You people are filled with nothing but hate

[12th Doctor]

And for the record this "hate filled" Liberal gave 2000 dollars to the red cross the day after the hurricane and i certainly don't care if it feeds a liberal or a conservative.

I know you are a good person, which is why I am particularlly annoyed when you post stuff in your sig that is blatantly unfair, or intelletually dishonest.

[Beet]

I have kind of stopped posting here at least politically, but I feel obligated to say something here, besides the justified outrage over the government's actions last week.

You guys started it.

This goes from the extreme reactionary antics of the Dartmouth Review in the early '80s to the talk radio shows of the '90s, whose only purpose was and is to spew invective, shout people down, breed divisiveness, and most of all gain attention by intentionally pissed people off and being offensive. You guys have created this media machine, this racket, of Hannities and Limbaughs and Michael Savages and Ann Coulters, you have labelled your own countrymen as your enemies, not just political opponents but outright enemies, and I don't doubt for a second that some people, maybe not the talking heads themselves (who are raking it in like mad) but many of their fans, take that kind of language seriously. You cannot deny for a second that these people have risen to success, fame, status, and power on being deliberately provocative, deliberately divisive, saying anything, and everything just to create controversy. It isn't about the issues at all for these people, it's about creating controversy and shouting down their opponents on cable TV shows.

And you ask why people are divided? You ask why people hate? It's the fruit of your own efforts. It's the fruit of your grimly determined efforts for years, no decades. For decades the right wing in this country has done nothing but relentlessly attack the center. George H.W. Bush to conciliatory? Dump him! John McCain? Screw him! You ask us Democrats to move towards the center even as you yourselves move relentlessly to the right. And you know what? If that kind of politics didn't work, the GOP would not be here where it is today. Divisiveness, invective, slander, the breeding of hatred, stereotyping, has worked for you guys. It's worked for Coulter. It's worked for Savage. It's worked for Limbaugh. In fact, the more controversial the better.

I don't see things getting better. I just see them getting worse and worse. I just see them getting worse because every time one of these hateful, extreme, ideological products of the right wing media comes out, in whatever form, it just gets gobbled up. There is no room for bi partisanship in the GOP today. It's your way or the high way. A reporter asks a question Bush doesn't like? He's out. A bureacrat criticizes the administration? His wife's out! Town hall meetings? Bush supporters only! Loyalty oath! I don't live in the United States of America any more. I live in the Marginalized States of America, consisting of 19 marginalized states. This country doesn't exist any more as a single country. 10 years ago, 15 years ago, if something like this happened, this kind of hurricane, I don't think there would have been a word, a peep, oh it's the Republicans' fault or oh it's the Democrat's fault. No ing way. It would be treated as a natural disaster. And you know what, if it was a terrorist attack it would be the same. I don't think we'll ever again be as united as we were after 9/11. That was an aberration. The ultimate aberration. It's interesting the funny thing is when we only had the cash in our pockets to fight over, it was never as bad as this. We always accepted it if things didn't go as planned. But now that w'ere fighting over NOTHING-- over wedge issues, red herrings, 'cultural' sh*t, whatever that means, if X can be posted in X public building... now that we're fighting over that stuff, NOW there can be no compromise.

So you can forget it with all your phony little "good Democrats" "bad Democrats" game. We're not your pets on a leash where you can pick out this person or that person, oh we're being "good" while the others are being "bad". Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice. Who said that? Now I was a pretty centrist poster here back in my posting days. I still look at this site, it is SO free from trolls, I am amazed. Everyone here is so well behaved. This place is truly an oasis in the middle of... of... well in the middle of something else. And that is great for here. That is great for this site. We really need this place.

But what is going on out there... it's not a problem with a few trolls. It's a problem with the way things are set up. Politics is a business. It's an industry. It's an entertainment industry and the payoff comes in money and fame and it also comes in votes. Those things aren't any different. Except this industry means that we on the left are at war with you on the right, unless we want to switch sides, and same for you. You are at war with us. And it requires us to hate in order to keep it going. And why not? Hate is a perfectly legitimate human emotion. We don't particularly like it, but we don't like suffering either, and life would be meaningless without suffering. Hate helps us discover who were are. It sure helped the 9/11 hijackers discover who they were. It sure helped them do something pretty remarkable. So why can't it help us? Life is a journey, not a destination. Take it all in stride. It's just words being spoken or written after all. Except for those two guys in Kentucky, no body is dying as a result of the specific thing that you are trying to protest against.

So that is the way it is. I am all out of steam here. The end.

[Beet]

Oh and one more thing. This crap with the government's response to the stranded people this past week, that is truly ing disgusting. I dont think our government has FUBAR'ed it this badly for decades. Federal, state, local, I really don't care.

