The GOP Convention - NYC 2004

[Pangloss]

The reality is that for those of us who consider the Democrats to be apostate liberals, and who assert there is no strong, coherent voice for proper liberalism or leftism in the United States, the Dems at least put on a strong show this year.

This is an amazing statement to me, given how moderate they appeared to be at the convention. See, I don't think you understand why they moved to the middle. My guess is you see it as "selling" the voters -- acting moderate (maybe even being moderate) in order to attract voters who are otherwise undecided or slightly to the right (like myself). I disagree -- I think they move to the middle because the middle is the right place to be.

What you want, Tiassa, is no different (NO different!) from what a radical-right friend of mine wanted from Bush. He wanted Bush to win the election and then run to the right. You want Kerry to win the election and then run to the left. What the heck is the difference?

To wit, this statement from you:

It is my hope that he should win election and that the left can properly rake him over the coals when appropriate.

It's just like a similar statement I got from this friend of mine in 2000. I ignored it at the time, but sure as the swallows return to Capistrano, after the election he ran to the right like there was no tomorrow.

When I see stuff like the above, from you, it makes me wonder if Kerry's not just going to do exactly the same thing. This was, after all, what set Reagan *apart* from the crowd. Well I ask you, here's my Reagan on the left?

And yet you go on to say this:

Hell, the GOP could always surprise us. But they'll have to come up with a better idea than four more years of the same.

As if the issue here is that the GOP is any different. They aren't -- they've done exactly what all too many other politicians have done -- pander to special interests. Exactly what YOU want KERRY to do -- you just want him to pander to a different set of special interests.

 

[Undecided]

As if the issue here is that the GOP is any different. They aren't -- they've done exactly what all too many other politicians have done -- pander to special interests. Exactly what YOU want KERRY to do -- you just want him to pander to a different set of special interests.

I don’t mean to intrude here but I am bored so I might as well... I remember it was Ralph Nader who said that the Democrats are a bit better then Republicans because they appeal to a slightly less scary set of special interests. Of course the US is controlled by special interests, so it would be unrealistic to expect Tiassa for instance not to favor an interest over another. What you want to do Pangloss is to pander to the same set of special interests that have been pandered to for the last 4 years so I really don’t see a valid criticism. You aren’t living in a democracy, or meritocracy…

 

[Pangloss]

What you want to do Pangloss is to pander to the same set of special interests that have been pandered to for the last 4 years

On the contrary, I want us to make a decision not to pander to special interests at all. On either side. Yours are no better than Bush's. As for Ralph Nader, he's a hypocritical pinhead. (I mean seriously, the guy was running on a platform of forcing businesses to expose more financial data, while at the same time refusing to expose his own sources of income! No wonder the only people who voted for him were extremists who don't live in the real world.)

So you say "the US is already controlled by special interests", therefore you try and convince us that yours are better. Just like Rush Limbaugh. You guys try to convince us that the opposition is scary, but not you. Just like Rush Limbaugh. You try to tell us that everyone agrees with you, so we need to agree with you as well. Just like Rush Limbaugh.

Hmm.

I think you're a smart guy, Undecided, and I enjoy your posts. But you really are living in a dream world if you believe that most Americans agree with you. No offense, but I think most Americans would tell you to get a job and a haircut. ;-)

 

[Undecided]

On the contrary, I want us to make a decision not to pander to special interests at all.

Then the best thing you can do for your country is not to vote, and to protest the special interests and their whores known as the American political parties. American elections are based on special interests; they are the people who usually vote in large numbers.

Yours are no better than Bush's.

That all depends on who benefits from those special interests, in a utilitarian sense the democrats are much better then Republicans. Much of the soft money for the Dems, come progressive organizations that generally have helped the US transform socially into a better state then she would have been otherwise. The Democrats are good with social and bad on economics when it comes to special interests, the Republicans visa versa. The thing is that more people benefit from democratic rule then republican.

So you say "the US is already controlled by special interests", therefore you try and convince us that yours are better.

