Ad nauseum
We're not even a few days past the decisive election and it's already frustrating. The big deal in every loaded question that comes the President's way, particularly during the recent surprise news conference he just held, is the idea of partisanship and what Bush will do to "bridge the divide in America" and reach out to the other side to build unity again. So, what kind of common ground, in essence, can two groups of opposing political, moral, and social thought can be found? You won't find it in abortion rights, stem-cell research, marriage, marriage, marriage, taxes, budget, or education. The debate is already too rich with objections, counters, arguments, and each side claiming something different from the other.
By definition, partisanship is an inclination to favor one group or view or opinion over alternatives. In light of the last four years and the most recent statements this morning made by the President in the news conference, I would submit that "bipartisanship" according to the liberal minority in this country basically means letting them have their way. Any resolution or negotiation that results in the a Conservative bent, on any issue, means partisanship, means "not good for America". Bush has reached out to the other side in friendship more so than any other Republican I know. Whether it's making a peaceful answer to the same question asked a hundred times over the course of the recent campaign, or stating just this morning how he demands that people in his cabinet challenge him, refuse to pander to him, and give him their oppinion to help him make an informed decision, Bush has and I believe will continue to reach out with the same respect and statesmanlike manner that he's always had. The problem arises not on his part, but rather with a Democratic opponent for whom anything less than domination on an issue is considered to be inflamatory and devisive (sp?).
Politics works both ways, folks. This President understands that and for the sake of our relationship with those of differing viewpoints, I hope we also understand that.
Note: Politics on the national landscape have always this heated during an election year. However, when Clinton was elected for his two terms with roughly only 44% of the vote, there was no talk about how he would bridge the political and social divide. "Ah", says the press, "now we can get things done." Come now to November 4, 2004 and the 51% vote in Bush's favor and Bush has to answer almost every question with a reassurance that he will reach out as he always has. This too, though, comes with a disclaimer in the form of Bush saying that he will make a decision when debate, feedback, and opinions have run their course. He will lead after both sides have said their peace and will take action on what he feels best serves the American people. He better. That's why I voted him in the first place: to lead.