to the left....bipartisanship means....you agree 100% with me and you are bipartisan. you don't agree 100% with me you are an obstructionist partisan.
Hell is filled with people who were evil, who led others to evil, and those that allowed themselves to be led to evil.
Screw bipartisanship. What I expect elected pols to do is respect the Constitution and understand that capitalism—not diversity—made America the economic powerhouse of the last century.
Principles and a sense of right and wrong should govern decisions made about the county. Not bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship is a term used by socialists meaning accept our agenda. It inevitably takes us one step further down the path of socialism.
“Bipartisanship” is a word that no longer means bipartisanship. It’s simply another political label used to try to reframe political opposition.
There is nothing inherently good about bipartisanship. A policy is good (positive for the country) not simply because it was “passed in a bipartisan way,” but because it actually embodies a workable, representative view of what the represented want.
I recently read Dick Morris’ definition of “triangulation.” It is what “bipartisan” used to mean -— taking two opposing views, rising above them to find common ground, if possible, and crafting legislation from there.
Our democracy with its checks and balances is set up to run on a two-party system. The party out of power has a positive role to play, an affirmative duty to oppose and fight its corner. There is no virtue in compromising for its own sake. A party should compromise only to avoid worse, never to appease. There is no virtue or benefit to the Republic if the Republicans surrender their commitment to limited government.
A clever minority party (a characteristic which the Republican Party need not fear it will be accused of) should never put itself in a place where it must compromise because of a public-relations problem. That, unfortunately but predictably, is exactly what the Republicans are submitting themselves and the Republic to.
The question is not whether the Republicans should engage in bipartisanship, the question is whether the Republicans will act as patriots.
Neither side wants it so I’m saying not possible.
It has two different meanings:
For Democrats, it means a) you meanies who gained control of Congress should give us an equal voice on Committees, because we're the (dis)loyal opposition; b) "WE WON" so stuff it, the pork is ours; and c) which wishy-washy Republican can we bribe, and claim this was a bipartisan vote?
For Republicans, it means a) why sure, walk all over us, we are really, really, nice people. And we like pork.