Shame and (Self) Loathing in Politics

[Cool Hand]

I'm so ashamed. I'm not ashamed of myself; I'm ashamed of my party and to whom it panders. I'm doing some serious political existentialist thinking, and I'm considering abandoning any party affiliation altogether.

Allow me to explain. I grew up in a semi-affluent household headed by a professional. I was reared to enter a profession; it stuck. Both my siblings are professionals, as am I. My hometown, in which I have lived exclusively except for 7 years while I attended out of state schools, and for a 6 week period abroad, has played a large role in my political affiliation. My hometown is populated by an inordinate number of highly educated rocket scientists (literally--that's why it's called "The Rocket City"). Two or three generations after Dr. Werner von Braun's original rocket scientists arrived from Germany, we have their descendents, literally and figuratively, engaged in more of the same, and also in avionics, electronics in a broader sense, optics, and computer hardware and software. As one might guess, such demographics skews the city's politics to the right.

Thus, I was bound to become a ....a.....Republican. All snickering aside, I am very much a Republican of the P.J. O'Rourke libertarian stripe, not of the old-money fuck-anyone-without-a-trust-fund stripe. Remember that O'Rourke used to be a dope-smoking hippie journalist for Rolling Stone magazine. Now he writes for The Atlantic Monthly. Now he appears for the right on Bill Maher's show (whatever it's called this week).

(Irrelevant aside: I met O'Rourke on a plane about 4 years ago. As I was boarding, I noticed him seated and reading a paper just to my right. I tapped him lightly on the arm and said "Hey, I really like your books." He looked up from his paper, smiled, and said graciously, "Oh. Thank you.")

Back to the topic. I'm ashamed because my candidate is a poor speaker and thinker on his feet. He is no debater. After watching as much of the Friday night debate as I could stomach, I was ashamed again. It wasn't so much that Kerry beat Bush in the debate as much as it was that Bush beat himself. Bush is right about many of his criticisms of Kerry, and listening to Kerry makes me want to throw sharp pointed things at him, but damn it, W just sucks at public speaking (I didn't even vote for him in 2000. I voted for Harry Browne as a vote for the viability of third parties in general, and as a sort of no confidence vote against Bush. Let's be real; I'm not anti-conservative enough even to consider casting a vote for Gore/nostalgia vote for the Clintons).

I'm ashamed because W, like most politicians, panders to what his handlers tell him is his core constituency. In this case, apparently his handlers (OK, Karl Grove) tell him to pander to the religious right. Thus, we hear him drop certain key buzzwords into his speeches and debate "talking points." I offer as illustrations "Dred Scott decision," "sanctity of marriage," and "stem-cell research." These are all bullshit rhetorical devices designed to awaken strong, deep-seated fears and beliefs in the target audience. It's demagoguery. Ugh.

I'm ashamed because my political cherry has been burst this year with my agreeing to serve in my friend's campaign for local district attorney. He is running as a Republican against the two-term incumbent Democrat. My friend is a terrific guy; he also happens to be a poster child for local Republican Party politics. He's married to a full-time wife and mother of three young children, he attends local high school football games every Friday night, and he's active in his church and loves Jesus (never mind that he's from upstate New York and we live in Alabama).

This campaigning business caused me to find myself at a small chapter meeting of the Republican Party at 8 a.m. on Saturday. The speaker was my state's new attorney general. He is a professional colleague of my own age, give or take a year, from my own state, and he and I are members of the same party. Nevertheless, we could not be more different in our beliefs, or at least those that we profess. Although Troy King is a very skilled and engaging speaker, I cringed each time I heard him drop a political buzzword into one of his carefully crafted, down home stories. I cringed also because I disagree strongly with nearly every political point he made on Saturday, except for the non-partisan belief that our citizens shouldn't go around murdering (did he actually say "assassinating?") our local sheriffs (conveniently nodding to our own sheriff two feet away from him).

