re: It's despicable how the word "bipartisan" has been tossed around like a buzzword for years now. It's just another way politicians are giving lip service to voters' frustrations with political gridlock.
Maybe you are too young to remember when there was bipartisan support for bills that actually benefited the population. The old days when governance meant running the country in it's own best interest, instead of strict adherence to an ideology.
re: At first, I wasn't in favor of the so-called "nuclear option," but as I learned more and more about what was going on, I decided enough was enough.
The end game of all this is that when you appoint a person for life, you ought to make damn sure they are acceptable to the vast majority of the population. More than 90% of Bush's appointments have been confirmed; a handful are found clearly objectionable to the (slight) minority. In the pragmatic view, the nonpartisan view, you say OK, let's find a few different folks that are acceptable to everyone. In the partisan ideological view, the (slight) majority stuffs them down the throat of the minority.
The Senate used to be a much more gracious place, a place of compromise and governance.
re: So yeah, I am against "bipartisan," because it's nothing more than a sham. What do voters think? Gee, I thought the voters made it very clear what they thought back in November.
The tyranny of the (slight) majority. A few votes here and there, and that majority will become the minority. It'll happen in your lifetime, maybe next year. Payback can be bitter medicine, and instead of steering a path down the middle, the country can lurch from one end of the political spectrum to the other. Is that what you want?
John |
