Are you a liberal or conservative blogger?

Home » News » Reader Forum

Monday, June 02, 2008

Comment

By DAN ROSS
Register Online Staff

OK folks, here you go, a forum for your liberal vs. conservative debate -- the debate that began in the story comments on my column -- to continue

Have at it, without the personal attacks...

140 comment(s)

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:24 PM:

" OK, I'm moving over the posts from the bloggermania thread, for everyone to pick up the topic here...

vocal-de-local wrote on May 30, 2008 12:36 AM:
" That's ok Russ. If I attend, you can pick on me. I'll be wearing my "liberal elitist" tag, which I've been called a few times! hehe! But I don't want to be the only liberal you guys bash. Are there any others out there willing to join me?

I do find it interesting that the majority of, uhm, commenter's (which can also be correctly defined as posters), are conservative. I wonder what's going on with that? I know that NVR is not editing them out. It seems they post awhile and then leave. And I'm concerned we're going to lose "teacher" which to me is a real loss.

Maybe L's are more introverted, or rather, less likely to put up a persistent fight. I'm probably the exception. I love a good debate! " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:25 PM:

" napablogger wrote on May 30, 2008 1:42 AM:
" vocal, conservatives are more involved in general. I remember CSPAN had a call in show in the morning, I believe it is still on but I don't watch it anymore, and they used to have one call in line but it was so often conservatives calling that they got two lines, then three. One for liberals, one for conservatives, then later added an independent line. That was to make sure some liberal voices were included on the air.

Only since Move On.org and then Daily Kos got going did you see a lot of liberals on line or on blogs even. They have started to catch up, have even passed the conservatives in some ways on line. But it used be practically all conservatives.

Why that is I don't know, but being a news junkie and on line debater since 94 I couldn't help but notice it. " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:25 PM:

" xmrs09 wrote on May 30, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Well, I guess we've gone off the topic a bit on this particular post but I find it interesting the logic some of you are using in your opinions about conservatives being more vocal, more likely to blog, and "more involved" than those who don't necessarily agree with your political and social views. Might it be that those from the center to left are too busy actually helping others less fortunate than themselves to be espousing their opinions about how others should live on some CSPAN call-in show or some website? In my own personal experience, those people considered "liberal" in their views are generally more laid-back, more accepting of different people and cultures and willing to at least hear and consider opposing views.
As for the "meet-and-greet" party, while I do think it would be fun to meet the people behind the funny screen names, I agree with those who say it would change the way we post. And there are many valid reasons for anonymity as well. Again, it's up to each individual and what he or she feels comfortable with.
I do enjoy the commentary, though. " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:27 PM:

" steph wrote on May 30, 2008 12:51 PM:
" No, I think if you look at who provides charity in this country, conservatives win. See, liberal philosophy is for "the government" to provide more services that "the rich" pay for, because "the rich" are so greedy anyway. Liberal philosophy is not about "what can I do to help" it's "make those people pay for more services." " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:27 PM:

" funnyme wrote on May 30, 2008 1:55 PM:
" steph,
Right again. " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Hear Ye wrote on May 30, 2008 2:38 PM:
" Steph-

I saw that research too and I'll admit I was somewhat surprised, until I read further. It is basically a religious/secular divide more than a political divide. Religious people give something like 2.5 times more income to charities than secular folks. Although, if you discard donations to religion based charities it becomes only an $88 dollar a year difference. Religious left and Religious right people give nearly the same while secular left people give much more than the secular right.

I don't think it's a fair assessment to claim that "liberals" (in quotations because it means different things to different people) don't want to help people on an individual level. I wouldn't say I'm offended by your last statement I just know it to be different " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:28 PM:

" a teacher wrote on May 30, 2008 3:10 PM:
" Steph:

That's a cartoon characterization of liberals. My retort would be: Conservatives want to take what they can and defend thier pile with their guns, to bad for anyone else.

Neither is fair or accurate. It's much more complex than a sound bite.

It used to be that people could sit down and work out compromises about issues that they disagreed on. That's sentiment that is often expressed when you hear politicians talking.

I'm a liberal (and proud of it). I don't think that being rich means that you have to give it all away. I don't believe in handouts. Being conservative meant that you asked the hard questions, how will this change affect us? Who will pay for it? How will it work? What's the down side? (not so much these days, though).

I think social conservatives have occasional points. I admire the faith of the religious, even if i don't share their beliefs. It's not all one way or the other.