It depends where you stand on the socio-economic latter, should be poor, a minority, part of the shrinking middle class who puts economics over values then you are more likely to vote democrat. If you are white, generally well off, benefited from the Bush tax cuts, are poor yet put values over economics then the GOP is your ticket. Nothing is a universal truth, the fact is though that more Americans prosper under the Democrats.

But you really are living in a dream world if you believe that most Americans agree with you. No offense, but I think most Americans would tell you to get a job and a haircut.

I’m inclined to believe at least 50% of the US agrees with me, and I do have a job and yes I do need a hair cut!

 

[Tiassa]

This is an amazing statement to me, given how moderate they appeared to be at the convention

They're trying. "Divide and conquer," when undertaken by the left, can be frighteningly unpredictable. This year they're doing it something closer to "correctly" than the Democratic Party is known for.

It's still disappointing to me that the Democrats seem to have conceded the general economic paradigm to the cutthroats, but it's my own fault for not adapting well--I tend to overcompensate for the vilification of the notion of cooperative endeavors outside profit-making or self-interest. I find it nearly paradoxical that people should only wish to cooperate insofar as they can carve other cooperatives to pieces, whether on the battlefield or in the boardroom or from the pulpit or box seats at the fifty.

Nonetheless, I found it strange that people criticized Clinton's superficialities. Apparently the more fascinating and vital discussion regarding his policies is too complex for a critical culture accustomed to bottom-feeding paparazzo politics. But I wonder about his roll to the right in a couple of aspects: Firstly, I wonder whether he knew the Party would follow so hard as to crack the whip somewhere into Reaganite territory. It's remarkable, in my opinion, how the Democrats shook down as if they were trying to one-up the GOP; it was nearly as smart a move as demonstrating the merits of a peaceful culture with the Mother of All Bombs.

Secondly, I wonder if Clinton cared. I mean, by the end I finally had him figured out: a large part of "what's wrong with Bill" had to do with an Arkansas attorney and career public leech having a down-home, redneck chuckle. A pot smoker brings us a bloody and ridiculous drug war headed by a former General; an adulterer signs off in Defense of Marriage; the tie he wore when he copped to copping Monica ....

But that shift to the right is where Clinton's judgment showed severe fault. That charge I would have understood from the Zipper Fiends. Just as a certain personal weakness brought him to seek affirmation in an extramarital affair, so did a certain personal weakness bring him to catapult the party recklessly to the right in order to keep his own and the party's name in better standing.

Yet acknowledging the current political climate, the current educational status, and the general degree of apathy about the United States, the Democrats are the strongest statistical chance the world has against George W. Bush and the Rove School.

And why is that important?

Well, it comes down to a simple comparison: Kerry and Edwards dare claim a better way. At present, Bush is selling me four more years of what I already disapprove of. And when we get down to it, quite simply, if we take a Democrat and a Republican and cut to the chase, and pretend that someday a politician will deliver on campaign promises and even the character of the general paradigm espoused, life gets better when it's a Democrat than when it's a Republican. In most cases, at least. Can we do better than a Democratic politician's vision? In theory, yes. But the statistical chance? Very, very low, as a natural result of advocating respect for diversity. The more basic and superstitious you get, the easier it is to hold the party together. But the left faces a serious challenge that the right generally ignores when it arises: Does the left come right to endorse what will constitute a mundane "partial victory", or hold out for the big win that just ain't coming this time 'round?

And so the left will, in large part, come to meet Senator Kerry and make him President Kerry.

And President Kerry will be in a unique position. If he screws up nearly as badly as Bush, Michael Moore will probably be shot to death by the National Guard while trying to film the riots and street battles resulting from the Democratic Party aligning itself with the GOP and against the people.

This country has needed an enema for a long time, and if the Dems win the executive and then roll over and hold with the sh@t, they can expect to get hosed. Hell, simple failure to deliver will cause President Kerry more headaches than he's prepared for.

