In the end, what difference will it make.

bipartisanship = compromise = ONE party.

We all work together to accomplish the same thing.

There really is no difference, is there?

Really?

Sure, it wasn't something that HAD to be done, and admittedly not very many people outside of Olympia would probably take much note of it, but the fact that this was even considered, let alone accomplished speaks volumes about the direction upon which Democratic leaders at the State level are embarking.

It seems to me to be a perfect application of the carrot/stick approach: rewarding moderate Republicans with demonstrable working knowledge in certain areas (particularly ones that are traditional Democratic platforms) with committee leadership positions sends the message that the Dems are actively engaging in bi-partisanship, are willing to listen to good ideas regardless of their source, and effectively cuts the rug out from under their opponents, who now won't be able to use the excuse of being locked out of the policy-making process as an attacking point on these issues.

I'd say, it's a pretty effin' brilliant move on their part.

Politics is much about negotiation and meeting at some common ground. It's not all confrontation and winning battles by 51-49 "majorities."

Politics is much about negotiation and meeting at some common ground. It's not all confrontation and winning battles by 51-49 "majorities."