[typoon]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20041020.shtml

Ben Shapiro

October 20, 2004

John Kerry can't stop mouthing off about the so-called "politics of division." During the third presidential debate, Kerry blamed public polarization on President Bush: "I regret to say that the president who called himself a uniter, not a divider, is now presiding over the most divided America in the recent memory of our country." He also claimed that he'd be able to bring Americans together. "We have to change that. And as president, I am committed to changing that."

Too bad Kerry's a liar. In the most divisive presidential campaign in American history, Kerry and the party for which he stands have set out to break all bonds, to rend young and old, rich and poor, black and white, all for the sake of political power. The Democrats don't want a united America. They want an America bitterly divided, so that they can put on their faux "healing" hats and pretend that if elected, they will bridge all gaps.

There are plenty of issues about which Americans can honestly disagree. The two major political parties in this country are vastly different breeds, despite what third-party radicals say. The Democrats are foreign-policy appeasers and United Nations patsies who fear ascendant American power. Republicans are foreign-policy hawks, American interest-first unilateralists if necessary, who wish to maximize American global dominance.

The Democrats are big-government economic liberals who pledge a balanced budget but can only reach it by raising taxes. The Republicans are big spenders, too, but largely due to the pressures of a closely divided Congress; ideally, they want to balance the budget by cutting government spending and government taxation.

The Democrats are social liberals who wish to validate the gay activist agenda, forward abortion and devaluate traditional morality in schools and in government. The Republicans are social conservatives who prize traditional morality above all else.

So there's a good deal about which to argue. But for John Kerry and his Democratic ilk, arguing the issues isn't conducive to victory. Because, really, who wants a socially liberal, fiscally spendthrift, militarily weak party leading this country?

Instead, the Democrats have created false divisions between the parties in order to frighten Americans into voting for them. Democrats target youth voters, who have largely turned in favor of President Bush, by lying about a prospective re-institution of the draft. Kerry lied to the Des Moines Register, stating that "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft." The Democratic National Committee featured draft rumors in a recent news release. MoveOnStudentAction.org has spread rumors of a potential draft across the Internet, and has also launched a national campus campaign titled "Feel a Draft?" Rock the Vote pushes the idea that unless American foreign policy radically changes, a draft is inevitable.

It is, of course, complete bunk. Any political party attempting to bring back the draft would feel the wrath of American voters. In fact, the only politician who has seriously mentioned bringing back the draft has been Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).

The Democrats aren't afraid to scare the AARP crowd, either. Kerry explained that President Bush has a secret "January surprise" plan to privatize social security, cutting benefits by up to 45 percent or $500 a month for many Americans. Kerry's latest ploy? Handing out pillboxes stamped with the Kerry/Edwards logo to retirement voters in Florida -- implying, of course, that with Kerry/Edwards, you'll get your pills, but with Bush, you'll have to eat dog food.

Democrats continue their scare tactics with regard to minorities as well. The ironically named "America Coming Together" group has posted flyers in Missouri carrying a picture of a black man being hosed by a fireman. The flyer carries the caption: "This is what they used to do to keep us from voting." (Meanwhile, Democrats are doing their best to ensure the non-existent vote: An NAACP worker in Ohio paid a 22-year-old man crack cocaine in exchange for fake voter registrations, including registrations for Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Michael Jordan and George Foreman.)

Democrats claim that President Bush is to blame for disintegrating American unity. But the Democratic Party and John Kerry are dedicated to dividing America. Democratic ideology rests on the foundation that divisiveness must be achieved in order for communitarianism to be accepted -- destroy unity in order to gain power and create drastic change. Republican ideology rests on the formulation that unity must be achieved in order for individualism to be accepted -- foster unity within a strong and moral society in order that each individual may be respected.

The Democrats have won this battle. We are indeed divided. Let's just pray the right side -- the side promoting unity -- triumphs.

[icruise]

It's true that both sides have been using scare tactics, but does this guy really believe that all of the division in this country is a result of the recent Democratic presidential campaign? Amazing.

[Millennium]

Fascinating, and valid in many ways.

