Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you would use the word "bipartisan" to describe the process of enacting the example in my second paragraph, simply, because some members of the minority ultimately voted with the majority, then the word means nothing, and you can call the Bush re-election campaign "bipartisan" because Zell Miller (like roughly 10% of Democrats) supports it. John Kerry's campaign is also bipartisan because he's getting the support of a comparable number of Republicans. If you're going to use the word that way, you might as well retire it, because it means nothing.
Using the word as I do, my other points stand. I don't disagree with the vote counts you described, but I also don't understand what they have to do with anything I said, now that you understand what I meant by the word.
|
What is the level of support necessary to show bipartisanship? Or is you point that it makes no difference, it is the process that counts, not the vote talley? Seems to me that 73% is bipartisan no matter how you slice it. 58% is too, but I can see how an argument could be made to the contrary (I guess).
Threaded Mode