[ZackS]

Who else here is currently screamingly infuriated by the current state of American politics? The Democrats and Republicans are more partisan than they've ever been. Moderates have lost interest in politics. In response, Democrats are attempting to gain support by encompassing left activist groups while Republicans scramble to rally to support from right activist groups and religious types. The Democrats have lost their focus, the Republicans have lost their mind and the general public have lost interest and are now off watching the latest reality TV craze to come out of the September TV premieres.

Forget what a shitty president Bush is and the democrats' struggles to hold on to what little sway they have left, just think about the politics. Now, are you as disgusted as I am?

[pooka]

The man (or woman) who brings Farscape back for a 5th season gets my vote in a heartbeat. Till that day I just don't care.

[nonhuman]

I'm not sure how to answer... I'm not infuriated, I just think we need to improve things...

[fireside]

yea, im pretty pissed at the amount of corruption and the "forgetting" of the bill of rights in this time of "war"

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by fireside:
yea, im pretty pissed at the amount of corruption and the "forgetting" of the bill of rights in this time of "war"

I'm upset at the left's constant launching of hate-inspired, false and unproven charges with no factual evidence to back up their claims (see above quote).

[scoxx]

"This is an administration which has unilaterally assumed the power to arrest and detain an American citizen on American soil, not charge this person with a crime, and insist in federal court papers that that American citizen on American soil does not have the right to confer with his counsel."

- Anthony Romero, ACLU

[Joshua]

Mixed bag. I think it's great that more Americans are politically active/conscious than they have been in a long time, but the general level of the discourse seems to be plunging. The left has been enfeebled by its venomous hatred of Bush, and the right is in danger of fragmenting as it abandons its core political values.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Mixed bag. I think it's great that more Americans are politically active/conscious than they have been in a long time, but the general level of the discourse seems to be plunging. The left has been enfeebled by its venomous hatred of Bush, and the right is in danger of fragmenting as it abandons its core political values.

honest question: did you similarly feel the right was enfeebled by its venomous hatred of Clinton? Why or why not?
Why would dislike of a president enfeeble anyone?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm upset at the left's constant launching of hate-inspired, false and unproven charges with no factual evidence to back up their claims (see above quote).

you enjoy accusing the left of hatred, which is a sidestep of the actual substantive issues being brought up again and again by the left in criticism of the Bush administration, which are never addressed to anyone's satisfaction. The best the bush apologists appear to be able to do consistently is misdirect questions into personal attacks.

[fireside]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you enjoy accusing the left of hatred, which is a sidestep of the actual substantive issues being brought up again and again by the left in criticism of the Bush administration, which are never addressed to anyone's satisfaction. The best the bush apologists appear to be able to do consistently is misdirect questions into personal attacks.

hows the neck Lerk

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Why would dislike of a president enfeeble anyone?

Simply because it prevents the rational and necessary criticism of the administrations actual policies and discourages real debate.

The monkey/Bush photo websites, the comparisons to Hitler and bin Laden, the criticism of every mispronounced word or name, the tinfoil hat conspiracies, all amount to big fat ad hominems, and completely drown out the real voices of criticism.

honest question: did you similarly feel the right was enfeebled by its venomous hatred of Clinton? Why or why not?

To a certain extent, yes. The social conservatives in particular were blinded by their hatred of Clinton (and as we can see on this forum all too frequently, most of them still haven't let go of that hate).

But I don't think the hatred of Clinton was nearly as wide spread or vitriolic as the hatred of Bush has been.

[fireside]

yes joshua but lefts usually dont make fun of bush in a serious debate.

im talking with actual mature people.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by fireside:



hows the neck Lerk

(OT) neck is getting better but I"m losing my voice. I sound like the Godfather.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
But I don't think the hatred of Clinton was nearly as wide spread or vitriolic as the hatred of Bush has been.