However, it does miss a rather crucial point: Kerry may be neck-deep in mudslinging now, but as a matter of giving the devil his due, he wasn't the one who started it. That was Bush's doing. It doesn't make that much difference now, but the blame for this incredibly-divisive campaign is not Kerry's. He could have refused to rise to the bait, and it would have gotten him a lot more respect. That said, Kerry is capitalizing on the race's divisiveness in quite fine form. If Bush loses, this will have been his fatal mistake: providing Kerry with divisiveness on which to feed.

In any case, this article does make a point. Young and old, rich and poor, black and white: these divisions are artificial and basically meaningless, but it has long been a strategy of the Democrats to paint one side as a "victim" and court it relentlessly. It's paid off quite handsomely over the years, too; within their favored groups, the Democrats have long had overwhelming leads. But if the Republicans practice the politics of fear, then the Democrats practice the politics of victimhood. Both equally invalid and damaging to the nation as a whole, and neither side recognizes the damage it does with its tactics.

[icruise]

The divisiveness we see in the campaign is largely a byproduct of the divisiveness that already exists in the country. This is partially due to the circumstances behind the 2000 election, but a lot of it has to do with how Bush has run his administration. Whatever you think about him, the man is not a uniter.

[Krusty]

Someone please cue the clips from the RNC (Zell Miller especially). For conservatives, being "divisive" means not going along with their plans.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Icruise:
It's true that both sides have been using scare tactics, but does this guy really believe that all of the division in this country is a result of the recent Democratic presidential campaign? Amazing.

Not just amazing... amazingly delusional.

[christ]

Originally posted by typoon:
... The Republicans ... prize traditional morality above all else....

Tee hee.

[zigzag]

"The Republicans are big spenders, too, but largely due to the pressures of a closely divided Congress . . ."

"Let's just pray the right side -- the side promoting unity -- triumphs."

Comedy gold.

[chris v]

"Unity" does not neccessarily mean "Do as we say while we steamroller you by passing contoversial bills without debate at 2 AM and question your patriotism when you notice."

Nobody owes any elected official fealty. That's why we don't have a monarchy. This is just more partisan granstanding, and I'm SURE the Repubs will drop the idea like a prom dress if the Dems win the general election. You watch. I cant WAIT to see Simey, ebuddy, Spliffdaddy, Cody, et al. "Get behind their president" when he's a Democrat.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Krusty:
For conservatives, being "divisive" means not going along with their plans.

Bingo. If we don't conform, we're being divisive.

[chris v]

The sheer irony of the article engaging in the divisiveness that it then goes on to decry is simply surreal.

<scowl> Democrats: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! </scowl>

<smug sanctimony> Why cant we all just be nice???? </smug sanctimony>

puh-leeeease.

[warmspit]

the OTHER SIDE of the aisle is responsible for finger pointing!

(cue irony).

[itai195]

Originally posted by chris v:
The sheer irony of the article engaging in the divisiveness that it then goes on to decry is simply surreal.

That's what I was thinking.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Townhall.com preaches to the converted, so it is hardly surprising that they lay all of the blame on the Democrats. However, editing out the obviously slanted parts of the piece, I do think that there is an element of truth here. A lot of Democrats are still motivated primarily by their anger at losing in 2000. You don't hear the same degree of feverish nonsense from the GOP side that has been roiling a lot of Democrats for four years. The Bush Lied!!!!!! arguments, nutty conspiracy theories about oil, invective about Nazis and Hitler, who let the dogs out, Bush is going to bring back the draft, enslave your children, throw grandma off of Social Security and generally, have "Asscroft" and "Rums****" take read your library book list and wiretap your dental fillings. It all strikes many people as quite unhinged.

For a brief little moment, we had a window of clarity and unity -- and that was after some terrorists massacred three thousand civilians, which is not exactly how most of us would like to unite the country. But even that unity didn't last long. Even before we went into Afghanistan, there were those saying that 9/11 was all our fault because "the chickens had come home to roost" and the "brutal Afghan winter" would chew us up and spit us out as it did the Soviets. I'm sure it is very annoying to be proved so wrong so quickly.

Then there was the election of 2002. Many Democrats tried to run in unity with the President on foreign policy, but the left didn't like that. That's why there was the obscene spectacle at Wellstone's funeral. The Democrats lost the 2002 midterm elections pretty soundly. I don't think that they thought that would happen because they thought that their anger from Florida would propel their cause. Well, it didn't. The Democrats lost ground, and Jeb Bush, Terry MacAuliffe's number one target, was reelected.