Which brings us to:

It's just like a similar statement I got from this friend of mine in 2000. I ignored it at the time, but sure as the swallows return to Capistrano, after the election he ran to the right like there was no tomorrow.

When I see stuff like the above, from you, it makes me wonder if Kerry's not just going to do exactly the same thing. This was, after all, what set Reagan *apart* from the crowd. Well I ask you, here's my Reagan on the left?

No, all I'm asking is that the Kerry administration deliver what it promises in the spirit of its own pitch. As you note, the convention came off with a fairly moderated tone, but that was as a balance. Bush has gotten us neck-deep into Iraq, Kerry has to fashion a paddle to get us out. If he just shovels it on? Oh, you can expect to hear from the left.

But asking Kerry to deliver on the vision related by the Democratic convention is hardly asking him to throw his hand in with the Fourth International.

As if the issue here is that the GOP is any different. They aren't -- they've done exactly what all too many other politicians have done -- pander to special interests. Exactly what YOU want KERRY to do -- you just want him to pander to a different set of special interests.

I wonder why you seek to trivialize special interests in such a manner. Look, there exists a special interest for almost anything that might be of political interest to anyone in the world. Naturally, some of my needs coincide with some special interests. But you need to stop living on an empty diet of media definitions. The left is not a special interest; it is a word describing a broad range of diverse people with similar concerns that are defined according to a conventionally-agreed terminology.

Project for me ... be as irresponsible as you want with it, too. But I want you to look at Enron, Dick Cheney, and the battle the GAO and others have had getting Cheney to let the people know what the special interests were up to. Tell me--which of Kerry's or Edwards' friends will screw that many people that badly and how will they do it?

Do you happen to remember the time special interests got to write the federal organic foods standards, which were so universally decried that the standard was scrapped and undertaken anew?

Maybe people just need to get past the flip side. We know lobbyists are evil, but why are activists considered pathetic? We, the people, can take our government back any time we want, but most of us think a check to a group that you would call a "special interest" covers it, or maybe a letter to the editor. Some folks think they do enough to pay taxes and vote. Others think that's too much to ask.

We can, at any time, choose to take the government back. We just need to stop being so cynical about it.

For instance, I've been looking around for a certain set of statistics in a particular political issue, but for the life of me I can't find them. Can it be that in all this argument, nobody's ever gotten around to putting one set of figures beside another and said, "Now that doesn't look right"? Mayhaps. The web is insufficient; I have to start hunting through paper to find my numbers. I mean, I can't possibly be the first person to seek this statistical correlation.

The people right now are relying on special interests and trusting them in a certain measure to do the people's job. We must remember that this is supposed to be our government. Kerry will be under additional pressure to right the wrongs of his predecessor. Any executive decision is bound to coincide with one or another special interest; this does not mean the special interest has won a policy fight. Yes, there's a huge increase of gay-rights special interest groups, but it doesn't mean Kerry, in seeking a way to recognize equal protection under the law, will have sold out to the rainbow lobby. And it assuredly won't indicate such a response to special interests as the failed GOP effort to remove equal protection from the Constitution.

And one should take heart; neither the Democrats nor the Republicans who voted down the Amendment necessarily sold to a special interest. Rather, they refused the will of an upstart voice--e.g. a coinciding rash of traditional-marriage special interests--seeking to obliterate the heart of American equality.

Until the American people step up and claim back what is theirs, we can expect a certain amount of what looks like pandering to special interests. I will be most interested to see if Kerry works to one-up the veil of secrecy around the Bush administration, but you can't go much farther into the obscene without trampling squarely into the unavoidably obvious.

 

[Pangloss]

Then the best thing you can do for your country is not to vote, and to protest the special interests and their whores known as the American political parties. American elections are based on special interests; they are the people who usually vote in large numbers.

Speaking on a theoretical rather than personal level for a moment, this is an interesting Catch-22 for what I believe to be both the most common and the most correct variety of voter. We say that 40% of the country votes Democrat and 40% votes Republican no matter what. But what does that mean? Many take it to mean that 80% of the country is ideological. I disagree -- I think 80% of the country lacks a reason to change their interpretation of how to deal with this particular Catch-22.

