Palin's exit

To clarify what my annoyances with Palin are, it's not that she's supposedly "stupid," it's her "I'm just the salt of the earth" passive-aggressive attitude. On top of that, her bellyaching about "sexism," while saying she can handle criticism, ironic much? It's all about timing, had Palin ran in 2000 she probably wouldn't have been hated as much, and Obama would have probably lost. Her cognitive disotance to the fact that Republicans just weren't popular in 2008, and that she blames sexism for their loss still makes my teeth gnash. Do the math, if you are of the same party of a currently unpopular president it's likely that you won't be winning any popularity contests, especially when your party's greatest internal debates revolve around which of you supported the current President's policies more!

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

Yoda, instead of going paragraph by paragraph, maybe it is best I react to your post in general.

First, we are engaging in what I never wanted to engage in the first place: a discussion on Obama. It's too frustrating to discuss this with you, because you are an example of those that seek failure. And all I'm going to do here is defend to you why I "hate" Republicans. Because you're right, I do hate them. So where does that get us? Nowhere.

Just like the government.

You see, as far as I'm concerned, this wanting to "fail," is exactly what I dislike about the Republican Party in general. Yes, I do make a sweeping statement because I make that based on what I have seen since 1993. You seem to forget that I once talked about how I voted for Republicans, how I live in a conservative area and even have some thoughts that may even be in line with some Republican policies, but I, like many Americans, have become totally fed up with their behavior. When you embrace the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world, why do you act so surprised that I could hate them?

When they court a person like Palin that I think is in way over her head, is dishonest, is a whiner to the ninth degree, and doesn't understand foreign or domestic policy -- or as Filmfreak said -- the very history of our country, why do you act surprised that I could hate them? They put her in a position to possibly run this country! What's worse is when I hear so many right wing Republicans love her. OMG, who are these people?

There isn't any compromise here and working together for the good of the country. I don't hear that when they get on TV and are interviewed. And it's what is beneath the surface that bothers me -- "I need to go home to talk to my constituents" which is another way of saying, "No way, I'm voting for heathcare reform. That's a DEMOCRATIC policy and I can't have that."

From day one, it's about having Obama fail. I gave Bush plenty of time -- it wasn't until 2 years in that I wanted him to "fail." I didn't like him, but that didn't mean that I went out of my way to disparage him his first few years in office. That's the difference, I believe, between what I see Democrats do and what Republicans do. They were out to get Clinton the day he was inauguarated. They're out to get Obama now. And regardless of your response about the birther controversy, you have a Republican Senator saying they "have a point." Of course, they don't have a point! This is so disgusting I cannot even fathom how something like this can happen. In fairness, thank goodness for the Republicans that do call this out as stupid and ridiculous. But hey, it's still out there!

I'm an old fashioned idealist. I would actually like a government that works together, respects one another, and has respectful and honest debate.

Do you honestly believe that Republicans have acted that way since they decided to impeach Clinton? And the moderate Republicans -- the only ones I could support -- are pretty much gone. The right wingers are the ones left. And they want failure. That's all they want. So yea, I'm guilty of hating Republicans. I honestly hate them. And when I say "them," I mean the politicians. You know that, right?

Filmfreak, good points about Palin. But bite your tongue that she could have ever won the Presidency. I want intelligent and ethical people in that office. I know, I'm a dreamer that way.

And yes, it was fun to watch Bush's numbers fall. It gave me hope in mankind.

Oh, and another thing, if you support Social Security privatization, then, honestly, Yoda, you and I will NEVER see eye to eye about anything. I don't even understand you.

And darn it, I did it again.

Well Tramp, I know you are addressing Yoda, but I can't help but add my opinion, sorry it's a disorder. LOL

I wouldn't lump Yoda in with the Coulters and Glenn Becks, just for the fact he presents facts and doesn't degenerate into hyperbole. Though I agree with you generally about the current Republican party. I, like many others didn't want Bush to "fail," but we couldn't help but feel that the path we were lead down was not what we were initially promised. What's more is the fact that there was zero remorse for such mistakes, which is really what turned me against them. Had a Democrat even played with the idea of invading a soverign state, the House Republicans would have been screaming for a time-table, now since Bush they are a bad thing.

Of course the GOP hopes that it all falls in around his ears, so they can all shout at once; "WE TOLD YOU SO!" This would wash the taste of Bush out of the American people's mouth, so it would benefit them.

The way I see it, it's not as if there aren't practical arguments against the Dems, it's just that most Repubs present it in such divisive ways. Often times, instead of saying exactly how they would govern better they degenerate into hateful fearmongering. Also, the party seems to get hung up on fringe issues more often then their Democratic counterparts, i.e. gay marriage and abortion.

I draw a distinction between not believing in governing policies idealogically, and criticizing the application and results of governing policies based on the results. The results of the Bush administration are what soured on the public, as for Obama, I think it is unfair that some conservatives are already pouncing before we even know how this will work out. Like you said, most Americans gave Bush a few years before they started complaining.

Thank you, Filmfreak, you summarized my feelings exactly. I'm just more emotional in my rhetoric as well. That's my disorder, LOL.

As far back as I can remember, there's always been a difference of opinion, but the rhetoric of the Republican party has jumped the shark, imo, so much so that I'm not able to be calm about it.

And that's why this Palin thing also confounds me. I cannot comprehend how she became a player. She is an example to me of a party gone completely bonkers.

welcome.


As for Palin, my logic is this; after Hillary lost the candidacy, the McCain camp seen a chink in the Dems armor, disgruntled Hillary voters. This also afforded them cover so when criticism came their way they could cry sexism.

She's controversial, so the media will follow her like a bloodhound.

I understand the desire to do this (I know I'd find it a lot less tiring, myself), but the result seems to have been that nearly every pointed question has gone unanswered. For example: you say conservatives, apparently somehow bound by the mere definition of the word, are afraid of change. So, I listed several major examples of sweeping change that they support, and liberals generally oppose. How do you reconcile that?

