Come GWJ conservatives, we must chat

1Dgaf wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I suspect it's code for "abortion"

That hadn't even crossed my mind - no sarcasm intended. If it is code for abortion - which it might not be - then haven't other threads discussed stats about good sex education leading to lower pregnancies?

I think we all have to temper our desire for means with ends.

But good sex education is considered a big no-no for the substantial chunk of the GOP that are social conservatives (aka, evangelical Christians).

Speaking of chunks, does anyone know if there's a legitimate breakdown of the various core beliefs of the Republican Party floating around out there? I'm talking about the percentage of folks who primarily identify as fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Tea Partiers, pro-rich/pro-business, or whatever. I ask because I really wonder if moderate conservatives are even a meaningful portion of the Republican Party anymore.

I was able to find an awesome Pew Research report on the increasing partisan polarization of Americans over the past 25 years, but it really didn't say anything about the changing nature of the GOP outside of the things we've already talked about (the dramatic slide to the right, increasingly negative view of all things government, etc.).

The one thing that did strike me was this chart:

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/06/6-4-12-V-107.png)

I have to wonder what impact the growing split between conservatives who identify as Republicans and conservatives who identify as Independents is having. It seems the conservative Republican group increasingly only consists of people with more extremist views, such as Tea Partiers and social conservatives, while old school conservatives have fled the GOP. Unfortunately, we don't have a third party, meaning those independent conservatives can only vote for a more extreme conservative candidate that passed the GOP purity test or a Democratic candidate.

This might be a bit tangental, but bear with me. This article regarding the ideological reasons why white supremacist terrorism is largely tolerated in America (and tacitly dog whistle championed by white conservatives) pretty much nails down the reason why it is tremendously difficult to see the good in the conservative cause.

OG_slinger wrote:

But good sex education is considered a big no-no for the substantial chunk of the GOP that are social conservatives (aka, evangelical Christians).

Exactly, which is why they need to think about the ends and not the means. THey have to decide whether they want to beat the bull or move it.

Paleocon wrote:

This might be a bit tangental, but bear with me. This article regarding the ideological reasons why white supremacist terrorism is largely tolerated in America (and tacitly dog whistle championed by white conservatives) pretty much nails down the reason why it is tremendously difficult to see the good in the conservative cause.

Generalizing entire groups of people based on the "crazy of the day" doesn't help resolve anything and alienates people who would normally be willing to listen with an open mind.
Farscry wrote:
1Dgaf wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Prevent child murder

Is this high on your list because you or someone you know has been affected by it?

EDIT:

I ask because it's unlike the others and quite specific.

I suspect it's code for "abortion"

It is code for that.....

At the time I thought it best to sort of hide that a bit. In retrospect I should have just either said it or not said anything in the first place.

MattDaddy wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

This might be a bit tangental, but bear with me. This article regarding the ideological reasons why white supremacist terrorism is largely tolerated in America (and tacitly dog whistle championed by white conservatives) pretty much nails down the reason why it is tremendously difficult to see the good in the conservative cause.

Generalizing entire groups of people based on the "crazy of the day" doesn't help resolve anything and alienates people who would normally be willing to listen with an open mind.

How is Paleo generalizing? Many different conservative sub-groups--Republican lawmakers, veterans groups, gun rights activists, anti-abortion protesters, anti-immigration protesters, right wing media--condemned the DHS report when it came out.

At a certain point you have to sit back and say that if so many different conservative sub-groups have this position then the conservative movement as a whole must also either share the position or at least be very sympathetic to it.

Either way, the point the article made is entirely valid: conservatives didn't like the fact that the behaviors of many of their sub-groups were classified as potentially being domestic terrorism and threw a hissy fit. The shootings in Wisconsin, however, proved that the DHS report was correct and that the American public should be concerned about conservative extremists.

The real question for conservatives is why their political group seems to either attract these extremists (or actively courts them) and what impact that has on the public's perception of conservatism?

I have a question. Do you think that proper sex ed and easy/free access to multitudes of birth control is preferable to terminations?

