I can certainly agree with this post. I used to be a more conservative Christian and now I am a more liberal one. Even some of my friends lamented that I was losing my faith, straying from scripture, etc. When some of my liberal friends discovered in '84 that I backed Gary Hart over Walter Mondale, a few questioned whether I was still sympathetic with unions.

Well, considering how much you're deriding those still in the fold, where exactly is the higher moral ground that you're standing on?

You've consistently misrepresented the left, derided their leaders, and been condescending to those who are still part of the party.

And then you go and throw Noonan at us.

It's a slap in the face, Dean. And maybe you think we need slapping, but I don't think you can claim the high moral ground here.

"Throwing Noonan" at you?

Noonan being another former member of the fold, you mean?

Where's the sense of introspection that leads you to wonder why so many of us have wandered away? Why must you mock and deride and/or trivialize us, rather than wonder "why?"

All the social forces we see before us tend to indicate that your side (our old side) is on the losing side of history. You (used to be we) have been slowly losing, by a game of inches, for the last 20 years. Now, why is that? Is it because ALL your ideas are wrong? I'd say not. Is it because SOME of your ideas are on the wrong track? You can either ask yourself why, or you can watch your side slowly sink into oblivion.

Or, maybe you're still right on all the big things, and those of us--like me, my wife, like Peggy, like so many others--stopped and had second thoughts because we missed something somewhere. Maybe you can have a respectful dialogue with us. Maybe we can consider where you may have gone wrong, and where respectful disagreement may be sought.

Or maybe you can keep slipping into greater and greater irrelevance. Your call. But those of us who've crossed over to the other side keep wondering when you'll talk to us like human beings, rather than like freaks and lepers and dolts.

Hey, here's one for ya. I voted for Reagan in his first term. Voted Libertarian the second time around. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, went through rigorous training in Christian school until 11th grade. My brother works for focus on the family.

Just remember. The country is split 50/50. We'll see who's on the losing side of history.

Shoot, I should think the lesson of 2002 was that despite the election results of 2000, the country is not split 50/50. More like 55/45 in favor of the GOP in 2002, and 2004 may reveal it is more like 60/40...especially if the only message from the Dem candidates is: "WE HATE BUSH" or "BUSH LIED"

here's a better one for you:

How about if you used to be on the OTHER side of the street and then you cross that street and join a new gang? And then that new gang disses you cause you USED to be on the OTHER side of the street?

What the fuck is up with that?

Hmm, maybe the liberals need to ask themselves, "Why do they hate us?" Only this time, they have to actually mean "us," as opposed to "those Republican bastards."

What if the dems go in yelling "BUSH LIED" and "WE HATE BUSH" and they win?

Discuss.

Well, based on all available information, they aren't within 10% of that actually happening, even before Bush has spent a dime, so if they do nothing but yell thst stuff and win, the first thing I'm going to do is demand to see the voting list. Dems have a history of dead people voting for their candidate, not to mention illegal aliens, felons, etc and people voting 2 and 3 times.
But on yet another hand, taking your question seriously for once, I'd say that I would probably start buying ammunition, handloading and survival supplies, because if "BUSH LIED" and "WE HATE BUSH" is sufficient to win a majority of major offices as well as the Presidency, then the collapse of the Constitutional system won't be far behind.

Are liberals really nastier toward Bush than conservatives were toward Clinton?

joel questions if the liberals are nastier toward bush than the conservatives were toward clinton.

not the issue. attempting to figure out who's worse is not a sensible goal. stopping the poor behavior should be the goal.

were there conservatives who were "clinton-haters" and couldn't mention one decent quality of clinton's? sure. but just because "they did it, too" doesn't make it right.

dean is EXACTLY CORRECT that people, irrespective of their underlying philosophies, should do their best to be respectful of those with differing views.

my guess is that not too many minds are swayed by telling the owners of those minds that they are morons.... something to remember.

Does making fun of/stereotyping people who've left the fold mean you're on the losing side of history? Since both parties fully engage in said activity, (in fact, it seems like a universal human reaction) it seems unlikely that they are both on the losing side.

Yes, there were indeed conservatives who were "Clinton-haters" and couldn't mention one decent quality of Clinton's. But it wasn't the basis for a run at the Presidency, and there is the underlying difference.

Is this a slight at David Horowitz?

My theory on this is simple and I think it is human nature.

Did you ever notice the difference between non-smoker and ex-smokers in their treatment of smokers/smoking?

Ex-smokers are usually more staunchly anti-smoking.