After 2002, it is clear that a lot of Democrats decided that the only way forward was to turn against the war on terror altogether. It has been a slow and gradual process, but it is clear that has happened. That is what propelled Dean forward, but he wasn't deemed electible. But on foreign policy, Kerry, the Anti-Dean, is closer in the general election to Dean as he was in the primaries, than Kerry of primaries is to Kerry in the general election. Basically the Democratic party is Deans, even if the sonorous depressing voice and lack of Aaaaarrrggghhhh! is Kerry.

I don't know what will temper this trend. If losing badly in the 2002 midterms caused the Democrats to lurch hard to the left, what would losing in the 2004 presidential election do to them? If they lose badly, will they wake up and realize that Michael Moore/Howard Dean policies are out of step with the electorate? If they lose by a squeaker, will they conclude once again that it is because they were too moderate?

Or if they win by a squeaker, will they reach out to Republicans and say "gee, you know, maybe you aren't all fascists." I don't know. I also don't know if Republicans would be any more interested in reaching out if they are narrowly defeated. Or even if they are soundly defeated. When you have been called a Nazi, and a liar, and a thief for four years, it does kind of harden the heart.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Or if they win by a squeaker, will they reach out to Republicans and say "gee, you know, maybe you aren't all fascists." I don't know. I also don't know if Republicans would be any more interested in reaching out if they are narrowly defeated. Or even if they are soundly defeated. When you have been called a Nazi, and a liar, and a thief for four years, it does kind of harden the heart.

Have Democrats not been essentially called traitors and terrorists? Some people who post on this forum even believe and argue passionately that THK funds terrorist organizations! Are you blind to the hatred on the right side? Did Ann Coulter not write a book that essentially accuses liberals of treason? Didn't the RNC distribute fliers accusing the Democrats of wanting to ban the bible? Do Republican pundits not call Al Gore 'insane' whenever he makes a speech? Is it not divisive when President Bush constantly derides the state of Massachusetts?

I'm not saying the Democrats are saints, but neither party has a monopoly on invective and divisiveness. Frankly, I'm surprised to find you engaging in this kind of behavior.

[warmspit]

now you're going to blame democrats for your "hardened heart"?

the ultimate victimhood.

(sorry, this was to that guy with the new yorker in his sig)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:


Have Democrats not been essentially called traitors and terrorists? Some people who post on this forum even believe and argue passionately that THK funds terrorist organizations! Are you blind to the hatred on the right side? Did Ann Coulter not write a book that essentially accuses liberals of treason? Didn't the RNC distribute fliers accusing the Democrats of wanting to ban the bible?

I'm not saying the Democrats are saints, but neither party has a monopoly on invective and divisiveness. Frankly, I'm surprised to find you engaging in this kind of behavior.

I didn't say that either side are saints. But I think the Democratic Party this cycle has been more shaped by this kind of extreme language and attitudes than the Republicans. It has driven your entire politics for four years now. However, if Kerry is elected, that could easily reverse.

But right now, what Kerry is basically saying is "elect a Democrat to the White House, and Democrats will stop saying the occupant of the White House is a liar and a thief." Uh huh.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


I also don't know if Republicans would be any more interested in reaching out if they are narrowly defeated. Or even if they are soundly defeated. When you have been called a Nazi, and a liar, and a thief for four years, it does kind of harden the heart.

My goodness, you're such a ... victim. Of course, you would never refer to Kerry voters as "slightly deranged" or anything like that.

Physician, heal thyself.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
My goodness, you're such a ... victim. Of course, you would never refer to Kerry voters as "slightly deranged" or anything like that.

Physician, heal thyself.

I stand by the "slightly deranged comment." Nothing else explains the presence of Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box in Boston. The Democrats have been reaching out to the froot loop crowd.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I stand by the "slightly deranged comment." Nothing else explains the presence of Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box in Boston. The Democrats have been reaching out to the froot loop crowd.

But Rush limbaugh, oxycontin addict can sit next to the Bush family?

for that matter, didn't Chalabi sit next to them during the state rfo the union speech? You know, the Iran spy? that guy?

you are really shaping up into quite the hypocrit, here.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I stand by the "slightly deranged comment." Nothing else explains the presence of Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box in Boston. The Democrats have been reaching out to the froot loop crowd.