This country would be a miserable place if it were run strictly by liberals or strictly by conservatives. We need to have some sort of balance or we're in big trouble. Unfortunately, the current nasty tone of partisan debate either keeps people away or locks them into their seperate camps. " "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:29 PM:

" matt@newspeak on 05/30/2008 05:15:13 said:

"Interesting though, witness how in just the last few posts the debate has changed- its not which philosophy of government - liberal vs conservative is better, but literally I am reading posts implying which type of person is better.

Hmmmm, this may be why it is said our nation is locked in a 'culture war'." "

Dan Ross wrote on May 30, 2008 3:30 PM:

" OK, that's it, all the posts have been moved over

yes, it looks odd with my name highlighted, but the posts are from the people identified...

go for it, folks "

funnyme wrote on May 30, 2008 4:17 PM:

" matt,
What do you mean with a "Culture War"? "

cab e-girl wrote on May 30, 2008 5:22 PM:

" I think that the reason we have so many conservative leaning bloggers is that our media is so left leaning. We conservatives really don't have an outlet other than talk shows and the web. These outlet's allow us to voice our opinion, not just listen to the rhetoric. I actually am going to agree with a teacher for the first time. Sitting down and discussing our differences use to be a way of solving problems. As a conservative I feel persecuted in public. I have literally sat in a restaurant in St. Helena where patrons next to me proudly announced their friend was marrying a "republican" as though it was a dirty word and then went on about how they could never live with a "republican" and how awful her life would be. I probably sat through 20 minutes of this trying not to laugh out loud.

Trust me when I say, living your values in the Napa Valley is not easy as a conservative. "

matt@newspeak wrote on May 30, 2008 6:47 PM:

" Funnyme- 'culture war' has had a lot of uses in politics, but particularly I'm referring to a phenomenon in the U.S. over the past 35-40 years or so- since roughly the Vietnam War, Civil Rights and Feminism, and Roe v Wade began to crystallize liberal/conservative entrenchments and the two poles became less about differing political philosphies or schools of thought, and more about personal emnity.

Its reflected in things such as Ronald Regan coining the phrase "Democrat Party"- somewhat childishly refusing to call the opposition party by its correct name, or Ann Coulter's career built on calling liberals 'treasounous' and 'godless', or Al Franken calling his book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". In other words, we're not debating different philosopies, but seeking to personally denigrate those who are opposed to our beliefs.

Its a rhetorical device that is war-like in a way. In wartime, it has historically been common to use de-humanizing propaganda to prepare soldiers and citizens of one nation to view the soldiers and citizens of another nation as flawed, less-than, and sub-human- deserving to be attacked.

In the same way, the culture-war in the U.S. has gone beyond debating economic and political realities and policies and drfited into character-aspersions, i.e. "Liberals are hypocrites who hate America and want to kill babies" or "Conservatives are anti-intellectual, violent bigots who are blinded by jingoism."

Here we're no longer discussing the merits of philosopy, but rather assigning sweeping negative character flaws to people who disagree with us- which is, in my opinin, not terribly productive. I think the current election cycle shows Americans are gettig fed up with it and are not taking the bait anymore on things like Reverand Wright, or John McCain's alleged tryst with a lobbyist. "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 31, 2008 1:22 AM:

" You know, what worries me about all of this labeling is that it serves to drive the two different parties further apart. It's human nature I think, choosing to belong to one group or another. If you observe a pack of wolves, they exhibit loyalty for the preservation of unity in case of attack. Perhaps we have an innate need to belong even if it means separating into smaller factions who were once part of a whole with a common purpose.

A long time ago religious interactions combined with smaller, more cohesive communities were the glue that held us together. The glue has turned to gold so to speak. We are so preoccupied with mining, we have lost our sense of self.

The political line used to be blurry enough to cross over without insult. But those lines are now well defined and sometimes fiercely protected. It's an attempt to preserve a sense of community I think.

If "community" no longer exists within close proximity to our homes, we will reach outward until we find it. "

ADark1 wrote on May 31, 2008 1:47 AM:

" Interesting,
Yes, I do claim the "L" word as my nom de guerre. This means to me however,I simply believe in social justice, freedom and equality for all to name a few. Is it just me ? I wonder how many of us here are pre Rush Limbaugh bloggers, commentators etc. Have any of you noticed, Since he arrived on the scene, the definition of a "Liberal", has turned into something it never was?