Why do we always end up talking more about the direction of the argument, or the likelihood that we will convince one another, and not the actual content of each point being made? I'd really prefer it if we stuck to that.

Re: failure. You mention this several times, so I'll just pick this reference to reply to it. There is a distinction between wanting to see a policy fail, and wanting to see it fail to be implemented. They are very different. I don't want Obama's ideas to become law/policy because I'm convinced -- and can explain why in straightforward terms -- that many of them are mistakes. This is not the same as wanting him to fail. I just as much would like him to have different goals, but we both know that's implausible. He's shown what he believes through years of speeches and statements, and in the legislation he's proposed. If I've opposed him from day one, it's because he made his views plain since before then.

Besides, this emphasis on the notion of failure ignores the actual content of the disagreement. You're simply writing it off becaue you don't like the mere idea of the opposition. But that's unreasonable, and does nothing to refute any of the contentions.

Because I (and most other Republicans) don't embrace the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world. The fact that you think we all do is the problem. I don't even listen to Limbaugh. For crying out loud, my dad tore Coulter to shreds on the torture debate on television once. We hate her. Why would you assume that the loudest people necessarily speak for the party as a whole?

And why do you think a given policy position would be affected by this? For the sake of argument, let's assume Republicans are cutthroat bastards who'll do anything to win, and let's pretend that Democrats all have vigorous principles that they would never sacrifice for political victory. Let's pretend all that: does it tell us anything at all about who's actually right? Does it tell us which policy is the best in regards to taxes, healthcare, foreign policy, or energy...at all? If not, don't you think those questions are at least as important as what types of people are answering them, given that those are the things that have the biggest impact on all of our lives?

No, it's not another way of saying that. You're just deciding that that's what they all believe. Who says that? Who thinks it? You can't just guess that this is what they're thinking and simply assert that it's true.

The notion itself is absurd, anyway: since when have Republicans ever liked the idea of government-run healthcare? They've been against it as long as either of us can remember. You think there wouldn't be outrage in the party if a Republican President proposed the idea? Seriously?

Besides, you've got the cart before the horse: have you considered the possibility that the reason they oppose Democrats so consistently is because, if they didn't oppose the sorts of things Democrats are in favor of, they wouldn't have become Republicans in the first place? That's how it works. They aren't born inside a party and then oppose everything, they pick a party based on their beliefs. It wouldn't make sense for someone to be a Republican if they agreed with large portions of the Democratic platform, and vice-versa.

I think you're making my point: a Republican Senator (who, by the way?)...and he's not even definitively siding with them. And it's gaining no traction whatsoever. Yet somehow this is apparently reflective of the entire party. You really don't see the problem with this? That generalization thing isn't an opinion. It's never fair, and it's never accurate, and the complete absence of any specifics demonstrates this pretty well.

And by the by: the birth certificate thing is incredibly stupid, but it's not "disgusting." Let's tone down the rhetoric a little.

Yes and no. I know you're not referring to every person registered with the Republican Party, but you have expressed continual disbelief that anyone could support them, and some of the ideas. That's an awfully fine line.

That said, since you admit you "hate" them, what of my question about objectivity? Whether or not you can make the case that this hatred is deserved, doesn't it still make it impossible to render a fair, objective view of the party? Isn't that what happens any time disagreement turns into hate?

As for the moderates being gone: we just nominated a candidate for President who was for a cap-and-trade carbon credits system, caught heat in his own party for proposing immigrant-friendly legislation, proposed a gas tax increase with a Democrat, almost single-handedly brought about campaign finance reform, and voted against some of Bush's tax cuts. I can go on. This is the guy they elected to potentially head the party! The runner-up, Romney, instituted a government-run healthcare system as Governor and supported the assault weapons ban. The idea that the moderates are gone is utter fiction; they're just not as loud as the crazies.

Okay, so why is it okay for you to enjoy that, and it's not okay for me to even mention that Obama's are falling?

I support certain forms of it (and I can make a good argument for it, by the way), but that's not the point. The point is that you're going on and on about how terrible it is that Republicans are...

a) Trying to derail Obama's policies.
b) Apparently afraid of change.
c) Not offering an alternative.

You say Democrats are nothing like this. Yet the Social Security Privatization push after Bush's reelection saw the Democrats guilty of all three of these things: instant, near-unanimous kneejerk opposition, rejection of change/reform, and not offering an alternative. It's a perfect, recent example of them doing the things you just said you thought were terrible. How do you reconcile this?

At least Cheney knows what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Well, you were right. They do want changes. Changes I don't agree with.

It is NOT unreasonable and therein lies the problem. A government full of people with different ideas can actually sit down and talk about compromises and also give up certain ideas. They can work together without the need to shout each other down, disrespect each other's opinions, and actually compromise. Opposition is not the same as having and wishing someone to "fail." Also, you pretend to know that you know best: your ideas are "good," and should not fail; Obama's ideas are "bad," and should "fail."

You make yourself "right," Yoda, just like the Republicans in Congress.

They speak for the Republican Party on TV. Republicans have to take ownership of this. Limbaugh continues to get high numbers of listeners. Conservatives buy Coulter's books. Because YOU don't like them doesn't mean they are not tied to the Republican party. And until people like them are gone from the conservative movement, there is no hope that someone like me will accept the party. They are divisive, mean people that, whether you like or not, are tied to the party.

Not sure how to respond except to say that, for the most part, Democrats (and Obama) have better policy ideas on healthcare, taxes, foreign policy and energy. Republicans don't.



Yes, I can. Going "home to talk to my consitutents" is their panic mode: they don't want healthcare reform so they're stalling. Please, Yoda, you must know this to be true. They use buzz words like "socialism" to get the American people to go against Obama's plan. They put ads on TV scaring people into thinking they won't ever "see a doctor of their choosing" again. It's ludricrous. Personally, I'm for the whole enchalada: universal health care. SOCIALIZED medicine. But hey, in this country, I'm dreaming. Too many conservatives and they are much too capitalistic and profit-driven to ever let it happen. And it's too expensive now because Republicans like to get us into costly wars and spend trillions of dollars on anything BUT the American people. Pharmaceutical companies have too much profit at stake (much like the oil companies).