Well, I'd say with some of the people in the current administration, there's no need for the Republicans to reach out to the "slightly deranged". You're already stocked up.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I didn't say that either side are saints. But I think the Democratic Party this cycle has been more shaped by this kind of extreme language and attitudes than the Republicans. It has driven your entire politics for four years now. However, if Kerry is elected, that could easily reverse.

Well I'm going to have to disagree. For one thing, you're mixing private and public discourse in your complaint, which I think is unfair toward the DNC. If you look at private discourse on the right side, you'll see equally hateful things being said. Read what the freepers say. Hell, read what many right wing posters HERE say. And if you look at public discource, there is no left wing counterpart to Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and Savage.

Maybe you don't notice this because you're not a liberal, but we've been called anti-American and terrorists, we've been accused of being treasonous, and the term 'liberal' itself has become a derisive label.

[icruise]

We are all hypocrites to some degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again, but a lot of people don't seem to understand the role that psychology plays in shaping our opinions. I personally think that the Republicans have been much more nasty and divisive in the last 4 years than the Democrats, but I am willing to admit to the possibility that this is due to my own biases. When a Republican insults the left or makes a spurious charge, I take it personally, while when a Democrat does the same to the right, I usually find myself cheering them on. Naturally the Republicans seem nastier to me. It's only human. But this Shapiro guy seems totally oblivious to this fact.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by warmspit:
But Rush limbaugh, oxycontin addict can sit next to the Bush family?

Did he? I didn't see the RNC and I don't recall seeing him there or anyone saying he was. Please produce documentary evidence.

I'm no fan of Limbaugh, or Coulter. I wouldn't give either of them the time of day. They are shrill and extreme. But their shrillness and extremness is of a somewhat different degree from Moore. They don't make up their entire world view from whole cloth the way Moore and his supporters do. There is a difference between simple obnoxiousness and conspiracymongering. You saw a little of the latter from the right when Clinton was president. But Moore has taken it to a new (if highly renumurative) level.

And he has taken it right to the heard of the Democratic Party. I don't think that Kerry personally buys into Michael Moore's theories. I think he'd laugh at a lot of what his die-hard supporters think. In fact, I think a lot of his die hard supporters know that. That's why their support for Kerry is so lukewarm compared to their hatred of Bush. But Kerry wouldn't dare correct them when they say the loopy things they do, because it is the froot loop crowd that could put him over the top in two weeks.

That is, if they don't scare off everyone else -- including a lot of reasonable Lieberman-type Democrats.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I stand by the "slightly deranged comment." Nothing else explains the presence of Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter in the presidential box in Boston. The Democrats have been reaching out to the froot loop crowd.

Fine, you stand by it. (It's hardly as if anyone is expecting you to ever have a second thought about anything, really.) But consequently, it's not possible to take your criticisms of name-calling seriously. Your outrage is quite selective, and generally aimed at Democrats, predictably. Selective outrage just isn't very credible (see: Cheney, Lynne).

It's also boring and limited intellecutally, given the panaroma of people doing objectionable things on all sides of the aisle. Why deprive yourself?

[icruise]

Originally posted by itai195:
Well I'm going to have to disagree. For one thing, you're mixing private and public discourse in your complaint, which I think is unfair toward the DNC. If you look at private discourse on the right side, you'll see equally hateful things being said. Read what the freepers say. Hell, read what many right wing posters HERE say. And if you look at public discource, there is no left wing counterpart to Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and Savage.

Maybe you don't notice this because you're not a liberal, but we've been called anti-American and terrorists, we've been accused of being treasonous, and the term 'liberal' itself has become a derisive label.

Just to contradict (slightly) what I just said, I do think that the right has been much more vocal in the past years, and if you were to add up everything that only Rush Limbaugh has said, I'm sure it would outnumber every insult made by every left-wing columnist or celebrity put together, to say nothing of Coulter et al.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That is, if they don't scare off everyone else -- including a lot of reasonable Lieberman-type Democrats.

Sounds a lot like Bush's relationship with the religious right.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
Your outrage is quite selective,

And yours isn't?

Please.

