Say Anything Blog

Although not as strong a supporter of the Republicans as you, Rob, I fully agree with your point about them being the lesser of two evils.

I’ve said before that I tend to vote Republican because they are taking us to hell in a slower boat than the Democrats.  It isn’t that I particularly like the Republicans, just that they row slower than the other guys.

As to your hope that the Democrats hit rock bottom soon, I think that time is just around the bend, but....not until after the upcoming Supreme Court battle.

The Democrats are in the unenviable position of being on the wrong (read that “obstructionist") side of virtually everything: the war on terror, gitmo, social security, taxes, etc.

America needs two viable, healthy, and clearly defined political parties--especially well defined in what each stands for (not stands against).  We the people are poorer when one party is so weak that the other feels little need to talk to us about the issues of our times.

Let me ask you this, when was the last time you heard the President or some high-ranking administration member spend time explaining to us why we are doing some of the things we do?  I’m not talking sound bites, I’m talking a real, meat-and-potatoes policy speech?  We know next to nothing about Bush’s ‘real’ position on illegal immigration, enemy combatants, economic spending, foreign policy, not even why it’s critical to do what we’re doing in Iraq.

The reason there is such a dirth of dialog is because the Republicans have nothing to gain by engaging the public.  The Democrats offer no meaningful alternative so why chance explaining anything?  It’s just going to be obstructed and nit-picked for political gain.

Zell Miller chose a prophetic title for his book, A National Party No More.  Currently the Democrats are not a national party.  And the county is worse off for it.

Regards…

I don’t think we’ll again see a 3rd viable party, Rob.  The two-party system has become too entrenched in our national psyche.  Certainly the Libertarians will never be a major player.  They can only exist as a fringe party until/unless the’re willing to moderate some of their stances on issues.

Regards…

Never say never, LTM.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

LTM - 3rd party candidates essentially tipped the ‘68, ‘92, ‘00 elections and I think you’ll see the same results in the future. I think you’ll seriously see either a 3rd party left liberal/Green party or third party moderate/cons Dem party arise depending on the Dems course.

I’m not as much of a hard-bitten Republican as you might think.  Had the Democrats nominated anyone other than a limp-wristed fop who tried to be on both sides of every issue down the line I may not have voted for Bush again.  But they didn’t, so I did.

Were the Democrats to nominate a Zell Miller (or even, maybe, a Joe Lieberman, though I’m not sure how I’d like some of his domestic policies) I’d be voting Democrat.

You said that our nation is best served with two strong political parties.  I agree, though I wouldn’t mind seeing three or even four well-defined political parties.  I wish the Libertarians would get serious, for sure.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You guys are right.  I think if the Democratic Party had things together enough they would be able to put more pressure on the Administration to explain themselves.  For me, the reason I distrust the president is because he refuses to explain things and to answer simple questions.  And he can get away with it when the competition is loonier than he is.  If he was forced by fear of losing support to talk to the American people, I believe he would actually gain more support.  People would understand where he’s coming from.

Now, on the other side of the coin.  I think the Repubicans are also becoming more extreme, which is why they still only have a weak majority.  I believe and hope third parties will play a bigger role in the next elections as well.  People in the center need to be represented better and given more choices than Theocracy vs. Socialism as things seems to be headed.

Its hard not to move in the other direction when some Democrats can’t recognize that Republicans aren’t “the enemy� but rather fellow Americans.

Now, it’s not as if the Dems have a monopoly on name-calling.  Modern GOPpers do the very same thing; the term “Feminazis” is still alive and well, even on this board, and words like “treason” are tossed out without much thought to what that word really means.  Even our “founding fathers” used some pretty nasty terms to describe each other.  That’s never going to go away, the challenge is in overcoming the hyperbole, a trait that can be attributed equally to both sides.

I just cannot believe that the entire population of this country can be so neatly divided into two major parties.  In so many conversations with my conservative friends, we end up agreeing on so much, but since we’re limited to two parties, we never come together.  It’s almost as if the two-party system is perpetuated so as to maintain the balance of power.  One party may dominate the other for a while, but for the most part, the margins between the parties are very thin.  Perhaps a third party will be too popular and cause an imbalance?

I think the Repubicans are also becoming more extreme, which is why they still only have a weak majority.