Lifelong non-smokers are usually more tolerant of smokers.

I think that is similar to political sides - with normal people - not celebs/career politians. I used to be a Democrat - I quit and I am harder on them. I admit it. It isn't right, I try not to get vicious but it happens. I also get more annoyed at ex-smokers than non-smokers. I smoke and ex-smokers preach at me a lot and it pisses me off.

It's a theory.

Nice shot, Cobb.

I agree with Rosemary. Another example is a new convert to a religion brimming over with zealous enthusiasm.

Nathan: Nice shot about the illegal aliens and felons voting. Glad to see you're so dedicated to stamping out voter fraud.

Now tell us how you feel about the Diebold electronic voting machines, all with serious security holes and no paper trail, that are produced by companies controlled by highly-partisan Republicans?

Rosemary, I'm a recovering democrat myself (been off the cool aide since 1988) and I'd agree with that assessment. I know I'm harder on dems and their pols than I am on the GOP and its pols - partly because I get so mad knowing that I used to be just like them.

Adam, I'll tell you how I feel about those damn Diebold E-Vote machines - don't trust 'em, not a bit. I am a systems integration analyst for IBM and I am not at all comfortable with them for all the reasons you listed plus the sinker for me - they haven't passed what I'd consider to be a serious QA review.

We use the punch card system where I live, it's worked just fine so far. I've had one spoiled ballot in 19+ years of voting. Don't like those - then let me suggest an alternative - paper ballots with the name (in large print and braile), photo and campaign logo of the candidates on them. Just put an "x" next to his name/picture. It's fair, it's easy to understand and even an idiot could figure it out. What do you think?

The ultimate sign of an intellectual loser is resorting to violence to settle a disagreement.
To me, the first step toward that acknowledgement of utter intellectual defeat is hurling personal invective, as opposed to insulting the offending idea.

I agree, Rosemary, the "reformed" do seem more intense and more personal.

We were election judges were punchcards were used; my wife did it for 20 years. This was in Chicago, the home town of Gore's campaign manager. In all that time we only encountered a couple of spoiled ballots, which is what one with hanging or dimpled chad would have been. In fact, I was mystified as to how one could produce dimpled chads until I saw the suggestion recently that someone was trying to punch two ballots at a time.

Dean & Rosemary:

The two of you have an uncanny knack for drawing out of the woodwork commenters who (1) vehemently deny your thesis, while (2) in the very same breath they provide ample illustration of your thesis in their own behavior and attitude.

I dunno, my political journey was quite different from yours. I've always considered myself a Republican, I've always considered myself some stripe of conservative. When I first arrived at college almost 30 years ago, I suppose I could've been turned into a civil, moderate liberal— had I met up in college with any significant number of civil, moderate liberals. (After all, isn't that the route people are supposed to follow when they go off to college?)

Instead I ran into a good number of liberal/Left types who were (as you put it) "vicious, mean, arrogant, and condescending" toward me, simply because I wouldn't shut up, stop asking questions, and get with the program. And the capper was, they looked on their own "vicious, mean, arrogant, and condescending" behavior as the very epitome of openmindedness and tolerance! As if I was supposed to thank them for kicking me in the shins in the name of "love, peace, and understanding"... when all I was doing was asking honest questions.

To make a long story short, this situation (along with a variety of other factors) drove me to read, drove me to think, drove me to reflect. And in the end I did change... from a mild, relatively non-ideological Eisenhower Republican to a more hardcore, National-Review-reading political conservative.

Though you may still hear in my voice from time to time echoes of that civil, moderate liberal who could have been and never was.

As for the "vicious, mean, arrogant, and condescending," I've long since concluded that (despite what they themselves may think) they're not really out to persuade. Rather, when they behave like that, they're out to reassure themselves, to reaffirm their group identity, and to mark their territory. Sort of like a dog lifting its leg and pissing on a bush. These days, I just try to get out of the way, and not be the bush.

Unfortunately for the POTUS - He is the Bush.

HA!

Rosemary:

LOL! Yes (such are the workings of my labyrinthine mind), the allusion was not entirely inadvertent.

Maybe the Dem's message will be:

Under Bush's leadership, Americans are dying every day in Iraq. There is no exit strategy, no light at the end of the tunnel. The occupation was botched from the beginning. And, by the way, we are in this mess because Bush lied.

Might that turn the trick?

I hate it when people use the "every day people are dying in Iraq" line. More Americans die in Detroit every day than they do in Iraq. Should the US pull out of Detroit?