[Spliffdaddy]

wow.

lots of direct hits on liberals in here.

they've been exposed - and they don't like it one bit.


PS, Kerry has mentioned God more than Dubya ever did.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And yours isn't?

Please.

You can elaborate, I assume? I really expect more than "I'm like rubber, you're like glue," here.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
wow.

lots of direct hits on liberals in here.

they've been exposed - and they don't like it one bit.

You're *almost* as funny as the article above.

Difference, of course, being that you know it.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
wow.

lots of direct hits on liberals in here.

they've been exposed - and they don't like it one bit.


PS, Kerry has mentioned God more than Dubya ever did.

Yeah, you're right. The Republicans are pretty good at the one line insults and personal attacks. I am no liberal but I am NOT voting for Bush. Why? Because he is literally one of the WORST Presidents this country has seen. Period. Blown surplus, record deficits, terrible economy, lost jobs, never-ending war, divisive, and arrogant. Yep, he has sure done something good for this Country. Name call and all you want but I vote for the best candidate whether he is Democrat or Republican or Libertarian. The best candidate in this election is John Kerry. We need a change and we need it now. Maybe Kerry won't be able to do everything he has promised but I am 100% certain he can do more and do better than George W. Bush has in the last 4 years. And I have no problem with Kerry mentioning God more than Dubya. For your information, the Republican Party does not own God and I'm pretty sure He is upset with them for using Him for political purposes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
You can elaborate, I assume? I really expect more than "I'm like rubber, you're like glue," here.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to do the "your outrage is selective and only directed at Republicans" thing, it would help if you were to have an objective approach yourself. Well, I have never seen that from you, or for that matter from many of the liberals on this board. Most seem to find it very difficult to have a bad word to say about any fellow liberal, or a good one to say about anything coming from the Bush White House. Frankly, a lot of what I read here resembles the effects of Tourette's syndrome (to channel one of Jonah Goldberg's funnies).

If you want to see outrage from me about the statements of Republicans, I suggest you search the threads on gay marriage. You could also look for my comments on the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton, and the smear that Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 as a "wag the dog" maneuver. Or similarly the charge that he attacked al-Queda for the same reason. Or you could look at what I have said about the false claims from many Republicans that the Clinton Administration wasn't effective on counter-terrorism. Or you could look at what I consistently say about people like Rush Limbaugh or Coulter, or just the other day, Tucker Carlson. I'm quite happy to criticize Republicans, and I do it regularly.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sorry, but if you are going to do the "your outrage is selective and only directed at Republicans" thing, it would help if you were to have an objective approach yourself. Well, I have never seen that from you, or for that matter from many of the liberals on this board. Most seem to find it very difficult to have a bad word to say about any fellow liberal, or a good one to say about anything coming from the Bush White House. Frankly, a lot of what I read here resembles the effects of Tourette's syndrome (to channel one of Jonah Goldberg's funnies).

Very presumptuous. (You see all, if you have not seen it, it doesn't exist.) I'm not certain what you -- as the arbiter of an "objective approach" -- are looking for, of course, but I have said that I supported the war in Afghanistan and thought the Bush administration carried it off well. I pooh-pooed suggestions that Regnery could be compelled to withdraw a particular book criticizing Kerry's military service. These two come to mind; I don't quite have this sort of thing catalogued. This might not be agreeing with you enough times to meet your standard of objectivity (which, it appears, is your standard of objectivity).

Some of the stuff that I regard as broadly over the top (Bush Knew about 9/11, etc.), I don't usually respond to, which I suppose is a missed opportunity to prove ... well, something. Or to get mad and say something intemperate that I'd regret later.

As in some other threads, you're not really able to make your argument go, in my opinion, because you have divided the board into "liberals" (people who disagree with you) and "conservatives" (people who agree with you). I must say I admire your relentless dedication to your this quest for convenience. If only we would all cooperate, it might work. Then I would know which "fellow liberals" to say a "bad word" to. Unfortunately, while I'm perfectly OK with being a "liberal" (especially given the elasticity in definition you give it), it probably doesn't really help me in any practical sense to locate like-minded souls to disagree with (in order to prove my objectivity).

1. "Slightly deranged."
2. "Tourette's syndrome."