"Liberal philosophy is not about "what can I do to help" it's "make those people pay for more services."
Sorry, I disagree.
How can a self- professed Conservative arbitrarily stick the moniker "Liberal" on that person. Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist comes to mind with that type of "verbiage"...Please Sir, I want some more"!. I do not believe our media leans left. if anything, I believe with the Majority of media outlets being owned and operated by super - wealthy conservatives, their mandate is law. So, this means ( to me), Should someone print or broadcast ANYTHING that a right wing conservative would dislike, they are labeled "LIBERAL"! If standing up to the status quo, or trying to see BOTH sides of a point make me a Liberal? Well, to quote Charles Dickens one more time, when Fagin spoke to Nancy about Oliver and their way of living.." Aye, it is. It is my living. And you're the wretch that drove me to them long ago, and that'll keep me there, day and night, day and night, DAY AND NIGHT! ". So vocal-de-local? Count me in I love a great debate! "

MarshaMarsha wrote on May 31, 2008 10:00 AM:

" I think Hear Ye is correct in their idea that being Liberal/Conservative means different things to different people. I tend to try and discover the true motivation behind a person's actions, and that usually gives me a good idea of where they stand.

My posts tend to imply that there's a "hidden agenda" behind things, which is more Liberal in nature. This position comes from years of dealing with City, County, and Federal organizations and also having childhood friends who have become politicians. Sometimes, if you dig deep enough, you can find other reasons for what's going on. "

napablogger wrote on May 31, 2008 10:19 AM:

" I agree completely with Matt, good points Matt. I also want to mention that when I wrote my post about how more conservatives seem to call in to shows and write blog comments, I was not trying to say they were somehow therefore better, and was disappointed when the conversation turned into that.

I do not know the reason for it, it could well be just something demographic like the fact that conservatives tend to be older and are more likely sitting around at home not working when CSPAN's monring call in show comes on. I think there is also a sense that the liberals are the majority, they certainly are in Napa, and that can make you a little more complacent--you know you are going to win and there are a lot of people out there fighting for your point of view.

Case in point--when the Napa City Council was discussing budget cuts last year, speakers lined up to say "don't cut green spending" on global warming, green building, etc. There was only one conservative speaker saying we have to make cuts and suggesting where.

Liberals are more active in local issues here than conservatives on issues they care about, especially the environment. They show up.

I think the answer here is that rather than worry about whether a particular policy is from the left or right, let's examine each policy on its own merits. That is what I try to do in my writing. "

musikluvr wrote on May 31, 2008 10:30 AM:

" To Matt: You epitomize the culture war, you espouse the liberal, democrat, union mantra without missing a beat. I have never read a post or a column of yours that is the least bit accepting of anything else. Your recent post laments the conservative/liberal entrenchments over the past 35 - 40 years. That, I am assuming is because that is the period of time in which you have been an adult. Have you ever read anything about the McCarthy era from a decade or so before; or about the Roosevelt years; or about the great disagreements over WWI and II; or the Lincoln/Douglas Debates; or the Civil War, or the Missouri situation; or anything else before 35 -40 years ago? Politics were downright vicious then and polarized to the extreme... "

napablogger wrote on May 31, 2008 10:38 AM:

" A Dark1 I believe that conservatives care about social justice and freedom as much as liberals. The problem is not in the basic values, the problem is in the policies to get there. No one wants children to starve.

Liberals look at conservatives as "do nothing" and conservatives look at liberals as well meaning but misguided.

Basically a lot of the conflict revolves around the role of government. Liberals feel that regulations, social programs, etc, solve problems and conservatives do not generally agree.

When you look into it further you see that often it is the particular issue that causes a lib/con to say "do nothing", or intervene. Liberals for example would want to "do nothing" on going to war with Iran, where conservatives feel government should intervene more.

I tend toward the conservative side because I believe individual responsibility and freedom is the key to success, so the balance goes there for me.

But it doesn't mean that I also think that we shouldn't help other people, but what really helps people is very dicey and difficult to acheive, a lot more complicated than it appears on the surface.

I believe in the end that everyone has to be responsible for their own success and happiness, and there is only so much others can do to help them. Empowerment never comes through a government program, it comes from the person recognizing their own authority to make their own choices and being willing to act on them. That decision to empower yourself will never come from outside you, and that is the key to all success.