I could go along with that idea, but I think its more symptomatic of Democrat invective than anything else.  I know that sounds like “They started it,” but when the other side is constantly referring to you as fascist, racist, evil, etc. its hard not to move in the other direction.  Its hard not to move in the other direction when you hear the other side comparing our troops to Nazis and our elected leader to Hitler.  Its hard not to move in the other direction when you see the protesters from the other side cheer for our troops defeat and burning our flag.

Its hard not to move in the other direction when some Democrats can’t recognize that Republicans aren’t “the enemy” but rather fellow Americans.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’ll not claim that either party has the right to the moral high-ground when it comes to unthinking rhetoric and hyperbole,

That’s true, but then you begin a litany of abuses committed by Dems.  I could toss back a list of Republican excesses, but doesn’t that just perpetuate the cycle?  Isn’t that what we’re complaining about in the first place?

Lets not forget which side’s protesters root for the defeat of our troops.

I have participated in several anti-war protests, and have never met one person who “roots for the defeat of our troops.” This mischaracterization does you as much of a disservice as Moore does to himself with his rhetoric.  Your criticism of hyperbole is undercut by your own use of it.

The Democrats will either stop embracing the Howard Dean/Michael Moore elements in their midst or they will be marginalized as a political movement.

A fair comment, but again, the GOP has their fair share of extremists, who continue to grow in power.  Moderates such as Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and John Warner are feeling their pressure.

LTM - 3rd party candidates essentially tipped the ‘68, ‘92, ‘00 elections and I think you’ll see the same results in the future.

Even if I accept your premise (and I could easily argue it was candidate personality, not party affiliation in at least two of those you list), tipping the balance in 3 of the last 12 (since 1960) elections is no threat to the two-party system.

The Democrats would have to literally implode in order for another party to rise to power, in which case the Dems would be as marginalized as other 3rd parties are now.  The net result still being two major parties.

I’m not saying a 3rd candidate can’t make a difference, s/he can.  But a third party, as in a continuing, ongoing, viable presence?  Not likely.

Regards…

Now, it’s not as if the Dems have a monopoly on name-calling. Modern GOPpers do the very same thing; the term “Feminazisâ€? is still alive and well, even on this board, and words like “treasonâ€? are tossed out without much thought to what that word really means.

I’ll not claim that either party has the right to the moral high-ground when it comes to unthinking rhetoric and hyperbole, but lets not forget which party’s chairman has called the Republicans evil and speaks about how he hates them.  Lets not forget which side’s protesters root for the defeat of our troops.  Lets not forget which side must claim Michael Moore, who once favorably compared the terrorists to America’s minutemen.

Partisan bickering has existed from the days of Hamilton’s federalists vs. Jefferson’s republicans, but of late the Democrats have taken that bickering to new heights, or lows to be more accurate.

The bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is this: The Democrats will either stop embracing the Howard Dean/Michael Moore elements in their midst or they will be marginalized as a political movement. 

To the great detriment of this country, I’m afraid.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

A fair comment, but again, the GOP has their fair share of extremists, who continue to grow in power.

Really?  Who are these extremists?  Ken Mehlman, the RNC party chair?

Thus far you’ve made your points by trying to say that both sides are, of late, equally bad in the invective department.  But I don’t think that’s so.  Where’s Howard Dean’s counter-part on the right, calling Democrats evil?  Saying that he hates Democrats and all they stand for?

That person doesn’t exist.  Like I said, Republicans aren’t always right and can’t always claim the moral high ground when it comes to this stuff, but any reasonable observer will tell you that the party who has an over-the-top rhetoric problem is the Democrats.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Here are a few:
Tom DeLay
Richard Mellon Scaife
Swiftboat Veterans for Truth
Karl Rove

It’s not that both parties are guilty of rhetorical excess LATELY; I would say it’s been that way since the Reagan era.  I’m not saying the Dems aren’t bad.  It’s just funny to see people who live in glass houses throw stones.  Pick up anything by Ann Coulter for a good example of over-the-top.

MI says: Swiftboat Veterans for Truth

Just because what they say makes you angry, doesn’t make what they say false.  In fact, charges that Kerry falsified his record didn’t even originate with this campaign… they have followed him for as long as he has run on the basis of his war record.

