"Bipartisanship" (or, better, nonpartisanship) as it really is, in the real world - when not being used as a manipulative political football by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Kit Bond - is basically about having an open mind. Being open to persuasion, to voting not simply with blind political party loyalty, or in lockstep under orders from a political party hierarchy, but for the best solution to a problem, for the better idea, whether that means voting in political party unison, or not.

In Congress, the context for such a "bipartisan" position technically means having an open mind about the better idea in a public debate on behalf of the people of America by those paid to represent us. But, as is now clear, in actuality in this Congress it usually means having an open mind about the better idea in a (secret) discussion on behalf of the wealthy corporate owners and managers in America who finance major political party Congressional campaigns for public office. Those same large corporate interests can do something the voting public cannot do: guarantee private sector employment for Members of Congress after they leave the pay and privileges of public life behind them - at least for those members who are most "open-minded" (i.e., "bipartisan"...) in public office to the selfish suggestions of the corporate interests who are given such open (for a price) access to our public representatives. Perhaps it's from the self-justifications so many Members of Congress must use to excuse away their glaring double-standards for access to their presence - as they usher in cash-carrying corporate lobbyists in lieu of mere opinion-holding constituents - that so much of the scolding arises, about the alleged need to lower standards of Congressional conduct, and to ignore fundamental Constitutional principles, in the name of "bipartisan" comity.

So ideally, Members of Congress have 'open minds willing to be persuaded to cast votes based on opposing arguments about the merits of an issue.' But persuaded by whom, and why? These vital nuances are left completely unaddressed by the vague platitude and convenient abuse of the term "bipartisan."

In fact, the nation desperately needs Members of Congress who have 'open minds willing to be persuaded to cast votes, on behalf of the best interests of the American people, based on opposing arguments about the merits of an issue.' But what a far, far cry from anything practiced by the corporate lock-step Republican Party of the United States Congress, lo these many years. As for the Democratic Party in Congress: I'm not sure there are more than 10-20 such members with that sort of corporate-cash-resistant "bipartisan" "open mind" in the United States Senate any more. They would, of course, be among the 29 American Senators who voted against invoking cloture on the Senate FISA bill Tuesday.

Authoritarians are afraid of "open minds" and democracy, and much prefer to just follow orders. It's so much simpler, feels so much safer to them, removes any serious need for critical thinking or a conscience, and very neatly removes the concept of "personal responsibility" from their orbit of choices.

Any lover of democracy and equal justice who pretends that closed authoritarian minds will somehow suddenly blossom into open, welcoming, good faith debate on the most heated issues of the day, in opposition to that same authoritarian's party marching orders, is on a fool's errand of immense proportions. Or is simply a bad faith actor hiding their favored course of corporate-friendly, democracy-hostile action behind the soundbite of a mythical process in order to deceive (becoming, in effect, a bad faith echo of George W. Bush discussing revisions to FISA).

Members of the House and the House leadership should reinstate FISA and the Fourth Amendment, in full and fair public debate with any and all who are willing to bring open minds to the table, on behalf of the best interests of the American people and our Constitutional Republic. And then cede no Constitutional ground if and when an impasse is reached, simply because an impasse is reached, in an attempt to end it. Good faith negotiators will compromise without compromising principles. Bad faith negotiators will do everything they can, including compromising principles, to get their way in the name of the process of "compromising." Good faith need not, and must not, cede to bad faith, no matter the nature of the David vs. Goliath fight we face.

selise - Thank you for updating the Rules Committee action here last night, and finding the vote about it on the calendar today. FYI, there were I thought some excellent comments from John Conyers at about 1:51-1:56 p.m. ET today (during part of the debate preceding today's still-pending House vote on the 21-day PAA extension) re the need for the Legislative Branch to do its Constitutional duty, never mind this morning's "intimidation" from the president's preemptive public veto threat...