[dazzleman]

I have kind of stopped posting here at least politically, but I feel obligated to say something here, besides the justified outrage over the government's actions last week.

You guys started it.

This goes from the extreme reactionary antics of the Dartmouth Review in the early '80s to the talk radio shows of the '90s, whose only purpose was and is to spew invective, shout people down, breed divisiveness, and most of all gain attention by intentionally pissed people off and being offensive. You guys have created this media machine, this racket, of Hannities and Limbaughs and Michael Savages and Ann Coulters, you have labelled your own countrymen as your enemies, not just political opponents but outright enemies, and I don't doubt for a second that some people, maybe not the talking heads themselves (who are raking it in like mad) but many of their fans, take that kind of language seriously. You cannot deny for a second that these people have risen to success, fame, status, and power on being deliberately provocative, deliberately divisive, saying anything, and everything just to create controversy. It isn't about the issues at all for these people, it's about creating controversy and shouting down their opponents on cable TV shows.

And you ask why people are divided? You ask why people hate? It's the fruit of your own efforts. It's the fruit of your grimly determined efforts for years, no decades. For decades the right wing in this country has done nothing but relentlessly attack the center. George H.W. Bush to conciliatory? Dump him! John McCain? Screw him! You ask us Democrats to move towards the center even as you yourselves move relentlessly to the right. And you know what? If that kind of politics didn't work, the GOP would not be here where it is today. Divisiveness, invective, slander, the breeding of hatred, stereotyping, has worked for you guys. It's worked for Coulter. It's worked for Savage. It's worked for Limbaugh. In fact, the more controversial the better.

I don't see things getting better. I just see them getting worse and worse. I just see them getting worse because every time one of these hateful, extreme, ideological products of the right wing media comes out, in whatever form, it just gets gobbled up. There is no room for bi partisanship in the GOP today. It's your way or the high way. A reporter asks a question Bush doesn't like? He's out. A bureacrat criticizes the administration? His wife's out! Town hall meetings? Bush supporters only! Loyalty oath! I don't live in the United States of America any more. I live in the Marginalized States of America, consisting of 19 marginalized states. This country doesn't exist any more as a single country. 10 years ago, 15 years ago, if something like this happened, this kind of hurricane, I don't think there would have been a word, a peep, oh it's the Republicans' fault or oh it's the Democrat's fault. No ing way. It would be treated as a natural disaster. And you know what, if it was a terrorist attack it would be the same. I don't think we'll ever again be as united as we were after 9/11. That was an aberration. The ultimate aberration. It's interesting the funny thing is when we only had the cash in our pockets to fight over, it was never as bad as this. We always accepted it if things didn't go as planned. But now that w'ere fighting over NOTHING-- over wedge issues, red herrings, 'cultural' sh*t, whatever that means, if X can be posted in X public building... now that we're fighting over that stuff, NOW there can be no compromise.

So you can forget it with all your phony little "good Democrats" "bad Democrats" game. We're not your pets on a leash where you can pick out this person or that person, oh we're being "good" while the others are being "bad". Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice. Who said that? Now I was a pretty centrist poster here back in my posting days. I still look at this site, it is SO free from trolls, I am amazed. Everyone here is so well behaved. This place is truly an oasis in the middle of... of... well in the middle of something else. And that is great for here. That is great for this site. We really need this place.

But what is going on out there... it's not a problem with a few trolls. It's a problem with the way things are set up. Politics is a business. It's an industry. It's an entertainment industry and the payoff comes in money and fame and it also comes in votes. Those things aren't any different. Except this industry means that we on the left are at war with you on the right, unless we want to switch sides, and same for you. You are at war with us. And it requires us to hate in order to keep it going. And why not? Hate is a perfectly legitimate human emotion. We don't particularly like it, but we don't like suffering either, and life would be meaningless without suffering. Hate helps us discover who were are. It sure helped the 9/11 hijackers discover who they were. It sure helped them do something pretty remarkable. So why can't it help us? Life is a journey, not a destination. Take it all in stride. It's just words being spoken or written after all. Except for those two guys in Kentucky, no body is dying as a result of the specific thing that you are trying to protest against.

So that is the way it is. I am all out of steam here. The end.

Dude, I have to say that's a pretty disappointing post, and I think very one-sided.  I think the roots of our current day divisions go back to the 1960s, not the 1990s.  A lot of the issue lies in the push for significant social change.  

Since the 1960s, liberals have pushed for social changes, and conservatives have wanted largely to keep things as they were.  Some of what liberals pushed for was good, and some of it was bad.  In general, our divisions have precluded us from abandoning things that are bad, whether they are bad ideas being pushed by liberals, or certain bad things that are sometimes defended by conservatives.

