[Isildur]

Okay, I think the use of the terms "bipartisan" and "partisan" and "united" versus "divided" (and a few other such terms) in the last two administrations presents quite a strong picture of media bias.

But of course, I recognize my own bias exists, so not going to state my opinion as any form of truth without some verification/analysis.

So its a simple question...

What do you consider (in the context of U.S. federal politics!) to be "bipartisan"?

Here's my answer:

What it does NOT mean:
- supporting legislation against your beliefs (or your principles)
- selling out your constitutents with your vote
- serving in a role that causes you to be in conflict with your beliefs or your positions in support of your constituents
- following the other side simply for the good of x or y (whatever reason)
- not letting the minority demand their beliefs/ideas get legislated
- not requiring some concept of "proportion" (the Limbaugh idea of GOP writing 47% of the stimulus, Dems 53%)
- picking a member of the other party to serve in your cabinet at the same time you castrate the position of key powers

What is DOES mean:
- listening to the other side
- allowing them to offer amendments and alternatives for discussion
- not closing them out from conf committees or other legislative activities they deserve some representation at
- not saying "suck it up, we won"
- if possible, engaging opponents so their ideas

Looking at the last two administrations, I have one whose first "golden" piece of legislation (No Child Left Behind) -- like it or not -- followed these principles, and in fact was authored by the other side; and I have another who has done all the "NOTs" and few of the "DOES". Yet one gets credit for being bipartisan, the other was attacked from day 1 as a divider.

Like I said, I know I have some bias coloring my view of this -- so am looking for your own (also likely biased) statements of what is or is not bipartisanship, and examples and/or comments of how various recent administrations did or did not support it

[mastab]

It's a buzzword that is used for spinning situations. It means whatever the politician using it to help them and their allies want it to.

The most correct definition I can come up is coming to a conclusion supported by and created by both parties.

[Lamuella]

"bipartisan": something the party in power will always claim their bill is and the party not in power will always claim the bill isn't.

[Isildur]

Lamuella, on Feb 13 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

"bipartisan": something the party in power will always claim their bill is and the party not in power will always claim the bill isn't.

Hehe, thats probably the most accurate any of us can come up with.

But how about what bipartisan means to you?

What would make you consider something (or someone) to be bipartisan or even post-partisan, versus the typically partisan actions they all take?

And do you or others agree that the media has abused it or is abusing it to try and paint any one particular administration better or worse to the public than others?

Clearly I have an opinion on that, but I recognize its colored by my own biases, so am asking for the opinion of others as well.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Hmm... Bi-Partisan would basically be two or more parties discussing something and compromising and finding a solution they can all more or less live with (though ultimately no one will really like the solution completely, at least most politicians will be content with it).

Also, Lam's definition is the best.

This post has been edited by Dennis Von Bremen: 13 February 2009 - 09:45 PM

[Lamuella]

a truly bipartisan or post-partisan bill would be one where party affiliation played little effect in either the drafting or voting on the bill. This really only happens on largely non-controversial issues. The best you're going to get on an issue that there is controversy about would be that there was significant presence from both parties in the drafting of the bill.

of course, for a bill to truly be bipartisan, both sides would have to want it to be bipartisan. Both sides have to have hands extended for true bipartisanship, which sadly makes it very easy for someone to turn the bipartisan into the partisan, or likewise say that they extended the hand but the other side did not.

if the bill we are talking about is (and I presume it is) the current economic stimulus plan, I think both those claiming the bill was bipartisan and those claiming it was not have points.

On the "bipartisan" side, I think that there was some effort to include measures in the bill that would make it more palatable to the Republican party. Likewise I think that the Republican opposition to the bill was a party line rather than simply every republican individually deciding they did not support the bill. The fact that threats were made about running primary candidates against anyone who voted for the bill was to my mind evidence of this.

On the "partisan" side, this certainly wasn't a case of splitting the difference with the Republicans. While I think that the Democrats did give more than they necessarily had to, they certainly didn't give as much as the Republicans wanted them to. This is definitely a bill that one party had more input in than the other.

Ultimately, "bipartisan" is a buzzword, used both by those wanting to make something look bad and those wanting to make something look good.

[Isildur]

No real disagreements with that, Lam.

You are right that the stimulus package (and the "bipartisan" tags floated against and for it, like when I saw CNN tonight saying the GOP dissed a bipartisan stimulus bill by voting against it) spawned the question.