Yes, one more reason for me to dislike them. Of course, they can't change their minds and actually look to Canada and France and Britain and OPEN their minds to compromise. Oh no, that won't do.

Well, obviously, you're correct here but what I struggle with is that they don't ever seem to understand or even comprehend that they are often WRONG. Let's take a look at history: let's take Eisenhower's warning that "America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment....In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Sound familiar? The Vietnam War -- began by a Democrat, yes, but held onto by Nixon in the face of failure. The Bush years. The Cheney years. And a Republican warned us about it! The Democrats opposed it. We were right.

Further, look at LBJ and the Civil Rights movement. What happened? When he signed the legislation -- RIGHT legislation -- he remarked that he turned the South over to a generation of Republicans. Why? Because they were obviously racists. And the South is solidly Republican. Obviously, some are still racist. They are the birthers. They exist 40 years later.

In the 70's, Carter, a Democrat, told the American people things we apparently didn't want to hear. Warning us against the dependence on foreign oil. That our economy was shaky. So what did Republicans do? They put up Reagan and his beautiful sunrises and imagery of an America that was "fine." Don't look at the man behind the curtain! Carter is wrong! America is great and good and ignore him! Then Reagan set us back another 30 years. Yea, another Republican that was WRONG.

OMG, yes, I said it. Reagan was WRONG. We're suffering today because we didn't heed the words of Jimmy Carter.

Of course, it is "disgusting." It's racist at its core. Inofe was the Senator. And it is an example of a party that has fringe elements even to this day. Fringe elements that are given too much power in the party. Let's face it, the fringe elements of the Democratic party never seem to get the power the fringe on the right does.

Well, I am confounded that some of their ideas are supported. War in Iraq based on lies? Warrantless wiretaps? Torture? Ban on gay marriage. Ban on stem cell research. Global warming doesn't exist. Energy independence is too costly. I hear these people. They are in your party.

Yes, and I've tried to tell you that they created my "hate." Years of abusive rhetoric ("liberal" became a dirty word, remember?), divisive words, campaigning on fringe issues like gay marriage and abusing this population. A President who didn't give a rat's ass about the American people and our Constitution. A Vice President who said as much. Treated us like we were too stupid to understand. Made up a whole new desription of his job (not part of the Executive branch). A party that was so against the other party they SOUGHT out a way to impeach a President. Look everywhere. There has to be something we can find to bring this man down! Their hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.

The moderates are pretty much gone from the Congress. They lost their election seats. Many in the party hated McCain because he was a moderate. The only reason he got the nomination was because Bush was hated by so many. If that hadn't happened, I'm sure they never would have put up a moderate. Need I say more?

Because Bush was the worst President this country has ever seen. He was incompetent, arrogant, delusional, fringe. We've been over this before. I still wonder why it took so long for people to see what an awful President (and person) he was.

Wanting Obama's ratings to fall in the very first months of his Presidency is different, imo. He has not proven to be someone other a man trying to do the best he can in a terrible time. He should be given that time by the American people. Time you don't seem to want to give him. Seems to me you are not willing to compromise on your policy stances.

If he is not given the time, if Republicans will not work for him, then nothing will get done. I don't think that's in the country's best interest or mine.

Because privatization of Social Security is an issue that Democrats would NEVER support. Further, their rhetoric about how awful Roosevelt was is cause for knee-jerk reaction. It pisses me off to no end. I admire Roosevelt and what he did. I was shocked when I started hearing that Republicans had one goal in mind: to tear down Roosevelt's policies. I was rather shocked how hateful they were. Just another eye-opener to me about how Republicans use divisive and hateful rhetoric to get what they want. I'm just thrilled that people of all parties, ages, and social status didn't want that change. I was thrilled when it died.

And yes, what are their alternatives? Are they merely more of their conservative policies or are they compromises? Enlighten me.

Okay, well, thanks for saying that, I suppose. I hope you see why this irks me. When you get angry about this stuff, you basically just say twenty things about Republicans, I'll question something like nineteen of them, and maybe you'll admit some of them aren't technically true, and it turns out you just said them because you disagree. That's simply not fair and certainly isn't a good use of your time or mine, really.

We've been over this: of course I think my ideas are "good." If I didn't, they wouldn't be my ideas, now would they? You think your ideas are good, and Obama sure thinks his are, too. Let's talk about why ideas are supposed to be good or bad. And yeah, opposition to an idea (or a set of ideas) is kinda the same thing as wanting them to fail.

Re: compromise. I feel like you're describing your ideals and your reality interchangably here. On one hand, you talk about wanting compromise and reconciliation, but on the other hand you seem to hate Republicans and don't want Democrats to capitulate to the things they want at all. Every specific instance of Republican policy meets with your utter scorn, too. It doesn't sound like you want compromise in general, it sounds like you want Republicans to compromise. You can't have it both ways.

Define "tied." I'd like to know what criteria you use to simply declare that someone represents the party. I'd like to know what most Republican politicians are supposed to be doing, exactly, to avoid getting slapped with these "ties." Do they all have to issue a special press release declaring that they think Rush Limbaugh sucks? Because it seems to me like the chain of logic is missing a link or two: Rush Limbaugh is a Republican, Rush Limbaugh has a lot of listeners, therefore all Republicans are to some degree accountable for Rush Limbaugh. That's another logical fallacy.

How about this: decide which IDEAS you like and support people who espouse them. It's a good way to avoid the never-ending soap opera of "ties" and "affiliates," which we both know is very easy to apply to anyone. You didn't much care for references to Obama's "ties" and "affiliations" during the campaign, and those at least were people he knew or had spent time with. Yet somehow you feel perfectly comfortable doing the same thing with Republicans and conservative media personalities, even if there's no indication they've met, talked, or anything.

