Ohh, you gonna go straight to Hell for that one! Heh.

Dean, I went through a similar catharsis years ago (my turning point was Affirmative Action. I'm Asian. Go figure.), but I think the Dems have a point about the deficits. Absent spending cuts which I knew Congress didn't have the balls to enact (and perhaps rightly during a recession), the tax cuts create a huge structural deficit which will stay with us for years. That is the reason for my opposition to them - because I regard a budget deficit as a tax on future earnings. That's also why I'm so pissed at the Republicans today - for all their talk of fiscal responsibility and small government, they've been porking up ever since they came into power.

You think taxes are to high in the US, and you call yourself a liberal???

Liberal in the European sense would make sense though.

When did our party abandon us? For me, it was in 1972- when the McGovern wing hijacked the Party and instilled a visceral fear and distrust of anything military. Prior to that, Dems appreciated the necessity of force. Now, they're pacifists- like the Germans & the French. 9/11 had no impact on the Party's view of security. I don't understand.

Amen and boo-yah, Dean. As an independent who has usually voted for Republicans, what the Dems are doing right now makes me sad and worried. I believe in a two-party system, but the Democrat party is in a dangerous state today, primarily because it has become the party of McAuliffe and Begala, the party of reflex and cynicism not one of vision and faith in people.
Is the GOP perfect? Hell no, far from it. But they have a vision of how to make things better..it may not be the vision everyone agrees with, but at least they have a vision...all the Dems can envision right now is how much they hate the President, and that's no way to win an election, let alone win back the trust of the country...

There are many reasons why not to be a Democrat, as well as a Republican. Our two-party system leaves a lot to be desired.

But, rightly or wrongly, this system, in its current form, almost always leaves the party out of power in the attack mode. Why? Not because the opposing party has no ideas, it's because attacks more quickly generate media interest & at least short-term rises in attention. So the rants will continue. If Bush's ratings drop low, you'll hear a barrage of attacks from the White House. Its become the norm.

I won't use this space to point out the problems with our current administration, except one. And this one is the reason, I think, is why the "Bush lied" type of comments are so prevalent today.

There's been a secrecy about this administration that goes back before 9/11. Starting from the reversal of the presidential records act which effectively froze all presidential records from public view forever, to the, now trite, wmd issue. It gives the illusion, at least, of an administration hiding things. Holding prisoners unconstitutionally through the Patriot Act (supported originally by many in congress, yes), increased government powers of surveillance, to Cheney's interference with the Energy probes by the GAO, and restricting Freedom of Information requests. The censuring of the many sections of the 9/11 report. The interference with the Energy department on 9/11 health risks. Closed military tribunals, rather than civilian hearings. Firing the Head of the Army Corps, Mike Parker, for disagreeing with the Administration in a congressional hearing. Bush's press conferences are far below the previous two presidents (far below, 8 to date I think in almost 3 years?) Colin Powell's abrupt reversal on Iraq & a seeming "never question the president" attitude gives an impression of an administration hiding things. Republican Senator Charles Grassley complaining pubicly of a stonewalling administration. No 'town hall' meetings which at least gave the appearance of an open administration.

The list goes on, the details are lost... but the impression is what stay with people. That, I believe, is what is fueling this fire.

For me, going to the GOP was a years-long process, too.

Abortion became the first issue where I staked out an independent position. This introduced me to my second objection, which was the Democrats seemed much less tolerant of dissent -- if you thought differently on positions, it called your character into question. Racial demogogery is one particularly invidious symptom.

Third, the Democrats' arguments during the impeachment fiasco disturbed me even more than the Republican hypocrisy -- but the clincher was that every Senate Democrat voted to acquit. I'd have liked to have seen one Democrat stand up for the rule of law.

Fourth, the Democrats during the 2000 election attempted to use the courts so they could repeatedly count the votes in Florida until they won -- and subsequent demagoguing on the issue was particulary disturbing. The lack of class demonstrated was shocking.

The Democrats still have an important voice, so it's a shame they've fallen so low. I have been shocked by the GOP's level of spending, and the fact that the GOP-controlled Congress has added new entitlements. The deficits worry me, even in a war. But that's mostly because I think our war strategy is inherently flawed ... but that's another story. See David Warren's essay on Jacksonian Democrats.