I take issue that pro-life has cast a large umbrella to encompass opposing medical research, sex ed, even vaccinations that could save women from cancer.

That is even more water muddied by a crazy moral agenda.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have a question. Do you think that proper sex ed and easy/free access to multitudes of birth control is preferable to terminations?

I take issue that pro-life has cast a large umbrella to encompass opposing medical research, sex ed, even vaccinations that could save women from cancer.

That is even more water muddied by a crazy moral agenda.

This has been talked about to death by other posters on here, but as one of them is currently taking a break from P&C, I'll post for him.

Pro-life is not about preventing terminations. It's about controlling women's sexuality. That's why proper sex ed and access to birth control is also not allowed.

1Dgaf wrote:

good sex education.

OOC theatre says "Kama sutra, silly."

SixteenBlue wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I have a question. Do you think that proper sex ed and easy/free access to multitudes of birth control is preferable to terminations?

I take issue that pro-life has cast a large umbrella to encompass opposing medical research, sex ed, even vaccinations that could save women from cancer.

That is even more water muddied by a crazy moral agenda.

This has been talked about to death by other posters on here, but as one of them is currently taking a break from P&C, I'll post for him.

Pro-life is not about preventing terminations. It's about controlling women's sexuality. That's why proper sex ed and access to birth control is also not allowed.

The problem, from their point of view, is that allowing women to control their sexuality pretty much utterly torpedoes their worldview. If you believe in a "traditional family", that means dad at work, mom at home with babies. If women can control whether or not they have babies, they can have careers, political power, economic power, all that; it destroys that whole idea of the perfect 1950s world that never actually existed.

If women are here on Earth for the purpose of making babies, you want them making babies. Good sex education and access to contraception and abortion means they're going to be all uppity and doing something other than breeding while married young.

I guess this just isn't going to be the thread it was intended to be.

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

MattDaddy wrote:

I guess this just isn't going to be the thread it was intended to be.

We've been over this with the police state thread. Not going to have a thread where you can't be challenged. It's not a "GWJ is liberal and gangs up on conservatives" thing either, considering the results of that thread.

jdzappa wrote:

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

I agree with you. I tried to limit my posting here to "I would totally agree with the conservative movement writ large if X happened" since I really miss old school conservatives. I feel like being Libertarian-leaning should mean I have more company these days and more common cause with conservatives. Anyway, I apologize if I contributed to the derail in any way. You should be able to create a single thread like that indeed.

jdzappa wrote:

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

It does seem like the same respect goojers give each other does not translate into this fourm. The way topics are attacked and hijacked doesnt make me want to talk in this fourm. I think its probably best for me to stay out of here too.

SixteenBlue wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I have a question. Do you think that proper sex ed and easy/free access to multitudes of birth control is preferable to terminations?

I take issue that pro-life has cast a large umbrella to encompass opposing medical research, sex ed, even vaccinations that could save women from cancer.

That is even more water muddied by a crazy moral agenda.

This has been talked about to death by other posters on here, but as one of them is currently taking a break from P&C, I'll post for him.

Pro-life is not about preventing terminations. It's about controlling women's sexuality. That's why proper sex ed and access to birth control is also not allowed.

Yes we are an evil organization that wishes to control women and that is our only goal. We actually dont care about the life and death of a baby at all but want to decide how women will dress and think. Our unspoken real goal is that we wish women to only wear plaid.......

mcdonis wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

It does seem like the same respect goojers give each other does not translate into this fourm. The way topics are attacked and hijacked doesnt make me want to talk in this fourm. I think its probably best for me to stay out of here too.

SixteenBlue wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I have a question. Do you think that proper sex ed and easy/free access to multitudes of birth control is preferable to terminations?

I take issue that pro-life has cast a large umbrella to encompass opposing medical research, sex ed, even vaccinations that could save women from cancer.

That is even more water muddied by a crazy moral agenda.

This has been talked about to death by other posters on here, but as one of them is currently taking a break from P&C, I'll post for him.

Pro-life is not about preventing terminations. It's about controlling women's sexuality. That's why proper sex ed and access to birth control is also not allowed.