Ask any just about anyone on the street and they'll confirm this in just a few moments of conversation. "Yeah they guy's too far to the ____, but what can you do."

And of course society frowns upon those who do not vote -- it's a kind of social pressure, such as it is. Not tremendous, really, but still significant enough to get most people to go to the polls at least once every four years.

But I digress. The main thing I wanted to mention is that I believe American voters regularly express their disatisfaction with the status quo of special interest influence. This is why we go back and forth between Democrat and Republican presidents, not to mention other elected officials like Senators and Congressmen.

It's also a common thing in this country for people to say that they'd like to see a Democrat (or Republican) in office but only if congress were controlled by Republicans (or Democrats) (the converse, if you take my meaning). This is just another example of moderetes trying to deal with that Catch-22.

The thing is that more people benefit from democratic rule then republican.

I disagree. I would agree that Democrats are more prone to attempt direct appeal to the masses, but I don't know that it's demonstrably the case that either side is more historically beneficial than the other.

By the way, I would never make a statement like that. And that is why (and I'm going to ask you to remember this) you're wrong when you say I'm not a centrist. And why I can get away with saying you're not really "Undecided". (Imposter!) ;-)

Only ideologues believe that everyone else is an ideologue.

I do have a job and yes I do need a hair cut!

Well you're one-up on me. (grin)



Tiassa,

Nonetheless, I found it strange that people criticized Clinton's superficialities. Apparently the more fascinating and vital discussion regarding his policies is too complex for a critical culture accustomed to bottom-feeding paparazzo politics. But I wonder about his roll to the right in a couple of aspects: Firstly, I wonder whether he knew the Party would follow so hard as to crack the whip somewhere into Reaganite territory. It's remarkable, in my opinion, how the Democrats shook down as if they were trying to one-up the GOP; it was nearly as smart a move as demonstrating the merits of a peaceful culture with the Mother of All Bombs.

Damn, that was well put. You really have a way with words. (The whole post was interesting, but the quote above especially so.)

the riots and street battles resulting from the Democratic Party aligning itself with the GOP and against the people

Anyway, I disagree, I think what'll happen is the wagons'll get circled for Kerry just like they've been circled for Bush and for Clinton before him. Clinton didn't leave office with a 53% approval rating because 53% of the country approved of his term, he did so because of wagon-circling. Note that his approval rating has gone *down* (albeit not much) since leaving office, wheras Reagan, which left office with a lower approval rating, rose 20 points even before he died. To me this is a very telling statistic.

No, all I'm asking is that the Kerry administration deliver what it promises in the spirit of its own pitch.

Do you expect him to lower taxes to 98% of Americans and 99% of businesses?
Do you expect him to continue nation-building Iraq?
Do you expect him to support offshore drilling in Florida, which environmentalists oppose?
Do you expect him to *increase* federal subsidies to the major auto manufacturers as "incentives" to build alternative-fuel cars, which the left has consistently opposed?
Do you expect him to "make America energy independent of the middle east" by increasing production in Alaska, something he used to oppose?
Do you expect him to protect gun-ownership rights, as he says he will?

I do. And if he doesn't, he'll hear about it in 2008. And remember -- my vote is worth a heck of a lot more than yours.

But I want you to look at Enron, Dick Cheney, and the battle the GAO and others have had getting Cheney to let the people know what the special interests were up to. Tell me--which of Kerry's or Edwards' friends will screw that many people that badly and how will they do it?

You're kidding, right?

First of all, corporations spend on both parties, and do so in relatively equal terms. So right there you lose. But beyond that, Kerry's been in the Senate for, what, 20 years? And Edwards is a former personal injury trial lawyer. Come on, these guys are no angels.

Okay, neither was the leader of a Halliburton. But that doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot -- Halliburton isn't Microsoft. I'm sure these guys have plenty of ties to big multinational corporations. You really don't need me to do your googling here, do you? Can we not agree with this on face value? Come on.