The Republican philosophy supports that whereas it is not really an issue for Democrats one way or the other. "

musikluvr wrote on May 31, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Left and right, conservative and liberal, republican and democat or center of the road? Politics is a disagreement of personalities and thoughts that works its way to a decision based upon hard work. No one ever made any difference in this world as a centrist. Every accomplishment of importance was hard fought by the fiercest of opponents. I like liberals because it is so easy to spot them. They have no religion so they jump at every new concept such as global warming and take that to the extreme. I like conservatives because they are so backward and stodgy and stuck in the past. What I dislike about liberals is that they never grew out of the idealism of the 5th grade What I dislike about conservatives is that they think they have. "

matt@newspeak wrote on May 31, 2008 12:18 PM:

" musikluvr- in reading your last two posts, I would just say: "I rest my case" "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 31, 2008 12:25 PM:

" musikluvr, sure, you can observe the conservative/liberal entrenchments that may have existed on some level in our past history. Are you positive that people back then were actually attaching political party labels in their disagreements? The Civil War, for example, was a cultural war between the more industrial progressive North and an inferiority complex of the farming South who felt Northerners looked down upon them. I do not think all Northerners were liberal and all Southerners were conservative.

I do agree that centrists keep the wheel from moving. And perhaps extremists provide the momentum to begin movement but it's as though we want them to go away once that part of their job is complete. It's like saying, "ok, you've started the motion now go away and find something else to do until the next time we need a strong shove."

At this point we want those who are a smaller distance from center but not too close to center to take over. If the wheels are not moving in the direction of choice, extremists yell until they are heard. That's there nature. It's who they are. They are a necessity on some level.

I think we are most effective when there are only, like say, 10% of people who are extremists. Any more than that and it begins to resemble a tug of war heading in the direction of dictatorship.

Most posters at NVR stand somewhere between center and extreme. Steph, for example, is toward conservative but she has enough flexibility to travel toward center. Even Kevin surprises me once in awhile. I don't think he's set in stone.

It's ok to have a tug of war but maybe our goal should not be pulling opposing sides to the ground. "

funnyme wrote on May 31, 2008 3:32 PM:

" VDL,
I like your example of the wheel, it illustrates somewhat the efects of politics among people at the community level.
In the past 50 years drastic changes to our civilized society have occurred. Today's conservatives are not the same right wingers of 50 years ago, nor are the liberals. Those who voted for JFK back then would be considered conservatives today. For example, we went almost totally opposite from the 50's to the 60's and the movement lingered until most recent years where you see younger generations trying to grasp 50's lifestyles (Feminist Movement vs Stay Home Moms), just to mention one at a "Family Values" level. "

a teacher wrote on May 31, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Musikluvr is actually correct when he points out that there have been other times when political discourse has been quite ugly. They did put political party labels on the names used. People were tarred and feathered and burned in effigy. Aspersions have been cast, vulgar names used, manhood questioned. There have been fist fights in congress and duels fought.

I guess it's too much to ask for civil discourse, it's not in the nature of vibrant democracies.

I disagree with the comments about the people in the middle, the centrists. While it's true that they keep things from moving in either direction, nothing gets done without their consent. I can't think of any examples of major changes that have been brought a minority. All we at the extremes do is influence the tipping point. "

russ wrote on May 31, 2008 7:07 PM:

" I am a Conservative.

I disagree with VDL. Politics is not a difference in personalities, it is a difference in philosophy and inherent beliefs. In my opinion, Conservatives believe that we are responsible for ourselves. L's blame the government for their for their woes and depend on government for solutions.

Wrong on your statement that the Civil War was the progressive North vs. the inferiority complex South. Huh??

The Civil War was a cataclysmic culture war, initiated by the South, which wanted to be left alone with their farms, slaves and exports. The South knew it was superior to the North at the time. "

Bill wrote on May 31, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Unless we are able to define and agree upon a meaning for these two words most of what passes here as discussion is not only meaningless but useless and results in people talking past each other.

The base object of the blog is why or if each one of us considers themselves conservative or liberal and what the definition of those words should be and be accepted by all. If you change the meaning of the words then we are only throwing bricks in a futile effort to assault each other.

I would suggest that each of you try and describe your belief and opinion and not the belief or opinion of others. It is always a trite argument to describe what some one else believes and avoid what you believe. To attribute some malevolent characteristic to some one and attempt to disparage them as either liberal or conservative is not constructive. Try not to describe what the other is which is what many of you are so good at but rather what you are. Not what you are as a person but what your belief is.

For me it is a struggle between equality and liberty. Two extreme ideas not necessarily exclusive but presenting a twin headed god (Janus) constantly struggling with inner doubts. Another illustration would be the Tao of democracy constantly flowing back and forth over such qualities as justice and freedom and fairness and so many other pertinent ideas.