Cute. But the question was whether or not the quality of ideas is more important than your personal feelings about Republican methods and personalities. You seem to approach discussions like this with the idea that you simply need to demonstrate that Republicans are worthy of your scorn. Obviously I disagree, but even if I did not, why does that take precedence over which ideas are better?

Put another way: would you support a Republican if you KNEW his ideas would have a positive effect on a given issue, but you also knew he'd be somewhat overbearing and confrontational, politically? Which is important: preserving that righteous anger, or getting policies in place that work?

You're right, they're much too capitalistic to let it happen. Capitalism being, you know, pretty good and stuff.

That said, you're shifting a bit here. At first the made-up quote was "I don't want to vote for this because a DEMOCRAT wants it." Now it's just that they're "stalling." Well, okay, they might be stalling. I didn't deny that, nor do I have a problem with it. Democrats stalled all sorts of things as the minority just a few years ago. This is what people in government do when they dislike an idea: they try to stop it from happening. I don't see why you keep describeingperfectly normal, reasonable things like this as if they were cutthroat tactics. Oh no, politicians are trying to block legislation they don't like! This is news? This is unjust? Seems to me it's how it's always worked, and how it's supposed to work.

You're glossing over the point, which is that their opposition to the idea has nothing to do with it being from a Democrat, and everything to do with the fact that just about every one of them thinks nationalized healthcare is a bad idea. You're again criticizing Republicans not for any objective failing, but for merely having beliefs of their own.

Good grief; this is a terribly cartoonish, cherry-picked, and sometimes downright false summary of the Republican Party's modern history (the Carter stuff is just bizarre. Please, Democrats, keep trying to lionize him. Nothing makes Republicans happier). You say you don't like point-by-point discussions, but then you go and throw out a huge list of fifty things that you know I'm going to disagree with. If you want to discuss these things, you know I will, but you're not making arguments here.

What bearing does most of this have on our discussion, and the current state of the Republican Party, anyway? If you want to delve into the past and start cherry-picking things, well hell, a Republican signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Can I glean broad truths about the entire party from that, too? If I give you my own revisionist history of the Democratic Party, will that somehow validate whatever I feel about modern Democrats?

Please demonstrate this in some meaningful form. You keep making assertion after assertion, but it's all apparently just based on anecdotes and intuition. What power do these "fringe elements" have? If they have power, why is the birth ceritifcate nonsense not getting any traction? Why does a single Senator (who kinda walked backed his statement, by the way, which wasn't a particularly hearty endorsement to begin with) apparently constitute an entire wing of the party to you?

I was going to ask you about the fringe on the left, and I was going to point out that MoveOn.org and Daily Kos have a major influence on the party these days. But then I realized that you probably don't view these things as fringe at all, because I'm pretty sure you agree with them. And that's my entire point: your statements about "fringe" groups are being made through the prism of what you believe, not in an objective sense. You're describing what's fringe to you, not what's fringe to the majority of Americans.

And I'm sorry, but you simply have no basis from which to declare that the birth certificate silliness is "racist at its core." I'm sure plenty of racists are looking for excuses to doubt Obama's legitimacy, but this is complete conjecture on your part, and I know people who are examples to the contrary. You're assuming the worst about anything in which there is a dearth of actual information. Racism is a serious accusation, not a political football you can just toss around because someone is doubting Obama's citizenship. People need to stop dilluting these words.

Again, this passes right over the original point, which is that it's not accurate to suggest that your barbs are only aimed at the politicians. You're disgusted with the beliefs, too, so the idea that this doesn't to some degree extend to myself, or other members of the party, doesn't really hold up. Though I know you don't really mean to, you've quite plainly insulted not just the leaders of the party, but more or less everyone affiliated with it. I don't take this personally, but let's not pretend it isn't true.

Okay, but once again, this misses the point. I wasn't asking you to enumerate your reasons for hating them (again), I was asking you if this compromises your judgment. You started your reply with "Yes" -- does that mean you admit that you can't, at this point, judge the Republican Party fairly or accurately?

Err, yeah, I think you do. He still got the nomination, and the runner-up was a former pro-choicer who supported the assault weapons ban and instituted government-run healthcare in his home state. The fact that McCain was hated by some doesn't change the point: the moderates are alive and well. Well enough to field viable candidates for the party's leadership. This would simply not be possible if your claims about moderates being "gone" were even close to true.

I don't think this makes sense. First, there's really no difference between wanting his ratings to fall now and wanting them to fall next year. If I think ideas are bad, why would the length of his administration matter? All that changes is whether or not we can say definitively that this or that policy worked/failed. We can't yet; I fully admit this. Second, some of his policies have already been enacted, and in the case of the stimulus, the entire goal was to get results quickly. Obama himself has said that the stimulus "did what it was intended to do." Biden's insisting that it "worked." So judging that is definitely fair game.

That said, notice the focus on personality yet again: Bush is an "awful person." Obama is "a man trying to do the best he can." Basing your political allegiance largely on personality traits is a really bad idea no matter who you are. We don't know these people, we know what they project outwardly. This focus on personality over policy directly and explicitly puts rhetoric and charisma ahead of substance. And I should hope we all agree that we need an increased focus on substance.

The funny thing about the Obama comment is that I don't disagree. You said something similar to this during the election. We were discussing economics, and you explained that you simply trusted that his economic policies represented what he thought was best (or something similar). My reply then was the same as it is now: the strength of his ideas is not determined by his intentions. Meaning well does not mean doing well. I absolutely buy into the idea that Obama is doing, by and large, what he thinks is best. And I absolutely think he's wrong about the major planks of his economic policy. I think this because they've been contradictory, because they contradict simple economic theory, and because they've already produced anemic results. Will this change? We'll see, but I'm betting it won't. You seem to be betting otherwise, but you seem to be doing it just because you believe he means well.

