How have your political views changed over the years?

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

Well they've got the VP slot at the moment. A McCain win would put Palin in a solid position for the Rep nomination 4 or 8 years from now.

Well, McCain isn't one of them, at least. And while the president is the leader of the party and the country, I'd say it's more important to have legislators who are in touch with modern American values (which I would argue are traditional, constitutional values, but that's another discussion).

Robear, it's blowing my mind to hear you talk about mean Republicans in light of all the attacks on Palin and her daughter over the last few days. You really think Republicans are the sole source of meanness in the world?

Come to think of it, just Google "Bush Hitler" and become enlightened.

First, Fed, bear in mind that none of this is personal.

Robear, it's blowing my mind to hear you talk about mean Republicans in light of all the attacks on Palin and her daughter over the last few days. You really think Republicans are the sole source of meanness in the world?

No, I think they re-introduced it into politics in the 80's. If you look back at the editorials aimed at Dan Quayle, they were in the same vein or worse than what Palin is going through. But all that pales compared to what Clinton and Gore and other Dems have been subjected to by the Republicans in the course of the last 20 years or so. Even in 1984, bipartisanship was the rule in Congress and the Presidency; now, it's a bad word, reeking of weakness and appeasement. The style popular now was last seen in the 19th century, in my view. We are about one notch from seeing Barney Franks caned in the Senate, frankly. Heck, the VP feels it's okay to drop the F-Bomb in the Senate, and his party *defends* him for it.

What blows *my* mind is that any Republicans are able to cry foul over *any* attacks in this campaign. These are the people who push-polled South Carolina into believing John McCain had an illegitimate child by a black mistress, when in fact he had adopted a Bangladeshi girl (don't worry, though, All Is Forgiven stop Please Come Back John full stop). These are the people who said that a Democratic Presidential candidate was going to put rapists into your town. And of course the years of tearing down of Bill Clinton while he was President is surpassed only by the complaints that Bush is being unfairly targetted by un-American liberal demagogues in the un-American liberal press.

It's a great gig and it shows the propaganda machine at full stretch. It really is a thing to be admired, like a Tai-Pan or some other attractive but ultimately deadly snake wrapping around the body politic. And this is one of the few times I've seen even a relatively small liberal noise machine start up, and it's like the end of the world.

Think for a moment about the technique you used to bring up the question. I talked about the effects and techniques and purposes of smashmouth politics as used by the Republicans. You could have chosen any of those points to argue. But in true modern Republican style, you simply summarized my point as "Robear thinks Republicans are the source of all meanness in the world." How in the world is that an exchange of views? You addressed none of my points. You said "Man, I can't believe you said that, why do you think everything bad is down to us?"

But that's not what I said. We seem to get along even though we disagree, so why do you argue this way? I think it's because that's what you've seen for years from the punditry on your side of the aisle. When you disagree, exaggerate and try to paint your opponent as unreasonable. But how does that address the actual issue? It doesn't. It's just the style that's been pounded on your side, over and over and over, until it's an everyday tool of debate to just dismiss your opponent by pushing their argument to the edge and over. Heck, liberal pundits who attempt to argue issues are smeared as "policy wonks" or "beltway insiders". The whole practice of healthy political debate has been skewed by the techniques of Ralph Reed, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and others, for the sole purpose of not just competing against and overcoming Democrats, but absolutely discrediting them with an eye towards a Permanent Republican Majority. I mean, they gave interviews about it (Rove, and Reed, and Grover Norquist, for example). It's not some conspiracy theory or liberal angst.

Yeah, I can google "Bush Hitler". The issue is quantity, quality and funding. The beauty of good, wide-spread propaganda operations is that no matter how big an operation is, if any single group stands in opposition, they can be held up to justify even a hundred-fold response. The Republican domination of public discourse and control of message is awe-inspiring. It's cost billions of private money over 25 years or slightly more. It involves official RNC outlets and operatives, local ministers, grassroots activists, national advocacy groups, "independent" pundits and thinktanks, international and local news organizations, the K Street Project, dubious and criminal PACs, fake news bureaus, politicians and policy-makers, down to bloggers and media getting faxes from RNC and political cut-outs about what issues to raise today and how to do them. It's something that politicians and political scientists discuss frequently. And it's something that Democrats and liberals have never been able to match. That's what I'm talking about, and the fact that for the first time in decades the Dems have actual strong questions in quantity to ask of a national candidate does not outweigh the two decades of propaganda people like Richard Scaife, T. Boone Pickens and many others have deliberately injected into the public discourse to achieve their political goals. The cynicism and, yes, mean-ness of those campaigns affected even John McCain, in ways far worse than what Palin is now enduring, but now that he's their guy, it's back to "gosh, we've never seen this kind of thing before." I don't buy it. Je me souviens.

Oh, and btw? I think Palin is taking about an average level of criticism in the circumstances, and being defended well. I have no special sympathy; she and her party are more than capable of dealing with this. But the outrage? Manufactured. Red meat for the base to prevent the signal getting out of the noise.

Are you really upset that I engaged in hyperbole with the "source of all meanness in the world" bit? It wasn't hyperbole that was aimed at anyone as an attack. I don't really see why you would feel the need to bring it up. What I meant was "Do you really think that Republicans are worse than anyone else?" and you clearly got that, and you answered it. That is actually an exchange of views.

Huh?

That was well-put, Robear.

That was, Robear, a remarkable post.

Yeah, you are right, Fed. Sometimes it's easy to miss the point; I thought you were just dismissing my arguments by summarizing them in the worst way; I didn't read what you said as you intended. Thanks for your patience.