As I recall, you were objecting to name-calling and vitriol a bit earlier. ... Not being slightly deranged (fingers crossed) or having Tourette's syndrome, I'm of course not in the least offended, but I don't see how this rhetorical approach exactly fits with your earlier observation.

P.S.: Would it help if I egregiously insulted Michael Moore or somebody simiilar? OK: Michael Moore is great big fat megalomaniac who puts stuff out of sequence in his movies in an unfair and blatantly manipulative fashion! There!

[Spliffdaddy]

see that wasn't so hard, now was it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
1. "Slightly deranged."
2. "Tourette's syndrome."

P.S.: Would it help if I egregiously insulted Michael Moore or somebody simiilar? OK: Michael Moore is great big fat megalomaniac who puts stuff out of sequence in his movies in an unfair and blatantly manipulative fashion! There!

Yes, it would help if Democrat would distance themselves from people like Moore and his supporters. Those tend to the the ones I call slightly deranged. And the tourettes' syndrome comments from the vitriol that often seems to eminate from them. However, of course I don't think that all Democrats or all liberals fall into those categories. It is just that a lot of those who don't seem to have made a pact of mutual convenience with them in order to win the election.* The anybody but Bush antipathy is what is holding people as diverse as Joe Lieberman and Michael Moore together. I don't think they have anything else in common and frankly, if the Democrats had nominated Lieberman, I'd probably be voting Democratic.

But of course, if they had done that, they would have alienated their own Michael Moore, Howard Dean froot loop set. Such a dilemma. So I think a lot of you just kind of keep quiet and let the most shrill among you speak for you -- to the detriment of the political atmosphere of this country.

But of course, that does beg the question of why your failure to disassociate yourselves from your most shrill "allies" means that electing the person who courts them will unite the country. I think that would depend on who a "President Kerry" reaches out to after the election, and who he alienates if he is president. He wouldn't be able to govern and keep both the Lieberman wings and Republicans happy and keep the Michael Moore/Howard Dean crowd happy. He would have to piss off one or the other.



* And yes, to be clear, I think Bush did the same with the religious right on gay marriage. I just think they drive policy less, and anyway, Kerry isn't taking a radically different position.

[mo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
see that wasn't so hard, now was it?

Oh no, not at all. There's not exactly a shortage of this, though. I think other people have pretty much covered the topic. It's like throwing a Lincoln Log on a bonfire.

[itai195]

I see your point Simey, but again the Republicans do the same things. I don't think it's fair to lump Howard Dean in with Michael Moore, either. And I'm not sure how you can say that the religious right or extremist hawks on the right drive policy less than the Moore fanatics; what Kerry policies have been driven by the Moore wing?

Personally, I've sided with moderates in every Moore thread in this forum. It'd be great if more conservatives sided with moderates when some folks make insanely hawkish diatribes or religious rants in this forum. It's those folks on the extremes who are making the most noise and, IMO, are driving people like, who are relatively moderate, closer to their respective sides of the spectrum.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


But of course, that does beg the question of why your failure to disassociate yourselves from your most shrill "allies" means that electing the person who courts them will unite the country. I think that would depend on who a "President Kerry" reaches out to after the election, and who he alienates if he is president. He wouldn't be able to govern and keep both the Lieberman wings and Republicans happy and keep the Michael Moore/Howard Dean crowd happy. He would have to piss off one or the other.

I don't disagree with that. Such is the environment. I do not believe that electing either man will unite our country. But I don't ask you to "disassociate" yourself from Jerry Falwell any more than I feel a need to do the same regarding Al Sharpton.

Unless you want to form your own personal political party, you are stuck with voting for a candidate who is aligned with some people who are obnoxious to you. (As you self-evidently know.) Given that, everything becomes a question of degree -- how important is issue X versus issue Y, and what you believe, imperfectly, subjectively, the consequences of a particular outcome will be -- or perhaps we might say "nuance." (Boo! Hiss.) I split my ticket a lot.

In this election, it appears I am stuck with the Right Reverend Sharpton. Four years from now, who knows?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by mo:
Fine, you stand by it. (It's hardly as if anyone is expecting you to ever have a second thought about anything, really.) But consequently, it's not possible to take your criticisms of name-calling seriously. Your outrage is quite selective, and generally aimed at Democrats, predictably. Selective outrage just isn't very credible (see: Cheney, Lynne).

