just as i question whether you and others read post 148 and its cite to appreciate why so many actions were not elevated to the senate floor ... and to view the misrepresentation of what is presented to be 'bi-partisan'
Actually, post 148 highlights perfectly the issue with the comment "bipartisan". It's a non-specific term that fluxuates person to person and situation to situation. Even the link in post 148 qualifies it's statement by saying many are not "very" bipartisan...applying some kind of opinion based standard of what THEY feel qualifies as "bipartisan" and treating that like it's a fact. I'll note that this kind of "factchecking"...IE, putting an over emphasis on their opinion and then treating said opinion as fact...is an issue I've been noting about Factcheck since the election when they ROUTINELY "fact checked" things in a very different way than the two other major fact checkers, largely based on assumptions and guesses and benefits of hte doubt they would give in some instances and not in the others.
This is the issue with words sometimes and the laughable nature of people who are trying to call out political "spin" using some of the very buzzwords that are ingrained within the political spin cycle.
Take the poster from 148's seeming numbers...."bipartisan" requires that 15% of the opposition party supports it and 8.5% of the majority party also opposes it.
Back in 2013 we had all of four republican senators coming to an agreement with all but 4 Democrats on a possible gun control bill and the media was trumpeting that as a "bipartisan" bill. Using Upsideguy's criteria, this shouldn't be called bipartisan as it didn't have the requisite 5 democrats voting against it or the requisite 7 republicans voting for it. But many were championing it as "bipartisan" and I don't seem to remember many fact checks being done when Liberals were scolding the "extreme right wing" about not getting on board with "bipartisan" gun control measures.
As a note, "Factcheck" called this bill
Bipartisan despite only having
FOUR Republicans supporting it; no where near a "majority" of Republicans. Yet they call the Republican claim of bipartisan "bogus" because and not "very bipartisan" because it didn't have a majority of democrats voting for it. This is the issue with a site that continually attempts to present qualitative analysis as quantitative and attempts to present it's opinion as facts while ignoring that it's opinion changes from instance to instance.
On the flip side, back in 2011 President Obama proclaimed that "nearly every Senate Republican voted against a Tax Cut", despite 44% doing quite the opposite. Shockingly, the outlet deciding whether something is "very" bipartisan seemingly had nothing to say about that whopper of a mistruth.
My point being that politicians, pundits, posters, and yes "factcheck" sites play fast and loose with how they measure, react, and depict "support" from accross the aisle when it comes to various types of bills in various types of situations.
That's not to say an argument can't be made that there was not many truly "good faith" bipartisan bills coming out of the House in ones opinion...but that's just that, opinion without HARD facts to back it up. Factcheck making a qualitative, rather than quantitative, analysis of what DEGREE of "bipartisanship" is needed to qualify as "bipartisanship" is OPINION being masqueraded as "fact" and should not be relyed upon in and of itself as some kind of absolute authority.
For an example of their unequitable treatment, compare the article talking about the
"Bogus" claims of bipartisanship by those on the right to the
"not entirely" true claims of bipartisanship by an individual on the left. Specifically at the snarky end line of the "bogus" piece with the far more moderated fact toned one in "not entirely".