<p>It wasn’t partisan though, HH. The constant, virulent bickering (and more damaging attacks) going on today is thoroughly partisan, and I think unprecedented.</p>
<p>“This administration has done more to polarize our nation than any president in recent history.”</p>
<p>Could we look at the other side of the aisle for a second? Hasn’t and isn’t the current strategy of the Dems solely based on polarizing the country? Of course, it represents a fitting strategy for this Pelosi-like infested party known for its vast contributions to the unity of our country. </p>
<p>Mirror, mirror on the wall …</p>
<p>Pot…meet kettle.</p>
<p>It’s both sides Xig.</p>
<p>I said “3 days”…not today!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Susantm,</p>
<p>Though I can see where this could be regrettable, I am not at all clear that this polarization is not a good or necessary thing in a vibrant democracy. </p>
<p>I grew up in Canada.
In Canada, due to the parliamentary system (as in England and elsewhere) the level of rhetoric far exceeds what we have here in the USA. It can be vicious and is not beyond breaking out in brawls. The rhetoric is direct and often intended to provoke: it does, in fact. This is widely considered a good thing. It helps the civic blood flow.</p>
<p>As for myself, I would much rather have this rhetorical polarization than have the racial and class polarization of the past ( I realize these are often implicit to out political rhetoric and situation, even now, though of a completely different order) but I doubt anyone would prefer the material polarization of the 60s to the rhetorical polarization of today (that is, if we concede that the rhetorical polarization of today is beyond what it was 10-20-30 years ago–and Im not sure I do). </p>
<p>Anyhow, I appreciate your thoughtful post.</p>
<p>Thanks for the good wishes to those who gave them…and seriously, I feel the same way about you: I’ve learned a great deal in this little space, from criticism and compliment, both.</p>
<p>I think much of it is a failure of leadership. If the democrats turned up a good man, strong on defense and strong on social issues, he’d probably win in a second the next time around. But who are they talking about? Hillary? Al again? John Kerry? Please. It’s pathetic. Not that the republicans have any better candidates to offer. This generation (mine) is a total wash-out when it comes to leadership, with Clinton being the worst of what we had to offer.</p>
<p>“I would much rather have this rhetorical polarization than have the racial and class polarization of the past”</p>
<p>Think we have plenty of racial and class polarization still in the present…</p>
<p>M&Sdad,</p>
<p>I would suggest you re-read my post before misconstruing it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless that was your intention, that was very naughty.</p>
<p>rhetorical…k…if that what you need to call it to get through your days</p>
<p>tell that to the people without work, without insurance, in banruptcy because they couldn’t pay their rent and their childs medical bills, the vet who can’t get treatment for his brain injuries, that its all rhetoric, sure they would appreciate your concern</p>
<p>uh, oh…did you and M&Sdad attend the same school?</p>
<p>Take a breath and re-read the post above. Get back to me (hint: “situation”).</p>
<p>FountainSiren, I, for one, will miss your concise expository writing. I’ll bet you skipped Writing 5! (not my son’s favorite class :))</p>
<p>
Now, I’m not yet 50, although I know some posters are. Perhaps your memories are better than mine. But, does Kent State ring a bell? Sit-ins, anyone? I remember news reports of college campuses taken over by angry students.</p>
<p>I remember watching the protests about VietNam and I remember assasinations: JFK, RFK, MLK and others. I agree that the polarization is more clearly related to party lines, but this is not the most contentious time in our history.</p>
<p>And some middle of the road Democrats have been pushed to the left by the current president. I am far more radical now than I was eight years ago.</p>
<p>I think its more poloraized and fearful…</p>
<p>You have people in power creating divisions: and ALL of these have been pushed by this administration to divide, not unite</p>
<p>liberal vs conservative
black vs white
gay vs straight
Christian vs Non
Rich vs Poor
Intellectual vs ?
Latte drinkers vs ?
Patrotic vs. those who disagree with the gov policies
People willing to give up privacy vs those that think it is important
Pro Choice vs Anti Choice
Creatism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution
UN supporters vs Anti UN
Flag Burning Ban vs ?
Those questioning voting machines vs total faith in a corporation
Public School vd Vouchers
Absinance only vs Sex Education
Science vs Business</p>
<p>and </p>
<p>those that don’t trust everything the leaders say vs those that think they can do no wrong</p>
<p>That’s curious. Did Bush come and kill a couple-three thousand New Yorkers, too? I didn’t hear about that.</p>
<p>I’m a lot more radical against terrorists and terrorism as a result of the past few years. </p>
<p>Presidents come and go. They really have little effect.</p>
<p>Wait a second…now liberals are saying Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, too. I forgot. </p>
<p>Get a life.</p>
<p>Presidents come and go, but their legacy lives on, with supreme court, laws, etc…to think otherwise is naive</p>
<p>some people yes, have said Bush did 9-11, som has said he could have done a better job preventing it, two different things, btw, and some wonder about him sitting in that chair afterwards… but that is some, not liberals en masse…I can see where you are coming from though…nice job of stereotyping, cause when a person makes a general statement like that, ah, it shows me you don’t have your facts right and regurgitate…</p>
<p>SHould I lump all conservatives together as well?</p>
<p>I could put you together with Ann Coulter who hates the 9-11 widows. because she is a conservative, and I should assume all conservatives think like she does…is that how we should do this now</p>
<p>a few “liberals” say something, so in your mind its Liberals, so if a few “conservatives” say something, I can assume that the rest of the conservatives are saying the same things…well if that is how you want it…</p>
<p><em>is dead</em> “Us” republicans…</p>
<p>“I could put you together with Ann Coulter who hates the 9-11 widows. because she is a conservative, and I should assume all conservatives think like she does…is that how we should do this now”</p>
<p>She doesn’t hate the 9-11 widows, just the Jersey Girls and, frankly, I think they’re rather tiresome, although I do respect their right to deal as they choose.</p>
<p>The people who believe that Bush orchestrated 9/11 are classic conspiracy nuts, not “liberal” or “conservative” in any meaningful sense. Honestly, I have never heard anyone I consider a liberal even suggest that.</p>
<p>So, no, he did not kill a couple-three thousand New Yorkers. He is blameless in that. What I blame him for is being the least competent American President in the past century, maybe ever. He did not rise to the occasion; he fell into the trap.</p>
<p>nice slip and slide there, zoosermom…</p>
<p>okay, how about something said by O’Reilly, see he is a conservative, or Limbaugh…or how about another Coulter quote…but too many to choose from, but I think my point was made</p>
<p>CGM posted: “nice slip and slide there, zoosermom…”</p>
<p>What ARE you talking about? Do YOU even know? </p>
<p>okay, how about something said by O’Reilly, see he is a conservative, or Limbaugh…or how about another Coulter quote…but too many to choose from, but I think my point was made</p>
<p>What point? You referred to Ann Coulter and I corrected your mis-statement.</p>