partisan?

in an article about providing benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees, the writer of the article writes, "If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters." alienating republicans?! is this really a worry? let's talk about bi-partisanship. the republicans are not always going to agree with every measure the democrats want to pass and vice versa. that's why we have two political parties in this country, providing a slow political negotiation and tug-of-war on these issues over the decades. the republicans did not vote for obama's stimulus package at all, and there will continue to be issues that republicans will not vote for. just because republicans object to a measure does not mean that one is being overly partisan or alienating. the parties have different objectives for a reason. when a president or congress person acts in an un-partisan manner, this really means he or she is accommodating to the other side of the aisle, that in certain situations agreements can be made jointly, that compromises and negotiations can be made for the benefit of the country. but certain ideals and political goals should not be dismissed just because the republicans won't go for them. i'm tired of this talk. obama is extremely diplomatic and as un-partisan as possible, but this does not mean that the republicans should always agree with what he's doing.

in other news, my sister evian is in portland this weekend. blow it up.