IMHO, its because there is a more valid reason to be wary of Bush's agenda than it it ever was to be wary of Clinton's. To me, its a more justifiable outrage vs. petty partisanship. I much more am distressed by Decisions made by Bush and their long-term repercussions than those made by Clinton. If you view that as hate, I'd disagree. I find him a patently dangerous man with little or no checks or balances to his excesses.
That's not hate, that's mistrust. There is a vast difference.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Joshua:
But I don't think the hatred of Clinton was nearly as wide spread or vitriolic as the hatred of Bush has been.

I don't know how one would go about quantifying that, but I'm quite certain that you're absolutely wrong on this statement.

I was thinking yesterday about how Bush said he would change the tone in Washington, and I think the tone has clearly changed. Independent prosecutors were demanded for things like decades-old business deals and the firing of White House travel staff. Now, there is no more Independent Prosecutor law, and when the White House is alleged to have outed a CIA officer for revenge on her husband for telling the truth about his investigation, the press doesn't even cover it for several months.

The tone has changed: Bush's political opponents have nowhere near the cajones that Clinton's did.

I think there have been more demonstrations against Bush (although they're escorted a mile away behind the airport), but that's because he started a very controversial war.

[AutoJC]

What the heck, I never liked politics anyway.

I'll just step aside and watch as the pragmatists and the collectivists duke it out in the political arena.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you enjoy accusing the left of hatred.

Actually, it's self-admitted. I just say that I don't like it.

Read for youself: Why We Hate Bush

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I much more am distressed by Decisions made by Bush and their long-term repercussions than those made by Clinton.

We are still paying for Clinton's reckless tenure - like slashes in intelligence funding and his unwillingness to capture bin Laden (see: 9/11), the drastic easening of corporate reporting standards (see: Enron, Global "Terry McAuliffe" Crossing), allowing the Chinese to pilfer security and technological secrets (which were then distributed to the world's highest bidders).

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We are still paying for Clinton's reckless tenure - like slashes in intelligence funding and his unwillingness to capture bin Laden (see: 9/11), the drastic easening of corporate reporting standards (see: Enron, Global "Terry McAuliffe" Crossing), allowing the Chinese to pilfer security and technological secrets (which were then distributed to the world's highest bidders).

So you think that had Clinton attempted to capture Bin Laden he would have been more successful than Bush has been?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We are still paying for Clinton's reckless tenure - like slashes in intelligence funding and his unwillingness to capture bin Laden (see: 9/11)

Let's see: Clinton bombs terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in response to bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Republicans called them the "Monica Missiles" because they refused to let people get distracted from their witch-hunt, thus removing the possibility for more action because we wouldn't want the president to "Wag the Dog."

Yeah, Clinton was entirely and solely to blame for that one.

BlackGriffen

[ZackS]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Let's see: Clinton bombs terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in response to bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Republicans called them the "Monica Missiles" because they refused to let people get distracted from their witch-hunt, thus removing the possibility for more action because we wouldn't want the president to "Wag the Dog."

Yeah, Clinton was entirely and solely to blame for that one.

BlackGriffen

I was waiting for that to come up. Smack == laid

[clarkgoble]

The left has been enfeebled by its venomous hatred of Bush, and the right is in danger of fragmenting as it abandons its core political values.

True words. Bush really has abandoned a lot of basic Republican positions. Things like free trade. Further his view of internationalism is a return to the isolationist wing of the party that I do not like. Likewise while overall I give Bush kudos for 9/11 handlings, I think he needs to give the smackdown to Ashcroft and get a new Attorney General and start worrying about Civil Rights more. (And notice that it is typically Republican congressmen and senators complaining)

But overall, I must admit that overall I don't find politics worse than at other times. What bothers me is the general ignorance of the American populace -- especially of foreign affairs. And that has nothing to do with politics in Washington. Rather politics in Washington has everything to do with the average American.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Rather politics in Washington has everything to do with the average American.