In particular, I cringed at King's boasting that The Washington Post noted in its pages that he was the first state attorney general to proclaim that he would advise his state not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states (Massachusetts for now of course, which plays well for the anti-Kennedy, anti-Kerry crowd, and is conveniently relevant and topical). I don't know when the Post mentioned him and his public stance, but this is essentially what he said at Saturday's breakfast meeting:

"We don't think that Alabama has any obligation to recognize homosexual marriages," King said in an interview. "State law would prevent us from doing that." If a same-sex couple married in another state moves to Alabama and then files a joint state tax return, that will be challenged, he said. "I would advise the Revenue Department they're not entitled to do that," King said. "Those marriages are not valid as marriages in the state of Alabama." Another issue that could arise is spousal benefits, in areas such as Social Security or worker's compensation. "Anywhere that a spouse attains benefits under state law could be impacted," King said. "They're not spouses. We will be there to defend state law."

The Birmingham News, May 18, 2004, online at Troy King article

This struck me as nearly identical to what W said on Friday about same sex marriages. States are not required to recognize marriages from other states (Did W's people get this from King's people?). My jaw nearly hit the floor when I heard W say it on Friday, and again when I heard Mr. King say it on Saturday. Such a notion should be preposterous to any student of the Constitution, and particularly so to any 2nd-year law school student studying constitutional law. Here's why.

Article IV, Section 1, U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State;"

This is widely-known as the "full faith and credit" clause. It means precisely the opposite of what W and Mr. King claim the law allows and/or requires states to do. It means that state-sanctioned marriages, which definitely fall under the category of public acts and records of states, must be recognized by all other states. I counted no less than 7 other lawyers that I know, besides Mr. King, in the room on Saturday. That he could make such a ridiculously and patently false claim while looking us directly in the eye was astonishing. It's astonishing to me not only that he could speak so insincerely while sounding so genuine and folksy, but also that I could find such remarks from a known politician to be remarkable. I was as astonished at my political naivete as I was at his ease with the insincere. I was astonished also that he would actually boast about arriving at such a conclusion, and about being derided for it in such a respected and renowned newspaper as The Washington Post.

I was also reminded of how repulsed I was upon hearing former Chief Justice Roy Moore (thank reason for his being "former") use the same tired and unsophisticated states' rights argument that didn't work when George Wallace used it in 1964.

Thus, against this backdrop, I find myself shaking my head in disgust. I'm disgusted not only by my party, but also because I have been fighting a losing battle. Because I was reared in a city that is quite anomalous within the state, in one that is actually very progressive not only technologically, but also socially--at least compared to other cities in the state and region--I found myself defending against the tired, old stereotypes so many people outside the Southern U.S. seem to harbor about Alabama. I believed the arguments I used in defense of my contention that Alabama is not quite as backwards as everyone seems to believe, that it has actually moved out of the 1930s and into the ....1970s.

While I was vigorously defending my state against such stereotypes, along came Roy Moore to play into every one of them, and now along comes Troy King to pick up that banner and do more of the same in Moore's absence. Enough, goddamn it!

Shit. Personal obligations require that I maintain the front and the good fight throughout this election. I must see that my friend gets elected. After that, however, I suspect I will find myself to be a Man Without a Party.

I can't stomach Republicans anymore. I can't stomach Democrats even more, so I'll content myself with remaining firmly on the sidelines from now on. I envy P.J. I want to be able to poke fun at the lot of them honestly and sincerely, while remaining true to my principles and beliefs. It would be gravy if I were paid as handsomely for doing so as he is. I have just experienced the very quick birth and death of myself as a politico. Hell, I've always poked fun at politicos of all stripes anyway, so it's really no big deal. In fact, I'm quite relieved, as I was never comfortable wearing those stripes.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Here's the thing. Bush doesn't pander to the religious right. He is the religious right. The Republican Party you and P.J. O'Rourke want to belong to doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for 30 years (if it ever really did).

The modern GOP hates civil liberties, you got that? It doesn't support free enterprise either. It supports giant monopolies run by billionaires who trade favors with powerful political bosses.