 

[Undecided]

I disagree. I would agree that Democrats are more prone to attempt direct appeal to the masses, but I don't know that it's demonstrably the case that either side is more historically beneficial than the other.

Then you seem to have forgotten the Great Depression, if I remember correctly it was Hoover who insisted that the economy would correct itself, and everything would be ok. It was the Republicans who put up 50% tariffs which only exacerbated the depression even further. It was FDR who not only decreased the social impact of the Depression but almost single-handedly saved the US from a fate worse then death. We also forget about the democrats in the 60’s who revolutionized the social dynamic in the country, from declearing a war against poverty, and giving the blacks the right to vote everywhere. Republicans have Lincon…

And why I can get away with saying you're not really "Undecided". (Imposter!) ;-)

I consider myself a liberal and conservative in some areas, and I would vote for a republican candidate if he were good, alas McCain. You don’t have to be right or left to see Bush is bad news.

 

[Pangloss]

One example does not a broad generalization make, and there's far more to both the Democrat and Republican parties than just a passle of presidents.

I consider myself a liberal and conservative in some areas, and I would vote for a republican candidate if he were good, alas McCain. You don’t have to be right or left to see Bush is bad news.

That's fine, I don't have any problem with either sentence.


Hey, why do you want the South to rise again? Didn't we already rise?

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2002/June/erJune.10/6_10_02blackbros.html

(Looks like an excellent book, by the way, although I've only read the first chapter so far.)

 

[hypewaders]

"You don’t have to be right or left to see Bush is bad news. "
... or independent, or libertarian, or anything. Times are now much too dangerous for making a stand against special interests and the woeful lack of viable alternative parties/voices. If the Bush Administration cannot be stopped now, we may never get another chance for further reforms with our country intact as we know it. I'm not ready to resign our fate to a precipitous decline, just so we can eventually get our shit together with what remains of a once great nation. I want the USA to prosper and lead, and on the present hubristic course, geoeconomic/geopolitical realities are going to give us a merciless beating. Let's axe Bush, and live to fight the good fight against both the Democrat and Republican railroaders another day.

 

[Undecided]

One example does not a broad generalization make, and there's far more to both the Democrat and Republican parties than just a passle of presidents.

True, but it was you who stated that democrats haven’t helped the US more then Republicans. The Democrats have historically moved the US forward, hey FDR was elected three times, and if he lived probably a fourth time as well. JFK as well saved the world; let’s not forget that as well. Republicans historically have very few such presidents; last night on the Daily Show Bill Clinton said “with democrats…you win when people think” (not exact quote). Republicans just really don’t have the same history, of egalitarianism, and really have only one good president…Lincoln.

Hey, why do you want the South to rise again? Didn't we already rise?

No you are still part of the union, I want an independent south!

 

[Pangloss]

I'm sure you see it that way, but since you don't consider any Republican accomplishments to be accomplishments, and Democrats to be a positive factor on balance, there's no basis for objective comparison.

So that's a judgement call, not an objective measurement.

 

[Pangloss]

Actually let me rephrase that. You're saying that Republican negatives outweigh the positives, not that Republicans have "never done any good". I understand what you're saying, I'm just pointing out that it's entirely a judgement call on your part to say that.

 

[Undecided]

You're saying that Republican negatives outweigh the positives, not that Republicans have "never done any good".

I am certain Republicans have done well, of course but in a larger perspective the democrats especially in the 20th century have been a much greater force for good not only in the US but the world. For instance it was a Republicans who blocs the League of Nations resolution which could have prevented WWII if the US was actively involved. Guess who was the one who came up with the idea of the League of Nations, a democrat named Woodrow Wilson one of the most educated presidents the US ever had. It was under FDR that the US turned the corner, if the US stayed with Hoover the country would not have gotten out of the depression at all, FDR is arguably the greatest US president. After FDR’s death, Truman who got the UN up and running and who knows how many wars that prevented, we know that Truman stuck right up to Stalin in the Berlin blockade, and saved the city, Truman saved Western Europe from Soviet domination with the Marshall Plan, wasn’t the GOP against that? JFK not only saved the US from Soviet missiles in Cuba, he prevented nuclear war. He wanted to get out of Vietnam; he wanted to get rid of segregation etc. Lyndon Johnson the idiot that he was stayed in Vietnam but he did increase the rights of Americans across the board. Compared to Republicans the Democrats shaped your country for what it is today, for better or for worse. The judgment call is that of history not my personal interpretation, if so tell me any factual errors.

