Quote from: McrowSo in the end we have:

Two corrupt parties, though one is worse than the other.
One party of action
One party of inaction

Or as a friend of mine once put it:

"Without fail.  When the Democrats are elected into office, they start fucking anything that moves.  When the Republicans are elected into office, they immediately start raiding the till.  With-out-fail."

!i!

Quote from: McrowThat's pretty much it bill. Republicans are horribley corrupt, Dems are too but to a lesser degree. Dems want to change some things, some of which I agree with others I don't. Dems have a habit of pointing the finger at the Republicans for the failures of the country but have no balls stand up and do something. If Republicans are as bad as the Dems would have you think why don't they do anything?

So in the end we have:

Two corrupt parties, though one is worse than the other.
One party of action
One party of inaction

Is taking actions and making the wrong move worse than taking no action and allowing the mistake to happen? I'm not sure. In some respects I admire the Republicans for trying to do something  even if they fail or make a poor decision. Sure beats the Dems sitting on their thumbs, but atleast they don't screw things up that way.

Yeah, Bill, I might be over-analyzing - perhaps it's a pet peeve of mine.

But look at what Mcrow's saying - one is more corrupt than the other, one is weak.  Look at the focus on the republicans making moves, but mistaken ones. The judgment that Mcrow makes against democrats is one of process and/or  initiative.  Though his most specific attack against republicans is character (which he also rightly slaps the democrats with but to a lesser degree), he also references them making the wrong policy decisions.  No such reference against democrats.

Perhaps I'm reading between the lines here, but I get the sense that Mcrow is more sympathetic to the policy goals of the democrats than the republicans.  I'm sorry if that rubs people the wrong way, but in general that's not considered middle of the road.

Quote from: WerekoalaBut they both did things policy-wise that I liked, and things policy-wise I didn't like. Anyone who says they completely support ANY politican is lazy, dishonest, or not paying attention.

I'm all those things, but I don't support anything.

Quote from: HinterWeltJim,
You are over analyzing. He is bashing the republicans and the democrats. Essentially calling the republicans corrupt and the dems weak. Which you consider the worse is left up to you. I have issues with both points.

Bill

Neither of which, unfortunately, have anything to do with being "middle of the road." Neither address policies or perspectives.

Unless I missed the memo where middle-of-the-road came to mean disliking politicians.  If that's the case, you'd be hard pressed to get less than 90% of the country to agree...

Quote from: CallousBut he can be ideologically middle of the road and dislike the current administation.  You seem to argue that he needs a balanced list of things he hates about each party to be middle of the road.

Of course he can.  I don't mean to say, or imply, that he can't.

I'm saying the list of things he offers to show he's middle of the road have, well, nothing to do with being middle of the road, ideologically (which is, IMHO, implied in the very use of the term "middle-of-the-road").

Quote from: James J SkachNeither of which, unfortunately, have anything to do with being "middle of the road." Neither address policies or perspectives.

Unless I missed the memo where middle-of-the-road came to mean disliking politicians.  If that's the case, you'd be hard pressed to get less than 90% of the country to agree...

Well, exactly.  He's not made any policy comments, just comments about Democrats and Republicans.  Based on that, how can you declare he's not "middle of the road" with regards to policy?  Well, whatever...

edit:  Ah, I saw your post after I typed this one.  I guess I did not take his comments on the two parties as relevant to support his "middle of the road" comment.  I view them as separate commentary.  i.e. he's middle of the road with repsect to policy, but possibly dislikes the Republicans more than the Democrats.

All of which, btw, is pretty irrelavant and I'm sorry I took the thread where I did.  I take Mcrow at his word when he says:

Quote from: McrowWhen I say I'm in the center what I mean is that I don't vote strictly GOP or DFL agenda. I also don't rule out voting for someone based on their party. My political manifesto bridges both parties, I have some very conservative views and some very liberal views but most of my views are closer to the middle.

Y'know... The conversation seems to have moved on, but from what I saw, I have strong doubts that most of the posters, particularly in the earliest posts, bothered to read the actual article.

I do suspect they read the title, saw the poster and went from there.

'Cause I'm confused, its not like it was a glowing pean to the Bush years or written by a Republican pundit... least that I am aware of, yet the tone of the posts started attacking it as if it were both.

