A Distinction without a Difference...

Apparently, there has been some sort of "Olive Branch" offered to the President by the Democrats.

Now, I guess I can forget for a moment that the President doesn't need said Olive Branch from the Dems because instead, the Dems in Congress should just start following the Constitution and stop filibustering. But still, it's this Harry Reid quote (that I first heard on Special Report w/Brit Hume) that I don't understand:

"We know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees"

Huh? Shouldn't you oppose unacceptable nominees also? If they are in fact unacceptable? And really...what is a "bad" nominee? And how is that type of value judgment different than one saying that a nominee is "unacceptable"??

Am I the only one confused by this?

I would more so think that a bad nominee should be blocked...if we could be sure that Reid and the Dems could correctly tell that such a nominee is "bad"...while unacceptable nominees should be opposed, by virtue of being unacceptable...

Or something. You see why the distinction makes no difference? It's like a spin doctor way of saying "We're still gonna drag our feet on the ones we don't like..."

Do you think Reid and the Democrats really "know the difference"? I don't think so...but that's probably because I don't think there's a difference!