It's also boring and limited intellecutally, given the panaroma of people doing objectionable things on all sides of the aisle. Why deprive yourself?

If you're really going to play the political/war lounge boyscout role, you have a lot more posters to scold.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
I don't disagree with that. Such is the environment. I do not believe that electing either man will unite our country. But I don't ask you to "disassociate" yourself from Jerry Falwell any more than I feel a need to do the same regarding Al Sharpton.

Why not? I'd be happy to disassociate myself from Falwell. Would you like him? Consider him my gift to you.

[greenamp]

if the Democrats had nominated Lieberman, I'd probably be voting Democratic.

Same here. I don't like Bush very much at all. But I could never vote for a candidate like John Kerry. Had the dems run a moderate candidate like Lieberman, I would have voted for him.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why not? I'd be happy to disassociate myself from Falwell. Would you like him? Consider him my gift to you.

As Jack Nicholson said in a movie: "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

[greenamp]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why not? I'd be happy to disassociate myself from Falwell. Would you like him? Consider him my gift to you.

LOL. Can we give them Shawn Hanity as well? I can't stand that guy.

[itai195]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Same here. I don't like Bush very much at all. But I could never vote for a candidate like John Kerry. Had the dems run a moderate candidate like Lieberman, I would have voted for him.

I could support a moderate candidate from either party, but I just don't like Lieberman.

[mo]

Originally posted by greenamp:
If you're really going to play the political/war lounge boyscout role, you have a lot more posters to scold.

Eagle Scout, actually. Go figure.

[olePigeon]

Unifying a group of morons is not a good thing.

[kido]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Yeah, you're right. The Republicans are pretty good at the one line insults and personal attacks. I am no liberal but I am NOT voting for Bush. Why? Because he is literally one of the WORST Presidents this country has seen. Period. Blown surplus, record deficits, terrible economy, lost jobs, never-ending war, divisive, and arrogant.

Actually, if you adjust for inflation, Abraham Lincoln was much worse on most of your points, except on the blown surplus. Lincoln inherited a horrible economy caused by British econimic pressure and a banking system that mortgaged everything overseas. Did you know in 1857 not even Congress got paid?

The best candidate in this election is John Kerry. We need a change and we need it now. Maybe Kerry won't be able to do everything he has promised but I am 100% certain he can do more and do better than George W. Bush has in the last 4 years.

This sentiment is what really blows my mind. I've got to ask, what makes you think Kerry will be able to do anything once elected? At best, he will be lucky to squeak in with a win and he will have to work with a Congress with a Republican majority in both houses. Further, he will be working with the military leaders he has basically called incompetent and trying to appeal to soldiers who prefer Bush by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Perhaps he could ask really, really nicely for help from the U.N. and other foreign governments and they will flock to his call, but I have not seen any evidence that this is to be expected. So, again, what makes you think Kerry will be effective as a President? I'm honestly curious.

[icruise]

Originally posted by kido:
Actually, if you adjust for inflation, Abraham Lincoln was much worse on most of your points, except on the blown surplus. Lincoln inherited a horrible economy caused by British econimic pressure and a banking system that mortgaged everything overseas. Did you know in 1857 not even Congress got paid?

So now were are making comparisons with the period of civil war? I think that's a bit of stretch, don't you?

This sentiment is what really blows my mind. I've got to ask, what makes you think Kerry will be able to do anything once elected? At best, he will be lucky to squeak in with a win and he will have to work with a Congress with a Republican majority in both houses. Further, he will be working with the military leaders he has basically called incompetent and trying to appeal to soldiers who prefer Bush by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Perhaps he could ask really, really nicely for help from the U.N. and other foreign governments and they will flock to his call, but I have not seen any evidence that this is to be expected. So, again, what makes you think Kerry will be effective as a President? I'm honestly curious.

What are you saying, that because the Republicans will block him at every turn that there's no point in electing a Democrat?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Icruise:
So now were are making comparisons with the period of civil war? I think that's a bit of stretch, don't you?

I don't know. Although the US isn't in a state of civil war, there are very clear-cut and deep divisions between huge segments of the populace at the moment, and we are in fact at war even if it's not among ourselves. Combine this with economic trouble, and you have a situation which, while still different, isn't all that different.