I agree with that. I don't like these "blame the politician" rants, especially when it comes in the form of "I hate what those politicians are doing, why can't they get people interested and involved in politics." We get what we deserve. Especially with less than half of the eligible voters actually bothering to vote.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
IMHO, its because there is a more valid reason to be wary of Bush's agenda than it it ever was to be wary of Clinton's.

Agreed.

It might also be because Clinton appropriated many of the of the key Republican issues, reshaped and passed them as his own. Issues such as- free trade, welfare reform, balanced budget, and more law enforcement (100,000 more officers on the street) were all done on his watch.

It's kind of hard to attack him when you're agreeing with him on the issues. Their only recourse was to attack him on personal and character issues.

[clarkgoble]

That's one of the things that bothers me about Bush as well. He adopted Clinton's model for success. (Grabs democrat issues and tries to make them his own) If anything, Bush is more blatantly political about this. i.e. steel tarrifs.

What bothers me though is the lack of vision and principle in that. And I say that as one with a basically pragmatic approach to politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely a Republican. While Clinton grabbed Republican issues, he used the executive branch for many liberal policies in implementation. (And Bush there, if anything, is doing the same thing, only beholden to the far right rather than the far left)

Bush ran and seemed like a moderate Republican. But he does what the American populace by and large wants. (Well Iraq is a different issue. I can't figure out if he was stupid, mistaken in his vision, or what there) The problem is that if the American populace can't think past simple generalities and doesn't care about policy details, why should the government?

(Well they should, but they only do what the populace focuses in on)

[BRussell]

No doubt.

Take this fill in the blank quiz:

President ______ decreased non-military/non-entitlement discretionary domestic spending in his first term. He brought the number of federal employees to a new contemporary low. He vigorously supported free trade.

President ______ increased discretionary domestic spending by over 20%. The number of federal employees were increased to a new peak. He supported legislation creating the first new entitlement program since the Great Society.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
That's one of the things that bothers me about Bush as well. He adopted Clinton's model for success. (Grabs democrat issues and tries to make them his own) If anything, Bush is more blatantly political about this. i.e. steel tarrifs.

What bothers me though is the lack of vision and principle in that. And I say that as one with a basically pragmatic approach to politics. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely a Republican. While Clinton grabbed Republican issues, he used the executive branch for many liberal policies in implementation. (And Bush there, if anything, is doing the same thing, only beholden to the far right rather than the far left)

Bush ran and seemed like a moderate Republican. But he does what the American populace by and large wants. (Well Iraq is a different issue. I can't figure out if he was stupid, mistaken in his vision, or what there) The problem is that if the American populace can't think past simple generalities and doesn't care about policy details, why should the government?

(Well they should, but they only do what the populace focuses in on)

Good points.

Bush definitely ran a moderate campaign a la Clinton with all the 'Compassionate Conservative' talk but other than the AIDS money to Africa (which I applaud) I can't think of any issues that he's appropriated from the left, reshaped, and passed through the Congress. Unlike Clinton who took welfare reform, free trade and a balanced budget direct from the Republican platform. Do you have any examples from Bush?

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
What bothers me though is the lack of vision and principle in that.

I understand and agree with that. Not to derail but I'm in CA and have been watching the Gubernatorial debates. The only candidate that has impressed me has been Tom McClintock. Not because I'm a conservative (I'm not), or because I agree with his positions. I'm diametrically opposed to most of his stances. But he's been the ONLY guy that doesn't seem to be pandering to a crowd just to get elected. He states his beliefs and and then essentially says 'these are my beliefs, either vote for me or not'. There's a certain integrity to that approach that I admire.

I wish politics were more like that. Instead we get candidates who will do anything and appeal to anybody, in spite of ideology, to get elected.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
[...] The problem is that if the American populace can't think past simple generalities and doesn't care about policy details, why should the government?

This, essentially, is also the problem of any populace in any part of the world: governments are at best as good as their electors - even if, usually, for various reasons, they tend to be much worse, of course...