And national healthcare is an issue Republicans would NEVER support, so the comparison lines up perfectly. Re: hateful rhetoric. I suppose I imagined the rhetoric about the elderly eating cat food when the Social Security Privatization was suggested? There wasn't booing when it was mentioned during the State-of-the-Freakin'-Union? This is what I mean when I talk about selective memory. Do you just completely block out these things when Democrats do them?

Really, you're making my point for me: it's okay when Democrats do it because you agree with them, and it's not okay when Republicans do the same thing because you don't. You have a double-standard. You've basically admitted this. Double standards are never fair. Thus, you're not being fair to Republicans.

I don't understand this question: alternatives to what?

Whatever the answer, I'll hazard a guess that conservative politicians will, indeed, have more "conservative policies." I feel pretty comfortable going out on that limb. I feel even more comfortable saying that they're right to do so.

Really, these non-arguments that simply talk about what people believe need to be go the way of the Dodo. It doesn't say anything to simply point out that conservatives like conservative ideas. That's what makes them conservatives in the first place. I have no idea what point you would hope to make by continually referencing the fact that they actually have beliefs and tend to want to see them implemented. Of course.

Oh god, here we go again.

Okay, fine. The "changes" you stated in your previous post included such things as SS privatization and school choice. Which is another way of saying that the government should have no place in our retirement or in our choice of schools. Both of these ideas, I believe, would cause great chaos in our country and would make problems even worse than they are already. School "choice," for example, is another word for "get my kids away from the minorities!" They couch it in terms of wanting "better education for our kids," but the reality is what I've said.

The real problem I have is with "conservative" ideas. The very ones you espouse. I can address them down below.

I have never said not to compromise. Ever. I believe that when the Republicans ask to look at the cost of something (isn't it interesting, though, that only really care about cost when it goes to helping those unfortunate, not when it's about wars and national defense and insuring that certain companies can still make ungodly profits?), I agree with that. I agree with sitting around the table and looking at all of it. I agree with downsizing certain aspects of the government. I really don't know where you get the impression I don't believe in compromise. Check out the Obama thread, where I finally posted, to see that some of the issues 7thson brought up require some talking and compromise. My problem is the Republicans never seem to compromise. Heck, you don't!

No, it's not. Coulter appears on TV and is introduced as the "conservative voice," and Limbaugh is on radio spouting about how "liberals" are idiots. Yes, I do think Republican politicians should shout out that these people DO NOT speak for them. A press release would do just fine, thanks.

The problem lies in that these people even exist. They were born out of a movement in the 90s against anything that was Democratic. They are a disease that only the Republicans can eradicate. Republicans need to stop listening to Limbaugh and stop buying Coulter's books. And unless they do that, I will continue to wonder what is wrong with the Republican party.

I didn't have a problem with Obama's "ties," and "affiliates," that I can remember. You did. I thought all that stuff a lot of hot Republican air.

I would have a hard time supporting someone who was overbearing and confrontational. I would not have a hard time if compromise was sought in a respectful manner. If that was done, I may be able to listen to the core of the idea. As it stands, it is human nature to fight against someone who is confrontational and overbearing (and insulting to others). When Republicans stop acting arrogantly, I'll be glad to entertain some of their ideas. Much like I did when I was younger.

Furthermore, some "liberal" ideas are GOOD ideas. But when will a conservative say that?

See, that is our problem, Yoda. I don't agree. Not when it goes wild as it has. I believe in some socialism. People like you seem to think that everything has to be capitalism. Governments should not be extremes of any theology, but a mixture.

No, it is unjust. The Republicans lost the election. People want healthcare reform and a minority wants to stop it. That is wrong, imo.

And I have to ask, why? Why is it a bad idea? Why is that giving Americans affordable healthcare like many other countries is a bad idea? Why is it a bad idea to stop all these bankruptcies in this country simply because people cannot afford their health care? Why is it a bad idea to help poor people get healthcare? Why is it that they ignore other countries that have government run healthcare and they are doing fine? Why do they lie about that? Why is it that conservatives don't want to help others?

I think criticizing Republicans for their beliefs is valid. I don't understand why they hold these beliefs? I think they are selfish beliefs.

Your quip about Carter is why I dislike Republicans. It's an unfair and mean comment. I talked about SPECIFIC things he said. It's in the record. He warned us. He was right. I am most certainly making an argument. I'm sick of the lionization of Reagan, a man who I think has gotten us to this point.

And you'd have to know, that if Lincoln was alive today, he'd probably be a Democrat.

And Republicans are great at "revisionist" history. Eisenhower said that speech; Carter warned us about energy dependence and the Middle East; Johnson lost the Southern Democrats because of their distaste for civil rights. These are not revisionist, they are fact.

Fringe: stopping stem cell research. Fringe: Global warming doesn't exist. Fringe: America is a "Christian" country. Fringe: Torture is fine. Fringe: The VP is not part of the Executive Branch. Fringe: Lie, lie, lie, as long as we get to invade a country that we think will do us harm. Fringe: Ignore the Constitution and spy on Americans. Fringe: Marriage can only be between a "man and a woman." Should I go on?

Typical Republican trick: speaking for the "majority of Americans." Dailykos is not fringe. Do you really read the comments there? They're average American people. And like any group, they have some wackos from time to time, but Kos keeps a good lid on it, especially anyone who sprouts crazy conspiracy theories. If they do, they're banned. Even long standing posters.

Bill O'Reilly (another media personality that makes me dislike conservatism) likes to talk about how crazy Dailykos is. Are you listening to him, by chance?

Anyone who thinks this story is real needs to have their head examined. Okay, if they are not racist, are they...just..crazy, then?

I will repeat: the first BLACK President to be asked to prove he is a natural born citizen. Even AFTER he showed his birth certificate. How can you not see that as racist?

I believe you're not being honest with yourself. What if he was a Republican with policies you agree with? What would you call this, then?

