Playing Nice?: That old devil 'bipartisanship'.

After a month of nerve-racking tension, the news came that the battle had finally been joined: "Congress Resumes Partisan Warfare," declared a New York Times headline. And the report was accurate: By mid October, Democrats were howling about Republicans' plans to push their own proposals on tax cuts, airline security, energy, and trade. The GOP is realizing, none too soon, that just as the desire for a broad international coalition cannot be allowed to thwart our war aims, the hope of a bipartisan congressional coalition should not frustrate the efforts to promote growth in the economy, safety in the skies, and other national priorities.

An obituary for bipartisanship that ran on the Times's editorial page points up the fundamental problem-for Republicans-with the call for putting allegedly partisan concerns aside: When partisanship is shelved, the media play referee-and blow the whistle only on the Republican team.

Here's an example. Democrats were reportedly "stunned" when the president said that his energy proposal should be included in the economic-recovery package; they said that he was exploiting the crisis "to ram through drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and tax breaks for big energy companies." In fact, there was no need for Bush to "ram through" the GOP energy proposal; it enjoys bipartisan Senate support. And Senate majority leader Tom Daschle was hardly bipartisan in what he did next: When it was clear that a majority of the Democratic- controlled Energy Committee supported the package, he yanked the bill from the committee to prevent its approval.

But the Times editorial helpfully explains that if the president persists in pushing for this bill, which enjoys sufficient bipartisan support to pass the Senate, he will be responsible for the inevitable "filibusters and other disruptive tactics by opponents." In other words, liberal Democrats obstructing the Senate's will in order to promote environmental policies pleasing to the Times are disinterested public servants, but Republicans pressing for pro-growth tax cuts are destructive ideologues pursuing "what they know is an unsound economic approach." The phoniness of the media's notion of bipartisanship is evident, in that there's only one type of bipartisan coalition that meets with their approval: the kind in which Democrats and rogue Republicans join forces to advance liberal goals.

For the past month, Republicans have watched warily as White House officials appeared to hint that they are willing to sacrifice conservative policy goals-and the president's own policy preferences-in order to avoid the displeasure of House minority leader Dick Gephardt. The temptation to prolong Democratic cooperation following the September 11 attacks is understandable: Bush ran last year as "a uniter, not a divider," and dearly hoped to find in Washington some Democratic leaders like the late Bob Bullock, the powerful lieutenant governor who supported so many of then-Gov. Bush's policies in Texas. When cordial meetings and disarming nicknames failed to temper Democrats' familiar rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich, special favors for Big Oil, and extremist nominees who threaten civil rights, the president was clearly disappointed.

The unanimously positive reviews he has enjoyed for his conduct since September 11 appeared to present a new opportunity for a better policy relationship with the Democrats. It is, however, sadly obvious by now that Democrats are willing to provide that level of support only on issues beyond the water's edge. Gephardt, for example, ...