I guess I'm a little older than most who have posted here - what made me a Republican was the Iranian Hostage Crisis...444 days of the United States being humiliated while our Democratic President hemmed and hawed and wrung his hands in frustration.

Since then, the continuing trend of the Democrats to be absurd in foreign policy, cowards in military affairs and just plain and simple stupid on economics has just reinforced my decision to become the first member of my family to register as a Republican (the Noonan part of my family got to the United States in 1849 and was 100% Democratic from the get-go - I think some friendly Democratic judge got Thomas Francis Noonan some bogus citizenship papers; Great-great grandpop was an illegal immigrant; my grandfather voted the Democratic ticket from 1922 until 1980 when he cast his sole vote for a GOPer - for Ronald Reagan; he died in 1981).

I am legion, of course; probably more than half the current crop of GOP voters either were at one time Democrats or are from backgrounds heavily Democratic. In the answer to the question of Why? you can get to the understanding of why the Democratic Party is on the outs and will likely disappear from the political scene before too long.

Maybe I'm older than Mark -- or maybe not.

I, born into a Democrat family and anticipating my first vote in the 1980 election, decided before that year's campaign got underway to examine the Republican field after having observed Jerry Brown as governor (Calif., 1975-83) and Jimmy Carter as president (1977-81).

Then again, in 1972 (when I was 10) I decided I'd rather see Nixon re-elected than McGovern win.

I was a political geek at a very early age.

Eric,

Every administration must have some secrecy. The fact is, the public cannot be trusted with every 'truth' that higher ups might know about. The Clinton administration certainly kept its secrets, and as a conservative, I understood there is to be some things kept from the general public. The democratic party has a long history of secrecy, starting before the McCarthy era. When we point fingers at democrats and say they are hiding things, they scream "McCarthyism," yet feel well within their rights to turn around and do the same to the Bush administration. So I suppose the hypocricy within the democratic party irks me the most. They tend to talk out both sides of the proverbial ass, and this, in and of itself, makes them FAR LESS trustworthy than anyone in the current admin, IMO.

Yes reese, there must be some kind of secrecy. That's a given. But my point was that there is an "appearance of great secrecy" which fuels imagination & skepticism.... Another case and point, it took forever for Powell to come out and make his case for the war to the UN. Many months of congressional, media & public clamoring for more information - "why now? why iraq? why not north korea?" Finally, the administration relented. It makes them "seem" as though their hiding something because it took so long.

Whether they are hiding much or not will be left to the historians. But in the meantime, the public is left with little tangible detail, other than the high level of rhetoric about patriotism, & terrorism.

And this isn't coming from just democrats & the media. It's coming from republicans & conservatives too.

McGhee,

That would make you a bit older than me - my first vote was in the 1984 election (turned 18 just after the 82 mid-terms).

Dean is not alone in my part of the country.

I live in a rural area not far from a major metropolitan area and very near the population center of the U.S. (not to be *too* specific; you can Google the location if you're interested). Ten years ago, almost everyone I knew was either a Democrat or was apolitical. Most were fairly conservative, both socially and fiscally, but identified with the party of FDR and Kennedy. Today, *none* -- let me repeat -- *none* (and I'm talking dozens of people) of the people who formerly identified themselves as Democrats would even think of voting for a Democratic candidate for dog catcher. Even the apolitical ones have started expressing political views; and those views have lead them to vote begin voting Republican.

My wife, the most apolitical person I've *ever* met, received a contribution solicitation from the Republican National Committe the other day. I kidded her about how desperate they were to solicit *her* of all people. She told me with a straight face that she was going to contribute and the only question was "how much?".

Our state legislature flipped from overwhelmingly Democratic to overwhelmingly Republican in the space of three election cycles.

No, Dean is definitely not alone...

Reminds me of how many Cowboy fans I met in Washington (DC, the home of the Redskins), when they were winning.

It takes a lot of heart to stick with the party of thoughtfulness and inclusivity, especially when the party of decisiveness, tax cuts, prisons and wars is winning at the polls (at least where they’re still fighting the civil war) and has a more consistent, if pedantic, sound-bite. But it isn’t very hard for me to resist the siren song of tax-cuts and macho bravado that comes out of the Republicans now dominated by neo-conservatives. It amazes me that anyone could be so naïve as to fall for the obvious pandering to greed and fear as well as the asininity of turning the reigns of government to those who openly disparage its ability to help people. Dean, considering your metamorphosis from liberal, card-carrying NEA teacher to pro-Bush entrepreneur, sounds like you’re simply a good, cooperative member of the herd.