In another thread (with almost no responses, strangely: a sign of the times?) we talked about Olof Palme and other past politicians with some more vision (and a more positive vision, I would add!) than today: probably, they could be in that manner, also and above all, because of people's ideals and aspirations in their "era". Today, there don't seem to be such ideals, anymore, sadly.

The main problem is maybe that the populace still "needs" professional politicians to live (or survive, rather?) in a modern (really?) society - quite strange and anachronistic, IMHO...

[things]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm upset at the left's constant launching of hate-inspired, false and unproven charges with no factual evidence to back up their claims (see above quote).

Same can be said about the "right"

Please show us some factual evidence of your own.

[things]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you enjoy accusing the left of hatred, which is a sidestep of the actual substantive issues being brought up again and again by the left in criticism of the Bush administration, which are never addressed to anyone's satisfaction. The best the bush apologists appear to be able to do consistently is misdirect questions into personal attacks.

[clarkgoble]

Bush definitely ran a moderate campaign a la Clinton with all the 'Compassionate Conservative' talk but other than the AIDS money to Africa (which I applaud) I can't think of any issues that he's appropriated from the left, reshaped, and passed through the Congress.

The example I'm most critical of is his blatant pandering towards unions with respect to free trade. i.e. steel tarrifs and so forth. You can argue whether that is a "left vs. right" issue. But at best that just highlights to problems with that taxonomy. Free trade has long been a Republican platform.

The other examples are persciption medicine, which he did a fairly good job of co-opting from Democrats. Indeed back in the debates with Gore it was hard to find significant policy difference between the two. If you listen to conservative critics of Bush, they constantly lambast him for giving to the Democrats their issues. Listen to Limbaugh on this. I don't like Limbaugh, but he really has been a critic of Bush on this.

[vmpaul]

Agreed, probably can't argue whether it's a "left vs. right" issue. There's too much co-opting by both sides on this. I think WE agree though. Free trade is the way to go. Yep, on the prescription drug issue. Forgot about that.

Funny, there is a bit more criticism of Bush from the right now. The one I hear is about Ashcroft and the curbing of civil liberties through the Patriot Act. Still, not enough to have another Republican step forward to challenge Bush in the primaries.

[clarkgoble]

That is something I truly don't understand. Democrats really have fallen down on the job of being the opposition. Our democracy depends upon them criticizing the actions of the administration and the majority. When they won't even offer much by way of criticism, that is a huge failing. Until Dean started doing well no one really was doing much. I'm no fan of Dean, but I'll give him kudos for that.

It is deeply ironic that the criticisms you'd expect from the democrats are having to come from the right.

It used to be the joke that the left was in charge of defending free speech and privacy rights while the right was in charge of property and gun rights. Too bad it isn't happening. (Actually the right have fallen down on property rights lost in the drug war as well, but that's a different issue)

[thunderous_funker]

That's because the Democratic party is bought and paid for by the same interests as the Republican party.

Their stump speeches continue to play lip service to their traditional constituences and Ideologies, but they are both in the same business of being in business for themselves.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
That is something I truly don't understand. Democrats really have fallen down on the job of being the opposition. Our democracy depends upon them criticizing the actions of the administration and the majority. When they won't even offer much by way of criticism, that is a huge failing. Until Dean started doing well no one really was doing much. I'm no fan of Dean, but I'll give him kudos for that.

It is deeply ironic that the criticisms you'd expect from the democrats are having to come from the right.

I think that is more due to the chilling maccarthyistic "antipatriotic" and "treasonous" labels the right applies to any democrat with criticism of the present administration. No politician wantst to be accused of not being a patriot. Even if the accusation is irresponsible, its a mudslinging that is difficult to wash out.
This is the why the only people ALLOWED to criticize bush at this point are other republicans, because the charge of treason does not get leveled against them for speaking freely.

You can blame the dems for not being forthright if you want, but the reality is there are two levels of response to crticism, depending on your party affiliation, and one level ain't pretty.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
That is something I truly don't understand. Democrats really have fallen down on the job of being the opposition. Our democracy depends upon them criticizing the actions of the administration and the majority. When they won't even offer much by way of criticism, that is a huge failing. Until Dean started doing well no one really was doing much. I'm no fan of Dean, but I'll give him kudos for that.

