That's the thing about politics, at least online and generally offline too: it's all or nothing. The guy you support is perfect and the guy you oppose is a complete failure (or worse- he's the second coming of Adolph Hitler) in every regard.

Frankly, it gets boring after a while. You go to a site like Kos and read the comments, THOUSANDS of them, and it's nothing but "Rah Rah Kerry, we hate Bush". Sorry but what, exactly, is supposed to be interesting about that? Where's the dialogue? Where's the debate? Where's the friendly, constructive exchange of differing points of view? Kos site is just a big "me too!" forum. ZZZzzzz.....

And it's no different on right-wing sites, either. Drop by LGF or even ASV some time and drop a comment opposing the war, or criticizing Bush, even in a friendly and well-reasoned way, and watch what the regulars do to you.

You know what I want?

I want to see a blogger support Bush but acknowledge that the man has flaws and makes some mistakes, and point those out sometimes. I want that same blogger to say he disagrees with Kerry on a lot of issues, but he does make some good points about X, Y, or Z. And then I want to see a lefty blogger admit that Bush is not, in fact, Hitler, that he HAS, in fact, done a some good work while in office, and that everything that is wrong with the world did not come to be that way in January of 2001. And I want that lefty to acknowledge that John Kerry DOES tend to flip flop on issues, because IT'S TRUE.

Bah. I'm really quite sick of it all. I think I'm also going to cease blogging and commenting about politics. There are so many more pleasant things in this world to write about and exchange comments with other people about.

I'm glad I read your post, Dean: I'm feeling relieved and inspired. Thanks, and have a great day!

Dave -- as a Republican straight-ticket voter since I've been old enough to vote, I'll gladly admit that Bush has made mistakes, and has flaws.

They're just nowhere near *enough* mistakes, or enough *significant* flaws, to change my mind about the fact that he is by far, head and shoulders, way ahead of any possible alternative that will be on the ballot in 2004.

If there wasn't a war on, sure, the domestic spending priorities might make me clutch my head and pray for a viable challenger. But as den Beste put it in his latest, war makes you focus on what's really important.

Oh, and re: Little Green Footballs... Dean, are you referring to the the content, the comments, or the trolls?

Their are people that I would like to "nail to the walls too". 9/11 could not have been prevented. No one person is to blame for not preventing it. Hindsite is 20/20 and too many people live in the past. At least their are those that are doing something about it. Bush did the right thing in going to war against terrorism and taking the war to their training grounds. Many other tragedies have been prevented in the USA since 9/11 due to the fact that we are at war. Our guard is up. Many people think we should pull our troops out of harms way. These people don't realize that our troops enlisted because they might be required to sacrifice their lives for freedom. Our troops know why they are over seas. Just a few thoughts.

Perhaps he's referring to this,Chuckg.

Dean, in general, you're pretty fair about politicians and policies - I think you get it wrong on occasion, but not out of malice or unrelenting partisanship. Its this reoccuring theme of yours that I take issue with though, that you're voting against Democrats not because of the politicians or their policies, but because of the people who support them. I mean, its perfectly understandable, but not exactly defendable.

I can't believe this is the Dean Esmay who said he'll vote for Bush. Heh. Kidding. Your post is actually very like a post I've had running around in my head but haven't yet downloaded from brain to blog. It's hard to step back and figure out if the vitriol is worse this election cycle than others or not...I keep thinking that it actually *is* worse, probably due to the combination of the closeness of the last election and the war.

I'd like to say I'm gonna lay off the politics, but I don't think I'd be able to follow through. It's just too much in my blood these days. But your post is a good reminder to try not to get too carried away with the attacks.

Hey, you can all quit politics for a while, if you want, but just remember to vote in November. Because if you don't, that haughty Frenchman will get in and talk too much about Vietnam.

Oh, and Little Green Footballs doesn't scare me, at least in the political sense. They're not really a right-wing outfit so much as an anti-muslim-moonbat site. A Good Thing™, IMO.

It's good to swear off politics from time to time. For one thing, politics are necessarily political. Ninety-five percent of everything coming out of the political arena is somehwere on a continuum of bullshit, out of context, spun, or prepared for its entertainment value.

It takes too much damned effort to unspin, recontextualize, and then reassemble most of what we hear (even if that is one of the raison d'etres of the blogosphere). By the time you do all that work, your opponent can usually take another dump of bullshit, or move the goal posts, or whatever.

So a break from politics can be a good idea. It's also a good idea to take a break from the news, for similar reasons.

*****

Max M -- *gaze*

When you can come up with something better than vetting over 300,000 posts and comments for three dozen or so extremely out-of-context snippets, you won't be a moonbat.

What bothers me is not the cheap shots or the fact that there are extremists with wacky beliefs on both sides. We have always had that. What bothers me is that it is so difficult to even rationally discuss policits with people these days.

I have always debated politics with people, and even when debating with people that I didn't agree with, we often both learn a few things from the discussion. Sometimes my opinion on something changed and sometimes theirs did. We were discussing the situation, however, not to try to convert each other, but rather to understand each other's position and how they arrived at it. Often we woiuld discover fundamental differences in our values that would explain our positions.

Now, most of the time, discussions don't carry that far. There seems to be a greater need in people to convert each other. To that end there seems to be a growing need to depict the candidate they don't support as not just being inferior but being horrible. There have always been people that argued that way, but it is harder and harder to find people who do not.

Kerry is not going to abandon Iraq, place the interests of other countries above ours, or raise taxes to stifling levels.

Bush is not going to try to become dictator or turn the US into a near police state.

None of those views are rational. Now you can certainly argue that Kerry will handle the situation in Iraq better/worse than Bush, or that one will handel the economy better than the other. It is certainly supportable to believe that Bush has implemented policies that have restricted personal freedom too much. Those are the debates and discussions that I used to have with people, and ones that I miss now.

