Michael J.W. StickingThe Reaction
March 30, 2009
Here was Senate Minority Leader McConnell yesterday on John King's State of the Union:
It would be one thing if a generally moderate Republican like Arlen Specter had said this. But McConnell? He's long been one of the nastiest and most vicious partisans on the Republican side of the aisle.
And, of course, what he means by being bipartisan is caving in to Republican demands -- and what he means by governing in the middle is being staunchly Republican. There's no "middle" in McConnell's world, you see, there's just the Republican way and the not-Republican way. Similarly, "bipartisanship" is just a rhetorical tool to sucker weak-kneed Democrats, or Democrats without principle or conviction, like Even Bayh, into abandoning their party and embracing the GOP.
Do you think McConnell ever expressed disappointment in Bush for not being moderate or bipartisan enough? Exactly.
I must say I'm disappointed. After two months, the president has not governed in the middle as I had hoped he would. But it's not too late. He's only been in office a couple of months. Still before him are the opportunities to deal with us on a truly bipartisan basis.
It would be one thing if a generally moderate Republican like Arlen Specter had said this. But McConnell? He's long been one of the nastiest and most vicious partisans on the Republican side of the aisle.
And, of course, what he means by being bipartisan is caving in to Republican demands -- and what he means by governing in the middle is being staunchly Republican. There's no "middle" in McConnell's world, you see, there's just the Republican way and the not-Republican way. Similarly, "bipartisanship" is just a rhetorical tool to sucker weak-kneed Democrats, or Democrats without principle or conviction, like Even Bayh, into abandoning their party and embracing the GOP.
Do you think McConnell ever expressed disappointment in Bush for not being moderate or bipartisan enough? Exactly.
Copyright 2009 The Reaction
No comments:
Post a Comment