Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I understand your intentional obtusity (obtusiousity? obtuscatoriness?) and will try to make this clearer.
You: The campaign promise to "unite" was hooey.
Me: Not when made. But, when it became apparent that the other side of the aisle was all drinking from the same koolaid cooler, and screaming "he's Hitler's reincarnation!!", (which began in earnest in the last days of the same campaign in which he had made that "uniter" pledge), there was no longer any possibility that anything he could do would effect that pledge, aside from doing everything the Dems wanted him to do, and I doubt that that was his burden at that point.
|
In this insightful game of "Nonono!
They Started It, and I get a Free Trip to Home Base!," you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on those meanie Democrats who contested the election results in Florida.
Beyond the idiocy of this "woo hoo! free pass to fuck 'em" rationale, I'm wondering about your view of the distant history of 2000.
In your recounting, it's almost like the GOPers were quietly, meekly waiting for the Democratic tantrum to die down so that we could get on with the "uniter" method of governing. Do you believe this?
I suppose we could also argue about GWB's "uniter" apprroach to governing by:
* Appointing bipartisan leaders like Ashcroft.
* Immediately pushing through GWB's agenda with no room for Democratic proposals or amendments.
* When the GOP doesn't get its way in a vote, suspending decades of tradition and hold open votes until the wee hours of the morning whilst GOP leaders commit ethical violations bribing members of their own party to ensure passage.
* Etc, etc.
... but since the minority party has been "beating me with a bat, and they did it first!," we don't have to even approach these questions, do we? The solution is an elegant one. Congrats.
