11-04-2004, 07:08 PM
So, I've been seeing this a lot latey, and I just don't get it. Isn't it the exact opposite? The country isn't divided. People voted for a republican president AND a republican Congress to go along with how most states have republican governors?
Isn't the fact that Bush beat Kerry by 4 million votes, the fact that the republicans increased (dramatically in the senate) their majority in both houses, AND having the ranking democratic Senator be defeated largely because he was an obstruction against Bush mean that the country is unified in what party they feel better represents them?
No, I personally am no fan of GW, but just because certain people hate him a lot does that mean that the country is "divided"?
I guess I don't define "divided" by the amount of hatred one side has toward the other but by the amount of people who hold a disagreement.
Maybe an argument can be made that the country is "divided" by urban and rural areas. But no one's really been making that argument directly. They're just saying broadly that the country is divided and healing needs to be done.
Don't get it.
Isn't the fact that Bush beat Kerry by 4 million votes, the fact that the republicans increased (dramatically in the senate) their majority in both houses, AND having the ranking democratic Senator be defeated largely because he was an obstruction against Bush mean that the country is unified in what party they feel better represents them?
No, I personally am no fan of GW, but just because certain people hate him a lot does that mean that the country is "divided"?
I guess I don't define "divided" by the amount of hatred one side has toward the other but by the amount of people who hold a disagreement.
Maybe an argument can be made that the country is "divided" by urban and rural areas. But no one's really been making that argument directly. They're just saying broadly that the country is divided and healing needs to be done.
Don't get it.