 

[Pangloss]

Pointless. I could list 50 Democratic negatives and you can list fifty more Republican negatives but that won't make your point factual and objective. For that to be true *all* positives and negatives would have to be considered and weighed fully and objectively. So there's really no point -- it's a personal opinion, and you should just leave it that.

Even an historian whom everone would agree is objective and impartial would have trouble demonstrating your assertion. It'd be debated on an assessment level, and in the end put forth as that historian's assertion and nothing more.

 

[Tiassa]

You're kidding, right?

Do you expect him to lower taxes to 98% of Americans and 99% of businesses?
Do you expect him to continue nation-building Iraq?
Do you expect him to support offshore drilling in Florida, which environmentalists oppose?
Do you expect him to *increase* federal subsidies to the major auto manufacturers as "incentives" to build alternative-fuel cars, which the left has consistently opposed?
Do you expect him to "make America energy independent of the middle east" by increasing production in Alaska, something he used to oppose?
Do you expect him to protect gun-ownership rights, as he says he will?

We'll have to put together a topic on that.

And remember -- my vote is worth a heck of a lot more than yours

(chortle!)

Now ... onto more relevant issues, sort of:

Anyway, I disagree, I think what'll happen is the wagons'll get circled for Kerry just like they've been circled for Bush and for Clinton before him. Clinton didn't leave office with a 53% approval rating because 53% of the country approved of his term, he did so because of wagon-circling. Note that his approval rating has gone *down* (albeit not much) since leaving office, wheras Reagan, which left office with a lower approval rating, rose 20 points even before he died. To me this is a very telling statistic.

• We can expect a certain amount of wagon-circling from the party core.
• Clinton's approval rating probably would have been higher if the country didn't throw a hissy-fit over a blowjob and waste $40 million in the process
• What Reagan's approval rating tells us is that it's quite possible to reduce such things to mere slogans; watch Clinton's approval rating climb as the years go by

Hell, if we can extol the moral virtues of a liar, a betrayer, a hypocrite, and a thief of Reagan's caliber, history will treat Slick Willy kindly enough.

You seem to be overlooking that hyped-up, frothing part of the left that the right so enjoys decrying.

Think of the GOP for a moment. Republicans can deviate from the economic platform and survive. But heaven help them if they deviate from the moral or jingoistic planks. The left will be unforgiving of any deviations by a Kerry administration. Of course, the right may not notice since the only people worth paying attention to, in their case, is that Democratic core that will always circle the wagons. The GOP does the nation a disservice on those occasions by seeking to limit the scope of debate in order to foster its own political gain.

You're kidding, right?

Simple question: should Cheney cough up the energy notes?

First of all, corporations spend on both parties, and do so in relatively equal terms. So right there you lose.

You're kidding, right?

I mean, that's rather quite naive, Pangloss.

Special Interest comparison:

• Left: Equal protection for all; Right: Suspend equal protection for person X based on the gender of person Y
• Left: Protect the environment, as we need it to carry on; Right: Sack the environment in favor of more money
• Left: Equal opportunity equals equal opportunity; Right: Equal opportunity equals the preservation of inequality
• Left: Free speech; Right: You are free to praise us.
• Left: A person has the right to govern their own body; Right: The government should dictate morals and thereby remove your right to govern your own body.
• Left: Reduce crime; Right: Shoot first, ask questions later ... but only if you don't kill the person.
• Left: Tax and spend? Who? Us? That's what governments do; Right: Tax and spend? Who? Us? Never. Cut taxes, increase spending, leave it for the kids to clean up.
• Left: Restraint and justice in military action; Right: You're either wit' us or agin' us.