Which, given what it actually SAYS strikes me as singularly ironic....

Quote from: James J SkachJesus, now you too WK? I wish people would stop with this shit.  It's what poisons the debate. It's absolutely impossible to agree with a candidate/politician on all counts? If you do you're lazy?

I don't happen to agree with anybody about much of anything; but I don't write it off as impossible.

Oh, and it's possible to completely support a politician and still disagree with specific policy decisions.  Hell, you make the distinction, sort of, in this very post....

I can find at least one thing to disagree with in any politicans platform and policies. Its usually not very hard at all. I should have said "agree with" rather than "support", because that's what I meant. I can support a politican I don't agree with.

Quote from: James J SkachYeah, Bill, I might be over-analyzing - perhaps it's a pet peeve of mine.

But look at what Mcrow's saying - one is more corrupt than the other, one is weak.  Look at the focus on the republicans making moves, but mistaken ones. The judgment that Mcrow makes against democrats is one of process and/or  initiative.  Though his most specific attack against republicans is character (which he also rightly slaps the democrats with but to a lesser degree), he also references them making the wrong policy decisions.  No such reference against democrats.

Well, the reason why there isn't and reference to wrong policy decisions is that as result of being pansies(inaction) they are not in a position of power that would allow them to make bad policy. Given the opportunity, the Dems would likely screw things up some as well.

QuotePerhaps I'm reading between the lines here, but I get the sense that Mcrow is more sympathetic to the policy goals of the democrats than the republicans.  I'm sorry if that rubs people the wrong way, but in general that's not considered middle of the road.

Not really. Like I said I'm for some things the Repubs are doing and for some things the Dems are doing and against many things both are doing. It just so happens that the stuff I disagree on with the Repubs make me more angry because of the way they do it. Firing judges without cause,outing CIA agents to retaliate,trying to get someone to sign a legal document while they are in the hospital and heavily druged inorder to further your political agenda and general lack of respect for the laws and power it gives the president and also restricts them just rubs me the wrong way. It just reeks of "I'm above the law".

Quote from: McrowNot really. Like I said I'm for some things the Repubs are doing and for some things the Dems are doing and against many things both are doing. It just so happens that the stuff I disagree on with the Repubs make me more angry because of the way they do it. Firing judges without cause,outing CIA agents to retaliate,trying to get someone to sign a legal document while they are in the hospital and heavily druged inorder to further your political agenda and general lack of respect for the laws and power it gives the president and also restricts them just rubs me the wrong way. It just reeks of "I'm above the law".

I assume you are referring to the AG firings from last year? Not judges but Prosecutors as I recall.

I feel compelled to point out that it is a LONG standing tradition for all the Federal prosecutors of a previous administration to be fired and re-appointed by an incoming president. Bush did not do so, but rather retained all of the Clinton appointees until the famously 'unwarrented' firings.  Sounds like the prosecutors came out ahead by five or six years of work they normally wouldn't have gotten, actually.

If you are referring to some other firing, please let me know. As I understand it the Executive does not have the power to remove sitting Judges at any level.

Quote from: jhkimPersonally, I would prefer more respect for the office of the President.  In past decades, Presidents would be given a little more respect even when they were thought wrong.  They were given more leeway for missteps in their private lives or public speeches.  I guess we can blame Nixon mainly for destroying this, and general encroachment of television.  However, it got significantly worse for Clinton, in my opinion.  

I think the hatred of Bush Jr. is far more sane than the hatred shown to Clinton.

You're not talking about respect for the office of President, you're talking about having respect for the person as an individual, and judging them as a President rather than as a person. That's as it should be. If someone is employed to do a job, you judge them on their performance of that job, what they do in their private life, their personal demeanour and likeability, etc, should be irrelevant.

However, I don't think any current or former Presidents are in a position to complain. With great power comes great responsibility, it's said, and with great perks comes great media attention and invasion of privacy. If you did not have a country where the President could give contracts in the tens of billions of dollars to his buddies, then you would not have a country which made fun of his poor oratical skills, and vice versa.

Now, if you think they deserve respect and a refraining from criticism and mockery simply by virtue of their office, why then you may as well give up this business of elections and just have them be an inherited aristocracy. "You can't speak that way about the King!" I don't think that - I think they deserve respect as individuals, and ought to be judged in their performance of their office, and nothing else.

