It’s the ultimate “don’t rock the oversized boat” in Washington nonsense. Big government? Not to be questioned, even though Americans always have questioned and better Americans have routinely opposed and rejected the arrogant assumption that the solution to all problems lies in Washington and that Washington should continue to grow ever larger.

Unity and its “nice, safe” elitism reminds me of a Washington-insider effort in the 1980s that was one of a number of studies on constitutional reform, that is, revising our constitution and our form of government. These elites cluck-clucked that the problem in Washington was “divided government” (which is to say, they were upset that there was a Republican in the White House who was not in lockstep with or a rubber stamp of a Democratic Congress). Their solutions included, naturally, fusion of powers, and extended down to the kind of thing elites would be prone to dislike; they would have banned “ticket splitting” and even required voters to vote a “team ticket,” that is, cast a vote for all Democratic candidates or all Republican candidates.

That’s what Unity smacks of, though it wants to see “nicer, safer” GOP big-government Republicans effectively form a single party with non-radical Democrats.

Broder = typical DC-sclerotic detritus. Yuck. I can’t wait for him to be extra scummy toward Huckabee.

Of course, those two election results makes the Republican Party irrelevant to politics and makes the U.S. a De facto one party state but I assume that is really want is intended with a Bloomberg candidacy.

Forget Hillary (for me, anyway). At one time I would have voted for her. I forgave her Iraqi war resolution vote of a few years ago and accepted her explanation but since her Iran vote I’ve come to realize that she’s only saying stuff to please the “base” but doesn’t really intend on changing anything in Iraq. The other reason I’m not voting for her is that she is a very polarizing figure.

Obama is less polarizing than Hillary and we know where he stands with regards to the Iraq war (and other issues). I’ve posted before that I would love to see an Obama/Bloomberg ticket- but that wouldn’t be likely- Bloomberg is an independent and the Dem leaders wouldn’t support it (and if Bloomberg were to switch to the Dem Party the Republicans would have a field day with his flip flopping- first a Dem, then a Rep. then an Independent then a Dem). Plus I really don’t think Bloomberg would want the VP postion. Though if Obama promised to keep all the powers of the VP that Cheney subverted from others for himself, then maybe Bloomberg would find the VP office attractive.

Mark