Welcome to the big tent party.

It takes a lot of heart to stick with the party of thoughtfulness and inclusivity, especially when the party of decisiveness, tax cuts, prisons and wars is winning at the polls (at least where they’re still fighting the civil war) and has a more consistent, if pedantic, sound-bite.

Inclusivity, except for those backwards rednecks in places like Texas and Georgia, no doubt. Or if you're a conservative hispanic who is up for an appellate court appointment.

Thoughtfulness - except none of them are communicating clearly what they would have done to protect our country after 911.

Shep - the democrats could really make strides forward if they would lose some of these illusions.

Shep,

Well, I like your little Fruedian slip there - yes, indeed, we are the party of decisiveness...you meant, of course, divisiveness, but the truth will out.

Tell me the great, thoughtful ideas of the modern Democratic Party...please; we haven't had anything to rip to shreds around here for a few days and it sometimes gets a little dull....

No Mark, I meant decisiveness, although your point is well taken. I gives comfort to some people to believe that the authorities know the perfect answer for any contingency, social problem or international threat - never mind how ridiculous that notion is.

The previous Democratic administration had lots of great, new ideas and I think your starting to see some new thinking from the candidates, particularly on financing health care for Americans - of course, tax cuts, prisons and perpetual war (did I miss any "new" ideas from the right - oh, yeah, dismantling the social compact and environmental Armageddon; how could I forget?) are hard to beat. Right now, I think the focus is on following that old adage about how to avoid burying yourself - first you've got to stop digging.

shep, you might taken more seriously around here if you quit spouting the Offical Democrat/liberal Handbook.

In an attempt to give you a picture of what you sound like, imagine (say) the period 1967-1969. You encounter a Republican/conservative who insists that the Communists are behind all the anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement, and Democratic party candidates like Humphrey, McCarthy and McGovern (in fact he'll even call McGovern a cowardly pacifist Red). He also reminds you that it was the Democrats who "lost" Eastern Europe, "lost" China, and are now losing Vietnam. In fact, if it weren't for the stupid liberal media misrepresenting everything that went on over there, we would have won the war by now.

He'll also explain how Johnson's administration is running the country into the ground by trying to fight Vietnam without cutting the HUGE "Great Society" programs they've created, not to mention damn near destorying the US armed forces in the process.

Now. Could you take this man seriously?

If you want to engage in real topics, try thinking for yourself, and using arguments that you came up with, instead of parroting the Democratic/liberal party line.

And you have the gall to claim that Dean a "good ... member of the herd!?"

I do have to give you points on one thing: at least you didn't drag out "Bush is an idiot because he talks stupid." Thank soverymuch for that! Heh.

Any time anyone brings up the great idea of national health care, I refer them to Europe and Canada. All resounding successes. /sarcasm I'd better stop now before I start trolling.

I know that isn't a solid argument against nationalized health care. After all, we're the US. We're rich & powerful. We might succeed where everyone else has failed. Well, I have bad news for you: I don't think our geater wealth will be sufficient for success of nationalized health care. I would be interested to know what you believe needs to be done differently (than Europe & Canada) in order for it to succeed. It certainly won't work as prescribed. The phrase I'm looking for is "Doomed to failure."

Oh, and email the differences to me. I doubt I'll be back on this thread, so I won't benefit from your blinding insight.

Casey, considering the comparison, no, I can't take "that man", or you, seriously. Besides, liberal democrats don't need talking points, we need only glaring reality to read from. By the way, Bush is obviously no idiot, he's an ignoramus who doesn't speak well.

Speaking of reality, Ach, the refrain "doomed to failure" when confronting the moral imperative and practical challenge (or is that practical imperative and moral challenge) of making sure that the citizens of the most "rich & powerful" nation on earth have access to affordable healthcare sounds exactly like what I would expect from "the party of ideas".

shep,

For just a second, I thought you had taken my example to heart, but you are, apparently, a true card-carrying, lockstep, Democrat/liberal.