That said, I actually read John O’Neil’s book, and there were some sections which were over the top and did not, I think, represent the consensus view of the SBVTers.  But the gist of the documents make it clear that the streamlined selection process for the DNC candidate allowed Kerry to slip through without a thorough vetting, and he very definitely had some big skeletons in his closet.

I am no fan of either Tom Delay (and Bill Frist), and would love to see the RNC show some backbone and remove them.

So exactly what has Karl Rove said that has got you incensed?  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard him talk.  (I don’t watch broadcast or cable news which may explain why.)

Ok, MI, but lets get a bit more specific.  What exactly have these gentlemen done or said that in anyway compares with Howard Deans comments within the last year?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Gluskape said, People in the center need to be represented better and given more choices than Theocracy vs. Socialism as things seems to be headed.

Where is this “Theocracy” that you talk of?

modern instances said, Moderates such as Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and John Warner are feeling their pressure.

Can you define “moderate” for us please?  It appears as if you are saying that though a “moderate” is someone who calls himself a Republican but votes Democrat.

Here are a few:
Tom DeLay
Richard Mellon Scaife
Swiftboat Veterans for Truth
Karl Rove

Can you tell us why you put these people into the same league as the Howard Dean’s and Michael Moore’s of the left?

Pick up anything by Ann Coulter for a good example of over-the-top.

Since you put it this way, it should be easy for you to show us an example yourself.

Ok, I think there was a little confusion over my list (my fault, I wasn’t clear): I was asked to name some extremists, so that’s what I did.  I was not saying that these were people who have recently said something I found excessive.  For one example of this, here’s Ann Coulter from her book “Treason”:
Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason.  Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.

Coulter, like Moore, is a rabble rouser.  That’s what they set out to do.  But it’s those behind the scenes (Cheney, DeLay, etc.) who are pulling the strings and advancing the neocon agenda.  Those are the extremists of whom I speak.

Now, I also think that most comments politicians make are often taken out of context and blown way out of proportion.  Trent Lott is one example; here’s a guy who was saying something nice about an old man on his birthday, and he gets ripped to pieces by the Dems and foresaken by the GOP.

One should note that Michael Moore is not, in fact, a Democrat.  The Dems aren’t liberal enough.  He considers Bill Clinton to be one of the greatest Republican presidents of our time.

Another side note: Micheal Moore once fell on me.  [Insert joke here.] I went to see his movie “The Big One”, back in 1998 I think, at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor, and he was there to introduce it and take questions afterward.  I got there late, and it was a packed house, so had to stand in the back.  Now, the last few rows of seats are elevated; you have to step up one step to get to them.  He was sitting in the back row while the film was showing, and when the credits were rolling, got up to get onto the stage to take questions.  Well, the house lights were still down, and he must have forgotten that step, because all of a sudden someone pushes into me, and quickly apologizes.  Of course I recognized his voice immediately.

I saw him again last year during his tour.  This time, everyone was checked for weapons, and there were 4 bodyguards stationed around the stage.  If I had wanted him to fall on me again, I couldn’t have gotten within 10 yards.

You were asked to give us Howard Dean’s counterpart among the RNC’s leadership.  Point is: He doesn’t have one.  The point, of all of this, is that the Democrats have divorced themselves from reality.  Their bitter partisanship is marginalizing their political movement.  This isn’t a good thing for the country as, I believe, we need at least two strong political parties.

If the Democrats can’t get past calling the other side doodie heads and actually do some leading they’re going to fail, every stinking time.

You mention Ann Coulter, which is fine.  But she’s not in the RNC leadership.  She’s a columnist, and a screeching harpie as far as I’m concerned.  Doesn’t exactly prove your point.

You also indicate that Cheney et. al. are “extremists.” If by “extremist” you mean “advances an political agenda you disagree with” you’re right.  But to any reasonable person those people you named are not “extreme.” Ethically challenged in a few instances, but hardly politically extreme.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] I told you so. Washington Times - A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity. [...]

[...] As I’ve said before, we need more from the Democrats than hateful invective. [...]

[...] The Republicans, however, aren’t doing much better. But that’s because with no very relevant opposition (what with the Democrats off in la-la land) they aren’t working very hard at the agendas the American voters based their decision to elect them on. The Republicans aren’t unpopular because Americans are beginning to favor Democrats, they’re unpopular because they’re not leading the way they said they would. [...]