Saying things like Kerry will abandon our troops or that Bush is trying to become a dictator, used to be considered "over the top" headlines or something used to get someones attention and then a reasonable argument on why this or that person was the inferior choice would follow. Now, more and more, the "over the top" lines are the argument, and evidence and justification is made for supporting that position.

It makes is difficult to have rational discussions with growing numbers of people on either side.

Take a breather. Studying and analyzing liars and disingenuous folk (politicians from BOTH sides) 24/7 is enough to make even Ned Flanders want to freak out and break things. As for the fringes, I give them only cursory acknowledgment of their existence and only to make that I am up on what is happening in the world around me.

To keep my sanity, I step back from it and look at it in a purely analytical way. To win in politics, you must win the center and I enjoy watching how each party tries to tailor their message to the middle. And if you focus on the middle 60%, it will be a fun 7 months.

Both sides annoy the hell out of me on a daily basis and for me, I will make my decision in Nov. based upon which candidate (from either party) that I feel will lead the country in the direction I would like it lead.

"Kerry is not going to abandon Iraq, place the interests of other countries above ours, or raise taxes to stifling levels."

I just don't get how anyone can believe this. Kerry has flip-flopped so often that I simply do not understand how anyone can still trust him to do anything.

And that isn't partisanship talking, that's just knowledge.

Chuckg, you are indeed beyond parody. Hey, why don't you try and put the guy advocating 'targeted genocide' in context. Talk about base partisanship

Chuckg,

Some people would argue that is a good thing about Kerry, as they see he will act not based on his own ideas and/or convictions, but based on what the people want.

Bush, on the other hand, is one who acts based on his convictions, rather than based on what people want or expect from him.

Of course, each has shown exceptions, Kerry has taken stands on things, and Bush has conceded his agenda in the face of great opposition, but those are more of hteir common modes of operation.

Personally, I prefer someone who acts on their on conviction, as long as I tend to agree with those convictions. So I do prefer Bush. I think he has done a god job as President and I do plan to vote for his re-election.

Many people, however, do not want a presidnet that follows his own convictions and agenda. They want someone who will listen to their voice, who they are able to influence. They want more democracy and less republic.

I understand that position, and while I see value in it, I do not agree with it. While I certainly have ideas on how to run this country and I would like to see some of them implemented, I also know that many and even most of the decisions that the President must make are ones that I should not have much direct say in. I say that because I do not have all of the information to make the best decision. So, instead, I want someone in office that I can trust to make the right decision in my place. I want someone with strong convictions and principles that I mostly agree with, though I know that the cost is that I and people that agree with me will have less influence over our lives.

It is a difference in priority. I think that it is more important to have someone who can make the hard decisions that I cannot, than to have someone who I can influence in decisions that I want to see a change in. Many people feel the opposite, and so they like someone like Kerry.

Depending on what your priorities are, strong personal conviction in a President can be seen as either a good or a bad thing.

I too have gone off politics...but more of the grass-roots variety. In the last few years I have encountered so many total-arsehats that I have burned-out of dealing with them. Instead of actually doing something these cretins tends to screw-over those who are helping that they feel threatened by. I can't be bothered anymore. I will be back, but it will be probably be a while yet.

I like your site, though I'd say I am not as even-handed about Bush. I feel strongly that he is a threat to US democracy, and the stability of the world. My views are perhaps like Zinn's or Chomsky's on many foreign policy issues. I guess if you would to label me I'd be considered part of the "far left", though I see my views as more of an extension of good old American progressive ideals a la Emerson.

However, I feel alienated from what the mainstream "left" is today, exemplified by partisan Democrats. This is not say I will not vote for a Democrats. I really have no other choice. But, the divisive strategies that have worked for the right since the late 60's are now being imitated by the left, and that worries me.

The problem I see is that both parties are extremely similar. Not the same. But similar. Both sides are so polarized, yet they agree on most of the big "system" issues (ie national security state). Bush perhaps is an anomaly because he is so extreme, but then there are so many DINO Dems who basically subscribe to the neo-con world view. It's very distressing. As a result, I feel completely alienated politically--I have no place to call home.

Bush perhaps is an anomaly because he is so extreme...

Wha? He seems pretty close to the center, to me.

This is not say I will not vote for a Democrats. I really have no other choice.

You can vote for any other candidate, including Bush, if you want. Alternatively, you can just not vote if none of the candidates appeal to you.

Both sides annoy the hell out of me on a daily basis and for me, I will make my decision in Nov. based upon which candidate (from either party) that I feel will lead the country in the direction I would like it lead.

Well said, Gilly. I echo that.

Amen, Bro... preach on. :)

WOOO HOOO! GREAT POST! I've been cutting down on my daily intake of politics for all the reasons you cite. I've been hanging out at football boards lately. Draft time.

Dean,

Well, there I was typing away and all of a sudden my computer puts up my 'history'...don't know if what I wrote will appear suddenly, but I'll start again.

You have the long-running plaint of the man who tries to be even handed in politics; you'll find your ass handed to you on a platter again and again if you try to do that, ya know?

Better to clearly delineate yourself from one side - and when they are crushed, offer the magnanimous hand up.

It's very rarely that I comment on your site, Dean...you have so many people who comment already. Why be lost amongst everyone else? :)

But I very much agree with this post. Unfortunately, I think that most people align themselves with a certain candidate without really knowing why. They **think** that they're a Republican, so they vote that way. Likewise for Democrats. To know who you really agree with you have to know the issues, and that takes a lot more time and energy.

Obviously, you realize this, because you admit that you vote for who you really AGREE with, rather than voting for the "party."