False Equivalence Beat-Down

This, from Ezra Klein, hits my false equivalence point in a different way:

As Democrats learned during the DREAM Act’s first decade in existence, proposing policies that Republicans have previously proposed doesn’t work. Since 2009, Democrats have sought to find middle ground with a health-care plan based around an individual mandate (which Republican Sen. John Chafee first introduced into the Senate in the 1990s), a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions (which Republican Senator John McCain introduced into the Senate in 2003), and tax-cut based stimulus plans (which President George W. Bush signed in 2008). No go.

Backing policies that Republicans currently support hasn’t proven much more effective. When Obama put his weight behind legislation to create a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission, a number of the Republicans who supported that bill, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, flipped to oppose it.

The piece goes on to cite chapter and verse on how the Republicans respond to each attempt to reach out to their positions by fleeing further to the Right and then complaining about Obama's inability to produce compromise.

 To recap: When Democrats endorse ideas Republican pioneered, that doesn’t lead to bipartisanship. When they endorse ideas Republicans currently support, that doesn’t lead to bipartisanship. And when they act on their own, that’s too partisan.

So what, exactly, are they supposed to do?

Exactly.  Honest political reporting would point out that Republicans have an explicit political strategy to deny Obama any significant legislation.  If Obama supports something, they will oppose it no matter what their previous positions.  It's scorched-Earth opposition, and it's never been seen on this level in the US.  It's legal, and one can even make an argument that it's ethical (if you believe that an Obama presidency is so dangerous that it must be opposed even when doing reasonable things).  But can't we at least call a spade a spade?