I think you are wrong to blame conservatives for all the problems you described.  Surely, you're entitled to your opinions, and I have always enjoyed reading your opinions, and respected them.  But when I read this post, I felt as if I were reading the thoughts of a different person.

[Beet]

I have kind of stopped posting here at least politically, but I feel obligated to say something here, besides the justified outrage over the government's actions last week.

You guys started it.

This goes from the extreme reactionary antics of the Dartmouth Review in the early '80s to the talk radio shows of the '90s, whose only purpose was and is to spew invective, shout people down, breed divisiveness, and most of all gain attention by intentionally pissed people off and being offensive. You guys have created this media machine, this racket, of Hannities and Limbaughs and Michael Savages and Ann Coulters, you have labelled your own countrymen as your enemies, not just political opponents but outright enemies, and I don't doubt for a second that some people, maybe not the talking heads themselves (who are raking it in like mad) but many of their fans, take that kind of language seriously. You cannot deny for a second that these people have risen to success, fame, status, and power on being deliberately provocative, deliberately divisive, saying anything, and everything just to create controversy. It isn't about the issues at all for these people, it's about creating controversy and shouting down their opponents on cable TV shows.

And you ask why people are divided? You ask why people hate? It's the fruit of your own efforts. It's the fruit of your grimly determined efforts for years, no decades. For decades the right wing in this country has done nothing but relentlessly attack the center. George H.W. Bush to conciliatory? Dump him! John McCain? Screw him! You ask us Democrats to move towards the center even as you yourselves move relentlessly to the right. And you know what? If that kind of politics didn't work, the GOP would not be here where it is today. Divisiveness, invective, slander, the breeding of hatred, stereotyping, has worked for you guys. It's worked for Coulter. It's worked for Savage. It's worked for Limbaugh. In fact, the more controversial the better.

I don't see things getting better. I just see them getting worse and worse. I just see them getting worse because every time one of these hateful, extreme, ideological products of the right wing media comes out, in whatever form, it just gets gobbled up. There is no room for bi partisanship in the GOP today. It's your way or the high way. A reporter asks a question Bush doesn't like? He's out. A bureacrat criticizes the administration? His wife's out! Town hall meetings? Bush supporters only! Loyalty oath! I don't live in the United States of America any more. I live in the Marginalized States of America, consisting of 19 marginalized states. This country doesn't exist any more as a single country. 10 years ago, 15 years ago, if something like this happened, this kind of hurricane, I don't think there would have been a word, a peep, oh it's the Republicans' fault or oh it's the Democrat's fault. No ing way. It would be treated as a natural disaster. And you know what, if it was a terrorist attack it would be the same. I don't think we'll ever again be as united as we were after 9/11. That was an aberration. The ultimate aberration. It's interesting the funny thing is when we only had the cash in our pockets to fight over, it was never as bad as this. We always accepted it if things didn't go as planned. But now that w'ere fighting over NOTHING-- over wedge issues, red herrings, 'cultural' sh*t, whatever that means, if X can be posted in X public building... now that we're fighting over that stuff, NOW there can be no compromise.

So you can forget it with all your phony little "good Democrats" "bad Democrats" game. We're not your pets on a leash where you can pick out this person or that person, oh we're being "good" while the others are being "bad". Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice. Who said that? Now I was a pretty centrist poster here back in my posting days. I still look at this site, it is SO free from trolls, I am amazed. Everyone here is so well behaved. This place is truly an oasis in the middle of... of... well in the middle of something else. And that is great for here. That is great for this site. We really need this place.

But what is going on out there... it's not a problem with a few trolls. It's a problem with the way things are set up. Politics is a business. It's an industry. It's an entertainment industry and the payoff comes in money and fame and it also comes in votes. Those things aren't any different. Except this industry means that we on the left are at war with you on the right, unless we want to switch sides, and same for you. You are at war with us. And it requires us to hate in order to keep it going. And why not? Hate is a perfectly legitimate human emotion. We don't particularly like it, but we don't like suffering either, and life would be meaningless without suffering. Hate helps us discover who were are. It sure helped the 9/11 hijackers discover who they were. It sure helped them do something pretty remarkable. So why can't it help us? Life is a journey, not a destination. Take it all in stride. It's just words being spoken or written after all. Except for those two guys in Kentucky, no body is dying as a result of the specific thing that you are trying to protest against.

So that is the way it is. I am all out of steam here. The end.

Dude, I have to say that's a pretty disappointing post, and I think very one-sided.  I think the roots of our current day divisions go back to the 1960s, not the 1990s.  A lot of the issue lies in the push for significant social change.  

