DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT

In article ,
ks says...

"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a
divider" and as a result of his behavior
we have the most glaringly polarized US
population that I've seen in my lifetime.

It has apparently escaped your notice that all that polarization was started
by the Clinton presidency, the worst, most corrupt and reprehensible
administration in the nation's history as far as I know. Before Clinton,
Democrats were reasonably civil for the most part even if they were
shameless demagogues.

Probably partially true, but I think you are forgetting Jim Wright,
LBJ, and Daschle's Mentor, (whose name escapes me at the moment).

Clinton's excesses, along with his humiliating loss of
Congress is 1994 (establishing what has now been nearly a decade of
Republican Senate and House), has clearly enraged all the leftist-liberals
to the point that they simply cannot get over it. (Hey, how about that
famous Clintonista phrase "Time to move on"? Not so popular anymore among
the leftist gang, evidently.)

Bush has bent over backwards to accommodate the Democrats--he's bent too far
on some issues, many of us think--and he's sincerely tried to be a uniter.

Yep, Steel tarriffs, letting Teddy Kennedy write the education bill,
this $400B (lowballed) socialist medicare bill, and any of a host of
other social issues where W made Clinton look like a piker regarding
socialist policies

The *problem* is, trying to get along well with Democrats is somewhat like
trying to get along well with rattlesnakes.

Neil