I just find it incredibly naive to take a phrase like "special interests" and trivialize it. I don't see the special interests as being so nearly uniform as you present them.

Think about Cheney for a moment; all anyone wants is to see the record of certain discussions he had with people who helped bring down the economy on the grounds that these very same folks attempted to cause the nation's energy policy to be written to standards that, well ... we see what they equal now.

How bizarre is this country when I can go to jail indefinitely for giving money to charity, but Cheney should not be questioned about the false financial statements Halliburton released during his tenure as CEO? Does that sound "equal" to you, Pangloss?

But beyond that, Kerry's been in the Senate for, what, 20 years? And Edwards is a former personal injury trial lawyer. Come on, these guys are no angels.

Holding the reality of the American political arena against the politicians is usually a fair assertion, but in this case, what you're pointing out is a wash. You seem to object to what Kerry might do, whereas I object to what Bush has already done and seeks to continue doing. So let's take a look at our own interests in that case:

• Pangloss: Objects to what Kerry might do according to Pangloss' worst fears; Tiassa: Objects to the conduct and history of the Bush administration and rejects the campaign's plea to endure four more years of what is already on the record.

Yeah. Real equal, Pangloss.

Okay, neither was the leader of a Halliburton. But that doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot -- Halliburton isn't Microsoft. I'm sure these guys have plenty of ties to big multinational corporations

So the answer is to fear what they have not done yet and might do?

Halliburton isn't Microsoft, and yet neither is Bill Gates running for president.

You really don't need me to do your googling here, do you?

Actually, given some of the "concerns" you raised in the past, it might be useful to do some Googling for yourself.

Can we not agree with this on face value? Come on.

So far, I cannot agree with your blanket trivialization of the special-interests issue; I cannot agree with your denunciation of things people haven't done yet; I certainly do not agree that what might possibly happen in the future is equivalent to what has already taken place.

Nonetheless, it really is an artful effort you're about, Pangloss. First it was the idea that "independent thinkers" should never draw functional conclusions; now it's the apparent equality of separate and unequal intentions.

Undecided noted Clinton's Daily Show appearance last night. Did you happen to catch it? It was a great appearance, and reminded me why I voted for the man twice, and why he still receives a portion of my political affections. In fact, the quote/paraphrase Undecided raised, "with Democrats, you win when people think," is exactly the difference you're overlooking. Enlightened liberalism is a tougher road to go than successful conservatism; whether or not the Democratic party ever achieves enlightened liberalism is its own question. In the meantime, though, there is a difference between an appeal to the authority of reality and an appeal to myopic emotion.

 

[Undecided]

Pointless. I could list 50 Democratic negatives and you can list fifty more Republican negatives but that won't make your point factual and objective.

It’s not quantity it’s quality that matters Pangloss. The bads of the GOP are worse then the Democrats, and the past 100 years has proven that to be true. For all the rhetoric that you spewed it doesn’t disprove that in a greater perspective of history (irregardless of political affiliation) Democrats have proven to be better leaders for America consistently. The only good Republican presidents of the 20th century are Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon (in terms of foreign policy), and the Reagan legacy is left up to history still. But overall you cannot deny that America is the way it is today because of the Democrats.

 

[Pangloss]

Well that's your opinion. Mine differs. I can indeed deny that; in my opinion the slate is pretty well balanced.

 

[Undecided]

Merely saying it doesn't make it true Pangloss prove me wrong... that sounded very ideological to me, merely discounting my account because you believe otherwise.

 

[Pangloss]

Tiassa if you're not going to debate me on point then I'm really not interested. Slinging mud at each other doesn't get us far, and I've already said I respect your opinion even though it differs from mine. If you don't care to return the favor there's not much I can do about it. (shrug)

 

[Pangloss]

Merely saying it doesn't make it true Pangloss prove me wrong..

It was your assertion, not mine.