The modern GOP is not for small government. They are for taking taxpayer money to give to billionaire corporations.

The modern GOP is not strong on national security. They are strong on giving taxpayer money to giant corporations in exchange for expensive weapons systems that don't work.

The modern GOP is the party of the Christian right. If you are a non-Christian and you vote Republican, you may as well lock yourself in a room and open a cylinder of Zyklone gas, because that is exactly what you are voting for.

[Farren]

I love PJ O Rourke. I have three of his books on my bookshelf, the most salient to this discussion being "Age and Wisdom Beat Youth and a Bad Haircut".

The thing is, I don't think his political thinking has evolved to something better. I think its devolved to something worse. The fact that I'm willing to give him a pass for his wit doesn't skew my feelings on that score.

Everything he's written "post conversion" is just justification for his own greed. His shift to the right seems entirely predicated on his own financial success, confirming my deeply held belief that a lot of libertarian economics is just unconscious self-vindication.

Rather than working from the premises to the conclusion, O'Rourke tries to find ways (humorously) to distort logic to make the premises fit the desired conclusion.

His motives are undisguised when he describes the joy of wrecking the environment in an SUV in the south of Wales, without apology and with the explicit concession that he is wrecking the environment, but so what? we need a bit of Bacchanalian release!

Its this "Fuck you I wanna so I'm gonna!" quality in O' Rourkes writing that appeals to the child in me, in the same way I delight in the brattish screeds of Hunter S. Thompson. Thank God for artists like them.

But good fiction and humour is not necessarily good politics. The very fact that much of O' Rourkes humour relies on self-satirisation bears witness to the fundamental failure of the political ideology to which he subscribes.

[Kamen]

Both parties are steeped in corruption and pandering. Religious Right and big business for the Republicans, unions and minorities for the Democrats.

I suspect that due to the way elections are now financed, that will not change without significant reform. If candidates were prohibited to accept money for their campaigns, and instead were granted weekly television airtime, then perhaps influence of these groups would be minimized. However both parties must support candidates that will appeal to their respective platforms if they are to survive. Witness the success of Kucinich, Gephardt and other candidates that have stellar records and good ideas, but alienated some of the party core.

I keep hoping for a Sister Souljah moment from anyone, anyone at all. It is impossible, the party machines are too successful.

I know many very reasonable people who are passionate in their party affiliations, even though they disagree with some features of the platforms. One of the reasons they do it is loathing of the other party's position. We became a nation of "at least he is not as bad as the other guy" voters.

I do not know if there is a way out. I am a registered Independent, and vote based on specific election issues, not along party lines. I do not think third parties are currently viable with the current structure heavily favoring both major parties.

One day I thought McCain and Lieberman might form a "Common Sense" party, but it has not yet happened. What we really need is a new Teddy Roosevelt.

Cool Hand, good luck to your friend.

Godless Dave, I think the Zyklon gas rhetoric is unwarranted, just as I think it is unwarranted to say if you vote for Democrats, the terrorists will strike again. It is this kind of rhetoric that alienates reasonable people from productive communication and common ground.

[dave_a]

I used to be a republican as well. I was the republican that exists only on paper and once I realized the actual party didn't bear any actual resemblance to the theoretical party I stopped being a republican.

Being libertarian is about the best I can do at this point because I am definitely rightist/centrist on economic issues although my labelling myself libertarian probably is only possible because they don't hold any major offices. If they did and they actually tried to advance some of their extremist stuff I would have to disown them too.

So, economically conservative/socially liberal is about the best I can come up with and there really isn't a good party in the US to represent that.

Anyway, I can relate to your disillusionment with the republican party. And I can't blame you for not finding the democratic party much better, I certainly don't. I will probably vote for Kerry this year, but it's definitely not a pro Kerry vote, it's more of an "uggghhh, why can't there be a better choice?" type vote.

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by dantonac

I used to be a republican as well. I was the republican that exists only on paper and once I realized the actual party didn't bear any actual resemblance to the theoretical party I stopped being a republican.