I never thought you could take my example conservative seriously; I had hoped that you could take the example to heart, and (hopefully) consider where the official Democrat/liberal party line is at fault. I'm more than willing to spot points where the converse Republican/conservative party line is a fault, but (somehow) the Democratic/liberal half of this attempted dialogue is so smugly sure of himself that he sees no need to actually debate facts; he smugly pontificates about the "glaring reality" that most voters seem to have missed. Or have you not yet dicovered the results of the 2002 elections?

I would like to thank you for brilliantly illuminating one of Dean's regular themes, where he claims that one of the problems facing the contemporary Democratic/liberal establishment is the complete and utter inability to accept any point of view other than their own...

And what point of view is that, Casey? That my opinion is a slavish recitation of Democratic talking points (as if there were such a thing)? Sorry, yes, I’ll have to dismiss that “point of view” since I actually know from where my political beliefs spring. If you said something intelligent and substantial about something you could possibly know about perhaps we could have a reasoned debate where you might learn something about me (for one, that I often diverge from and even criticize Democratic orthodoxy – if there is even such a thing).

Why I will never (NEVER!) vote republican:
(Except John McCain and Colin Powell)

A party that wants to tell me what I can and cannot do in my bedroom with another consenting adult yet wants the government completely out of my bedroom if I am stockpiling weapons under the bed is SO fundamentally flawed in its logic that I cannot imagine that it could get anything else right.

Of course, never say never....or so THEY say.

I also have a problem with the strongly pro-tobacco candidates in either party. They can blow me...well, in a few states they can.

Tim the Soldier

Consenting adult . . . human, or sheep? How about a corpse which willed him/herself to you before dying?

If that's all equally cool to you, then I can't really dispute your opinion.

If that's not all equally cool to you, then on what basis would you justify impeding any of these activities? You're not drawing from any religious tract. You can't be dumb enough to argue in favor of mob rule, what with the example of Hitler's Germany. So from whence does your morality come?

Also, why should we care if you stockpile guns so long as you don't harm your neighbors? On the contrary, if someone attacks my family in our house, of what possible use are you going to be without a weapon to help us? By the time the cops arrive, we'll probably be dead.

Jonathan,

I'd ask you to read my post again AND not read anything more into it. (hint: I never mentioned animals, corpses or a combination of the two.)

Both sides have been equally guilty of the "mob rule" mentality when it comes to certain issues i.e. the death penalty, abortion, welfare, social security...etc...our government/society works so well and is so great because we have a system that USUALLY results in a reasonable solution without doing much damage to society. Hell, most of the time it improves society.

See Jonathan, I'm one of those people that believes our society is evolving. We are better than we were yesterday and we are going to be better tomorrow. Now, of course, I am talking about our society as a whole. There are certain areas we lack in, but that is why we have an education system, political debates, townhall meetings, and weblogs - to keep evolving and avoid stagnation.

Personally, and I know you sense this, I think organized religion has kept us from progressing as effectively as we could have. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, and George Carlin have been astute observers of that theory. Again, I am not in favor of banning or putting further restrictions on religion (I supported the judge's decision to KEEP the Ten Commandments at the courthouse.) because some people need the spiritual and emotional support that their church/temple/monastery/tree/incense holder/magic dice/ouiji board gives them. For me, I worship at the altar of ESPN.

Tim the Soldier

Why I'm do longer a Democrat? You should call this "why I'm no longer a Liberal"

This is my first visit to this site, which carries the tag line "Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy"
How?

Dean, you tell us that you left the democratic party, but I can't imagine why you ever joined it in the first place. A "Republican-leaning Liberal"? Might as well call yourself a Jumbo Shrimp. How someone can believe that enviromental destruction, stealing elections, killing the freedom of information act, giving a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans when we have a staggering defecit, bombing a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and spending taxpayer money on a joyride in a fighter jet are "liberal", or worthy of support by a liberal, is staggering in it's sheer ignorance.

You voted for Bush. I can understand not voting for Gore and Loserman, but to vote for Bush? You say you like him. How does a Liberal get to like Bush? Was it Ari's liberal use of lies and propaghanda to support the most secretive administration in history? was it Bush's liberal use of a fighter jet to create a photo-op for the 2004 campaign? Maybe is was his liberal vacations to his Texas ranch or Camp David, more vacations then any president in recent memory. Or maybe his "liberating" veterans of some of their govt. benefits apppealed to you. (For the record, I voted for the only Liberal in the race, Nader.)

