Main Entry: bi·par·ti·san
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)bī-ˈpär-tə-zən, -sən, -ˌzan, chiefly British ˌbī-ˌpär-tə-ˈzan\
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
— bi·par·ti·san·ism \-zə-ˌni-zəm, -sə-\ noun
— bi·par·ti·san·ship \-zən-ˌship, -sən-\ noun
I'm sure you could find other definitions that are more expansive, but the idea would be the same, the two parties reach an agreement that is probably mutually unsatisfying but actually does something. You will note that TWO is the operative word. When the two involves one with a strong majority you would expect that what the minority could best hope would be to have enough input to mitigate their concerns - not that their way was the only way.
President Obama campaigned on changing the tone in DC and reaching out to the GOP. What he got was the CPoR (Confederate Party of Republicanism) and weird looniness and obstruction. Despite having many amendments added into all the large bills the House CPoRs all voted "Nay," and no more than a couple CPoR Senators voted "Yea," and then both Houses of the CPoR complained that they had been disrespected and entirely cut out of the process. The media aids and abets this crap and actually asks if Obama has failed his promise.
So far the Democrats have not required the CPoR to meet in a basement or cut their power or called them terrorist enablers. So far the Democrats have allowed them to enter amendments. All this despite a much larger majority than when the CPoR (then known as GOP) did actually do that to Democrats. The President invites them to talk, his minions do not publicly call them rude names and they whine. In fact, some of them see fit to try to officially placate the birthers.
Now you have to understand that I don't think all Republican ideas stink, just most of them and the ones I do agree with I find their support to be no more than duplicitous hypocrisy. I'm real tired of the theme of including people who will not act in good faith as some measure of bipartisanship. These people are behaving like cretins and marginalizing them is not bad politics. If they offer amendments with no intention of voting for a measure there is absolutely no reason to vote for them short of that amendment actually improving effects of such a bill. Watering the thing down is not an improvement. Being able to claim that the (CPoR)s had input without some real improvement is stupid. I also really don't care the those wearing a (D) and acting (CPoR) get marginalized.
I do not have any loyalty to simply wearing a (D), my loyalties lie with an agenda of social and economic justice, not initials. I have the good fortune to live in OR where at the national level the only (CPoR) proudly wears that label - Greg Walden. I might from time to time disagree with some approaches our (D)s take, but they are clearly (D)s.