt Gingrich is out praising President Obama for showing political courage on Afghanistan... in going against the anti-war left in his own party.
This is not to say that there aren't critics of the president's Afghanistan strategy in both parties, but on the whole, he's getting support - at least for now. If it doesn't go as planned, all bets are off. But at least for a few minutes we have the leadership of the country agreeing on something.
And this isn't just about President Obama and Afghanistan. The Democrats had no love lost for President George W. Bush but were mostly afraid to buck him on the wars.
Here’s my question to you: Why is it the only time there is bipartisanship is when the military is involved?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Bob from Kentucky writes:
The reason there is bipartisanship when the military is involved is that the "military-industrial complex", which President Eisenhower warned was a serious threat to the nation’s well-being, has both the Republican and the Democrat members of Congress in its hip-pocket.
Patricia in Boise, Idaho writes:
Sadly, it's not really bipartisanship, it's that Obama happens to fall on the Republican side of the issue because he is escalating the war. They understand the "kill more bad guys" approach to problems. That's also why they're struggling with the "know when to call it quits" strategy, which is more nuanced and, therefore, too complex for the average Republican.
Simon from New York writes:
The only reason why bipartisanship exists when the military is involved is because politicians are afraid of going against the war and being perceived as weak or even un-American. It’s no surprise, most politicians are cowards.
McPherson from Spanish Fort, Alabama writes:
There will always be "bipartisanship" when it is time to make money!
It’s because both sides of the aisle are terrified of being accused of not supporting the troops in a combat situation. Also – it’s because military production and bases are big (HUGE) business, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in their districts. Stop and think of what would happen to the GERMAN economy if we pulled our troops out. Whole cities would lose their economic well being.
John from Brentwood, Tennessee writes:
Jack, Bipartisanship exists exclusively for military affairs because we are a nationalistic society. Historically, it has been seen as unpatriotic, and therefore unpopular, to oppose the military in almost any regard. Politicians are in the business of reelection, and they will always find themselves on the "right" side of this issue.