There is no specific liberal or conservative response to many of the enigmas we face only a general leaning. Be careful here to advocate what you think you believe and not what you know I believe. "

a teacher wrote on May 31, 2008 8:54 PM:

" "The South knew it was superior to the North at the time. "

Which is why the South won the Civil War. Right? "

vocal-de-local wrote on May 31, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Russ, South superior to North? That's not what I read in my college history class. The South had an inferiority complex masked by a macho type front. I think I still have one of my college history books on this subject. I'll try to look it up later on.

My husband is related to Robert E. Lee btw! Not that I have any greater knowledge because of it, but I do know some basics and I have visited Gettysburg. I will be the first to admit I'm not an expert though.

To teacher: who says centrists are the majority? I probably cannot prove this, but I'm guessing the "majority" are those who are a moderate distance from each side of center. People have much more flexibility than we give them credit for. Extremists are louder and so we tend to think that they speak for everyone. Centrists probably don't say much but I will agree, they do vote. "

nola wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:11 AM:

" To: vdv I don't mean to as rude as some of your comments were about the South, but Really...."The southern culture inferior to the more 'industrial progressive North'? Are you kidding? What book were you reading from in college? These poor souls coming off the boats in the NORTH including CHILDREN were put to work in the most horrible industrial plants imaginable...losing limbs and life. Then returned to tenement housing, full of filth and disease, to rest for about 4 hours before returning to their 'progressive fields of industrial opportunity'? THAT to me is REAL slavery and it was all free slave labor. Who cared if they died, right? Just get another one off the boat! Is that how you see Northern progression? The south inferior to THAT?
The Southerners were very refined and expressed it in their way of life, from the beautiful plantation homes to their hospitality. Paid slave labor was legal in that time and contrary to what the LIBERAL text book had you read about abuse, slaves, especially the ones who lived next to the Main house were considered family....that's right! After the war many, many of the slaves remained on the property, were GIVEN property by the plantation owners AND the owners LAST NAME! The relatives of these former slaves are still there in parts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

The South lost the the railroads and eventually lost the war. Thank God, the South never lost their graciousness, hospitality and of course, their refined dignity. Are you confusing what you call 'macho front' with being raised with good southern manners? "

nola wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:10 AM:

" As you have guessed from my blog, if its posted, I am conservative, yet I am registered democrat.....I am for person/policy that can get the job done and remain true the Constitution.
Is that right or left? Both philosophies can be considered productive with some restraint according to what is best for the WHOLE society. For instance, I am FOR stem cell research..not conservative, yet I am Against issuing government checks to a woman who continues to have up to 8 children and REFUSES to contribute her part to not only raising what she has brought into this world, but also REFUSES to get some sort of job training or a job.....why should she when the liberals have trained her be paid for having more kids? I am right or wrong here? "

russ wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:34 AM:

" VDL, I grew up in the South and have been interested in and studied the Civil War intensely for decades. Southerners believed, in 1860,that they culturally, morally, genetically, patriotically and militarily superior to Northerners. It worked for a short while. Obviously they were not entirely right.

Thankfully, we emerged from the war, all on the same side. Southerners are the first to admit now that they are proud Americans.

VDL, Surprised to learn that you are a LF (or perhaps a GM). I will be more respectful in the future. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Oh Russ, don't walk on eggshells because I'm a LF. I guess that means I'm either a liberal female or a liberal fanatic! hehe! We must maintain our sense of humor about these things!

I'm not all that liberal though. In fact I'm quite upset about welfare and government enabling. I'm with nola on these issues. And actually, I'm a registered independent, primarily because I don't want any party to think they own me! I've crossed party lines before when voting, not often though.

Hey guys, about the South, I'm not saying that the North WAS superior to the South. I'm suggesting that there was a "perception" that Southerners carried about the issue. They thought the North was trying to shove it in their faces that their industrial ways were better and more superior than the old farming ways. I think we still carry some of the prejudices today, for example, listening to a southern accent in California. We might conjure up an image of "backwards" on some level.

And this brings me to my next point. I "used" to have an image of conservatives being very "stuck", "stubborn" and "set in their ways", kindof like the way Northerners might have perceived Southerners. Two of my conservative siblings are very much like this, and it drives me nuts because they are not college educated but they behave as though they "know it all" when they don't. But such perceptions are not necessarily accurate and we shouldn't allow our experiences to paint a picture of ALL liberals or ALL democrats being identical.

The NVR forum has shown me just how many conservatives have flexibility. And I often agree with many of you. Not everything can be reduced to black and white. "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:20 PM:

" I would concur that our politics have some genuine brutality in their history, thankfully more intense than we see today.

