@DontTreadOnMe,
DontTreadOnMe wrote:but when we turn on the t.v., or the radio or read the internet sites, as been pointed out, the sane and moderate voices of conservatism are damned hard to find. when was the last time lindsay graham had meaningful face time?
I don't think it's hard to find (you might want to try WSJ and Washington Times if you are really interested). I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. It's called the idiot box for a reason. The very medium is not conducive to intelligent debate and everything is reduced to soundbites and clichés. I don't see much intelligence there on the right
or on the left (but at least the lefties are often funny while they play ideologue).
On the internet, if you are using Youtube you are in the same boat. But it's not hard to find reasonable opposition to the left if you want to read it. There's plenty out there but if you hang out at sites that lean left (like a2k) that is what you are going to get. The internet's big social sites (digg, reddit) tend to lean left as well (they tend to be young, and young tends to be left).
I like that the left is resurging, and I really like that the younger generation is more progressive (though it's unsurprising, this is an eternal trend). But on these sites I see mostly groupthink and dittoheads. It leaves me wanting more substantial political discourse.
Quote:so, if the face that the gop chooses to put on and roll out is one of solidarity with radical right voices like rush and sean or glenn beck; all of whom pronounce the word "liberal" as if they were describing a man with an oedipus complex, what am i supposed to take away from it?
The left has ideologues on the idiot box too. Those are idiot entertainers. Those are not Republican leaders (though the left has done their best to make them so).
Quote:if the gop supports, even by keeping silent on the subject, the tea party events, which seem to be about everything but taxes for the most part, while individual republican officials and politicians applaud the actions, what am i supposed to take away from it?
That you are playing the old "disavow them" card. It's part and parcel of the dumb political game I despise. They are doing right to ignore and snub them. Some, like McCain
have spoken out.
But that's not enough, and the call to disavow is a guilt by association fallacy. It's similar to what some on the right does with Muslims by repeatedly asking them to disavow their extremists, ignoring when some of them do, and then calling them all extremists.
It's a really lame political game that I get tired of. The left should ignore the right's nuts, the right should ignore the left's nuts. Demanding that each side disavow them reduces the political debate to these gotchas.
Quote:if republicans and right wingers are bringing their guns to a presidential speech for the first time ever; while simultaneously, one pastor is proudly proclaiming that he prays daily for the death of barack obama and that he should go to hell, and another pastor in a kentucky is urging his flock to bring their guns to the house of god...??? i mean seriously, i grew up 15 minutes from the area where that church is. and even i can't figure out what i'm supposed to take away from that...
No, it's not the first time, and the left has done similar things in the past. Plus, guns are a right issue, not a left issue, so it's a bit silly to compare.
But all that is pointless, look what we are doing. We are talking about a handful of nuts (less than a tenth of a percent) of the right as if it were actually important political debate. This is a completely useless red herring. If some nuts want to carry guns as a form of political protest that's their prerogative, but it simply does not represent the Republican party and the left bringing it up incessantly isn't constructive political discourse.
Quote:and now, we have the latest act that, with good reason, has snood uptight.
for the first time in my life, we actually have members of the minority party saying that they object to the president of the united states of america speaking via video to america's kids in school.
why? here's what the people who rightly, or wrongly, represent the current face of the gop have been saying;
1) obama wants to indoctrinate our kids into his socialist agenda.
2) what if he starts talking about sex? remember, he wants to teach kindergartners sex ed!
3) he's going to talk about abortion.
good grief. what is this crap? oh, yeah... while they are at it, why don't they claim that he intends to replace christianity with voo-doo and will be sending an army of voodooiene across the country with truckloads of chickens for the sacrifices need to encourage the loa to mount the little tykes. "and on tax payer's money!!".
How is this reasonable political discourse? It's descended into incoherent babble on both sides this way. It's not about the issues anymore it's about the opponents.
Seriously, I don't like when Bush gets to talk to the kids either. It's not because I think he's so insane or because I hate whitey, it's because it's the use of the bully pulpit for a cause I don't agree with. Simply put, it can help the platforms I disagree with.
I happen to understand public relations enough to understand that protesting too much would backfire, like it has on Republicans but the Republican leaders have made reasonable comments about this that I've already quoted in this thread. Portraying them all as racist for this is a leap of faith that I think harms the fight against real racism.
They don't like Obama mainly because he's a very good politician for politics they don't agree with. This is the majority of their party, not the nuts and racists that the left likes to fixate on.
Fixating on them will backfire just like protesting Obama too much does for the right.
Quote:so if the republican party really does have an interest in doing something together with the dems and obama, it would behoove them to elbow the knuckleheads that are crippling their credibility out of the way and start bringing some of the ideas and arguments of the remaining rational party members to the fore. i cannot do that for them, but i certainly encourage it and will applaud a return to calmer politics.
I agree, but again this is how opposition politics works. Just like the Democrats didn't have these great alternate ideas when Republicans are in power and spent most of their time tearing down the incumbents.
I see this all over the place and while I agree that it isn't constructive it's hardly unique to Republicans. Opposition politics is defined more by opposition than by credible alternatives. I didn't want the Democrats "working with" Bush to get his wars, quite frankly I'd have been happy if they just managed to be better opposition. And if you are on the Republican side that's the job they should be doing as well. If you haven't noticed, it's working, health care reform is in danger of coming off the rails. If you disapprove of the government getting involved, and reasonable people can have their reasons to do so, that is what you want your side to do.
Quote:i guess that happens if someone calls you unamerican, a nazi, a socialist/commie, moonbat, saddam lover, unpatriotic, america hater, athiest, naive and on and on. and that's just in the last 8 or 9 years.
I think calling Republicans racists just because they oppose Obama is along the same level of intellectual bankruptcy as I found that kind of thing. There certainly are Republican racists but to paint them all with that brush just because of Obama opposition is as insipid as the right's "unpatriotic" nonsense was during the Iraq war.
I object to name calling as political discourse no matter where it comes from, but I object to it more from the left because my own politics reside on that side more often and it has the additional factor of hurting the causes I care about.