That is an excellent point. I relate to and respect the ideals of self determination, achievement, individual rights that Republican party stands for. It is when Santorum claims gay marriage is terrorism, when they try to amend the Constitution on that issue, when they vote for the Patriot Act, and so on and so forth that I realize the dreadful state of the party.

I believe that power corrupts, and is self perpetuating. Witness the multitude of Gingrich Republicans who ran on term limits in 1994, and then recanted because they now claimed they were experts in their individual fields and could do a better jon than newcomers. No matter which party stays in power, they will take measures to keep themselves there, even if it violates the basic premises of that party's platform.

[Socratoad]

Originally Posted by Farren

I love PJ O Rourke. I have three of his books on my bookshelf, the most salient to this discussion being "Age and Wisdom Beat Youth and a Bad Haircut".

The thing is, I don't think his political thinking has evolved to something better. I think its devolved to something worse. The fact that I'm willing to give him a pass for his wit doesn't skew my feelings on that score.

Everything he's written "post conversion" is just justification for his own greed. His shift to the right seems entirely predicated on his own financial success, confirming my deeply held belief that a lot of libertarian economics is just unconscious self-vindication.

Rather than working from the premises to the conclusion, O'Rourke tries to find ways (humorously) to distort logic to make the premises fit the desired conclusion.

His motives are undisguised when he describes the joy of wrecking the environment in an SUV in the south of Wales, without apology and with the explicit concession that he is wrecking the environment, but so what? we need a bit of Bacchanalian release!

Its this "Fuck you I wanna so I'm gonna!" quality in O' Rourke's writing that appeals to the child in me, in the same way I delight in the brattish screeds of Hunter S. Thompson. Thank God for artists like them.

But good fiction and humour is not necessarily good politics. The very fact that much of O' Rourkes humour relies on self-satirisation bears witness to the fundamental failure of the political ideology to which he subscribes.

I'll make this short: O' Rourke is one self-aggrandizing sick fuck. The fact that he has a certain facility for "seemingly" self-deprecating humour does not change this one iota.

[Dingfod]

I tossed my vote away in 2000 to Harry Browne myself, not so much because I'm a Libertarian, but in protest over the seriously disappointing choices the two parties had given us. I mean, really; Gore and Bush are the very best these two parties could do? I haven't voted for a winning President since my dope-smoking long-haired hippie days when I voted for Jimmy Carter. In fact, I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Republican for President since then.

I am not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian. The difference between my views and a big-L Libertarian is only incremental. I am very much a social libertarian and all the freedoms that entails. However, I think there is a responsibility we have as a society, whether it is spelled out in the almighty Constitution or not, a responsibility to care for our fellow man and to make policy that advances society as a whole. It takes money to pay for that, tax money, which seems to be abhorent to the average Libertarian.

[livius drusus]

Thank you for a really great OP, Cool Hand.

Your reaction to King's speech reminds of my own to Bill Maher's show last week. The Republican lieutenant governor of Maryland (I think) was on, and all he did was drone eternally hitting every possible cliche and talking point they taught him in Be A Good Company Man Shill school. It was unbearable; even Bill had a hard time breaking through the wall of meaningless sound.

I've tended to vote Democrat (voted for Nader in 2000) but I don't buy their crap either. Not because of the constituencies they are putatively beholden to - thanks to the sliver of a political spectrum we're left with in this country they're just as much corporate shills as anyone else - but because it's all sound and fury signifying nothing as well.

Oh for the days when a Gore Vidal could run for Congress and almost win.... Quoth the livius: nevermore.

I agree with Kamen, btw, about the damage to discourse done by Zyklon B rhetoric or even the O'Rourke is a self-aggrandizing sick fuck rhetoric. Republicans are not Nazis and O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

I think we should leave the degradation of discourse to the politicians. It's all they have, after all.