You say school choice led you away from the democratic party. So I guess you beleive that all the kids in the ghetto should get on a bus and go to the good schools in the suburbs, right? And how will these schools handle the 1000's of extra kids? Maybe they can go to religious schools. Perhaps parents will "choose" not to send their kids to schools with black children in them, or use vouchers to force districts to reflect their religious ideologies? But I suppose this won't make the least bit of sense to you.

Then you go on to the missle defence system. What a great idea! A pork project for America's starving military contractors, who help elect the people who vote for missle defence, and later hire those politicians on as "consultants". Never mind that it's been a huge flop, or that it will provide ZERO protection from terrorists, suitcase bombs, bioterrorism, or sub-launched nukes. And I'm sure that it wouldn't start another arms race, with countries developing better missles to get past the missle shield. Military hardware in space is a great idea that is sure to be greeted warmly by the rest of the world. And if not, I guess we can bomb them.

Onto the rich. No one's asking you to loathe them.
Still, if poor Americans are the wealthiest 1% in the world, then I guess it's okay that the wealthiest 1% of the world's wealthiest 1% make more money then whole countries. How selfish is it to give a tax cut to the rich while over 40 million people don't even have health care, and we're spending billions every month on war.
"I'll be blunt: I've come to believe it's very selfish, very mean-spirited, to rail about 'tax cuts for the rich.' It's also counterproductive"
Are you serious? The tax cuts themselves were "mean-spirited and counterproductive". None of Bush's arguments for it made the least bit of sense to me. They still don't. To be blunt, you don't sound very sharp.

Then, your self-employment. Who's selfish now? Because the money doesn't magically disappear from your check, now you're against taxes? So everything's okay until it effects you personally? I'm rabidly anti big business, but love small businesses and self-employed people. No, the Democrats don't support small business enough, and big business too much. But you think Republicans are better?

Which of Bush's "big ideas" (I'll try to stifle my laughter) were you in tune with, Liberal Dean?
No matter, since you support the killing of thousands of men, women and children who had nothing to do with 9-11, while the real mastermind cuts mix tapes every month for his followers, and Rumsfeld's old buddy Saddam has become harder to find then Waldo. Bush's
"leadership" is sending Americans home in body bags every day, letting the Taliban come back to power in Afghanistan, killing protestors and cops in Iraq, and has made Iraq into the hotbed of terrorism they pretended it was before the war. Where is the leadership you talk about? The world thinks we're a bully, Arabs want to kill us even more, Israel gives us the finger, the enviromental situation gets worse every day, our economy is still tanking, and Bush takes a vacation.

You say you believe in Bush and his people. You should read Molly Irvin's book "Shrub" sometime, and then tell me how much you believe in a man with a DUI conviction, cocaine use, and multiple failed businesses in his past, as well as desertion from the Reserves. His people are a rouges gallery of the shady and greedy. Dick Cheney, the Dark Prince, who's been involved in every corrupt administration except Clintons. (Why did Halliburton get all those lucrative deals on Iraqi reconstruction, I wonder...) Condi Rice, who has an oil tanker named after her. Poindexter, convicted of lying to congress, but in charge of spying on Americans (very liberally, of course). Colin Powell, whose son helped increase media monopoly to it's highers levels ever. And Donald Rumsfled, the Dr. Strangelove of the new century, advocating a world where the U.S. gets to attack anyoneat any time, with zero accountability. I suppose you support Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war, as well. Maybe you're too young to remember WWII, where another leader declared the need to fight terrorism with pre-emptive war. America condemned Germany for waging pre-emptive war, just to do the same thing to Iraq. If you want a good argument against war: http://www.amconmag.com/10_21/iraq.html
(In a Conservative forum, no less!)

To conclude this rather long rant, I guess I'm just shocked that someone can say the things you do on this website and consider himself Liberal. Reading this rubbish made my eyes hurt. I'm surprised someone hasn't sued you for false advertising. Frankly, I'm glad you're no longer a Democrat. I just wish you would take Lieberman, Clinton, Gore, and the rest of the "liberal" Democrats who ruined the party with you. But you really should stop lying to yourself, Dean. Just turn on Fox news, sit in front of the TV with your Coors open, and say to yourself:
"I'm conservative, I'm part of the problem, and I'm A-Ok."