A South Carolina Congressman killing abolitionist Mass. Sen. Charles Sumner on the Senate floor is a glaring example, but even in the last 50 years we've had people face dogs, water canons, and assassination for their beliefs.

My point was that our political debate today seems just childish alot of times: petty, name-calling, squabbling- pundit careers built on doing nothing but tearing down and bloviating. Its just not terribly admirable.

Passionate, disagreement, clash of ideas, reasoned debate- these are the traits of democratic decsion making at its best, in my opinion. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:23 PM:

" Nola: That is an interesting point of view. It flies in the face of historical fact. I don't think that Southerners even believe that. "

russ wrote on Jun 1, 2008 2:18 PM:

" Bill, seems to me that you try to define L and Conservative in terms of Good and Evil. I tend toward Right and Wrong. Wrong is not necessarily evil.

You say you struggle between Equality and Liberty, which to me are not opposites and are basic Conservative beliefs. There is nothing mutually exclusive between the two. I believe in both.

To me an essential difference between L & C is in the responsibility of the individual vs. the role of government. "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 1, 2008 4:16 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:23 PM:
" Nola: That is an interesting point of view. It flies in the face of historical fact. I don't think that Southerners even believe that. "

"am trying to find a thesis I'd written on slavery and the reconstruction..."

I will retain my manners and simply agree with A teacher. Short of that?, I am absolutely speechless. "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 1, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Reading the NVR blog for quite some time prior to my joining the fray,
I believe those on the perceived left and right, both have a common enemy.
Laird Wilcox, "an American researcher specializing in the study of political fringe movements" identifies 21 alleged traits of a "political extremist":

1. A tendency to Character assassination
2. Name calling and labeling
3. The making of irresponsible, sweeping generalizations
4. The failure to give adequate proof of assertions made
5. Advocacy of double standards
6. A tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
7. A Manichean (bipolar) world view
8. Advocating some degree of censorship and/or repression of their opponents and critics
9. Identifying themselves by reference to whom their enemies are
10. A tendency to substitute intimidation for argument
11. Widely use slogans, buzzwords and "thought-terminating clichés"
12. Claim some kind of moral or other superiority over others
13. Doomsday thinking
14. A tendency to believe that it is justified to do bad things in the service of a supposedly "good" cause
15. An emphasis on emotional response, as opposed to reasoning and logical analysis
16. Hypersensitivity and "vigilance"
17. "May claim" some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions
18. An inability to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty
19. "Groupthink"
20. The personalization of hostility
21. A tendency to assume that the system is defective if one is defeated

How many of you have these traits?

source:wikipedia "

napablogger wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:33 PM:

" nola (new orleans, la?) teacher and adark1 all my biological family is from a small town in the south from slave owning areas. I believe my family was too poor to have actually owned them themselves, however, although a direct ancestor of mine fought on the side of the south in the Civil war.

The south is incredibly gracious and well mannered as a culture. Everyone depended on everyone else and they have a very religious orientation. Southern hospitality is a true fact. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jun 1, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Responding to Bill's invitation to describe our own opinion rather than throwing meaning pies at the labels:
I try to carry on my parents' fine tradition of liberal thinking. What that means to me (and seemed to mean to them) is striving for fairness, taking personal responsibility (assertiveness and achievement) without hurting others, personal freedom (live & let live) moderated by responsibility to family and community. What is difficult, in my mind, about my politics, is reconciling a tendency to rescue with a wish to empower. And that's where I can understand a common conservative gripe about liberals. Other gripes and attacks just throw me for a loop. I have to keep reminding myself of George Lakoff's assessment of the conservative/liberal way of thinking based on parenting styles. One is the strict parent, emphasizing morality (right/wrong), self-responsibility (discipline), and self-interest applied toward success. This requires competition, and sometimes aggressiveness. The other is the nurturing parent, where the most important values are empathy and responsibility (toward self and others). This requires cooperation, and sometimes altruism. Some may object to this categorization, but whenever there is an issue up for debate, it helps me understand the efforts to reason it out vs. attempts to win at all costs. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:24 PM:

" NB. I lived in the south for several years(my daughters were born there, my sons grew up there). When I lived there I was clued into a fact usually glossed over by history books. The fabled southern gentleman was the landed gentry that ruled the roost south of the Mason-Dixon line. They often looked down on their poorer neighbors as being little better than the slaves they owned to run their plantations. There were a lot of folks who didn't see why they should fight for the right of rich people to won slaves. That's how West Virginia became a state.