Since the 1960s, liberals have pushed for social changes, and conservatives have wanted largely to keep things as they were.  Some of what liberals pushed for was good, and some of it was bad.  In general, our divisions have precluded us from abandoning things that are bad, whether they are bad ideas being pushed by liberals, or certain bad things that are sometimes defended by conservatives.

I think you are wrong to blame conservatives for all the problems you described.  Surely, you're entitled to your opinions, and I have always enjoyed reading your opinions, and respected them.  But when I read this post, I felt as if I were reading the thoughts of a different person.

You know what you are right. It probably does go back to the '60s. In fact, maybe things were even worse then than they are now. But then I'm just too young. I don't remember any of that stuff. My earliest memories basically go back to the early 1990s, and from then until Mikey Moore came along it was pretty much exclusively the right that was selling hate and divisiveness.

Because I admire the way this site is, and respect the people on here a lot, I have generally tried to keep it as moderate here as possible, but when it comes to the issue of "hate" I may not like it but I know why it seems that things are getting worse, and I was trying to convey that understanding by showing my feelings somewhat. I don't think I could have communicated it without showing that.

[dazzleman]

You know what you are right. It probably does go back to the '60s. In fact, maybe things were even worse then than they are now. But then I'm just too young. I don't remember any of that stuff. My earliest memories basically go back to the early 1990s, and from then until Mikey Moore came along it was pretty much exclusively the right that was selling hate and divisiveness.

Because I admire the way this site is, and respect the people on here a lot, I have generally tried to keep it as moderate here as possible, but when it comes to the issue of "hate" I may not like it but I know why it seems that things are getting worse, and I was trying to convey that understanding by showing my feelings somewhat. I don't think I could have communicated it without showing that.

Well, you showed a side of you I never saw before.  I'm used to logical and unemotional arguments by you.  I often disagree with you, but I always enjoy hearing your point of view.

In this case, you came across as more extremist and emotional than I have seen you before.

The level of hate and venom floating around in the 1960s and 1970s was very high, and much of it originated from liberals.  Of course, it could be said that this hate and venom arose from the oppression of certain classes of society that was imposed by "conservatives" (I put it in quotes because the conservatives of that time are not necessarily the conservatives of today).  I don't say this to put the full blame on liberals for all today's problems, but I think you need a little longer perspective, since all this didn't begin in the 1990s.

There is a lot of residual anger over liberal behavior and policy prescriptions of the 1960s-1970s period, and the effects of those policies, as well as the continuing assault by liberals on traditional values.  Now to be fair, "traditional values" have included racial discrimination, discrimination against women in certain forms and fashions, etc.  So I don't argue that traditional is always best.  But it's not always bad either.

The situation today is a sad one, but I just can't accept that conservatives are fully to blame for it, as you have argued.  Even here, I see some edgy and obnoxious conservatives, but I also see some edgy and obnoxious liberals.  The real world is not that different.  The problem is when people form attitudes rather than opinions.  An opinion can be justified based upon an interpretation of facts, but an attitude is just out there, and it seems to me that in the past, conservatives were more tilted to having attitudes rather than opinions, but in recent years that has shifted.  People with opinions can argue the merits of an issue, while people with attitudes can only attack those who disagree with them.  And I see a lot of the latter being done by liberals here, probably more than is being done by conservatives, at least from my perspective.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously us 55% that disapprove of Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina are extremists, and you 38% that approve of his response are the moderates.

[Beet]

You know what you are right. It probably does go back to the '60s. In fact, maybe things were even worse then than they are now. But then I'm just too young. I don't remember any of that stuff. My earliest memories basically go back to the early 1990s, and from then until Mikey Moore came along it was pretty much exclusively the right that was selling hate and divisiveness.

Because I admire the way this site is, and respect the people on here a lot, I have generally tried to keep it as moderate here as possible, but when it comes to the issue of "hate" I may not like it but I know why it seems that things are getting worse, and I was trying to convey that understanding by showing my feelings somewhat. I don't think I could have communicated it without showing that.

Well, you showed a side of you I never saw before.  I'm used to logical and unemotional arguments by you.  I often disagree with you, but I always enjoy hearing your point of view.

In this case, you came across as more extremist and emotional than I have seen you before.

The level of hate and venom floating around in the 1960s and 1970s was very high, and much of it originated from liberals.  Of course, it could be said that this hate and venom arose from the oppression of certain classes of society that was imposed by "conservatives" (I put it in quotes because the conservatives of that time are not necessarily the conservatives of today).  I don't say this to put the full blame on liberals for all today's problems, but I think you need a little longer perspective, since all this didn't begin in the 1990s.

