Bipartisanship? Bah, humbug.

Bipartisanship. It's a word that's in the air again, lately. On Monday, a group of moderate Democrats, Republicans, and independents met in a bipartisan forum at the University of Oklahoma. They argued that the nation is in trouble, and the only way to fix it is for politicians to come together in a spirit of compromise. Some members have previously called for a "unity ticket" consisting of presidential and vice presidential candidates from different parties, and Mike Bloomberg, who also participated, appears to be gearing up for an independent run for president.

Now, while I actually agree with most of the issues this group lists as national problems, I'm suspicious of the timing of their appearance. We recently saw six years of highly divisive, partisan rule by the Republicans -- where were these people then? And now that the Democrats are starting to claw some power back, suddenly a group appears calling for compromise? It all seems a little fishy. Frankly, I don't believe what the country needs right now is for Democrats to compromise their principles and neuter their agenda in order to appease the Republicans, and in my experience that's inevitably what "bipartisanship" really means.

I'm also not convinced bipartisanship is inherently a good thing. I see little evidence that it leads to good legislation. NAFTA, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War Resolution, McCain-Feingold -- all of these were bipartisan bills that, in hindsight, don't look like such great ideas after all.

Bipartisanship is a sucker bet. I want the Democrats to grow spines and stand up for their agenda, even if that makes them appear "partisan." I realize this may prove uncomfortable for those who host inside-the-beltway cocktail parties, but some things are more important to the nation than everyone in Washington getting along.