USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

He didn't do too well when his party controlled both houses of Congress.

And the latest Intel estimate is that Al-Queda has re-strengthened where we knew it was, and thanks to our uncalled for war, it is strong now in places where it was non-existent before we pre-emptively invaded.

This President will not be leaving behind a legacy of leadership, accomplishment, or even basic competence.

Poor America, so much like Texas.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

al Qaeda may be as strong as it was, and that would be for a variety of reasons.

The major reason would be our President decided to invade Iraq instead of focusing on the fight against Al-Queda. That overwhelms any other reasons.

[ryberg]

By and large, there are two sides, another function of the way the government is set up and no more surprising than the fact that its structure has resulted in their being by and large two parties. Some differences in views on the part of some people here and there don't constitute much more than two sides, any more than the existence of an American Communist Party or Green Party or whatever other party constitute a refutation of the country having a two-party system. More sides is just not in the cards, not in the design.

Lately the two sides have been particularly polarized and strident in their complaints about and mistrust of the others. I freely admit, in case it isn't already abundantly clear, that I prefer for example Al Franken's commentary and views to Bill O'Reilly's, or Al Gore's to George Bush's, or Michael Moore's to Anne Coulter's, and so on. However I would much prefer not continuing with one of another pair in the White House and 4+ years of vicious fighting and backlashes seemingly ad infiinitum, is all I'm sayin'.

I guess I'm a denialist when it comes to the idea that the latter is all we can hope for and all we'll ever have and that's the way the system is, or the way politics necessarily goes.

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

The major reason would be our President decided to invade Iraq instead of focusing on the fight against Al-Queda. That overwhelms any other reasons.

Actually, our entire Government and the American people decided to invade Iraq. Since then, many have baled, but that doesn't change that one simple fact.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

By and large, there are two sides, another function of the way the government is set up and no more surprising than the fact that its structure has resulted in their being by and large two parties. Some differences in views on the part of some people here and there don't constitute much more than two sides, any more than the existence of an American Communist Party or Green Party or whatever other party constitute a refutation of the country having a two-party system. More sides is just not in the cards, not in the design.

Lately the two sides have been particularly polarized and strident in their complaints about and mistrust of the others. I freely admit, in case it isn't already abundantly clear, that I prefer for example Al Franken's commentary and views to Bill O'Reilly's, or Al Gore's to George Bush's, or Michael Moore's to Anne Coulter's, and so on. However I would much prefer not continuing with one of another pair in the White House and 4+ years of vicious fighting and backlashes seemingly ad infiinitum, is all I'm sayin'.

I guess I'm a denialist when it comes to the idea that the latter is all we can hope for and all we'll ever have and that's the way the system is, or the way politics necessarily goes.

Steve

That is all you are going to get until the American public decides they want something different, I am afraid. Each side wants the other to budge first, and neither side is going to, because they are too entrenched in their ideas. If a common enemy, whose goal is the destruction of life as we know it, isn't enough to bring the sides together, than nothing is. We can't even agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a grave threat to Western Civilization.

[ryberg]

Well I'm saying I think perhaps the people are deciding they want more. Hopefully it will be a sort of inclusion in what is eventually identified as the Zeitgeist of this era.

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well I'm saying I think perhaps the people are deciding they want more. Hopefully it will be a sort of inclusion in what is eventually identified as the Zeitgeist of this era.

Steve

Well, I think it would help if we had, say, a Obama/Thompson or Obama/Rudy race. As long as there are no Bush's or Clinton's running, it would be an improvement. It would definitely cut down on the vitriol factor.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by ryberg

By and large, there are two sides, another function of the way the government is set up and no more surprising than the fact that its structure has resulted in their being by and large two parties. Some differences in views on the part of some people here and there don't constitute much more than two sides, any more than the existence of an American Communist Party or Green Party or whatever other party constitute a refutation of the country having a two-party system. More sides is just not in the cards, not in the design.

Lately the two sides have been particularly polarized and strident in their complaints about and mistrust of the others. I freely admit, in case it isn't already abundantly clear, that I prefer for example Al Franken's commentary and views to Bill O'Reilly's, or Al Gore's to George Bush's, or Michael Moore's to Anne Coulter's, and so on. However I would much prefer not continuing with one of another pair in the White House and 4+ years of vicious fighting and backlashes seemingly ad infiinitum, is all I'm sayin'.

I guess I'm a denialist when it comes to the idea that the latter is all we can hope for and all we'll ever have and that's the way the system is, or the way politics necessarily goes.

Steve

Steve don't get me wrong, I too long for a more civil discourse. Perhaps an almost mythical time when the two parties got along better and somehow more things were accomplished for the good of the nation.