There is a lot of residual anger over liberal behavior and policy prescriptions of the 1960s-1970s period, and the effects of those policies, as well as the continuing assault by liberals on traditional values.  Now to be fair, "traditional values" have included racial discrimination, discrimination against women in certain forms and fashions, etc.  So I don't argue that traditional is always best.  But it's not always bad either.

The situation today is a sad one, but I just can't accept that conservatives are fully to blame for it, as you have argued.  Even here, I see some edgy and obnoxious conservatives, but I also see some edgy and obnoxious liberals.  The real world is not that different.  The problem is when people form attitudes rather than opinions.  An opinion can be justified based upon an interpretation of facts, but an attitude is just out there, and it seems to me that in the past, conservatives were more tilted to having attitudes rather than opinions, but in recent years that has shifted.  People with opinions can argue the merits of an issue, while people with attitudes can only attack those who disagree with them.  And I see a lot of the latter being done by liberals here, probably more than is being done by conservatives, at least from my perspective.

Look, again, I don't remember that. I was faintly aware of politics in the early 1990s and I'm pretty sure the level of political divisiveness, the "wrestling match" if you will at that time was not as great as it is now. I do think that politics started getting nastier after 1994, and that Gingrich was a very divisive figure who never tried to reach out to Democrats in the way Clinton tried to come halfway with the GOP, and neither did his base.

The 1960s was an explosive time, to be sure. I basically agree with everything you're saying there. There are some good and some not so good aspects of traditional values. But I think there is still a lot of attitude on the conservative side. Over time conservatives have gotten better at suppressing it. But I think it's still there and it comes out from time to time.

Liberals are just rediscovering political passion, because until a few years ago the pulse of liberalism in this country was practically non existent. I think over time, if you are seeing a lot of 'attitude' in us/them now, you'll see them eventually suppressing it just like the conservatives are doing now if it's hurting them. Whether that eventually lead to a genuine comprimise or whater I don't know. But right now I just don't see it happening.

[angus]

well, I think you make a good point, dazzleman, about thefactor's usual measured candor.  which, not only means measured, but candor as well.  this, in fact, is the first time, in a long time, that you've read a coherent heartfelt yet logical rant from the other side.  his criticism, though unbalanced in emphasis, is valid.  And, except for the paragraph attacking the propensity of long-time posters to decide who they believe and don't believe, is accurate.  And even that one is mostly true.  this site is relatively troll-free.  Relatively. 

Not sure who started it, though.  The Bush agenda was simply an answer to the 90s, which was simply the democrats copying the hugely successful rightist Reagan revolution in terms of economics, but moderated to deal with changing social mores.  The Reagan revolution was simply an answer to the Carter Malaise.  And Carter was just an answer to the Great Pardoner.  And Nixon was just in response to that testy Texan and his over-reaching foreign and domestic policies.  And Johnson/Kennedy was just an answer to The Man in the Dark Suit of the 50s, and so on and so forth.  Can't say who started it, really. 

But otherwise, it was a healthy thought-provoking rant.  To be sure, there are nasty Republicans as well.  Both democrats and republicans are heading for the poles, politically speaking.  Supersoulty has objectively pointed it out, with figures.  Thefactor just gives the other side, albeit without the figures to back it up.  (yeah, I realize it's late.  you're tired.  but seriously, folks here like numbers.) 

Mostly we just decide who offends us least.  Not the optimal situation, granted, but that's the way it is.  Apparently who offends me least is different that who offends TheFactor least.  I can live with that.

Good to see thefactor again, by the way. 

[The Duke]

And for the record this "hate filled" Liberal gave 2000 dollars to the red cross the day after the hurricane and i certainly don't care if it feeds a liberal or a conservative.

Did I say you were hate filled?  I singled out the people I was talking about, and you weren't one of them.

[dazzleman]

this, in fact, is the first time, in a long time, that you've read a coherent heartfelt yet logical rant from the other side. 

True.  Most of the rants from the other side have completely lacked any coherence.  Thefactor's comments had a certain coherence, though as you said, were very unbalanced.

Mostly we just decide who offends us least.  Not the optimal situation, granted, but that's the way it is.  Apparently who offends me least is different that who offends TheFactor least.  I can live with that.

Good to see thefactor again, by the way. 

Very true.  I have said this myself many times.  And it is good to see thefactor again.  He is one of the members whose posts I always make it a point to read, since they are usually very thoughtful and thought-provoking.  I have especially liked some of his thoughts on Jimmy Carter, though it is fair to say that I am far from a Carter fan.

[dazzleman]

Look, again, I don't remember that. I was faintly aware of politics in the early 1990s and I'm pretty sure the level of political divisiveness, the "wrestling match" if you will at that time was not as great as it is now. I do think that politics started getting nastier after 1994, and that Gingrich was a very divisive figure who never tried to reach out to Democrats in the way Clinton tried to come halfway with the GOP, and neither did his base.

