>I have been gone for most of the summer, but what happened to the guy, who claimed to be independent, just last winter.
He analyzed where he stood on the issues, and realized that his stances on most issues placed him in a certain spot politically, and his stances didn't jibe much with those of the current administration and did so much more closely with those of a particular party.
Listen, I was brought up by a libertarian father and a rather apolitical mother, and was taught not to trust polticians at all. In fact, I still don't, very much. Until late 2000, I was convinced that the actions of public officials would have absolutely no bearing on my life or the life of any of those around me, and I wore that feeling on my sleeve. Hell, until I was 16, I thought that Presidential candidates in both parties were pretty much the same, and the only characteristics that separated the two were experience and charisma. Turns out, I was very, very wrong.
80-90% of Americans can't identify where each party stands on most issues... I couldn't, until just the last two years or so. When Sept. 11th, 2001 rolled around, I was very supportive of Bush, Giuliani, Rumsfeld, et al, just because they appeared strong and supportive on TV in a tough time. Many Americans feel the same way. Of course, when I thought further about it, I realized that if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had been in power, he probably wouldn't exactly have been cowering under his desk. So, that became less of an issue to me.
For most of my life, I staunchly did not want to be part of a political party, and it was only last winter that I decided to become a Democrat. I didn't decide my stances on the issues based on my party affiliation, I based my decision to join a party on my stances and values.
>Now you are in with the NYT, Ted, Al, and AS crowd, who will tell any lie they want, and justify it with their hatred of not just GW, but anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Tell any lie they want... please... I just watched 12 hours of the RNC.
>And you two, talking about starting a civil war, if GW wins the election, just as the south did with Lincoln, has to be stomped out too, because that also is the beginnings of anarchy, and the end of democracy.
I'm not encouraging a civil war, I've just said that I would not be surprised if we were to have one during my lifetime. I don't want one! I've said that I might move to Canada if Bush were to win, but that's because my values seem to align more closely with those of most Canadians than that of at least half of America.
>The far left, Ted and Al hated GW long before he was elected
I didn't, though... I didn't vote in 2000 (I still thought it wouldn't make a difference), but if I had, I was leaning towards voting for him, based on his charisma alone. I didn't find him to be a great speaker, but felt that he was a guy that most of the country could have confidence in, and I was happy to go along with that. Actually, if I remember correctly now, in the primaries, I was rooting for McCain, and had been hoping that Colin Powell would run for President. And, I was siding towards becoming a Republican simply because everyone around me was a Democrat.
>Win lose or draw, whoever wins the election, should win your support, until the next election. I am not talking about being subservient, just withholding your fire,and criticism until the office holder has a chance to deserve your ire. every winner of any election deserves that. Give new policies, and new directions a chance.
But Bush earned my ire... going to war with Iraq without a good plan to "win the peace" was one thing (look back at my posts from early 2003, if you can find 'em -- my transformation on the war occurred then), cutting taxes when I don't see a clear need for it, opposing abortion, opposing gay marriage, supporting "privatization" of Social Security, reversing Clinton-era environmental laws, banning public funding of embryonic stem cell research (this was the first time, in 2001, when I smelled something funny in the admin's policies and decided to explore further), bringing church and state closer together... these are just some of the many places where I disagree with the administration.
Had the Iraqis in fact showered our troops with flowers, and had we captured bin Laden at Tora Bora in 2001, and had Bush not tried to push ANWR drilling and snowmobiles in national parks, or undermine Roe v. Wade, or push school vouchers, or unfund No Child Left Behind, or ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell lines, or made statements about listening to God when going into Iraq, or done or not done a whole host of other things, I might be backing him instead of Kerry today, and might be a Republican.
Fact is, I'm an atheist, environmentalist, and a believer in the separation of church and state, with some socialistic tendencies, among other things, and that's why I became a Democrat. It's not the other way around. I disagree with the Dems on a number of issues, most starkly on immigration and bilingual education, but I agree with them MUCH more often than I do with the Republicans.
And, yes, you'll see times when I'm more likely to agree with a Democrat's statement over a Republican's, and then find out that the Democrat is wrong, but that's natural, and that's human, it's based on the "halo effect," and it happens to everyone. If I find out I'm wrong, I'm pretty inclined to admit it.
So, anyway, you may not agree with me on these issues, but my thought process is clear and fair, isn't it?
-Z |