Well, Mean Green, I would suggest that the problem here is that you have no idea what the word "liberal" really means. I'd suggest you pick up a dictionary and learn.

It is not about political parties. It is not about your position on taxes, or the best way to protect the environment. It's about being open-minded, tolerant of dissent, believing in equality before the law for all, rejection of orthodox thinking without first examining its basic presumptions, and so on.

The problem here isn't that I'm not really a liberal. I'd suggest that the problem is that blinkered tunnel-vision reactionaries have hijacked the word and tried to make it their own--and some right-wingers have allowed them to get away with it.

I won't play that game.

I am a liberal. I'd have to wonder if you are one, though, given everything you've said. It's not your positions, it's the blinkered partisan rhetoric that appears to substitute for critical thoughts in your ranting.

Damn.

Mean Green makes shep look perfectly reasonable! Heh.

shep: I'm sorry I'm rushed for time the next few days. A couple quick points I wanted to comment on:
-remarking on "glaring reality," as opposed to (say) a collective interpretation of events begs the question, wouldn't you say?

-you say "Democratic talking points (as if there were such things)" and "Democratic orthodoxy (is if there such a thing)."

So, Democrats never have a list of talking points regarding either their own agenda, or the opposition? Funny, the recent debate didn't reflect that, with nearly all participants providing carbon-copy-similar criticsms of the Bush administration... (Ok, Liberman did defend the idea of freeing Iraq, and Sharp's crack about bin Laden's videos was funny. Beside the point, but funny [g])

Also, there is, then, no Democratic orthodoxy? Which means then that there is no Democratic (party) agenda? Which means, what, all those anti-war protesters just spontaneously (and simultanteously) invent "Bush=Hitler" and "no blood for oil" slogans, not to mention that idiotic canard that you repeat, that the man is somehow mentally challenged just because he isn't Demosthenes?

It's amazing how there are no Democratic talking points, nor is there a Democratic orthodox position, but --somehow-- Democrats manage to be incredibly consistent across the country on so many topics. I suppose it's some sort of Vulcan mind-meld, or Jedi mind-trick sort of thing... :)

Parenthetically, I would rather have someone in office who has a problem with public speaking, but can make things happen, than someone who is great at public speaking, and can only make the local DC intern. :)

Don't you know anyone, personally, who can come across as intelligent or capable in private conversation, but sounds like a near-total dolt when speaking publicly? I certainly do. I even screw up myself a fair bit, without preparation. It's a difficult thing to do.

Also, don't you think that defining someone's abilities thru a narrow window like that is inaccurate, if not dishonest?

I know, personally, a woman who is very intelligent, and (in a literal sense of the word) quite literate, but she needs a calculator to figure the tip after dinner. She terribly math-challenged. Does this make her an idiot (or, to you use your word, an ignoramus)? According to many engineers, scientists, and techies, yes, it does. But that's because they have a rather narrow definition of "intelligent."

My proposition is that Bush is quite capable in other ways, but not in that respect. So to put him down like that (BTW, I feel that your distinction between "idiot" and "ignoramus" is a false one; in either case it concludes a deficiency based soley on relatively weak public-speaking skills) is, I feel, not justified.

Damn, more time than I intended to spend; gotta get outa here.

Later...

Wake me up when we start talking about sex again. Oops! Sorry wrong message board.

Seriously, a "liberal" is a person whose first reaction to a new idea or whatever is to be open-minded and willing to listen to "reasonable" arguments from both sides. However, once a "liberal" has made up his/her mind, it would take something rather significant to change that opinion.

A "conservative" is a person whose first reaction to a new idea or whatever to is to be guarded (not close-minded) as "conservatives" tend to dislike change and cling to tradition rather than trends. Again, it would take something rather significant to change THAT opinion.

In both cases, in my observations, those significant events have been PERSONAL experiences that have shaped their changed views.

Most of my close friends identify themselves as conservative republicans, but that is vastly different than what Dean Esmay claims to be. Dubya would have to do something very sinister for him to change his loyalties, but I also think he is turned off by as many republicans as he is by democrats.

The democratic party for me is like an extended family. Sure, it's dysfunctional at times, but at least we KNOW that and talk about it. The GOP is like that quiet family that lives in the cul-de-sac. Everyone thinks that they're normal law-abiding citizens until they find the hamster heads in the freezer and a 55-gallon drum of KY jelly in the living room.