You're right, I am. Therein lies the point of this whole discussion. I was merely trying to say that I "hate" the politicians. The people that support them are people that I disagree with and the people that use rhetoric like them are people I genuinely have a problem with.

You aren't one of those people because you have often stated that you want dialogue as well. My problem with you only lies that I disagree with your policy ideas and with wanting Obama to "fail."

No, I probably can't at this point. But I believe I can when I see that they really care about the American people and not just their re-election chances. When they start forming policy -- policy that most likely will be a compromise -- and stop playing politics, I think I can judge them better.

I'm sorry, but I thought I read somewhere that many of the moderates are gone from the Congress after this last election. Am I wrong about that?

Of course, substance matters but Bush's policies were dangerous, uncaring, and irresponsible. Obama has only been President for a short time. My point is that you are not giving him time. You are, whether you want to tell me you're not, enjoying his falling numbers. Once again, I find that distasteful when I remember back to having to live through Bush and giving him a chance. I didn't attack the guy right away.

And wanting his ratings to fall is why I have a problem with Republicans. Why isn't it that you want your party to work with him to solve problems. Have you said that anywhere in these discussions, Yoda? I didn't see it....

This is always your argument. They "contradict simple economic theory." Is this true because you say so? I don't know if you're correct. And you seem to be a Reagan guy, so if you are, all I can say is that I will trust Obama over you. That's not to say you don't have great ideas, but because I do not have the knowledge to confront your ideas, I can only go on the past and what others have to say about it.

Privatizing social security would have disasterous for many people. They may have lost everything. You see, capitalism is also wrought with greed. Furthermore, NEVER wanting national healthcare seems rather selfish and hateful to me. It's like saying they don't want to help the poor or the middle class. As I said above, I think it is a selfish stance.

I remember running into a woman in the grocery store who said she could never vote for Obama because she didn't want to have to "pay taxes to help others. Why should I?"

And you wonder why I have a problem with Republicans.

Well, not sure that is true.

Conservatives should compromise. They lost the election. Try someone else's ideas for a change. That's my point.

But you just want Obama to "fail." They want him to fail, without even listing alternative solutions.

I've got a lot going on in the next 24 hours so I might not reply right away (Monday at the latest, I expect), but I have to say one thing before then: the idea that you can call dissent over things like healthcare "selfish" and "hateful" is completely absurd. No wonder you hate Republicans: you've ruled out the possibility that they ever take positions on principle.

Moreover, that you can choose those words to describe disagreement on these issues while simultaneously ranting about how it's Republicans use divisive and spiteful rhetoric is pretty mind-blowing. You can't go two paragraphs without doing the same things you're accusing them of. How do you not see this?

I look forward to this continuing, because we're finally delving into actual policy, but really, I can't believe that you'd allow yourself to believe that conservative opposition to massive government programs is the result of hate and selfishness. Talk about demonizing your opponents...geez.

Okay, you make a valid point. I have often thought about how high pitched my rhetoric got after the Clinton impeachment. I never had such strong feelings before. I believe they started it.

And another thing to think about later: you are using the words, "massive government programs." The rhetoric here is interesting.

BTW, Yoda, since we're talking about it here (sorry, Filmfreak, we've gone from Palin to Obama), there is this poll:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt...S.html?showall

Seems 58% -- FIFTY EIGHT PERCENT -- of Republicans polled are not sure Obama was born in the USA.

I'd like to know what you think this says about a large percentage of Republicans.

I am not 100% sure, are you? If so how? I mean I am 99% sure and even if he was not it doesn't really matter to me. It is really a non issue IMO. Lets say for some reason we find out he was not, would I want him removed? Nope, that would not be good for this country. I do not hate Obama as many might think, I just do not like many of his policies.
As far as Palin goes: She did bring some heat on herself, but I think the main reason so many hate her is because she is a symbol of conservatism and that symbol has a loud voice.

I'm 100% sure, yep, I saw the Hawaii birth certificate. And I never questioned any other President on their birth. Hmmm... is the name "Barack Hussein Obama" the reason? That name is un-American!!!

*puts finger on chin*

For many, I don't think hating Palin is simply because she's a conservative. At least, that's not why I hate her.

Honestly, I'm just tired of the assertion that if you just don't like Palin that you are being sexist. I realize during the primary that Clinton surrogates claimed sexism too, which I also got tired of hearing. There was a lot of gender-baiting going on in the last election, the lipstick comment being a prime example; how exactly was it sexist to twist her words? Was it insinuating her to be inferior or less respected because of her gender, or is it that anytime something negative is said that it is a reflex to label it sexism, even if it's a gender-neutral insult? It's like if Palin made a crack about Obama's ears, and then claiming it to be male-bashing.

This is flat-out false. My family does some work with a thriving cyber character school here in Pennsylvania, and from what I've seen many of the kids taking these choices (when they actually get them, that is) are minority students. Many of the programs are targetted to lower-income sutdents; one of them was cut short in D.C. as recently as April. I can find more examples; am I to understand you'd be for any school choice program targetted to minority students?

I'd also point out that your response, in addition to leveling a charge of racism without a shred of evidence, ignores the issue of whether or not it's actually a good idea that gets results. Results have been uniformly positive almost everywhere such programs are tried.

If you believe in compromise, I'll take you at your word, certainly. It's just been my observation that you seem to believe the major planks of the Republican party are such terrible ideas that you don't want them implemented at all. It's easy to believe in compromise as an abstract ideal, but when does it actually manifest itself in real life?

Anyway, as you said this is being discussed in the Obama thread, so I suppose it doesn't make sense to duplicate it here. I'll address it there shortly after this reply.

