Comment by James A on December 18, 2009 at 12:53am

I've been around for "a while" :) and American politics has always been divisive. But, in my lifetime, the Republicans of today are the most viral. To them, everything is a liberal conspiracy. It stated getting worse in 1994 but I noticed it becoming much more extensive around the time of the invasion of Iraq.

Why would one of the richest people want in the White House? If I would have been there, I would have had to try hard not to laugh out loud.

Comment by James A on December 18, 2009 at 12:54am

Have to add, FOX has been instrumental in drumming up their base.

Comment by Martin Pribble on December 18, 2009 at 1:14am

it's pretty scary really to think that the some of the American public seem trust to nobody and nothing, and yet are ready to throw their hats in the ring for Palin simply because they can "relate to her" even if they know nothing of her politics. It's the "Cult Of Personality" in full effect, and it's scary.
About Oprah going into politics? Ddamn, if she gets into office, i suggest you all move to Australia!

Actually, don't, we're being royally screwed by our government right now. You;re better off with Oprah in office than what we're going thru.

Comment by Shine on December 18, 2009 at 7:46am

Jeff, the lunchroom conversation is usually a just a parroted remix of Hannity-Beck-O'Reilly. Needless to say, I generally eat at my desk. ;)

James, you are absolutely right about FoxNews; not only do people consider the channel to be a valid source of news down here, they insist that it is the only trustworthy media outlet. People worship FoxNews.

Martin, I agree that the rampant distrust and conspiracy theorizing is incredibly frightening. And unfortunately, extremists on both sides are equally responsible for fearmongering and apocalyptic rhetoric. My perspective may be a bit skewed, however, as I lived in democratic New England for most of GW Bush's presidency and now I have lived in an extremely conservative Texas county for all of Obama's current tenure. The past year has really destroyed any respect or faith that I may have had for American politics; after eight years of listening to people mindlessly complain about Bush, I now hear the exact same vein of baseless criticisms leveled at Obama.

I have absolutely no problem with intelligent, rational, and supported criticism of the president; I wish that we had more of it. The problem is that this never seems to happen in American politics. All of the partisan bullshit detracts from any meaningful, constructive criticism.

Zak, I just wonder if maybe the problem is that we are looking too hard for someone to believe in, Republican and Democrat alike. One group's positive belief is another group's negative belief, and there is basically no chance for conflict resolution between the two.

Comment by James A on December 18, 2009 at 11:13am

"I have absolutely no problem with intelligent, rational, and supported criticism of the president; I wish that we had more of it. The problem is that this never seems to happen in American politics. All of the partisan bullshit detracts from any meaningful, constructive criticism."

It's becomes all about the party. Each party feels they have to defend their incumbent president in an election year. No matter what they do or say. The incumbent will be renominated for a second term, even when they have performed badly. There is also a lot of money. You unleash not only members of your own party to defend your candidate, but also have hired guns who will pay millions and millions on attack ads. Doesn't matter if they are true. It's legal to lie in political ads.

"Zak, I just wonder if maybe the problem is that we are looking too hard for someone to believe in, Republican and Democrat alike. One group's positive belief is another group's negative belief, and there is basically no chance for conflict resolution between the two."

The Republicans and Democrats rarely agree. As seen after the last election, Republicans will even criticize Obama for continuing the policies of Bush, even when they agreed with them when they were Bush's policies.

There are a few on both sides who don't follow the party line in Congress. But in the past couple of decades, especially in the Republican party, the tendency is to weed out candidates who don't conform to a rigid agenda. In a primary, each party puts money behind a candidate, even if they aren't the incumbent, that most fits the party line.

Just follow the money. Corporations and lobbying groups control the politics. Look at health care reform. It has totally been derailed by special interests.

My views don't conform to a political party. But, since the Republicans consummated their marriage to the religious right, I can't see voting for a republican. In my state, the Republican senators are the two most fundamentalists in the country. The state republicans are all about religion and try to pass every religious law they can. If there is not a suitable Democrat or third party candidate to vote for, I just won't vote.

Comment by Shine on December 18, 2009 at 1:59pm

Jeff, I completely agree that there has been a negative fallout in the era of the "televised presidency." I remember in government class learning that there has been neither an overweight nor a bearded president in office since the 1950s; apparently, political scientists have theorized that overweight people are perceived as slovenly and bearded men are perceived as distrustful. (I'm not condoning either of these statements, but just parroting what I heard in class.) In reality, a president's weight and his facial hair status should have little relevance to his policies or ability to responsibly govern a nation. I am not completely lamenting the presence of television in politics; I would be remiss not to recognize its ability to afford a widespread citizenry the opportunity to experience live presidential addresses. However, with this increased accessibility of our leaders has also come a terrible overtone of superficiality in how we perceive them.

James, I completely agree on the money being the driving force of American politics. I like Rachel Maddow because she is excellent at exposing astroturfing and the money trail behind many political movements; she provides direct evidence linking the websites of supposedly "grassroots" organizations with their underlying corporate backers.

Unfortunately, I have not seen her tackle the democratic party with the same fervor; I understand that Maddow has a decidely liberal bias, and this is probably not to be expected. However, I do not feel that she has a conservative counterpart who intelligently exposes liberal scandals. FoxNews certainly has no shortage of accusations for the democrats, but I never see a conclusive trail of evidence presented to support their hyperbolic accusations. At best, we get O'Reilly's cherry-picked quotes and Beck's ridiculous prop comedy.

Speaking of Glenn Beck, does the guy think that he is the next Gallagher? Or maybe he feels that he needs to provide visual gimmicks to cater to the puerile intellects of his viewers. (LOOK! SHINY COLORS!!)

I feel better now about not conforming to either party. As I mentioned in the beginning of the blog, I never feel as though I have thoroughly researched anything enough to truly espouse either side of the political dichotomy. However, I think I now realize that further research and learning will only lessen my chances of commiting to either party. I guess that in the end, I am most likely a default Democrat if nothing else as I simply cannot imagine supporting the social conservatism of the Republican party. This was only furthered cemented when I read about the RNC considering a "purity resolution" for all Republican candid...

Comment by Dave G on December 18, 2009 at 2:08pm

Shine, have you seen the Modern Whig party that was mentioned a few days ago? I haven't made up my mind about them yet, but they look interesting.

Comment by Shine on December 18, 2009 at 4:24pm

Dave, I think that I have heard them in passing, but never really looked into it.

...the Modern Whig movement continues to be recognized as a beacon for those from across the mainstream political spectrum who value common sense, rational solutions ahead of partisan rhetoric and strict ideology.

I am definitely intrigued! Thanks for the link. :)

Comment by James A on December 18, 2009 at 5:02pm

Shine,

Maddow is my favorite show on the news networks. She is biased towards her views (like all commentary shows are). But I do see her criticizing Democrats and Obama when she disagrees with them. There were many conservative shows that ran to the defense of Senator Craig. I have not seen MSNBC defend any criminals in the Democratic party.

Please don't get me started on Beck. According to him he's saving the country like Galileo was saving from the belief in a "flat earth". Wish the guy could even use Google or Wikipedia.

Dave,

The Whig party web site doesn't go into specifics. I do not have any preconceived opinion about them but am not sure why they only list very general principles.

Not having much info always makes me wonder because that is how some groups like the tea baggers do, then when you find out more info, they turn out to be way out on the fringe. Hope this group is different.

Comment