It applies to us, too, guys. We need to avoid the same vilification coming from the liberal side. The temptation to go there is strong but I think misguided. We should be considering that during the campaign season and try to keep the high ground. That's what I think, anyhow.

Robear wrote:

The temptation to go there is strong but I think misguided. We should be considering that during the campaign season and try to keep the high ground. That's what I think, anyhow.

The current anti-Palin parade on most political message boards is an example of how NOT to separate yourself from the Freeper conservative spew. I've been joking that she must have attacked South Ossetia or something the way people are repeating the same tired talking points over and over again.

I've been doing my best to draw attention to how debating like 2003 neoconservatives is a poor way to inspire rational and constructive debate... but it's not working very well. Some of the Obama camp are smelling McCain's blood in the water and going feral.

I have mellowed a bit in my views, but not a whole lot. I try my best not to make snap decisions or form an opinion on something without getting more than a couple of blurbs or soundbytes, or at least realize that they're very basic, and could change drastically once I learn more about the situation. I wouldn't say that there are things that are black and white situations of Good vs Evil, but that everything's a shade of gray. That said, some shades are so dark you could certainly call them black, and some that are so faint that they are white for all intents and purposes.
I think religion has no place in politics. I don't care what religion a politician practices so long as they don't let it make their decisions for them. One thing I don't really care for is how outraged the "liberals" get when someone accuses Obama of being a "secret muslim", is it really that bad a thing to be a muslim?

KaterinLHC wrote:

Indeed, Nietzsche once wrote: "... And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

I'd just like to add that I can no longer read or hear that without mentally adding "which I think is kind of a dick move on the abyss's part."

Robear wrote:

We need to avoid the same vilification coming from the liberal side. The temptation to go there is strong but I think misguided. We should be considering that during the campaign season and try to keep the high ground. That's what I think, anyhow.

Thank you, Robear. I was bothered by the attitude this forum has adopted in the last few weeks, but didn't have the will to point it out in fear of being accused as "trying to moderate the forum."

This page demonstrates what Obama being Muslim supposedly means. It's not in any way benign. Check out the email at the top - it flat-out says that Obama (whose mother was an ATHEIST) is working to destroy the US from within, because he's a SECRET MUSLIM.

That's what liberals are reacting to, Stengah, not the idea that being a practicing Muslim in America is a bad thing. Make more sense now?

I've become far more liberal over the past 15 years. I used to be a Republican, because the party stood for a few things:

1. Fiscal responsibility
2. Smaller Government
3. Personal Freedom

But it was hijacked by the Religious Right and it's become something entirely different. It's become the party of:

1. Fiscal irresponsibility and massive deficits
2. Big Goverment supporting Big Business and the Rich
3. Restricting personal freedoms and the imposition of radical religious beliefs on the American public

While many who have my political leanings have become libertarians, I've never considered the libertarian party as anything but a joke. They've never put forth a decent candidate and the party core are a bunch of loons. Interestingly enough, the Dems evolved to a party of fiscal responsiblity and enabling personal freedoms. As such, I've become a die-hard Democratic supporter - but I still maintain my Independent registry status.

I think institutionalized political parties - especially since we have only 2 - are the #1 failure in American politics today. They've created massive barriers to entry, with huge money machines and media ownership to prevent anyone else from getting into the game. I'm still hoping that a grass-roots, legitimate political party will form as a 3rd alternative to the Dems and Republicans. But until that time, I'll back the party that infringes on my rights the least and shows the most fiscal restraint - and that's easily the Democratic party today.

Thirteenth wrote:
Robear wrote:

We need to avoid the same vilification coming from the liberal side. The temptation to go there is strong but I think misguided. We should be considering that during the campaign season and try to keep the high ground. That's what I think, anyhow.

Thank you, Robear. I was bothered by the attitude this forum has adopted in the last few weeks, but didn't have the will to point it out in fear of being accused as "trying to moderate the forum."

I suppose the only way to improve the tone is for each person to moderate himself. I'd really love to see the tone of the McCain VP Pick thread improved, for one. Disagreements with policies and political strategies are a-ok imho, but there have been some pretty disgusting things posted. For one example, the Sarah Palin birth decision matrix which comments upon the strength of her v******** muscles. That contributed nothing to the dialogue other than to pull us further into the muck.

I agree with Fed here. It's a personal thing. The tone of the discussions is what we make it. Everyone gets angry now and then, but it's the regular tone that makes this part of the site as valuable as it is.

There's no point in running off the other side - who will we debate with, if that happens?

Blackadar wrote:

I've become far more liberal over the past 15 years. I used to be a Republican, because the party stood for a few things:

1. Fiscal responsibility
2. Smaller Government
3. Personal Freedom

Yeah. You didn't leave the party. The party left you.

Blackadar wrote:

While many who have my political leanings have become libertarians, I've never considered the libertarian party as anything but a joke. They've never put forth a decent candidate and the party core are a bunch of loons. Interestingly enough, the Dems evolved to a party of fiscal responsiblity and enabling personal freedoms. As such, I've become a die-hard Democratic supporter - but I still maintain my Independent registry status.

That's about where I am. I still recoil at the nanny state stuff, and I'm still a registered I, but I'm finding I have more in common with the Democrats. For now, at least.

Blackadar wrote:

I think institutionalized political parties - especially since we have only 2 - are the #1 failure in American politics today. They've created massive barriers to entry, with huge money machines and media ownership to prevent anyone else from getting into the game. I'm still hoping that a grass-roots, legitimate political party will form as a 3rd alternative to the Dems and Republicans. But until that time, I'll back the party that infringes on my rights the least and shows the most fiscal restraint - and that's easily the Democratic party today.

I wish we had instant runoffs, no party elections. That's my prescription for a healthier Democracy.