[wildernesse]

From the OP:
This struck me as nearly identical to what W said on Friday about same sex marriages. States are not required to recognize marriages from other states (Did W's people get this from King's people?). My jaw nearly hit the floor when I heard W say it on Friday, and again when I heard Mr. King say it on Saturday. Such a notion should be preposterous to any student of the Constitution, and particularly so to any 2nd-year law school student studying constitutional law.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.
[snip]
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
[snip]
Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
[snip]
My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

The quoted material in the second text box is from Sen. Edwards in the VP Debate last week. So it's a common delusion.

Wow, I suddenly made myself feel really bad.

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I agree with Kamen, btw, about the damage to discourse done by Zyklon B rhetoric or even the O'Rourke is a self-aggrandizing sick fuck rhetoric. Republicans are not Nazis and O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

I think we should leave the degradation of discourse to the politicians. It's all they have, after all.

But you phrase it so much nicer

Originally Posted by wildernesse

The quoted material in the second text box is from Sen. Edwards in the VP Debate last week. So it's a common delusion.

Wow, I suddenly made myself feel really bad.

John Edwards is relatively conservative for a Democrat, and neither he nor Kerry will stick their necks out for this unpopular issue.

However, I am intrigued by the idea that all states are required to recognize public records from other states. I am trying to think of matters where that does not seem to apply. When I moved state to state, I had to retake my driver's license test to get issued a state specific license. If a public act is against the law in a certain state, does it still have to recognize it? The issue that comes to mind immediately is ownership of runaway slaves in Northern States. Ah, Dredd Scott makes its appearance once again in this thread. Of course that decision was decided on different grounds, as I recall from my history course. It seems that by rush to outlaw gay marriages, states may be shielding themselves from that clause.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Kamen

However, I am intrigued by the idea that all states are required to recognize public records from other states. I am trying to think of matters where that does not seem to apply. When I moved state to state, I had to retake my driver's license test to get issued a state specific license.

Yes, but if you are driving in another state, that state recognizes the legality of your driver's license.

If a public act is against the law in a certain state, does it still have to recognize it?

Not unless you are in that state. Believe me, you can be detained on a warrant from another state even though the offense is perfectly legal in the state you are in. However, whether or not they would be willing to extradite is questionable.

The issue that comes to mind immediately is ownership of runaway slaves in Northern States. Ah, Dredd Scott makes its appearance once again in this thread. Of course that decision was decided on different grounds, as I recall from my history course. It seems that by rush to outlaw gay marriages, states may be shielding themselves from that clause.

But, didn't the Dred Scott decision reinforce exactly what we are talking about now, other states recognizing rights granted in other states? I don't know, maybe it was merely property rights over rights of blacks to have freedom granted by the state they were in.

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Yes, but if you are driving in another state, that state recognizes the legality of your driver's license.

You are right, of course. Silly me.

Not unless you are in that state. Believe me, you can be detained on a warrant from another state even though the offense is perfectly legal in the state you are in. However, whether or not they would be willing to extradite is questionable.

But what about other way around? I can't think of a good scenario, other than gay marriage.

But, didn't the Dred Scott decision reinforce exactly what we are talking about now, other states recognizing rights granted in other states? I don't know, maybe it was merely property rights over rights of blacks to have freedom granted by the state they were in.

Yes, the effect of the Dredd Scott decision was as you state. However I believe it was decided on different grounds, ones of property and individual standing.

Here is a link about some info on the case. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...emocrac/21.htm

I have a very superficial familiarity with the issues in it, and so do not want to speak out of turn.

I also see I hijacked a perfectly good thread. Sorry, all.

[Socratoad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

O'Rourke is as human and therefore nuanced as anyone else.

Liv, its your board and I shall try to follow the proper etiquette here, although I must admit as too not quite understanding just what this might be.

It may just be me however I cannot see where O Rourke and nuance or nuanced fit into the same sentence.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Socratoad

Liv, its your board and I shall try to follow the proper etiquette here, although I must admit as too not quite understanding just what this might be.

I find dehumanizing rhetoric of any kind personally disasteful and ultimately highly damaging to any cause it is used in aid of. You can use such rhetoric as much as you'd like on this board, Socratoad - there are no rules against it; just don't expect me not to call you on it.

