Just left here to find this over at talkingpointsmemo.com. Seemed apropos of the discussion of civility and alienation.
These are the people the conservatives are in bed with. Check that: These are the conservatives. Let’s start getting that correct right now. They are of a piece. This is what they voted for, and we are the opposition.
Is he the guy from Oklahoma who’s worried about girls going to the bathroom at school together because of the rampant lesbianism? And if he isn’t: does that mean, God help us, that there’s more than one these poisonous pustules running around loose?
’luci, sit down. Here, have a soda. James Dobson is the enormously influential head of a fundie lobbying group, Focus on the Family. He is but one pustule of a giant concatenation of pustules. Think smallpox at Woodstock-level of pustules.
Good point, elucidator. That guy was another different conservative - the one they just elected as Senator, Tom Coburn. These are the conservatives, folks. Moderates like Arlen Specter have become “problems” for the party to deal with. Watch Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow and others for the changes, and try and keep up. See the mandate in action!
I should thank you for clearing that up for me, gobear. I ought to. You’ll understand, I’m sure, if I can’t quite manage it.
Aside from being pustules, these are the sort of “screaming assholes” that the Democrats were being called just a few posts ago. The librul Democrats were the mean, surly, unreasonable, alienating not very nice bastards who pushed everyone away, weren’t they? Well, the fundies won, let them lie in the bed of their making. Shitholes like these Pustules push me further to the left all the time. To think, at one time I was a right leaning middle of the road type.
Arlen Spector is the guy who advocated, more than almost anyone else in the Senate, Clarence Thomas’ case.
And he’s a moderate.
Listen, folks: Bricker’s extraordinarily dishonest posts amount to asking Dems to shuck and jive for votes; it’s of a piece with Southern whites telling “nigras” to not be so damn uppity, and if they’re not, they’ll slowly be allowed to get into normal society. Just don’t try moving too fast.
Bullshit.
Fuck it, and fuck them. Make them spend all their time and effort trying to appease us. Start now.
Evil will never give way before reasonableness. Never has, and never will.
As for a fascist like Dobson claiming to be Christian, it is to cry. Not laugh, cry.
If he and the rest of the scum who follow people like him think they’re following the religion of the man who said a rich man has as much chance of getting into heaven as passing through the eye of a needle, well, they’ve got quite a bit to learn.
I’m all for teaching them. Sternly.
PS: Bush will follow the fate of LBJ. By the time 2008 comes around, he’ll be hated by two-thirds of the nation. The right, and the Republicans, will spend the next half-century recovering. Count on it.
He’s already hated by about half, I’d say he has a head start on LBJ.
HENTOR –
I’ll say it. If you don’t moderate your message and reach out to the vast middle of America that is significantly less liberal than you are, you will lose again. And again. And again. And even if you win the Presidency, which is frequently a personality contest, if you keep losing 5 seats every congressional election, you will be marginalized before you can say “Karl Rove Is The AntiChrist.”
Why should I, as a Republican, care? Because I happen to believe a stong two-party system is the best defense of – and example of – a true democracy. And I believe tha BRICKER shares this view. So continue to call him every crappy name you can think of; just don’t refuse to consider his larger point out of spite.
Let’s go steer this back to that thread I was talking about earlier (the one where Dopers explain why they voted for Bush).
I didn’t hear them talking about Kerry’s “negativity” so much. I think they were talking about the overall tone from everyone. Not just the campaign, but from all sides.
If I haven’t mentioned it on this thread yet, I’ll mention it now: I know that I’m a political lightweight. I don’t engage in a lot of political debates, and rarely in specifics, because frankly, y’all are way too scary and sharp for me. But I do know when something is way off, and the negative tone that I’ve seen on this board and elsewhere was hard to ignore. That thread that Bricker and I linked to mentioned the tone as well, and its contribution to their voting choices, and I felt that was significant too.
I don’t have all the answers (lightweight, remember?) but there is a different quality with some of the most vocal on the left. Think about it: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, some of these others, they’re dorks. Old geezerly dorks. I can’t speak for everyone, but I think that a lot of people don’t even register these guys on their radar. True, they are important to certain contingents, but probably not to the “undecided on some issues” or the “centrist” contingent. Now, some talking heads on the right are not “old geezerly dorks” (Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter), but I suspect that a good percentage are.
However, compare that to Oscar-winning celebrities, and people who have really contributed something that people can identify with and enjoy (movies, TV, music, books). (I guess that I’m saying in a nutshell is: the left has cooler celebrites! ;)) These celebrities get press anyway, so perhaps people notice more and get more of an impression when these celebrities spout off and get hysterical and say all sorts of shit. I think that their style is also different than some of the old geezerly dorks (I’m not saying better or worse, just different), and that may cause more notice or more reaction.
But hey, that’s just a thought. I could be wrong. If you feel it’s important to keep perpetuating the same tone (and this includes the tone on this board and other boards, which I believe has also been a significant contributing factor), then that’s fine. Your choice.