Yes we are an evil organization that wishes to control women and that is our only goal. We actually dont care about the life and death of a baby at all but want to decide how women will dress and think. Our unspoken real goal is that we wish women to only wear plaid.......

I understand why you take offense to these statements, but you should take that as an opportunity to prove them wrong instead of taking your ball and going home.

If you'd like to see the justification for that statement, search the forums for previous threads on Abortion. The War on Women thread probably goes into that topic as well.

jdzappa wrote:

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?"

I think you're putting the "you" in there, where everyone so far seems to be making the generalization against a broad group - which is what generalizations are for. "Conservatives" seem to be willing to not turn a blind eye towards these acts, but are at least less willing to raise arms against them. "A conservative" is a whole other animal.

It's not offensive, it's not a personal attack. It's an observation of a behavioral trend. It's something I, as someone who identifies largely as a conservative-minded person, am willing to look at directly and say "yes, this does happen and it's a problem".

The main problem of the Republican Party is that the company line is the ignorant trumpeting of "We can do no wrong", and it gains such traction because people are unwilling or afraid to look at the people that share their values in some way and say "no, you're a problem". Because then the liberals win or something.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Good sex education and access to contraception and abortion means they're going to be all uppity and doing something other than breeding while married young.

As someone who was raised in a conservative Christian environment, I can say that all the objections I ever saw to sex education were based on fears that it encouraged sexual activity at a young age, and outside of marriage. Your claim that the objections were rooted in a desire to keep women subjugated like 1950's housewives...I never saw evidence for that.

I won't say there are no conservative Christians who hold that view - I'm sure it exists among some elderly people, particularly in the south - but in the socially conservative Christian churches and school I attended while growing up, many women had jobs, and families were rarely larger than four people. Even the pastor's wives held jobs of their own - one was a nurse - and most of the teachers at the Baptist school I attended were married women.

There are certainly many reasons to disagree with those who oppose sex ed, but creating caricatures of your opponents isn't constructive for anyone.

Mcdonis

Would you support comprehensive sex education if you were shown stats that it reduced levels of teen pregnancy and abortion? Tht it was more effective than trying to teach abstinence?

So this would be sex ed, not related to religion, not simply advocating not having sex. It would be thorough and taught in schools from a young age and possibly include teenagers having access to contraceptives.

I'll put this here again, to help clarify some of where the response to Conservatives has been coming from for the last 20 years or so:

DSGamer wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

I agree with you. I tried to limit my posting here to "I would totally agree with the conservative movement writ large if X happened" since I really miss old school conservatives. I feel like being Libertarian-leaning should mean I have more company these days and more common cause with conservatives. Anyway, I apologize if I contributed to the derail in any way. You should be able to create a single thread like that indeed.

DS, you have nothing to apologize for. I've actually thought the conversation has been going well until the last day or so, and I've been doing my best to make up for past sins considering I've gone guns blazing into some past situations. I'm just not sure how to respond to the notion that conservatives as a group are responsible for the extremist Neo-Nazis. I guess all I can say is my conservative grandfather killed his share of Nazis with Patton's Army, or that my conservative father-in-law (who actually ran for office as a Republican) grew up as a little boy seeing his older family members coming back from WW II in body bags. This left him with a lifelong hatred of all white extremists who want to carry on Hitler's legacy, and trust me they have a presence here in the Pacific Northwest.

SixteenBlue wrote:

We've been over this with the police state thread. Not going to have a thread where you can't be challenged.

I wasn't referring to OGs "challenging" my post. I am talking about the numerous ones that are simply attacks, condescension, or snark directed at conservatives.

It's not a "GWJ is liberal and gangs up on conservatives" thing either

It's not?

Pro-life is not about preventing terminations. It's about controlling women's sexuality. That's why proper sex ed and access to birth control is also not allowed.
white supremacist terrorism is largely tolerated in America (and tacitly dog whistle championed by white conservatives) pretty much nails down the reason why it is tremendously difficult to see the good in the conservative cause.
If women are here on Earth for the purpose of making babies, you want them making babies. Good sex education and access to contraception and abortion means they're going to be all uppity and doing something other than breeding while married young.