It may just be me however I cannot see where O Rourke and nuance or nuanced fit into the same sentence.

He's a person. He eats, shits, fucks like everyone else, and like everyone else, he's an asshole in some ways and a cool guy in others. When you put a black hat on him and paint him with one big, unweildy brush, you reduce his humanity. I could understand that if he had murdered millions in the name of Republicanism or something, but he's just a writer talking shit - sometimes more wittily than others - and that's all.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by warrenly

Yes, but if you are driving in another state, that state recognizes the legality of your driver's license.

Actually, not all states require you to retake a driver's license test when you move. When I moved to New Mexico, I went to the DMV, presented my current, valid Georgia license, and was issued a New Mexico license.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by warrenly

I am not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian. The difference between my views and a big-L Libertarian is only incremental. I am very much a social libertarian and all the freedoms that entails. However, I think there is a responsibility we have as a society, whether it is spelled out in the almighty Constitution or not, a responsibility to care for our fellow man and to make policy that advances society as a whole. It takes money to pay for that, tax money, which seems to be abhorent to the average Libertarian.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well, warrenly.

[Socratoad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I find dehumanizing rhetoric of any kind personally disasteful and ultimately highly damaging to any cause it is used in aid of. You can use such rhetoric as much as you'd like on this board, Socratoad - there are no rules against it; just don't expect me not to call you on it.

He's a person. He eats, shits, fucks like everyone else, and like everyone else, he's an asshole in some ways and a cool guy in others. When you put a black hat on him and paint him with one big, unweildy brush, you reduce his humanity. I could understand that if he had murdered millions in the name of Republicanism or something, but he's just a writer talking shit - sometimes more wittily than others - and that's all.

Sorry Liv, you're right of course.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Kamen

Both parties are steeped in corruption and pandering. Religious Right and big business for the Republicans, unions and minorities for the Democrats.

In other words, the bad guys for the Republicans and the good guys for the Democrats.

Of course there are labor unions and civil rights organizations that scam money from the government and businesses. But even the Teamsters at their worst cannot compare with the graft, theft, and, worst and most important, influence in the process of making and enforcing laws as a single company like Monsanto, General Motors, or Halliburton.

I don't deny there are corrupt and/or power-mad Democratic politicians, and lots of them. But if you think there is some equivalence between Republican corruption and Democratic corruption you need to look again.

Examples:

Telecommunications Act of 1996
Raising of media ownership limits by the FCC
Medicare Reform Act
Bush's environmental laws
Every defense appropriations bill

Originally Posted by Kamen

Godless Dave, I think the Zyklon gas rhetoric is unwarranted, just as I think it is unwarranted to say if you vote for Democrats, the terrorists will strike again. It is this kind of rhetoric that alienates reasonable people from productive communication and common ground.

Any truly reasonable person who has read the Texas State Republican Party platform, which among other things explicitly states that the US is a Christian nation, the national party platform, and read or listened to statements by people like Bush, DeLay, Lott, Inhofe, Santorum, and many others, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

That's even if you aren't familiar with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell.

I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.

If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.

Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

[Cool Hand]

Kamen,

Thanks for the kind words for my friend. I hope he wins too. If not, he and his team of close supporters have gotten a great education in running a solid, grass-roots local campaign. I'm not as concerned about the practical application of the knowledge as I am about the insight it has provided me.

I love your term "Sister Souljah moment." I used to refer to her a lot in political discussions, but unfortunately too many persons seem to have forgotten her 15 minutes of infamy.

I agree that we are probably stuck with a two-party system for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the vast middle of the electorate votes against the other guy as often as, if not more often than, it votes for a candidate.

dantonec and Warren,

Yeah, me too.

Liv,

Thanks. I saw some of last week's Real Time with Bill Maher too. I agree that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland was repetitive and rhetorical. I watched it merely because David Cross was on. I think he is one funny motherfucker, but his political rhetoric from the left is just as tired and worn out as Steele's is from the right.