The 1960s was an explosive time, to be sure. I basically agree with everything you're saying there. There are some good and some not so good aspects of traditional values. But I think there is still a lot of attitude on the conservative side. Over time conservatives have gotten better at suppressing it. But I think it's still there and it comes out from time to time.

Liberals are just rediscovering political passion, because until a few years ago the pulse of liberalism in this country was practically non existent. I think over time, if you are seeing a lot of 'attitude' in us/them now, you'll see them eventually suppressing it just like the conservatives are doing now if it's hurting them. Whether that eventually lead to a genuine comprimise or whater I don't know. But right now I just don't see it happening.

Dude, it's funny you mention the early 1990s, when the current president's father was in office.

Many liberals today express a certain fondness for George H. W. Bush.  Well let me tell you, that was nowhere in evidence when Bush was actually in office.  Liberals at the time tore him apart, despite the fact that he betrayed some of his own supporters by making certain agreements with liberals.  Bush was very collegial, and believed that some of the Democratic leaders who controlled congress at the time, people like George Mitchell, were his friends.  And they turned on him and ripped him apart.

I say all this because I think you need to recognize that it didn't start with conservative distaste for Bill Clinton.  The hatred by liberals toward Nixon, a man who really did no worse than Johnson or Kennedy in terms of corruption and abuse of power, and who was actually fairly liberal on policy matters, was beyond all reason in my opinion.  This has been going on for a long, long time, and it could be argued that it took a long time for conservatives to respond in kind to this sort of hatred that was initiated by liberals.

In any case, it is good to hear from you again, man.

[Beet]

It is interesting. I see Clinton as the most moderate modern Democrat by far, basically the last six years of his presidency the only pro-active things he did of any consequence were to sign certain parts of the GOP agenda into law. Yet conservatives hated him more than they've probably hated any Democratic president for decades--of course there haven't been too many Democratic presidents for decades, but still.

In any case I still stand by everything I said. Maybe it was incomplete, maybe the fact that I was born in 1983 caused me to leave out some previous historical transgressions by liberals, but I don't think it was wrong. I think that after the 1994 elections if the conservative movement in this country, and I don't just mean the political leadership, but I mean the grass roots, had decided, to work with Clinton that we would be in much better shape.

My post was primarily a response to John Ford. He shouldn't be so surprised if many of us liberals see a certain element of "appeasement" in Clinton's 90s centrism whose miserable failure can be seen in the events of the past five years.

Thanks for welcoming me back. We have had some great discussions and this one is pretty good too.

[Speed of Sound]

Im not filled with hate Im filled with happiness and pie!

Yay Pie!

[dazzleman]

It is interesting. I see Clinton as the most moderate modern Democrat by far, basically the last six years of his presidency the only pro-active things he did of any consequence were to sign certain parts of the GOP agenda into law. Yet conservatives hated him more than they've probably hated any Democratic president for decades--of course there haven't been too many Democratic presidents for decades, but still.

In any case I still stand by everything I said. Maybe it was incomplete, maybe the fact that I was born in 1983 caused me to leave out some previous historical transgressions by liberals, but I don't think it was wrong. I think that after the 1994 elections if the conservative movement in this country, and I don't just mean the political leadership, but I mean the grass roots, had decided, to work with Clinton that we would be in much better shape.

Thanks for welcoming me back. We have had some great discussions and this one is pretty good too.

I have often said that Clinton was the mirror image of Nixon, with a better personality, which is essentially why he survived his scandals and Nixon did not.

Both men were highly cynical in my opinion, respected their opponents more than their supporters, and both pushed the "last vote" strategy of going as far to the opposite side of the political spectrum as they could get away with without losing their base.

Nixon more-or-less unilaterally withdrew from Vietnam, something loudly demanded by liberals.  He initiated the EPA, detente with the Soviet Union, and a relationship with "Red" China.  In terms of policy, much of what he did as president was exactly what liberals wanted.  And yet they hated him passionately.

Clinton signed Republican-sponsored welfare reform that no Democrat would have dreamed of signing a few years earlier.  Yet conservatives also hated him with a passion.

All this proves that policy sometimes has little to do with how politicians are perceived.  Often, it is atmospherics.  Nixon maintained conservative atmospherics that drove liberals crazy, while Clinton maintained liberal atmospheric that drove conservatives crazy.

I think that after 1994, both Clinton and the congress had an interest in the posture of confrontation.  Whatever Clinton was willing to approve, such as ultimately welfare reform, he kept his own supporters on board by maintaining a posture of confrontation with the congress.  Ditto for Newt Gingrich, at least for a time.  Clinton could not be seen as openly cooperating with congress any more than congress could be seen as openly cooperating with Clinton.  Despite this, there were actually great things accomplished in the 1995-97 period, such as welfare reform and a balanced budget agreement.  Again, the atmospherics of hostility were an important cover for actual cooperation between the two parties.