I don't think any person should have to go out of their way to disassociate themselves from someone they don't have any connection to whatsoever. I don't think I've ever noticed Ann Coulter being introduced as the "conservative voice" -- this seems somewhat implied when they put her on with a liberal, but I haven't noticed it put like that. And how are Republicans supposed to control how a TV interviewer introduces Ann Coulter, anyway? You're basically suggesting that politicians somehow held accountable for people they have no connection with based on the fact that they're reasonably popular among their constituents, and based on the fact that some news anchor thinks of them a certain way. I don't see how this makes the slightest bit of sense, honestly. People should be held accountable for what they say and do. Ann Coulter doesn't get to pretend to speak for me or for Republican politicians just because she's incendiary enough to make people pay attention when she talks.

You know, there's a funny line in Howard Stern's Private Parts about his ratings, and how both people who love him and people who hate him keep listening to see what he'll say next. Ratings are not a great barometer; anyone who's heard Rush at all knows that plenty of his callers are liberals. I'm sure you've heard him once or twice, too. I'm sure the majority of his listeners are conservatives, but this in no way implies that they agree with everything he says. And even if they do, it doesn't imply that they agree with the way he says it. You're extrapolating on about a dozen different fronts to reach these conclusions, assuming the worst possible thing at every possible juncture to arrive at a very unrealistic view of conservatism.

But which comes first? That's my question. You seem primarily interested in tactics, tone, and other nebulous things. Policy always comes up after five or six replies, it seems. Would you or would you not support an arrogant, confrontational jerk who you knew would get broad results economically? Which is more important, the quality of the ideas, or the tenor of their implementation?

Again, this is the cart before the horse. It should be assumed that the ideas every person has are the ideas they find best, which is why they hold them. I don't know why we have to keep going round and round on this.

I can think of at least four things terribly wrong with this sentiment:

First, the Republicans lost some elections. A whole bunch were held; some put Democrats in office, some put Republicans in office. America voted for exactly the Congressional makeup it has knowing full well they disagreed on these issues.

Second, are you suggesting that a party should capitulate on its policies and ideas just because it lost an election? How does that make sense? That would be horrendous, and it's not something either party ever does. Nor should they.

Third, your assertion that "people want healthcare reform" is conveniently vague. Polls show that people think the system is a problem...but that in no way implies that Obama's solution is favored. Far from it; any poll which mentions government-run or government-controlled healthcare meets with plenty of opposition. Any poll that mentions the cost (which is absurdly, unrealistically low by any empirical measure) yields the same. People want reform, all right, but that doesn't mean they want what's being proposed.

Polls also show a funny gap between how bad the people think the system is, and how they feel about their own healthcare. They tend to think a lot better on average about their own coverage than they do about the system at large. We saw this last year, as well, when polls showed that people thought their personal financial situation was significantly better than how they thought the economy as a whole was doing. Just goes to show what power images and anecdotes have, I suppose.

Fourth, the Democrats have the majorities to pass these things. The Republicans aren't using some legislative loophole to block anything (though doing so is obviously fair game, anyway). The Democrats simply hate the idea of having to own this idea completely, and they want political cover. They can do it without a single Republican vote.

Why is it that liberals can't conceive of well-meaning policies having adverse effects? Helping others does not always entail cutting the biggest check. In fact, history shows us this is often horrendously counterproductive.

I don't grant your premise that other countries are "doing fine." If you like anecdotes, I can tell you one about a friend of the family whose mother couldn't get a single colonoscopy in Canada despite insisting to her doctor that she needed one. No points for guessing just which type of cancer ended her life. I won't pretend that anecdotes prove anything (though I have more), but there are heaps of them about the shortcomings of socialized healthcare there. I don't know if you ignore these, or just don't ever become aware of them, but if you're honestly looking for the truth about their effectiveness, you can find them.

There are also some other factors to consider. For example, healthcare can be a lot cheaper in a given country if they have laxer laws about pharmaceutical drugs. Canada can benefit from the drugs rsearched and developed here, but if every country had the same attitude towards intellectual property there would be no impetus for the investment that creates the drugs in the first place. Countries using more socialized forms of healthcare benefit from trading with countries that don't.

They're not. Though I'll point out that it could quite easily be characterized as "selfish" to suggest that lots of rich people pay taxes to fix other people's problems just because they have lots of money. It's easy to be generous with other people's wealth; could that be called "selfish"?

What on earth about what I said was "unfair" or "mean"? I said that I wanted Democrats to continue to praise him, because very few people agree with them. This isn't even remotely below the belt, and it doesn't compare to holding down the CAPS LOCK button to twice insist that Reagan was "WRONG." Sheesh.

What's in the record, exactly? What did Carter say? Did Reagan dispute him? If so, how?

And besides, what's the claim here; that he warned us about being dependent on foreign oil, and that thirty years later it's become an issue? That he was worried about the economy, and thirty years later we had a significant recession? There are tons of guys out there who predict recessions every year, and when they're finally right on the 8th try say "see! Told you all along!"

So Carter predicts things that may or may not have been directly disputed, some of which sorta happened 30 years later, so we should ignore the fact that he presided over the nation's highest misery index since they began tracking it in 1948?

I didn't say every single thing you said was revisionist. I've read Eisenhower's speech several times and I have no doubt that there was a lot of unresolved racism in the South during the Civil Rights movement. I just don't think the Civil Rights movement provides any sort of justification for however you choose to badmouth today's Republicans, per my Lincoln example. None of this has any bearing on this discussion or which party espouses better ideas.

No, don't go on, because you need to actually defend the examples you've already listed. Public polls on these various issues suggest that many of these ideas (though not all, certainly) are not even remotely "fringe." Some of them aren't even close

I don't know how you're using the word "fringe" but I use it to describe a tiny segment of the population, which I'm pretty sure is close to the actual definition. You seem to be using it to describe things you just really, really dislike.

Wow. Daily Kos is absolutely fringe, and yes, I've read plenty of the comments there. I don't know what you mean by "average American people." If you mean that they have seemingly normal professions from all walks of life, sure. Plenty of construction workers and bartenders and IT managers there, as there would be in any group. But if you mean that their ideas are mainstream, nothing could be further from the truth, and you'd have to be pretty insulated from mainstream ideas to think so.