Yosemite, I’ll try and put this lightly, 'cause it isn’t my intention to insult you. But, just as you say, you’re a bit of a lightweight, politics wise. Could it not be that you overemphasize the importance of tone because you don’t really understand the policy aspects?
I hate this! Viscerally, personally, just short of violently. I hate the idea that my son’s generation will live through a time when the stench of a needless and stupid war pervades everything, like living next door to a garbage dump that burns old tires 24/7. Like I did.
I consider myself a patriot, I love my country. The man who attacks her is my enemy, but the man who misleads her is not my friend. I will not pretend to respect him, I will not pretend to admire him. I will not sit in the hell-bound hand-basket and murmur politely. I will not consent, I will not accept, and I will not be silenced.
Because I am a patriot. Because I love my country. I probably don’t say this very well, I’m good at sarcasm, I suck at sincere. But there it is. Make of it what you will.
Sure, it’s possible. (And no, I’m not insulted.)
However, I’d more more apt to believe that I’m way off base if it weren’t for more than a few people on that thread I linked to saying that they were affected by the “tone.” I may be lightweight, but I don’t think that all of them are. And even if some of them are, they do know why they voted, and they’ve given their reasons there. So, see, it isn’t just me.
I also know how I’ve reacted personally to the negativity (mostly, in my case, from this board). It didn’t change my vote either way, but it has sucked. It incited a reaction out of me that I didn’t expect, and it had a definite effect on me. I am getting the impression that I was far from the only one to experience this reaction.
“Out of the mouths of babes” and all that. Perhaps my lack of sophisticaion isn’t such a detriment in this specific instance—who knows? I’m not politically savvy, but I think I know when something stinks. I am just trying to tell y’all that. If you want to ignore me, that’s fine. I think you’ll be missing out on something that may be of value, but hey—it’s not the first time that that’s happened with any of us, is it?
You do what you have to do. You may not like the reaction—you may not like the results—you may not accept the consequences, but that’s your choice. Do what you must.
I do believe there is a method of expressing dissent that doesn’t simultaneously suck and alienate people. Make of that what you will.
Another folksy story from my past (I always have another one, don’t I? ;)): One of my friends was wearing a pair of pants that looked like shit on her. Nobody told her. They laughed behind her back. I, stupidly, told her that her pants looked like shit on her (much more kindly and tactfully than that, of course). She was mad at me. Offended. She denied that they looked like shit. She gave all sorts of reasons why she didn’t look like shit.
She was told and she didn’t believe it. I was honestly trying to help, because I felt bad that people were laughing behind her back. But she was not going to believe me, so, screw it. :shrug:
I’ve heard this a few times before, and I’ll have to call BS. (Not necessarily on you - unless you voted Republican, which I suspect.)
If one’s interest in a diverse democracy is of any concern, they would encourage the difference. Yes, even if it the other side is “radical”; the alternative is a homogenous system with parties diverging to whatever path keeps power.
In other words, you should embrace these differences if a true two-party system is your concern; this remark suggests otherwise.
I’ve read the IMHO thread, and something that strikes me is the waffling/flip-flop/pandering/polling description of Kerry. Bush is “sure of his convictions” and such, and doesn’t need to consult the polls or hold a referendum to make a decision. I hope someone can come along and tell me why, in a democracy, consulting the popular opinion is a bad thing while pursuing a pre-conceived direction is better with or without respect to truth - and, how it is at all less elitist than the liberal stereotype.
And is worth a whopping 51%?
Better check the numbers again. The last 2 elections have been as close as any in history. The country is almost exactly evenly divided. One party is not marginalized, they have about as strong a claim to the center and the majority as the other. Democracy is only damaged when the party that gets a few more votes than the other, or even fewer as we’ve seen recently, acts as if it has an absolute mandate to totally ignore the views and wishes of almost half the population. Yet you join in the pretense that that is the case with your use of words like “vast” and “significantly”. If you believed in a strong, two-party system that is real, not me-tooism, you wouldn’t be saying that.
Care to wager on that?
See, when I say count on it… I mean it. Let’s see what you mean.
And why does your analysis keep forgetting in addition to the “practically a tie” Presidential election, your party lost seats in the House and Senate. Luck fo the draw? But you lost seats in the last election, too. Also luck of the draw?
Jebus fucking kee-rist! Even Ickey Woods’ touchdown dance didn’t last this long. I’m starting to wonder if Bricker is celebrating being correct for the first time!
Of course, after correcting me about referring to the saying “pride goeth before the fall” (don’t you love the irony there?), he did suggest we could count on his dialing back the arrogance. Weak and pathetic.
Slight correction here. I’m not bragging about the win. I’m saying I am willing to back up a claimed certainty with a wager. Totally different animal.
That reminds me - I haven’t seen if you have answered my question about whether you would wager on your child’s surgery, assuming that you were confident about the outcome, that is. Would you?
Are you seriously equating a child’s surgery to an election? No, I mean that honestly. Are you equating the two?