Thefactor, I'm not sure if you saw it, but I also sent you a PM welcoming you back.

[dazzleman]

It is interesting. I see Clinton as the most moderate modern Democrat by far, basically the last six years of his presidency the only pro-active things he did of any consequence were to sign certain parts of the GOP agenda into law. Yet conservatives hated him more than they've probably hated any Democratic president for decades--of course there haven't been too many Democratic presidents for decades, but still.

In any case I still stand by everything I said. Maybe it was incomplete, maybe the fact that I was born in 1983 caused me to leave out some previous historical transgressions by liberals, but I don't think it was wrong. I think that after the 1994 elections if the conservative movement in this country, and I don't just mean the political leadership, but I mean the grass roots, had decided, to work with Clinton that we would be in much better shape.

My post was primarily a response to John Ford. He shouldn't be so surprised if many of us liberals see a certain element of "appeasement" in Clinton's 90s centrism whose miserable failure can be seen in the events of the past five years.

Thanks for welcoming me back. We have had some great discussions and this one is pretty good too.

Dude, you revised your post after I quoted it.  WTF?

I have to disagree with you about Clinton's centrism being appeasement.  The miserable failure of the Democrats in more recent years honestly comes from having abandoned the Clinton approach and taking a more hard-left approach.  Clinton was able to keep the hard left in check, and that allowed him to win two elections.  Neither party can win an election if its extreme elements are out of control, and they tend to be out of control when the party is out of power.  Once the party is out long enough, they get sick of being out of power, and shut up for long enough to win an election.  This has happened with both parties in recent years.

Like all presidents, Clinton's legacy was mixed.  He assumed office with the Democratic party firmly in control of both houses of congress, and the majority of governorships.  When he left office, both these had shifted to the Republicans.  But it could be argued that the shift to the Republicans was not because of the centrist policies of his last 6 years, but the liberal polices of his first 2 years.

The one thing that could get President Bush off the hook for the relatively poor performance of the federal government in the Hurricane Katrina rescue and relief efforts is some of the irrational garbage about the hurricane that we hear from liberals.  It is people such as these who actually ensured the president's re-election.  Because a majority of people say, whatever Bush's shortcomings are, we sure as hell don't want to support the people who are attacking him in such a hateful manner.  If they must choose between the two, they choose the president.

[12th Doctor]

Obviously us 55% that disapprove of Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina are extremists, and you 38% that approve of his response are the moderates.

It is the level to which you disapprove that makes you extreme.  First off, I have not even seen a poll with results specifically for the hurricane.  Second, of course they would disapprove, because all they hear coming from the media is negative BS.  Third, even if those are the acctual numbers, not everyone who responded has the same degree of hatred and disgust that you show.  See, what you have just shown all of us is a concrete example of how extremeist, such as yourself, very the world.  It is us vs them.  One extreme, or the other extreme.  No middle ground, just us and "the enemy".  "We hate so-and-so and this-and-that and our enemies must be completely for so-and-so and this-and-that or else they would agree with us".

[Beet]

It is interesting. I see Clinton as the most moderate modern Democrat by far, basically the last six years of his presidency the only pro-active things he did of any consequence were to sign certain parts of the GOP agenda into law. Yet conservatives hated him more than they've probably hated any Democratic president for decades--of course there haven't been too many Democratic presidents for decades, but still.

In any case I still stand by everything I said. Maybe it was incomplete, maybe the fact that I was born in 1983 caused me to leave out some previous historical transgressions by liberals, but I don't think it was wrong. I think that after the 1994 elections if the conservative movement in this country, and I don't just mean the political leadership, but I mean the grass roots, had decided, to work with Clinton that we would be in much better shape.

My post was primarily a response to John Ford. He shouldn't be so surprised if many of us liberals see a certain element of "appeasement" in Clinton's 90s centrism whose miserable failure can be seen in the events of the past five years.

Thanks for welcoming me back. We have had some great discussions and this one is pretty good too.

Dude, you revised your post after I quoted it.  WTF?

I have to disagree with you about Clinton's centrism being appeasement.  The miserable failure of the Democrats in more recent years honestly comes from having abandoned the Clinton approach and taking a more hard-left approach.  Clinton was able to keep the hard left in check, and that allowed him to win two elections.  Neither party can win an election if its extreme elements are out of control, and they tend to be out of control when the party is out of power.  Once the party is out long enough, they get sick of being out of power, and shut up for long enough to win an election.  This has happened with both parties in recent years.

