BIPARTISANSHIPIt is a myth, a fallacy, a ruse and therefore bearing no resemblance to it's denotation. See Jonah Goldberg's December 31st article in National Review on the equally deceptive subterfuge of the "No Labels" movement.
All the calls for bipartisanship are coming from the side that lost big in the 201o mid-term elections, the side that practiced a most pronounced form of partisanship for the past two years, the side that saw deep divisions in their own party and struggled to ram through legislation with majority control of the legislature, with no need for a single member of the other party to join them. It doesn't take genius to figure out something is fishy in the Democrat side of the aisle in our Capitol.
The Progressives, in their desire to be bipartisan now have only one intent. Their goal is to keep their agenda in motion. There are no unicorns or rainbows . . . that's to say, there is no altruism in this new found desire for bipartisanship. And as sure as there have been Progressives a.k.a. Socialists in the government advancing an anti-American agenda since before I was an embryo, they are here now and willing to use any tactic available.
[Side-note for those who may be bothered by the adversarial rhetoric in the politics of the day: You may want to stick to the Style section of the newspaper. It's going to get really ugly in 2011 now that the Democrats have lost control of the House.]
The federal government does some of it's best work when it is doing nothing, so the word for 2011, the one that has a negative connotation and yet, in the context of a liberal agenda, the word that I find quite positive is