Decius wrote:

BUSH: The Democrats just follow a simple philosophy.

Just say no.

When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

It's just say no.

When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer?

Just say no.

When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

BUSH: So when the Democrats ask your for vote, what's your answer?

AUDIENCE: No!

Mr. Bush's own lawyers argued "just say no" on the matter of trying terrorists, preferring instead hold them forever without trial:

There is no obligation under the laws and customs of war for the military to charge captured combatants with any offense and, indeed, the vast majority of combatants seized during war are detained as a simple war measure without charges. Similarly, there is no general right to counsel under the laws and customs of war
for those who are detained as enemy combatants.

John Kerry has been getting tarred and featherd for 24 hours because of a misinterpretation of something he said. He didn't mean it, but half the country is mad as hell about it anyway.

As someone who cares about the system of checks and balances, civil liberties, and the rule of law, I agree with Democrats who've argued that the President should follow FISA. I don't think the President should be able to apprehend someone in an airport in Chicago and call it a "battlefield detention." I don't think the President should be able to detain people, citizens in particular, indefinately, without charges. I think these things strike at the very heart of the fundamental underpinnings of our system of government and I am mad as hell about it.

Am I misinterpreting the above remarks when I conclude that the President thinks I'm opposed to combating terrorism because of my concerns? No. I'm not. He means it.

Why is it OK to tar and feather one man for something he didn't say, but no one would raise a finger to question another man for something he did say. THIS is offensive! Why isn't anyone, anywhere, expressing any anger about this?

Because Bush is a fucking madman and will have your career destroyed if you cross him. (See: Valerie Plame)

Decius wrote:
Why is it OK to tar and feather one man for something he didn't say, but no one would raise a finger to question another man for something he did say. THIS is offensive! Why isn't anyone, anywhere, expressing any anger about this?

Two words: Enemy Combatant.
Three words: Free Speech Zone.

One word: Fucked.

Decius wrote:

BUSH: The Democrats just follow a simple philosophy.

Just say no.

When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

It's just say no.

When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer?

Just say no.

When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

BUSH: So when the Democrats ask your for vote, what's your answer?

AUDIENCE: No!

Mr. Bush's own lawyers argued "just say no" on the matter of trying terrorists, preferring instead hold them forever without trial:

There is no obligation under the laws and customs of war for the military to charge captured combatants with any offense and, indeed, the vast majority of combatants seized during war are detained as a simple war measure without charges. Similarly, there is no general right to counsel under the laws and customs of war
for those who are detained as enemy combatants.

John Kerry has been getting tarred and featherd for 24 hours because of a misinterpretation of something he said. He didn't mean it, but half the country is mad as hell about it anyway.

As someone who cares about the system of checks and balances, civil liberties, and the rule of law, I agree with Democrats who've argued that the President should follow FISA. I don't think the President should be able to apprehend someone in an airport in Chicago and call it a "battlefield detention." I don't think the President should be able to detain people, citizens in particular, indefinately, without charges. I think these things strike at the very heart of the fundamental underpinnings of our system of government and I am mad as hell about it.

Am I misinterpreting the above remarks when I conclude that the President thinks I'm opposed to combating terrorism because of my concerns? No. I'm not. He means it.

Why is it OK to tar and feather one man for something he didn't say, but no one would raise a finger to question another man for something he did say. THIS is offensive! Why isn't anyone, anywhere, expressing any anger about this?

because in many ways you have a silent majority and I don't mean that in convensional terms there is some sort of built in GOP majority or moral majority, with all the built in assumptions about social morality that implies. I, although I'm English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest. The farmers of John Steinbeck. The sheep hands in Bareback Mountain. The world of Garrison Keillor. Small town America in It's a Wonderful Life. Twelve Angry Men. People, if I may be so bold, like you Mr Cross.
The Democrats may not take the Senate and lessons in humility are hard to learn but I think Nemesis has noted the hubris of certain politicians and I think maybe planning to pay a visit.

adam wrote:
I, although I'm English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest.

Thanks Adam... Its been noted somewhere that our political parties have become dominated by the fringes.

First, you've got to be a hot shirt to want to get involved in the first place. Most nonlawyers are too focused on their lives to become really involved in politics.

Second, you're not welcome if you're not partisan. You have to work for one team or the other. Its a party system, and people who aren't playing don't go far. (For example, I think given the age of this blog, if it was clearly partisan one way or the other it would be a lot more popular than it is, because partisans who have the attention of a lot of people would promote it because it serves their interests. It doesn't serve interests, and so it isn't useful. Same thing with people in the political system. If you want to get ahead you have to pick a side.)

