No, this issue is not "non-partisan". Both sides support covering up the tracks of the ancien regimes of their successive dynsastys. A Clinton will be running again in 2016. So its best to bury this if you are a Dem, not to try to pin it on Bush (whom everyone already has their minds made up), because that will backfire, when the two sides look more alike than not.

it's not obvious that "bipartisan" and "nonpartisan" are always auto-antonyms. it may often be the case in practice, but there are are other parties for voters to choose from. for that reason, it's not a universal anto-antonym like say, flammable / inflammable.

To clarify, I was commenting on the fact that introducing the notion of bipartisanship to the discussion was moot (unworthy of talk) in the sense that issues like this should transcend Left/Right ideology and moot (worthy of talk) in that it's an interesting phenomenon to me that someone immediately commented on parties, as though the American system has very deeply ingrained this sense of parties that there is no alternative to.

Your point about the words though is even more intriguing (I love words!) and I had actually never thought about the two together like that -- I don't often see "nonpartisan" -- to the extent that for a second I thought what you were saying didn't make any sense.