Can we agree on divisiveness?

Some call President Bush a divider. Those doing so say that's a bad thing. But it's not necessarily bad at all.

In a democracy, great leaders are often dividers. President Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King come to mind. Their actions, divisive in their times, ultimately strengthened our country.

You can't have democracy without divisiveness. Members of the British parliament are reminded of that when on selected, critical votes they leave their seats; enter a large lobby; and form groups according to how they'll vote. Members call what they're doing "a division." The lobby is formally called Division Lobby.

That from the "mother of parliaments."

Despite what such as Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer claim, the President, when compared to some of his predecessors, isn't all that divisive. Certainly not on the order of Presidents Lincoln and Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. Five years into his presidency, Bush has yet to veto a single bill. His language is far more temperate than that of many of his political foes.


"Bush is a divider" talk is mostly a form of partisan attack, especially useful to those in MSM who must deny their partisanship in order to claim "objective journalist" status.

But they no more fool sensible people than do kids who put lipstick and ribbons on the pig they're showing at the county fair.