No, the bipartisanship is simply pictures of the bad guy with Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, W, Rudy Guiliani, etc... The bad guys in the film are not bipartisan in any way.

Jedburgh was the only redeeming part of the movie. The rest of my comments contain spoilers, so read ahead with caution:

The rest of the picture requires you to suspend belief entirely. You have to believe that a Republican Senator in MA is business as usual and that they are thoroughly involved with the overall operations of how the state's money gets spent. In addition, you have to believe that it makes sense for the federal government to contract out the most scandalous operation in the history of the country to a private company. In addition, you have to believe that the United States government is willing to build nuclear weapons to foreign specifications and plan to use them overseas. In addition, you have to believe the federal government is eagerly willing to cover up the murders of multiple people when instead they could just cut ties with the company and come down on them. In addition, you have to believe that the federal government set up an entire scheme to kill Craven's daughter and make it look like they were after Craven and then decided not to follow through with that scenario by killing Craven himself and saying, oh, they must have come back and got him. In addition, you have to believe the federal government decided to poison Craven with radiation before they had any plans and then just stumbled across an idea of how to use the radiation poisoning as a way to cover up the story. In addition, you have to believe that they kidnapped him, blasted him with radiation but then somehow they let him escape, the largest threat to their coverup. In addition, you'd have to believe that throughout all of this, not one person thought to just move all their operations to another facility, a federal facility where they can restrict all access and knowledge. In addition to that, considering his partner was in on it, they didn't just kill both the Cravens on the front steps and then let him investigate the murders and completely buy the bogus murdered they tried to pin it on.

There was just way to much to just disregard that it took away from the movie. It wasn't even consistent in the movie's own universe. Even if the action scenes were memorable or the dialogue was extremely clever, there's just too much that you have to believe to even get to any of it.

Poor, poor movie. I have to wonder if this decidedly liberal movie was a way for Mel to get back in good with the Hollywoodistas. Either that or since he already buys into the "Bush manipulates terrorism for politics" meme, the story appealed to him because of the conspiracy part. I can't imagine anyone would have read this script and said, "yeah, this story is totally plausible!"

Finally saw the movie and it's not a few jabs at Conservatives. It's all about how evil conservatives are. And it's nothing subconscious either. It's there the whole way. First half is great. Then the politics show up and it's so implausible that it's impossible to not bail emotionally on the movie. By the end, I was hoping one of the nukes accidentally went off.

Spoilers:

The Senator is a Republican (yeah, so many of those from MA before last week) so you know right away he's culpable. And the private company has been contracted out by the federal government to make nuclear weapons at foreign specification so they can use them overseas to look like Jihadi's did it. And the federal government eagerly accepts covering up the intentional murder of multiple people all connected to Mel Gibson's character without fear that someone might question that something may not be right about the official story. Then they poison him with nuclear material without really determining a cover story and then they figure one out only after it's a certainty that he will die. All after they set up a complete story that they were after him and his daughter got killed by accident. Why wouldn't they just kill him and say the people that tried to kill him the first time came back and got him? The whole story is so implausible that it's not even worth watching unless you come for the first half and fall asleep for the second one.

Yeah, I thought this looked good when I first saw the trailer. Tweeted about how I liked Crowder but he's the douchebag in the movie! That's alright, I can suspend belief for a couple hours.

I would hope the next conservative President, or even just the next Republican would have the same attitude toward hostile news outlets, but if that happened, we'd never hear from the poor chap or lady. For a conservative to shut out the media like Obama does, people would start to question if they were dead.

I remember laughing heartily when Obama announced his plans with FOX, especially since the same side of the political aisle complained and bemoaned for hours on end about how Bush favored FOX. Obama favors the biased media at the complete expense of the fair media. It's a sad dichotomy and even sadder that no one has called him out on it.

It's just incredibly sad and disappointing that these people can't be reasoned with. I have a family member who's a liberal and most of my co-workers are liberal and I keep telling myself that they don't hold these same views. Surely they would condemn Polanski, especially the one's with daughters. And then sadly, I have to wonder if that's true.

Yeah, I agree that it would be better to have the misused words corrected, I was simply making the argument that he wasn't attacking their intelligence, he was attacking their lack of effort in understanding history and our nation, thus, if he's not a smart person, he still has room to call out lazy people. If he was calling them out as people who just weren't intelligent, then perhaps, the attack would have strong legs to stand on.

I think he was attacking their laziness, so maybe you should go after him for failing to proof read and finding that mistake?

I talked about this on another site where the subject of Avatar came up and people mocked me for not watching movies with political themes, implying that I was afraid to hear the opposing point of view. When I finally responded (had a lot on my plate at work that day), I was amused and explained that I don't watch these things out of fear of an opposing point of view. I don't watch them, mainly, because these people hate me. Not disagree with me, literally, they hate me. Secondary to that though, there is another reason, as Nolte would say, the liberal tells. If I had watched the show, I would have picked out the plot line as soon as I saw the Christian and the Muslim. It makes for droll and boring stories. I'd watch these shows despite their hatred toward me if only I could be surprised every now and again. But that's not going to happen, because the only way they could surprise me is if they made the story sympathetic to me and people of the same religious/political/military support cloth.

So then you wouldn't object to sitting down to watch High Noon and listening as Jon Voight talked about the anti-blacklisting message and referencing liberal Hollywood's modern day black list? Would you object if every movie you sat down to watch had an introduction from a conservative that discussed how it applies to liberals of today? Somehow, I think you'd find something else to watch...