And this is after:

So wait, this thread was done in earnest and now again we have devolved into bashing?

I am really appalled that we liberals felt the need to come in here and slap a reality check down. This thread was created to further the discussion and it looks like we made it to 2 pages.

jdzappa wrote:

I'm just not sure how to respond to the notion that conservatives as a group are responsible for the extremist Neo-Nazis.

You don't need to respond to that notion, since no one in the thread has actually presented it.

What was actually said -

Paleocon wrote:

This might be a bit tangental, but bear with me. This article regarding the ideological reasons why white supremacist terrorism is largely tolerated in America (and tacitly dog whistle championed by white conservatives) pretty much nails down the reason why it is tremendously difficult to see the good in the conservative cause.

There's a difference between stating "conservatives are the cause" and "conservatives as a group seem tolerant of this".

edit: I should be less pithy.

jdzappa wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

I agree with you. I tried to limit my posting here to "I would totally agree with the conservative movement writ large if X happened" since I really miss old school conservatives. I feel like being Libertarian-leaning should mean I have more company these days and more common cause with conservatives. Anyway, I apologize if I contributed to the derail in any way. You should be able to create a single thread like that indeed.

DS, you have nothing to apologize for. I've actually thought the conversation has been going well until the last day or so, and I've been doing my best to make up for past sins considering I've gone guns blazing into some past situations. I'm just not sure how to respond to the notion that conservatives as a group are responsible for the extremist Neo-Nazis. I guess all I can say is my conservative grandfather killed his share of Nazis with Patton's Army, or that my conservative father-in-law (who actually ran for office as a Republican) grew up as a little boy seeing his older family members coming back from WW II in body bags. This left him with a lifelong hatred of all white extremists who want to carry on Hitler's legacy, and trust me they have a presence here in the Pacific Northwest.

The problem there is that you're describing this like it's some sort of out-of-left-field idea that's being posited by crazies on the left fringe. There's been a long, documented, self-confessed history of relying on racial fears of the white middle and lower class to push Republican vote numbers - Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's Philadelphia speech, Palin's "Blood Libel", etc, as well as imagery tied to assassination and terrorism (Palin's target list, "watering the tree of liberty", etc.). It's perfectly reasonable to not agree with these things and still be a conservative, but the tactics have been so ingrained into conservative politics for the last 40+ years that it's disingenuous, or just plain ignorant to say that they have no influence on racially motivated violence during the same time period.

Bear in mind that with mcdonis using the term 'child murder', he's saying that people who are pro-choice are in favour of killing children.

I don't like that insinuation, but I'd rather tackle the issues than be offended by it. (I actually just find it bemusing.)

It isn't going to be an easy discussion, but the threads, as I read them, are more about logic with a bit of snark than the other way around.

Tanglebones wrote:
jdzappa wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

Ok, I need to push back a bit here. First of all, I've been taken to task for bringing up the more violent anarchist elements that are attracted to Occupy Wall Street, or bringing up some of the convicted domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who have ties to Obama. And you know what, I did realize that the actions of a few crazies does not reflect the beliefs of the majority.

Yet, that same courtesy is not reciprocated as GWJ conservatives are asked "why do you secretly support extremists?" It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel it's the equivalent of me going to the Atheists We Must Chat thread and asking why atheists support Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sending religious leaders to the gulag. I certainly don't want to limit the dialogue between conservatives and liberals, but I did set up this thread as a "safe place" for conservatives and independents to gather.

The more and more I think about it, it's becoming obvious that I should limit my posting to Gaming and Everything Else.

I agree with you. I tried to limit my posting here to "I would totally agree with the conservative movement writ large if X happened" since I really miss old school conservatives. I feel like being Libertarian-leaning should mean I have more company these days and more common cause with conservatives. Anyway, I apologize if I contributed to the derail in any way. You should be able to create a single thread like that indeed.

