nob, you keep arguing both sides. I pointed out some time ago how
Clinton sought compromise in Supreme Court nominees by seeking the
cousel of Orrin Hatch. You dismissed that out-of-hand.

No matter what you think about the other Bush or Reagan, they were willing
to work with the other side and try to give the country what it needed and
somnetimes what it wanted even if it wasn't the right thing to want.

I presume that you're referring to Bush I. Do you see any difference
with how Bush II handles working with the other side?

Nice to see you don't like to keep things in context and that you still
don't get it that I'm not a rubber stamp for Bush or the GOP.

But you are, based on what you say.

So you're arguing that roving wiretaps are OK because apparently
Clinton tried to do it, or are you arguing that the hot water bushie is
in is Clainton's fault?

My defense of Bush is limited to things I think he gets unfair treatment on.
I also like to see a bit of context. The reality seems to be that since
Bush took office he's been opposed at almost every turn for everything, with
the apparent goal to keep him from getting absolutely anything done. A few
exceptions to be sure, but overall complete opposition.

No, his opposition is that many, many people disagree with the track
bushie and crew are taking us down, and their representatives are doing
their jobs opposing it. Otherwise, why are even republicans beginning
to distance themselves from him and his policies?

I remember when the Dems were in the majority. Gingrich, et al, called
themselves the 'loyal opposition.' Now the opposition is considered
treasonous or obstructionist.

Bull****.

Apparently you would not have a problem with having a monarchy.