I agree with you and Kamen about political rhetoric's damaging effect on reasoned discourse.

Wildernesse,

Don't feel so bad. It is amazing how the parties and their candidates can take identical positions on some issues, but spin them in such a way as to look like they are being distinguishable.

On this particular issue, it's not a delusion. It's a deception, plain and simple. No one will speak the truth about the issue--that it is absolutely contrary to the clear, fundamental constitutional principle of full faith and credit. Actually, that principle is essential to conducting interstate commerce and to engaging in interstate travel. Without it, there would be little point in having a "United" States.



Thanks, everyone, for making this thread interesting.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I don't deny there are corrupt and/or power-mad Democratic politicians, and lots of them. But if you think there is some equivalence between Republican corruption and Democratic corruption you need to look again.

I suggest you examine your own possible biases before declaring that there is no equivalence between Republican and Democratic corruption. Corruption in politics is corruption. It does not bear a party name.

Any truly reasonable person who has read the Texas State Republican Party platform, which among other things explicitly states that the US is a Christian nation, the national party platform, and read or listened to statements by people like Bush, DeLay, Lott, Inhofe, Santorum, and many others, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I suspect that anyone who knows exactly what you are talking about shares the same prejudices against Republicans and the same biases in favor of Democrats that you apparently do. Come on now, "any truly reasonable person?" You don't see this as a rhetorical device?

I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.

If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.

I suspect that your larger point is something about which many of us can agree with respect to both parties. That point is that in the past few decades both parties have shifted to the center, so that the differences between them in practice is marginal.

I might point out to you that John F. Kennedy hasn't been a candidate in 44 years, but your party seems to keep trying to revive him. I would also note that JFK never presided over the Roundtable at Camelot, despite the party's and the press' imagining that he did, just as they imagined it more than 40 years ago.

Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Did you see the same Republican Party convention that I did? I saw the one with Senator Zell Miller from Georgia, a Democrat, giving a short but moving speech about how his party had abandoned him and its ideals in favor of partisanship at a time when it desperately needed to rise about partisanship for the good of the country. I saw the one with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking about growing up poor in Soviet-occupied, and then socialist, Austria, and dreaming about and later realizing everything that makes American great and strong--you know, opportunity and all that. I saw the one where the party was smart enough to put forth two terrific speakers who happen to be very much in the middle (hell, even both from the left more so than from the right) as cornerstones for the convention.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Any truly reasonable person ...



Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

I vote for Democrats more often than not, and I thought your concentration camp rhetoric was nonsense too. Not only is it not going to happen, but it's divisive, attack-dog, button-pushing crap and all it can do is alienate people who might very well otherwise be allies against extremism of all kinds.

You know what frustrates me no end? Good people treating each other like they hate each other when they're far closer together than they are apart. That kind of polarization is exactly what the facile shibboleths of party rhetoric were designed to achieve. Why do their work for them?

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

In other words, the bad guys for the Republicans and the good guys for the Democrats.

Of course there are labor unions and civil rights organizations that scam money from the government and businesses. But even the Teamsters at their worst cannot compare with the graft, theft, and, worst and most important, influence in the process of making and enforcing laws as a single company like Monsanto, General Motors, or Halliburton.

Are you familiar with connections between mobs and unions? Are you familiar with Tawana Brawley (sp?). Are you familiar with extortion practiced by the Rainbow Coalition? Either side can name hundreds of instances of corruption by the "other". In addition, big business provides jobs and supports our economy. Business bad unions good is a simplistic and ultimately incorrect mantra.

I dislike attempts to draw a bright line in these instances. Neither side has a monopoly on ethics or on corruption.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I don't deny there are corrupt and/or power-mad Democratic politicians, and lots of them. But if you think there is some equivalence between Republican corruption and Democratic corruption you need to look again.

Examples:

Telecommunications Act of 1996
Raising of media ownership limits by the FCC
Medicare Reform Act
Bush's environmental laws
Every defense appropriations bill

Nice cherrypicking. Are you saying corruption and pork barrelling came into existence in 1994? What about prior 40 years?