You see, both sides have freaks, but, by Bright, moderates run the show behind the scene and keep things moving relatively smoothly.

Tim the Soldier

Tim:

I bring up the consensual acts topic not because you mentioned it (on the contrary, I understand your eagerness to avoid it) but because it shows the huge, smoking hole in your logical framework.

All of the listed acts/situations either have to be supported by you, or opposed.

If they're supported, then you're logically consistent and I can't take issue with your train of thought. I can only say: "Ick."

If they're opposed, then you owe us an explanation as to which consensual acts between which sexes, species, etc. are acceptable to you and which are unacceptable and on what moral basis. Where I have the luxury of falling back on the Bible for my moral precepts, you either get to rely on the Mob or the Dictatorship of Tim, neither of which are likely to be all that compelling to nonTims with any historical perspective whatsoever on the flawless functioning of democracy.

Or you can admit that your subjective opinion is simply your subjective opinion, and casts no particular illumination on this problem. That's a totally honorable and consistent answer, too.

Jonathan,

I bet you're great fun a parties. If you are not a lawyer, you are definately missing your true potential....that or a barber...as long as we're splitting hairs that is.

Tim the Soldier

Tim:

I'm not splitting hairs. I have nailed the crux of the entire discussion, which is why you are avoiding the main topic.

You are effectively saying, until/unless you clarify your position, that any activity between any two or more organic or inorganic entities of any age or temperature is acceptable to you. When you throw out the Bible, (or Torah, or Koran, or whatever sacred text of a major religion) you throw out the entire moral foundation which has been established upon/around it/them.

You really can't have it both ways. Either everything goes which is not restricted by a majority vote, or some things just ain't, and you get to explain why not.

If you're not up for this task, then please have the intellectual honesty to suspend your anti-theology campaign until such time as you work up a logically integrated basis to support it.

“It's amazing how there are no Democratic talking points, nor is there a Democratic orthodox position, but --somehow-- Democrats manage to be incredibly consistent across the country on so many topics. I suppose it's some sort of Vulcan mind-meld, or Jedi mind-trick sort of thing... :)”

No, Casey, nothing that exotic. They all also think that the world is round, gravity is more than just a theory and that humans evolved from lower forms; no talking points required.

There is an important distinction between idiot and ignoramus and I was dead serious. Bush is not, “a feebleminded person” as he is obviously a moderately shrewd politician but he is famously and most definitely, “an utterly ignorant person” (Webster’s 9th), especially for someone in his position. He is openly disdainful of learning and intellectualism and regularly demonstrates his deep ignorance. I take your point on the speaking ability and I despise the fact that a viable presidential candidate has to be tall, white and somebody you’d like to have a beer with. If it weren’t for our silly biases, all our presidents would be really smart, short bald bespectacled men or, better yet, really smart, self-possessed, mousy-looking women. On the other hand, they have to be able to lead all us sheep so we have to look for the package: looks, brains and persuasive speaking (unfortunately, he had to retire after the last two terms).

Green, I like your thinking and articulation (good catch, Casey), although your voting has certainly helped put us in a pickle. I like Nader (I designed his Public Citizen logo) but to make the perfect the enemy of the good isn’t very practical. To imagine that Gore would have acted more like Bush than Nader as president seems crazy to me. I also think that Dean’s general political philosophy and his take on liberalism are refreshing and eminently defensible. If his inexplicable support of Bush and occasional attacks on Democrats seem to you like untenable and confusing contradictions with that philosophy, then we do think alike.

*Applause* It's nice to see that at least one Liberal has some sense. I applaud you for stepping outside of the party lines and assessing the situation for what it is, not what rose-colored glasses of ignorance the Democratic party decides to don repetitively. Thank you for showing me that there is at least one Liberal out there with an ounce of sense. It gives us Conservatives a hope for the future. Well done, friend. Well done.

*Applause* It's nice to see that at least one Liberal has some sense. I applaud you for stepping outside of the party lines and assessing the situation for what it is, not what rose-colored glasses of ignorance the Democratic party decides to don repetitively. Thank you for showing me that there is at least one Liberal out there with an ounce of sense. It gives us Conservatives a hope for the future. Well done, friend. Well done.