It is deeply ironic that the criticisms you'd expect from the democrats are having to come from the right.

I think it's a pinch of what thunderous said and dash of Lerkfish's points combined with a being just a down-cycle for candidates who can both articulate , and convey the positive ideals of the Democratic party. If you can't do that then it's just attack, attack attack. Who isn't tired of that?

I haven't heard a great stirring oratory on the progressive side since Mario Cuomo's speech at the '84 Democratic convention. Maybe there's been some since then (I bet thunderous has some in his back pocket ) but I haven't heard any that inspired me. Clinton was close but he rambled on too much. Plus, how can you trust anybody with a southern accent? Just kidding.

Maybe it's because politics has gotten so dirty (yes, even more so) in the last two decades that we're not getting the type of literate people who can see above politics and truly inspire.

[clarkgoble]

I think that is more due to the chilling maccarthyistic "antipatriotic" and "treasonous" labels the right applies to any democrat with criticism of the present administration.

Were that true, how do we explain Dean and now Clark? This "MacCarthyism" as you call it only had feet because democrats let it.

[clarkgoble]

I haven't heard a great stirring oratory on the progressive side since Mario Cuomo's speech at the '84 Democratic convention.

Come on Paul Tsongas was the man. (I loved Al Franken's impersonation of him)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
[B]
Were that true, how do we explain Dean and now Clark? This "MacCarthyism" as you call it only had feet because democrats let it.

Not quite. Democrats "let it" because, unfortunately, calling someone a traitor actually works with the American public. They actually believe it.

If Republicans called Democrats traitors and there was a public backlash against such tactics, the Democrats wouldn't have to be bullied by it.

Yes, the Democrats have been rather spineless. But part of that is how remarkably fickle and easily swayed the public has been by such outrageous accussations.

[clarkgoble]

Once again then how do you explain Dean and Clark? That was one of their defining issues. Further I personally believe it was one of the reasons for their popularity.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Once again then how do you explain Dean and Clark? That was one of their defining issues. Further I personally believe it was one of the reasons for their popularity.

Popularity is relative. If I were a political analyst, I'd say Dean and Clark are tremendously popular with the the people who don't matter to mainstream politicians.

Personally, I'm hoping Dean and Clark prove that wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

[clarkgoble]

Popularity is relative. If I were a political analyst, I'd say Dean and Clark are tremendously popular with the the people who don't matter to mainstream politicians.

Have you seen the polls with Bush vs. Dean or Bush vs. Clark? It seems like their popularity is much larger than you suggest.

[thunderous_funker]

The Dean phenomenon is based almost entirely on him attracting people to politics that don't usually participate. He didn't energize the DNC or the Democratic faithful, he energized huge segments that have traditionally not given a damn. That is why he doesn't have the support of the party leadership.

Clark is much closer to the party's heart but is still an "anti-war" candidate which the DNC doesn't think can win.

Dean will have to wrest the party nomination away by sheer force of his campaign. It will never be given freely. He can do that if he brings enough non-traditional participants and independents. Then again, it didn't work for McCain so who knows.

Clark is a puzzle. The GOP hates him because he's too republican (go figure), the Left hates him because he's too republican and the DNC doesn't want to run an anti-war candidate but still can't seem to generate any support for it's favorite sons. They're stuck between backing a guy who's popular and a guy who's going to do their bidding. Right now those seem mutually exclusive.

Near as I can tell, Clark's backers aren't passionate about Clark's ideas or agenda--they simply think he can beat Bush and no one else can. I can't tell if they're pro-Clark or anti-Bush. Picking such a horse is risky prospect because its hard to guage just how big the anti-Bush vote is going to be a year from now. It may seem solid now, but another war or a couple of months of job growth might dissolve it.