Regarding the "wackos" -- I honestly don't know if they've changed their policy, and I haven't visited in awhile, but last I saw you couldn't go through a single comment thread without reading something horribly incendiary and/or crazy. I don't know if you saw the thread about Reagan's death, but it was one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen. Many, many comments made jokes about dancing on his grave. That wasn't the last time I ever visited, but it was close.

No, I don't watch O'Reilly's show, and I think for myself, thank you very much. I'm not going to play some game where you try to figure out if I watch or listen to this or that conservative personality to peg me one way or another. I don't listen to any of them, but whether I did or not, I make my own decisions, and I can explain them in my own words. I think Daily Kos is crazy because I've repeatedly seen crazy things there.

Yes. Crazy, maybe desperate. Irrationally angry and looking for an outlet. All of the above, maybe.

Because I don't see everything through race-tinted glasses.

I know you hate it when every attack on Palin is dismissed as "sexist." I know you hate it when every criticism of the war in Iraq is turned into some statement about support for the troops. Well, that's exactly how it is for conservatives when any question about Barack Obama immediately turns to cries of racism. Here's my suggestion: when someone says or does something racist, call it racist. And if they don't, then don't. This is an important, sensitive topic, and it shouldn't be tossed around like a political football at every opportunity.

I want Obama to fail insofar as he supports ideas that I think are bad. I can't think of a single sensible reason why anyone would be expected to feel otherwise, ever.

I asked this before, but it bears repeating: do you really think I would somehow find a way to disagree if Obama advocated an across-the-board tax cut? If he came out tomorrow in favor of a reduction in the capital gains rate? If he came out tomorrow in favor of increased school choice? I'm always defending and supporting these ideas. I would love it if that would happen. You keep trying to make it sound sinsister that I want a guy I disagree with to fail in implementing ideas I don't like, but I don't see how that's supposed to work.

Eh? I'd have to know what you read, and where. I don't know what you're referring to.

I want to solve problems, period. Sometimes this is achieved through compromise, and sometimes it isn't. Compromise is such a lovely word in politics that people often seem to forget that it isn't the goal. It is useful to the degree to which it produces good policy and good working relationships, but it is not the goal in and of itself. When a Democratic President is espousing ideas I think are bad and has huge majorities in both the House and the Senate, I'm not sure I see why it would be sensible to compromise. Not that I see any meaningful compromises being offered to begin with.

Don't trust either of us: examine it for yourself. It's worth it, and it often takes way less time than just talking about it like this. But again, notice the word "trust." It really seems like this is how many people are forming economic opinions now: they decide who to "trust," and just go with that. As I've pointed out, this completely discounts the possibility (which is all too common) that someone can want to do the right thing, and just be plain wrong about what that is.

It's more like they're saying it won't help the poor or the middle class, actually. The fact that you don't seem to either acknowledge or realize this makes me wonder if you've ever actually bothered to try to understand the opposition to it. You'd have to have avoided it almost completely not to comprehend the other side's argument, even if you didn't agree.

Capitalism isn't wrought with greed, humanity is wrought with greed, and it's not going to go away by implementing nationalized healthcare.

Do you happen to remember the exact quote? I ask because you put "have to" outside the quote, but it's easily the most important part of the statement. If the woman is saying that she doesn't like the idea of helping anyone, even if she can afford to, then that's terrible and she's being selfish. If she's saying that she doesn't like being forced to help people, that's another thing entirely. I give to charity even though I don't make a lot of money, but I don't like being forced into it.

That's something I'm not sure proponents of this plan always get. It's incredibly easy to forget this, but this sort of thing involves forcibly taking money from people. It's not optional; you go to jail if you don't comply. The money has to come from somewhere, and in this case, it has to be pried from people's hands. Government programs take through force. I really wish people would keep that in mind when thinking about policy, because I think it's very easy to think of it only in the abstract.

Well, why not? You listed several things you hated about Republican opposition to Obama's healthcare plan, and I explained how they form a direct parallel to Democratic opposition to Bush's privatization plan. If the only difference between the two is that you agree with one, but not the other, then that constitutes a double standard. What part of this is incorrect?

Again: they're the minority. Democrats control all three branches, for crying out loud. The idea that they can put forward a feasible plan with a chance of passing is nuts, and whether or not they do has no bearing whatsoever on the wisdom of this plan. How's the logic supposed to work here? No ideas are bad unless you can present an immediate alternative? Why not? There are lots of big problems that are hard to solve; the idea that you must have a fully-formed alternative plan to think another idea is poor is completely arbitrary.

Well, I've been a member of Daily Kos for over 5 years so I guess my ideas are out of the "mainstream" and I'm just another fringe wacko.

'Cause, you see, I find a lot of like minded people there and I never would have characterized us that way.

Sorry, Yoda, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about that. Not sure what to say exactly.

I wouldn't call you a wacko, regardless, but out of the mainstream? On some issues, yes. Though I'm not going to assume that you agree with everything on Daily Kos, either.

I understand you would not characterize people there as fringe, but isn't that the point? Nobody thinks their beliefs are like that, but obviously some of them must be. People on conservative blogs don't think of themselves that way, either.

I don't know how you should feel about this, either, but you certainly shouldn't feel insulted. I have some views that I think are probably outside of the mainstream, but I don't concern myself with it much if I'm convinced they're right. No big deal, but obviously relevant when discussing what kind of influence the fringe element has on each party.

I don't believe any of my beliefs are "out of the mainstream." And yes, I don't agree with everything on Daily Kos, but I do agree with the front page diarists quite often. Its in the comments where I usually disagree.

I've watched that website grow and grow and I believe it is because people began to get fed up with what the neocons and the conservatives were pushing on the American people. I don't find that "out of the mainstream" at all. These are the same people that contributed to Obama's victory.

And back to Palin, her latest:

Interesting rhetoric, don't you think? Dangerous rhetoric when it's exposed as being a downright lie.