True reconilliation?

I recently read an article in TIME magazine ("Obama and McConnell: The Odd Couple" http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2039941,00.html) that raised a lot of questions for me. It is about how McConnell and Obama are seeking middle ground and working out issues, despite an extreme history of partisanship.  Yet the entire discourse surrounding their "middle ground" is edged with the language of their partisanship.  Their union becomes just another tool in order to advance partisan goals.  For example:

Obama is determined to win back independent voters over the coming year by demonstrating that he can channel the partisan furies in Washington into productive, bipartisan policies.

 Now, to me, this is rather odd.  The idea that the point of reaching bipartisan solution on issues is to win votes for your side.  Forgive me for being naive, but shouldn't bipartisan solution exist for its own sake?  Shouldn't our politicians be problem solvers first partisans second?  The partisanship representing a natural approval or disapproval of ideas, or a way for voters to decide which ideas have more weight? But instead, there is the impression that the natural relationship that problem solving has to partisanship is reversed.  They attempt to reach bipartisan solutions in order to make it so that they can become partisan enough to not have to need to really work with the other side.  McConnell, at least in the way he is painted by TIME has, perhaps, a slightly healthier viewpoint:

McConnell, a consummate legislator, does not view compromise as a synonym for surrender, especially if Obama is willing to make deals with the Republican side of the aisle. "The work on the tax package was a good example of an area where we can do some business," McConnell told TIME over the holiday break. "And in the future, if the President is willing to move in a different direction, taking positions that I and my members hold anyway, why would we reject that?"

This is interesting to me in that, while he doesn't see "compromise as a synonym for surrender" that is just because in order for the president to compromise he has to surrender.  The form of compromise he is talking about is really just where one side passes the deal of the other.  It is not a union of ideas in any significant sense.  However, the next bit in this article gave me some hope.

McConnell has already signaled his willingness to work with the White House on energy policy, particularly nuclear and coal subsidies, as well as long-range entitlement reform. White House aides are pushing for bipartisan cooperation on further education reforms.
 

I think it is good that they want to work together on these issues.  Even if the specific policies that are talked about in this article are traditionally republican energy policies.  It is still a step in the right direction because it seems that they are actually going to help compile ideas and attempt to come up with a successful policy from the merger of those ideas.  However, this line is what scares me:

But if there is room for such cooperation, no one expects the two leaders to become friends.

Because what it implies is that while they may work together, they still see each other as enemies.  As people who sit on other sides of the aisle and want very different things.  Each exchange is one of sacrifice, where they have to sacrifice ideas they like for ones that they don't and would rather not.  They don't see it as a true process of reconciling ideas, but instead a painful process where they don't get everything they "want."  They are giving ideas over to their enemies.  Not constructing a cogent policy.

So, the question of this post:

The one argument I often hear that has some truth to it is that these policies where they just merge ideas are often weaker than policies that would be more "pure."  While I said this has some truth, I often hear it from extreme partisans.  But have believed it myself at the time. So, I'm curious what type of political reconciliation people think tends to be better (and if it tends to be better).

Is cutting deals where both sides get their policies passed is true reconciliation?  Can we have such an inconsistent legislative agenda as to just pass a conservative and a liberal agenda and actually establish a better future?  Would following the vision of one side be preferable or less preferable than this sort of reconciliation? Or, would it be, as I think it would be, better to try and form a bipartisan vision of a political agenda, and what would that look like?

Anyway, I am inviting people to post their ideas on this matter.  If you find this question interesting also please feel free to share this post on facebook or twitter!  The link to do this is on the side.