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Any truly reasonable person who has read the Texas State Republican Party platform, which among other things explicitly states that the US is a Christian nation, the national party platform, and read or listened to statements by people like Bush, DeLay, Lott, Inhofe, Santorum, and many others, knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I should mention that to my Texas friends. There are as many idiot Democrats as are Republicans, and there many honorable Republicans. These people have passionate and interesting views. Perhaps if you stopped demonizing and discounting them en masse, you might find you have more in common with them than you think.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

That's even if you aren't familiar with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell.

Of course rabid, unreasonable and incorrect rhetoric does not spread through party lines. Moore, Paul Krugman, the congresswoman who claimed Bush was behind 9/11, Al Franken, Moveon and many others. Most Republicans I know are quite embarrassed by the people you named. They are blowhards who scream the loudest. They are not the essence of the party.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

I am really frustrated with Goldwater-style Republicans who do not realize that their party abandoned them in 1980 if not earlier. I can understand your kind of Republican voting for Bush in 2000 if you were only getting your news from mainstream commercial media and paid only superficial attention. But this year is different. You would have to have been hiding under a rock in a remote desert not to know what Bush and his gang are up to by now.

Well, you convinced me. Every Republican is a brain dead moron. Do you not see that moderate Republicans rightfully resent this patronizing statement? Patriots, intelligent people, people who follow the news can disagree about which direction is best for the country.

This kind of rabid rhetoric was appalling when some attacked Clinton, and it is appalling now. Appalling, divisive and ultimately counterproductive. If someone called you an ignorant idiot, how long would you be interested in a discussion? I find comparisons to Hitler and mentions of Zyklon B particularly repugnant, because that insults the memory of millions of victims of real fascism by making them into a rhetorical device.

If you are interested in progressive Republicans taking over their party, you should reach out to them and convince them of your opinions, not insult and denigrate them. If you continue, they will simply discount you as a hopeless liberal, and will disregard your opinions on any subject.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

If you want Goldwater-style candidates you will have to vote Libertarian or Independence.

Actually, no I don't. I can vote for moderate Republicans and Democrats in the primaries. I can support them on a local level. I can organize grass root support to rival religious right. I can make sure they know that blowhards are a fringe, not the foundation of their party.

The current takeover of the Republican party by interests contrary to its history and platform happened because they were led to believe there is a majority that wants that. The only way to reverse it is to support moderate Republicans: Pataki, Guiliani, Schwartzenegger, Snowe, Nagel, McCain and many others.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Was the man who blamed 9/11 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way" giving the invocation at the RNC not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Was the Congresswoman who after 9/11 said Bush organized the attacks not enough of a wakeup call for you?

Radicals in politics are unproductive, in any party. Moderates should be reached out to and supported, to achieve a better system.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Kamen

One day I thought McCain and Lieberman might form a "Common Sense" party, but it has not yet happened.

Are you talking about the same Joe Lieberman that said "Although we have freedom of religion, we do not have freedom from religion!"?! He's the single biggest reason that I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000 (I ended up voting for the libertarian guy, whatever his name was...he was the only person on the ticket who seemed to want to defend the Wall of Separation).

What we really need is a new Teddy Roosevelt.

Now, on that we agree.

[Kamen]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Are you talking about the same Joe Lieberman that said "Although we have freedom of religion, we do not have freedom from religion!"?! He's the single biggest reason that I couldn't vote for Gore in 2000 (I ended up voting for the libertarian guy, whatever his name was...he was the only person on the ticket who seemed to want to defend the Wall of Separation).

One day I will devise a Frankenpolitician, who will be composed of only the qualities and views I approve of. Where is that shovel?

Yes, that Lieberman. I disagree with him on the religion matter, but I disagree with almost everyone in our government. I think Lieberman is better than many. I also think he has the capacity to appeal across party lines, as does McCain, and that is a very valuable quality.

Originally Posted by Goliath

Now, on that we agree.

And stage one of my Frankenpolitician plan is coming to fruition.