Most of the men fighting were farmers (most of the people living in the USA at the time lived on farms). They came from the same types of communities and probably had more in common than not.

I actually take comfort in that. "

napabrat wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:25 PM:

" Okay, first off I'm married to ADark1 not that anyone cares but just in case.

I'm confused, napablogger said "however, although a direct ancestor of mine fought on the side of the south in the Civil war". Huh? I thought the thread topic was are you a conservative or liberal blogger???

Personally, I'm not big on labels at all. I think your belief system is a composite of your upbring and your education as well as life experience. What difference does it make what you title it? Titles/labels by their very nature are restrictive and often derogatory.

As for Nola's comments regarding slavery "After the war many, many of the slaves remained on the property, were GIVEN property by the plantation owners AND the owners LAST NAME!" Of course they took the owner's last name, they were not given a choice. I believe the "gift" of land was in the form of share cropping whereby they farmed the land for the "former Master" and received profits if there were any at all only after they had covered the "expenses". This was not a profitable venture for the former slaves. With regards to the slaves living near the big house being treated as "family"; I'd say from what I know about the history of slavery there's a good probability that some of them were related to the "Master". (Go rent Roots at the video store)
BRB ADark1 is yelling about wanting 40 acres and a mule plus interest.

Sorry I know the last part is off topic, forgive me. "

russ wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:58 PM:

" OK, this is no longer fun. I am out of here. I believe one needs a sense of humor to enjoy the give and take. "

Paddy wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:25 PM:

" How did this turn into a Civil War blog?!

I'm not sure how you can define conservative or liberal in the same way.
I for one am:
Pro-abortion...
Pro-capitol punishment...
Anti-illegal immigration....
Anti-taxation...
Staunch environmentalist...
Anti-welfare...
Pro-living wage....
Anti-restitution...
Voted twice for George Bush...
Voted twice for Bill Clinton...
Pro-Minuteman (Anti-illegal immigration)....
Pro-marijuana legalization
Anti-economic globalization
Pro-war in Iraq and Afghanistan because it consolidates most of the terrorists into two countries....

Am I a conservative? Am I a liberal? I say to you the world is not that black and white. "

Beta Napan wrote on Jun 2, 2008 5:51 AM:

" Just one clarification: Dan's a "blogger." The rest of us are just "commenters." Bloggers maintain their own sites to present their own ideas and views. Commenters respond to bloggers, but if they're not willing to do the work involved in maintaining a blog, they can't be considered bloggers themselves. Sorry! "

funnyme wrote on Jun 2, 2008 5:55 AM:

" russ,
I totally agree with you.
Was the professor a L or C?
Was the Marine a L or C?
And the rest of the students, L, C or 'Center"?
A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU. One day the professor shocked the class when he came in.
He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, 'God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes'.
The lecture room fell silent.
Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, 'Here I am God. I'm still waiting.'
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform.
The professor was out cold.
The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.
The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, 'What the heck is the matter with you? Why did you do that?'
The Marine calmly replied, 'God was too busy today protecting America 's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot.
So, He sent me'. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:01 AM:

" Give that Marine a meddal and pay his tuition. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:28 AM:

" I took the political map test that PPF told us about on another thread, as I had begun to identify myself, I fell directly in the Libertarian square leaning toward centrist.
As ADark1, Napablogger, Matt, and some others have mentioned (perhaps not in the same way), we have a tendency to label and pigeonhole ourselves as well as others. While I agree there are those RARE occasions where an absolute and unswerving position on a question is in order, in the majority of cases, the appropriate position is that gray area.

Here is an illustration to my point: You are walking down the street on a Sunday afternoon when two cars collide. A fire irrupts and a family is trapped in one of the cars. They have electric windows and are unable to roll the windows down to escape. You see a brick on the sidewalk and try smashing the car windows with it, but the bring only bounces off the safety glass. You are standing in front of closed hardware store. Just in the window you can see a large fire extinguisher and tools that could help free the trapped people. Should you use that brick to break the store window, get the fire extinguisher and tools and free the trapped family, use your cell phone to call 911 and watch the family burn until emergency services arrive, or just walk away because breaking the store window and talking the items would be stealing and that is wrong?