Like all presidents, Clinton's legacy was mixed.  He assumed office with the Democratic party firmly in control of both houses of congress, and the majority of governorships.  When he left office, both these had shifted to the Republicans.  But it could be argued that the shift to the Republicans was not because of the centrist policies of his last 6 years, but the liberal polices of his first 2 years.

The one thing that could get President Bush off the hook for the relatively poor performance of the federal government in the Hurricane Katrina rescue and relief efforts is some of the irrational garbage about the hurricane that we hear from liberals.  It is people such as these who actually ensured the president's re-election.  Because a majority of people say, whatever Bush's shortcomings are, we sure as hell don't want to support the people who are attacking him in such a hateful manner.  If they must choose between the two, they choose the president.

Sorry

I agree with your assessments on Nixon, it's strange. The two do have some in common. In any case if there was a Nixon around today I wouldn't hate him. In Nixon's case I think it was more of a hatred of the Vietnam War and the situation he inherited which made him polarizing.

But since we've gotten off topic I've moved this over to the political essays section where it can be explored more in depth-

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=28058.0

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush is an incompetant moron who can't do sh!t right and he completely botched this up resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. There is no reason he should not be bashed for that.

So I repeat:

BUSH IS AN INCOMPETANT MORON

This is no different from what you guys would be doing if Carter was president as you say the exact same things about him.

I will NEVER support Bush. NEVER NEVER NEVER.

As a populist UK Sunday tabloid put it:

And he [Bush] has a mountain to climb if he is not to be remembered as a cackhanded, incompetent clown

Personally, I think that's rather unfair. Apparently, Bush's people, true to form, are seeking to blame local officials www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,1562882,00.html (to which some blame may be apportioned). US Presidents ought to be of the 'buck stops here' calibre; sadly, this incumbent would seem to be a  more 'pass the buck' president

Hurricane Katrina was a natural catastrophe, which has implications for America and the world at large, and, therefore, responsbility for managing its aftermath rests with the president and federal government, every bit as it does state and local government. People from all walks of life, irrespective of party politics, must pull together on this one; together with the international community providing humanitarian and technological assistance wherever it is warranted

On Saturday, a Sky News Poll asked whether Bush was up to the task of handling both Iraq and Katrina. I voted 'no' (along with 72% of those who voted). My mother was less charitable and remarked that Bush couldn't handle one task let alone both

Questions need to be asked about what happened in the run-up to (e.g. the cutting of funding) and aftermath of Katrina (e.g. rescue and relief inadequacies) - and how things can to done to ensure that catatrophic effects of such magnitude don't happen again

Dave

[dazzleman]

I agree with your assessments on Nixon, it's strange. The two do have some in common. In any case if there was a Nixon around today I wouldn't hate him. In Nixon's case I think it was more of a hatred of the Vietnam War and the situation he inherited which made him polarizing.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=28058.0

I'm glad you acknowledge that Nixon inherited the Vietnam War.  Many liberals talk as if he originated it, rather than their patron saint John F. Kennedy.

[Jake]

Hawk, the buck stops here on issues like the incompetent FEMA director and the sluggish federal response. Blaming Nagin and the city council of New Orleans for not putting a credible evacuation plan in action sooner is not passing the buck.

[MissCatholic]

john ford thinks i'm a liberal?

what opinions do ihold that make you think i am liberal?

I am more populist than liberal.

[Jake]

Nomo don't deny it. We've seen you post since last year, each time taking a new transparent "secret indentity", each time posting absolute crap arguements, and each time being an ass. Time to leave again.

[J. J.]

Nagin is exactly the kind of Democrat that I would have voted for, prior to this.  I went on Wiki and looked at his record.  He's supported Republicans at times, he's a reformer.  We was a business man, an executive with Cox Communication.  He isn't beholden to special interests; he financed most of his own campaign.

Nogin made two terrible mistakes here, which cost people (expecially poor people) their lives.  

1.  He had transportation for at least some of the people that were willing to leave, but could afford it, prior to Katrina hitting.  He didn't use it.  Neither the Blanco or Bush had that resource. We would be talkking about 5-12.5 K out prior to the storm.

2.  He should have been communicating where the people were being sheltered.  He should have been on the ground coordinating things.  He was up in Baton Rouge.

Now, Blanco should have mobilized her guard (8000 + in the state) prior to the storm; she should have asked for help sooner from all states (AZ was the only one that I can find that she did).  Bush should have activated existing airline contracts to bring them in sooner.  In both cases, however, the couldn't have been deployed successfully to help the refugees unless they knew where the refugees were.

The Big Easy was too laid back on these two points.  They were under Nogin's ability to control and the others up the the line could not.