The real problem does not lie with partisanship in my opinion. It lies with a totally different concept of government. As I've said before, the neo-cons absolutely despise government they see no role for it except perhaps to enable the market and provide corporate welfare. We can see and I think will be seeing the results of this for generations to come. From their point of view all is subjective. Without the bridge of objectivity logic seems to be one of the casualties.

I can see no way that they can be lead down a path to compromise. I very much envy your optimism.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

That is all you are going to get until the American public decides they want something different, I am afraid. Each side wants the other to budge first, and neither side is going to, because they are too entrenched in their ideas. If a common enemy, whose goal is the destruction of life as we know it, isn't enough to bring the sides together, than nothing is. We can't even agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a grave threat to Western Civilization.

I find all fundamentalist religions that attempt to gain political power extremely dangerous. This includes ,but is not limited to, the jihadists you mention here.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Steve don't get me wrong, I too long for a more civil discourse. Perhaps an almost mythical time when the two parties got along better and somehow more things were accomplished for the good of the nation.

The real problem does not lie with partisanship in my opinion. It lies with a totally different concept of government. As I've said before, the neo-cons absolutely despise government they see no role for it except perhaps to enable the market and provide corporate welfare. We can see and I think will be seeing the results of this for generations to come. From their point of view all is subjective. Without the bridge of objectivity logic seems to be one of the casualties.

I can see no way that they can be lead down a path to compromise. I very much envy your optimism.

Actually, I believe in the Government that is spelled out in the Constitution. One that does little, but does what it is supposed to do, well. It all comes down to what is enumerated. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in an all-encompassing State that controls every little detail of life.

So, yeah, you are right. There is a big divide. Thing is, we have the Founding Fathers on our side.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Actually, our entire Government and the American people decided to invade Iraq. Since then, many have baled, but that doesn't change that one simple fact.

The Bush Administration led us into an invasion of Iraq. That is the way presidential leadership works. We did not demand that he invade Iraq, he convinced us that it was necessary to do so-your revisioniism notwithstanding

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

The real problem does not lie with partisanship in my opinion. It lies with a totally different concept of government. As I've said before, the neo-cons absolutely despise government they see no role for it except perhaps to enable the market and provide corporate welfare. We can see and I think will be seeing the results of this for generations to come. From their point of view all is subjective. Without the bridge of objectivity logic seems to be one of the casualties.

I can see no way that they can be lead down a path to compromise. I very much envy your optimism.

While I do think partisanship is a big issue, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Reagan started this trend, and Bush & Co. perfected it.

The government is nothing more than a tool to rape assets, dominate the globe and control as much power, money and people as possible. That crap has just GOT to stop.

[roni]

Originally Posted by ryberg

By and large, there are two sides, another function of the way the government is set up and no more surprising than the fact that its structure has resulted in their being by and large two parties. Some differences in views on the part of some people here and there don't constitute much more than two sides, any more than the existence of an American Communist Party or Green Party or whatever other party constitute a refutation of the country having a two-party system. More sides is just not in the cards, not in the design.

Lately the two sides have been particularly polarized and strident in their complaints about and mistrust of the others. I freely admit, in case it isn't already abundantly clear, that I prefer for example Al Franken's commentary and views to Bill O'Reilly's, or Al Gore's to George Bush's, or Michael Moore's to Anne Coulter's, and so on. However I would much prefer not continuing with one of another pair in the White House and 4+ years of vicious fighting and backlashes seemingly ad infiinitum, is all I'm sayin'.

I guess I'm a denialist when it comes to the idea that the latter is all we can hope for and all we'll ever have and that's the way the system is, or the way politics necessarily goes.

Steve

I fundamentally disagree with your "basically two sides" formulation. It seems overly simplistic to be descriptive of political reality in the United States.

I think we can have less of what you are saying you do not like, and the way to do it is to elect a moderate as president, like we used to do most of the time with few exceptions.

[southbound]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, I think it would help if we had, say, a Obama/Thompson or Obama/Rudy race. As long as there are no Bush's or Clinton's running, it would be an improvement. It would definitely cut down on the vitriol factor.

Where there is Rudy there is vitriol -- he's been trying to put on his kindler, gentler face but he won't be able to maintain that for too long -- wait and see.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Actually, I believe in the Government that is spelled out in the Constitution. One that does little, but does what it is supposed to do, well. It all comes down to what is enumerated. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in an all-encompassing State that controls every little detail of life.

So, yeah, you are right. There is a big divide. Thing is, we have the Founding Fathers on our side.

You are making a gross generalization. You are totally off the mark (pun intended!)

I'm a liberal and I want the kind of government that George W. Bush SAID he wanted in the 2000 election when he ran on a campaign of "compassionate conservatism."

My political beliefs fall VERY strongly into the category of "compassionate conservative."