When a blowjob is more important than the bombing of another country, when holding a kid's book upside-down is more important than the detention of thousands of people without charge or trial, then I think your democracy is debased, and you are suffering from the tyranny of apathy. Solzhenitsyn once said of the Soviet Union that one part of a tyranny was that trivialities are shouted from the rooftops while great truths are hidden. Great truths don't have to explicitly suppressed by someone with a red pen, they can just be submerged under the weight of trivialities, and by a press afraid to dissent.

That is not to say that the US is suffering from a tyranny. But it is to say that it is no longer a democracy. There are many steps in-between.

Luckily, it can be easily solved. All it takes is the effort of the people. Few have ever written their congresspeople or senators. You can't complain they're not listening if you're not speaking to them. That is of course not enough in itself to effect change; but it is a first step. Many in the US speak of having firearms for the sake of armed rebellion in case of tyranny. But I'm sceptical that someone would have an armed rebellion if they can't even be bothered writing a letter to their congressperson, or casting a vote every couple of years. Apathy is the greatest tyrant.

What is needed is not respect for any particular elected office, but respect for yourselves. When the United States was founded, Americans could only be kept oppressed by being chained and flogged. Now all it takes is a TV.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem is that its the republicans who poisoned the well with their Clinton Hatred, long before anyone had heard of George W. Bush outside of his failed careers in the oil and baseball businesses.

And the people who hated Clinton justified it based on the liberals who poisoned the well with their Reagan Hatred, long before anyone had heard of Bill Clinton outside of those who watched his long-winded speech in front of the Atlanta Democratic National Convention in 1988.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor the republicans to now be the ones trying to call for reasoned tolerance, while they tear their opponents to shreds, is the height of hypocrisy.

To be honest, I don't really care if you practice tolerance and I think you are missing the point.  You are correct that the right was caught up in irrational Clinton Hatred, and what did it get them?  Clinton was a two-term President.  His wife is leading the Democrat pack as a candidate for 2008.  What has the left's irrational Bush Hatred get them?  Bush is a two-term President.  And while Bush primarily ran against Al Gore (since Clinton was still fairly popular), Democrats are going to do the stupid thing and run against Bush, who isn't running.  To be honest, I'm pretty pleased about that.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean please, Republicans regularly accuse Democrats of being traitors, collaborating with the enemy, wanting American troops to fail, and "supporting the terrorists".

And Democrats regularly accuse Republicans of trying to destroy the world.

Quote from: RPGPunditHell, Clinton should have been more like Bush is now. He should have portrayed his enemies as traitors to america, and declare himself untouchable.

That's pretty much what his supporters did, talking about the impeachment as a coup.  I know they are no longer interested in "moving on" but let's not forget how "MoveOn.org" got it's name.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo please, do get a grip: What strikes me as so absolutely deceitful about this is that whenever a right winger complains about the "Hatred toward the president", what they really want is for Bush to be above all criticism.

You think the author is a "right winger" who wants Bush to be above all criticism, boy did you miss the point of the article.  But that's OK.  Irrational hatred does that to people, which is the point of the article.

Quote from: HaffrungBut Bush has also demonstrated himself to be hopelessly incompetent.

So hopelessly incompetent that he was elected to a second term?  So hopelessly incompetent that he hasn't been impeached despite having control of neither house of Congress?  So hopelessly incompetent that the surge in Iraq is producing enough results that it's worrying Democrats?

Ann Richards hammered Bush for being hopelessly incompetent before he beat her for the governorship of Texas.  Al Gore hammered Bush for being hopelessly incompetent but who became President and who is doing guest spots on NBC?  John Kerry hammered Bush for being hopelessly incompetent but who won the election?  And if Iraq keeps turning around, just how hopelessly incompetent are the people who bet the farm on Iraq being a failure going to look?

So who is really hopelessly incompetent here?  The fool or the fools who can't defeat the fool?

Quote from: jhkimI guess we can blame Nixon mainly for destroying this, and general encroachment of television.

The hatred of Nixon came before Watergate.  There was plenty of hatred of LBJ, too.  If you want to point a finger, consider the word "counterculture".

Quote from: jhkimI think the hatred of Bush Jr. is far more sane than the hatred shown to Clinton.

And that misses the point of the article which is that irrational hate is simply that -- irrational.