I wasn't really looking for an answer on a specific bill though your examples make great points. For example, I also do not think that all the Democrat Senators have individually decided they support this bill (though there's enough pork in there to buy a lot of support...).

It was more for general discussion -- what is and is not bipartisan, can we even agree (among ourselves) what it means, and can we using that understanding compare and contrast various efforts.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Bipartisan: politicians of every stripe bleed red.

/aren't I edgy

[Kenadian_2006]

It means, at the very least, not being vitriolic assholes towards each other, trying to one up the other while playing the game of power.

That, I think, can be agreed upon as the most basic of definitions for it.

[Isildur]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 14 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

It means, at the very least, not being vitriolic assholes towards each other, trying to one up the other while playing the game of power.

That, I think, can be agreed upon as the most basic of definitions for it.

Thats a good def too.

Like on the Gregg thing.

He withdraws, and if you check the comments on WashPo or some similar sites, he's reviled for daring to do this to the great messiah. Now I know internet commenter freaks (even here like me!) are hardly representative of the intelligentsia of the world, but its hard to even believe people can honestly make the comments they make...

this guy set up obama
this guy is another gop dude who wants to make obama look bad no matter what
obama shouldn't be embarassed, just this dude

Look, I see it as a case where they thought they could work through some policy differences and make a strong team, as Gregg got into it (and yes, I think the changes to the census oversight/control were a HUGE portion of it) he found out the differences on things like sampling in the census were too big, and he stepped out.

And he did so with grace, with a statement not negative to the big O, and O for his part his team didn't bash Gregg on his way out. Then you see it all get turned itno that.

Again, those are internet tools speaking, but thats a perfect example of being a vitriolic !@#$%^& purely on the basis of relative party, I think.

[Kenadian_2006]

Isildur, on Feb 14 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Thats a good def too.

Like on the Gregg thing.

He withdraws, and if you check the comments on WashPo or some similar sites, he's reviled for daring to do this to the great messiah. Now I know internet commenter freaks (even here like me!) are hardly representative of the intelligentsia of the world, but its hard to even believe people can honestly make the comments they make...

this guy set up obama
this guy is another gop dude who wants to make obama look bad no matter what
obama shouldn't be embarassed, just this dude

Look, I see it as a case where they thought they could work through some policy differences and make a strong team, as Gregg got into it (and yes, I think the changes to the census oversight/control were a HUGE portion of it) he found out the differences on things like sampling in the census were too big, and he stepped out.

And he did so with grace, with a statement not negative to the big O, and O for his part his team didn't bash Gregg on his way out. Then you see it all get turned itno that.

Again, those are internet tools speaking, but thats a perfect example of being a vitriolic !@#$%^& purely on the basis of relative party, I think.

Indeed. Comments like those, and youtube comments in general make me want to strangle kittens.

[Simon De Montfort]

Bipartisanship is whatever the god emperor Obama says it is.

This post has been edited by Simon De Montfort: 14 February 2009 - 06:52 AM

[Lamuella]

Bipartisanship is something Simon De Montfort knows very little about, seeing as how he is trying to turn a discussion about bipartisanship into a discussion about how much he dislikes the president

[Melkson]

Isn't that where you have both the male and female parts?

[Kzin]

Putting the interests of the country above the interests of your party and your own re-election bid.

[Foggers]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 14 2009, 05:43 AM, said:

Indeed. Comments like those, and youtube comments in general make me want to strangle kittens.

You need a reason to do that?

I always thought bipartisan would be both parties coming together, putting aside their differences and working for a better future for the good of the country and the people.

However I am young and naive.

[Kenadian_2006]

Simon De Montfort, on Feb 14 2009, 07:57 AM, said:

Bipartisanship is whatever the god emperor Obama says it is.

Lol wut? I love asinine hyperbole.

[Lamuella]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 14 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

Lol wut? I love asinine hyperbole.

apparently being popular is now a bad thing. A bad thing that the republicans have been clever enough to avoid.

[Sunake]

A group of individuals, evenly distributed in their political beliefs, discussing issues and talking about solutions without any thought of personal gain.

[Kenadian_2006]

Lamuella, on Feb 14 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

apparently being popular is now a bad thing. A bad thing that the republicans have been clever enough to avoid.

Those dastardly people, they're on to something.