DS, you have nothing to apologize for. I've actually thought the conversation has been going well until the last day or so, and I've been doing my best to make up for past sins considering I've gone guns blazing into some past situations. I'm just not sure how to respond to the notion that conservatives as a group are responsible for the extremist Neo-Nazis. I guess all I can say is my conservative grandfather killed his share of Nazis with Patton's Army, or that my conservative father-in-law (who actually ran for office as a Republican) grew up as a little boy seeing his older family members coming back from WW II in body bags. This left him with a lifelong hatred of all white extremists who want to carry on Hitler's legacy, and trust me they have a presence here in the Pacific Northwest.

The problem there is that you're describing this like it's some sort of out-of-left-field idea that's being posited by crazies on the left fringe. There's been a long, documented, self-confessed history of relying on racial fears of the white middle and lower class to push Republican vote numbers - Nixon's Southern Strategy, Reagan's Philadelphia speech, Palin's "Blood Libel", etc, as well as imagery tied to assassination and terrorism (Palin's target list, "watering the tree of liberty", etc.). It's perfectly reasonable to not agree with these things and still be a conservative, but the tactics have been so ingrained into conservative politics for the last 40+ years that it's disingenuous, or just plain ignorant to say that they have no influence on racially motivated violence during the same time period.

Ok, you've made some good points here and when I get home from work I'll be happy to debate this. I should add that after re-reading the original article about the DHS analyst, I can say from experience that good intelligence being ignored for political reasons is all too frequent an occurance. I saw it happen as an intel analyst in the Army when in the 90s the US for the most part ignored Osama Bin Laden's growing threat.

MattDaddy wrote:
It's not a "GWJ is liberal and gangs up on conservatives" thing either

It's not?

Much of the "conservative bashing" happening in this thread has actually been posts written by conservative members of GWJ (going off their posting history).

As a liberal/moderate, I've posted three times now: Once to say this thread was (at the time) awesome and that I was enjoying having it to read, once to clarify McDonis's "child murder" note (since someone asked about it, it was late at night, and I happened to be reading and able to clarify for the person asking the question), and now once in irritation at you for pointing the finger at "those liberals" as being the source of strife in this conversation.

Just like people of faith have had good thoughts to occasionally contribute to the atheist-commiseration thread, some of us liberal-leaning folks also want to see this conversation remain productive and are restraining ourselves from contributing to this conversation in an unconstructive manner.

***

More on-topic:

1Dgaf wrote:

Bear in mind that with mcdonis using the term 'child murder', he's saying that people who are pro-choice are in favour of killing children.

I don't like that insinuation, but I'd rather tackle the issues than be offended by it.

It's important to understand that, if you view unborn children as human beings who simply aren't capable of self-supporting life yet, abortion is murder. So while yes, I (as someone who stands more on the pro-choice side of the fence) could take offense at the insinuation, I perfectly understand that McDonis doesn't mean to insult me, but rather is pointing out the gravity of the issue in his mind.

It's also on-topic because it is part of his core platform of issues that a conservative party needs to address.

Farscry wrote:

some of us liberal-leaning folks also want to see this conversation remain productive and are restraining ourselves from contributing to this conversation in an unconstructive manner.

Thank you for that. I wish it was all.

I should add that after re-reading the original article about the DHS analyst, I can say from experience that good intelligence being ignored for political reasons is all too frequent an occurance. I saw it happen as an intel analyst in the Army when in the 90s the US for the most part ignored Osama Bin Laden's growing threat.

And I worked for a different organization in the same period where I was told in no uncertain terms that UBL was *the* threat to the US, and would be moving forward. (I thought they were crazy, but it stuck in my mind because these were *very* smart people.) This was after 1993, of course. But your point is correct overall - there were factions that were intent on ignoring this, and that extended into 2001 as has been well documented.

My experience during the same period with the Army matches yours. And that's the sort of thing that was noticed at the time - as you will recall, the idea of an intelligence "Czar" was hotly debated.

Politics always influences policy, no matter how capable the sources of information provided to the leaders are.

I think that majority of elected Democrats are pragmatic moderates, while the majority of elected Republicans are idealists.

The problem with both of them is corruption and believing in things that are just not true.

I think the conservative worldview has tempered Democrats, but embroiled Republicans. In other words most Democrats will concede a point while Republicans will not.