IMO you have defined not bipartisanship but partisanship -- the belief that one's beliefs are correct and should not be compromised. The problem arises when different people have different ideas of what is "correct." In American politics this is certainly the case. The two parties have fundamentally different views of government and society. I really don't think it can be said that one is right and one is wrong. Both sides want to, of course -- that's both sides, I am not bashing the party I love to bash <g> -- and we have seen where it gets us. Basically nowhere. To me bipartisanship means sometimes accepting less than what you view as "correct," for the simple reason that you aren't going to get that. Isn't half a loaf better than none?

>I'm not just addressing this post to you Mike. If anyone can help me please chime in.
>
>Please explain to me how our view of the utopian "bipartisanship" is reached.
>
>To me words like "bipartisanship" and "unity" has very little meaning, because it can't be achieved until someone's idea is proven to be correct. Only when people see that a certain idea works "bipartisan" and "unity" can be achieved based on that idea. It's the proverbial "jumping on the band wagon". We're all on board and UNITED because something works. Prior to this everybody argues, fight and screem about whose idea is best. Then the politicians get togather in the name of unity and bipartisanship and try to negotiate and compromise. The problem with this is, more often then not, the original idea becomes so diluted and water down that they're right back to where they started. Then they all congratulate themselves for being bipartisan.
>
>The currently policies has been in effect for over twenty five years with very little result. Infact Newt Gingrich he states that it has had a devestating effect to the poor communities.
>
>Was it Einstein who said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."?
>
>How do you unite a country with so much diversity of people and ideas? The best answer is by trying soemthing else if the current policy(s) are not working. The only thing that we agree on right now about the current policies to help the inner city probelm is "it ain't working".
>
>
>>I don't think he was vilified because he had ideas. He was vilified because he was so partisan. He arguably had the most to do with the viciously partisan politics that has afflicted us since the early 1990s. He is also a demagogue IMO.
>>
>>Jake and Tracy indicate he is trying to work bipartisanly and constructively now. Maybe so. People do change. I'll have to see it before I believe it, though, because I remember what he was like when he was in power.
>>
>>>Couldn't agree more. He was a lightning rod in the early nineties and vilified because he actually had ideas. A genuine intellectual who is well-versed in history and is a very big picture thinker. Don't agree with him on everything, but he's sitting right between Krauthammer and P.J.O'Rourke at my fantasy dinner party <s>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've said the same thing since I took his class in college. I've written his name in on multiple occasions.
>>>>
>>>>>Newt for Pres! :o)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Newt Gingrich gave a speech on Thursday Mar 27th called "Answering the Obama Challenge".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Video and transcript can be found at this link.
>>>>>>http://newt.org/MediaCenter/tabid/61/Default.aspx