Hilarious Washington Post Poll Result

[Case]

From this page at WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=polls&nextstep=displayQuestion&interactive=n&pollid=2004106&pripollid=&varname=q43&privarname=&questCategoryType=n&questCategory=Variables.questCategory&keyword=Variables.keyword&pollDateRange=Variables.pollDateRange&ctabtype=A&startingRow=76&pollType=National&searchPollId=2004106&newsearch=

So you don't have to try to click the huge URL,
here's the actual text of the question, and the result:

Overall do you think George W. Bush has done more to unite the country, or has done more to divide the country?

Unite 50%
Divide 48%
DK/No opinion 2%

:lol:

[asspennies]

I don't know how even the strongest Bush supporter can claim that he's somehow been a "uniter" at all.

In fairness, the dividing impulse comes from both sides in our increasingly bifurcated country.

[Dirt]

I'm beginning to think that if something as big and tragic as 9/11 can't unite this country, we're looking at another Civil War in a hundred years.

[asspennies]

I'd like to think that our union is stronger than that. I also think that Democrats and Republicans share a lot more common beliefs than either would care to admit.

On the other hand, it's increasingly more prevelant that people simply can't believe that other people feel the way they do. They just can't wrap their heads around it. And I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

Far from being a uniting force, 9/11 actually was much more of a flashpoint in a seperation of ideals - where both parties went off in new directions, and in which both (IMO) invariably contain wrongheaded elements.

[Bob Cherub]

I think the Democrats are more to blame for the division.

Check it. Bush has stayed the course the entire time. Let's tackle Iraq. We'll go to the UN to get approval to use force. He did. He used force. Where are the WMDs? It was still important to do.

Democrats? Late 90s, early 21st century, they believed Saddam was a threat to our country and harbored terrorists and WMDs. Yet in late 2003/2004 all of the sudden Bush BETRAYED THE NATION (tm Al Gore). Who's dividing now?

I'd rather have a guy believe in his convictions from beginning to end then a guy who'd waffle back and forth and contradict himself for no apparent purpose other than to cause trouble. Hardly uniting.

[Jason McCullough]

Which President ran on being a "uniter, not a divider" again?

[chet]

Bob, you couldn't figure out how links work. You are just a dumbass, your silence would only strengthen your party.

Bush has a history of telling donors, reporters, lobbyist - you are with us and only with us, or get lost. Not really a great uniter. But for you to know that Bob, you would have to read and understand.

Chet

[Bob Cherub]

Which President ran on being a "uniter, not a divider" again?

Why does he have to unite a bunch of idiot Democrats that can't decide if Saddam has WMD or doesn't? That Saddam is a threat or Bush is a betrayer. These guys can't make up their mind.

Bob, you couldn't figure out how links work. You are just a dumbass, your silence would only strengthen your party.

Bush has a history of telling donors, reporters, lobbyist - you are with us and only with us, or get lost. Not really a great uniter. But for you to know that Bob, you would have to read and understand.

Chet

Yes! Chet with more insightful commentary. I love how every time you reply to someone with a different opinion, you bust out the "dumbass" or "hillbilly bitch" or "ignorant fuck". Such respect and class. I expect nothing less from you Chet! Make pappa proud!

[chet]

Bob, look at your company. Sorry for being descriptive.

Do you need anything explained to you in the last two sentences?

That last one? This one?

Chet
^That one?

[Bob Cherub]

Yikes, is there a position open in the deranged lunatic club? Cause Chet's your boy.

[RightWrong]

I think the Democrats are more to blame for the division.

Check it. Bush has stayed the course the entire time. Let's tackle Iraq. We'll go to the UN to get approval to use force. He did. He used force. Where are the WMDs? It was still important to do.

Democrats? Late 90s, early 21st century, they believed Saddam was a threat to our country and harbored terrorists and WMDs. Yet in late 2003/2004 all of the sudden Bush BETRAYED THE NATION (tm Al Gore). Who's dividing now?

I'd rather have a guy believe in his convictions from beginning to end then a guy who'd waffle back and forth and contradict himself for no apparent purpose other than to cause trouble. Hardly uniting.

How does that reflect at all on whether Bush has divided or united? That he's particularly dedicated and determined doesn't indicate whether he's attempted to heal the rifts his policies create, or that he even considers the opposition's arguments. By comparison, one wouldn't expect a rabid zealot to waver in his position, nor make any effort at compromise.

( I am not claiming Bush is a zealot however, nor that the converse of this statement is true, i.e., that these qualities necessarily make him a divider. Just that his consistency doesn't perfectly correlate to his ability to unite. )

[pms]

Yikes, is there a position open in the deranged lunatic club? Cause Chet's your boy.

ZING!

I'm pretty new here, but could you stamp your feet? You know, for emphasis?

[Ergo]

At the very least, 'ol Bob is consistent. Blame everything on the Democrats and never, ever admit that the Neocons have made any mistakes.

[Philomath]

It's just clear that nothing has changed. The country is very evenly divided politically on regional grounds: Bush got a temporary bump as people rallied around the flag during a crisis, but as soon as they readopted their illusion that we're not at war, they went back to their oriignal orientation.