Third, the candidates are largely chosen by the powerful members of the parties. They hold primaries, but you have to get into the primary, and the primary doesn't have all of the power, in particular with regard to the Presidential election.

There is a hell of a lot of money in the system, and its really directed by two small groups of people. Its even questionable whether access to one of those groups is a meritocracy, as our Congressional positions have become increasingly hereditary. The sons have instant access to the circles that control access to the primaries.

The sources of dialog are mostly controlled by this money. There are a few outliers like MSNBC who clearly serve other interests. But most of the big outlets are either left or right.

I hope you're right, that there is this great, silent, moderate America, but it has no voice, and its hard to beleive that its real when you never hear from it...

Decius wrote:

adam wrote:
I, although I'm English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest.

Thanks Adam... Its been noted somewhere that our political parties have become dominated by the fringes.

First, you've got to be a hot shirt to want to get involved in the first place. Most nonlawyers are too focused on their lives to become really involved in politics.

Second, you're not welcome if you're not partisan. You have to work for one team or the other. Its a party system, and people who aren't playing don't go far. (For example, I think given the age of this blog, if it was clearly partisan one way or the other it would be a lot more popular than it is, because partisans who have the attention of a lot of people would promote it because it serves their interests. It doesn't serve interests, and so it isn't useful. Same thing with people in the political system. If you want to get ahead you have to pick a side.)

Third, the candidates are largely chosen by the powerful members of the parties. They hold primaries, but you have to get into the primary, and the primary doesn't have all of the power, in particular with regard to the Presidential election.

There is a hell of a lot of money in the system, and its really directed by two small groups of people. Its even questionable whether access to one of those groups is a meritocracy, as our Congressional positions have become increasingly hereditary. The sons have instant access to the circles that control access to the primaries.

The sources of dialog are mostly controlled by this money. There are a few outliers like MSNBC who clearly serve other interests. But most of the big outlets are either left or right.

I hope you're right, that there is this great, silent, moderate America, but it has no voice, and its hard to beleive that its real when you never hear from it...

I disagree the world has heard from it in art and felt their acts. I would add to my list (ie the farmers in Steinbeck etc) by including Band of Brothers. A country that produces Major Winters and the men of Easy company has clear hidden depths like a sunlit lake. Keep your eyes on the prize brother.

Decius wrote:

adam wrote:
I, although I'm English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest.

...
I hope you're right, that there is this great, silent, moderate America, but it has no voice, and its hard to beleive that its real when you never hear from it...

But where would you hear it? What outlets will amplify the voice of anyone in the group you describe?

The media won't do it because it's not good business and for all the vaunted power of the internet, it's become dominated by shrill partisans or complete nobodies without clout or trustworthiness.

You want a return to civilized dialogue and respectful disagreement, but you'll have to forgive my cynical laughter. It ain't happening this cycle or the next. In the most crucial battle of all, the far right has won -- they've equated politics with morality. They've created a link between your political opinions and your essential human goodness. There is no respectful disagreement with people who are evil, with your enemy, and I see the problem getting worse before it gets better.

The democrats, some of them, still want to have a discussion that's founded on logic; but they get drowned out by the rhetoric of emotion or ignored by a media they can't buy. I'd like to believe a straight democratic ticket would edge us back in the right direction, but I fear a sense of entitlement will vindicate the kind of democrats who just borrowed from the republican playbook and turned the debate into a battle of good and evil.

Religosity -- and i DON'T mean Faith -- is the greatest threat to the United States since the civil war. It has infected every debate, every issue. What used to require reason and analysis now requires only that one view the issue through the lens of whatever ideology they've adopted. What was once called a nuanced opinion is now called "elitist" or "weak" when it's even noticed at all by a populace who's less and less interested in or capable of bothering with the intellectual exercise of finding truth.

The system has been poisoned. Poisoned by absolutism. By intolerance. By moral superiority. By money. I no longer see a way out. Only a vague hope in the cyclical nature of everything... a hope that the pendulum will swing back. I have almost no faith in the proposition that I can do anything to help it. Even after all this, I myself am too angry to be objective, too demoralized to be fair minded and far too frustrated to believe anyone, ANYONE can be convinced of anything through reason or analysis.

And I'm too emotionally exhausted to even really care.