I keep hearing all of this talk about 'bi-partisanship' in Washington, most of it coming from people who wouldn't know the definitions of co-operation and compromise, even if you somehow managed to distill the essence of both concepts into a liquid and injected it into them anally.
Quite frankly, I for one don't want this here 'bi-partisanship'. For a start, I don't think it's healthy or safe to have politicians to be in complete agreement on anything, particularly when there's money involved. Secondly, I didn't send republicans to Congress to jump into bed with democrats -- I sent them there (or tried to) in order for them to do the opposite of what democrats wanted them to do. Finally, there's the open question of just what does each side really mean when they say 'bi-partisan'?
To a democrat, it means "do what I say, even if it's silly, destructive, expensive or all three at once, or I'll embarrass you in public by calling you nasty names on Meet The Press."
To a republican, it means "do what I say, because it's more often right than it is wrong, but if you insist on calling me a nasty name on Meet The Press, I'll water it down to accommodate you."
A pox on both their houses, I say! I don't want bi-partisanship, I don't want compromise, I don't want harmony in Washington, D.C.!
I want results. And the results I want can only be achieved one way; with republicans digging in their heels and standing up for what's right, and democrats revealed for the weak-headed and insidious grubs that they are.