Personally, I would be breaking the store windows and help free the people. This would fall in the realm of doing something bad (breaking into a store) to serve a greater good (saving a family). I say this, not just theoretically, but having experienced a similar scenario. "

musikluvr wrote on Jun 2, 2008 9:52 AM:

" To Matt: Now you say that our political debate today seems childish, petty squabbling. Two days ago you said we're in a culture war, seeking to personally denigrate those opposed to our beliefs and that its warlike, we're assigning sweeping negative character flaws to others. What happened in two days? Did you take a poll and conveniently change your mind? "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 2, 2008 10:13 AM:

" Muskiluvr- (sigh)- what are you talking about? There is no contradiction. The childish squabbling I mention is a characteristic of the culture war I described. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 2, 2008 10:33 AM:

" I see the Blogger/Commenter phenomenon this way: As a student of history, I see much of the historical record deriving from letters and journal writings from famous figures, as well as obscure characters. Someone inherits Grandma’s steamer trunk and finds letters from Grandpa that were written during the period of a historical even (Revolution, Civil War, WWI or II, ect.). These letters make their way into history books and documentaries, and become part of the historical record. These private and candid writings give perspective to the dry official record. So, when we engage in discussions in these forums, we banter back and forth in the here and now, sometimes childishly, mindful only of the current dialog and how we want to respond to our counterparts. But in the grander scheme of things, we are writing history. A hundred years from now, as the future history books are written, someone will examine the archives of the NVR and stumble across a Pink Flamingo commenting on impeachment or the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. Can you imagine Flamingos in the history books? What we write in these forums may at times be silly, or even childish, but it will one day give perspective to future generations. "

nola wrote on Jun 2, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Clearly there is alot of passion in these blogs/comments and this is a good thing...Otherwise it would be just plain boring...Wouldn't you just have loved to have been able to sit in on the debates and decision making of our founding fathers? I bet the fur really flew, but they still focused on what was best for this new country, America. L or C, it is great to be an American! "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 2, 2008 10:55 AM:

" Funnyme: that's not really an appropriate anecdote to use as a contrast since its an email urban legend. It's been determined 'false' on Snopes.com- only it the original its a Navy SEAL not a Marine.

Like many such emails, its actually a variation on an old story about (also determined false) about Albert Einstein humiliating an athiest professor. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Skip M,
You said it very nicely.

What we write here is a reflection of our daily lives and how we handle our "big" happenings. I do believe the often childish bickering we encourage here stays with us and will make us think about it even for a milisecond next time we come across a situation like the one you described earlier (or the horrible tragedy just happened with toddler Mattea).

Matt,
Thank you for clarifying the "culture war" for me.

Paddy,
I call myself conservative.
I agree with you 11 and a half out of 14...It ain't bad.

1) I don't like the fact abortion now days is being used en lieu of birth control.
2) I don't like the enviro'nuts' who will kick people out of their properties to "protect" an endangered specie. I despise those who don't recycle.
3) I voted for Perot and Dole

I don't smoke pot, I've seen what it does to some pople (extreme), but I believe it would unclutter our prisons and therefore adjust its budget. So, here I am with you. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Russ left because he didn't find this funny anymore...Russ please comeback!

Matt,
I didn't cut and paste to show a "fact" but to crack a smile on some of us.
I never thought this "urban legend" was a fact but just a mere joke. However, like Skip M, I would have given him a medal and raise a fund to pay for his tuition. "

Bill wrote on Jun 2, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Russ, Where do you get good and evil? Freedom and democracy is a mix of liberty and equality. We struggle with just how much of each is correct and on what topic.

Personal responsibility is a good example. Everyone should be responsible for himself or herself and to a degree we are all responsible for others. It is the extent of that responsibility we argue about.

It is the disagreement between the extremes of total liberty and total equality that brings us to our descriptions of liberal and conservative.

Another way to frame the discussion would be about a conservative might frame his/her thinking more upon property rights where a liberal might frame his/her philosophy more about individual rights. This is only a suggestion as an example it is not meant as a hard sell but when we use words we must under stand what we are talking about if we wish to reach an understanding.

If the feminists in the crowd will forgive my archaic phraseology I will drop his/her and use the old-timer male personification to refer to all humankind. Sometimes I need the word space and I am just old enough where my ear says it sounds right and age does claim some privilege. "

napabrat wrote on Jun 2, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Paddy
Somewhere along the line I think we (for lack of a better term) equated the North-South debate during the Civil War with Liberal/Conservative issue. Perhaps equated isn't the best term to use, at any rate it got us off topic. Sorry.

I find it amusing that people actually will go and take a "test" to see where they rate on the liberal-conservative scale. Takes all kinds, and thankfully that's what keeps America going. I agree with Nola it's great to be American, however it's not a popular persuasion outside the US. "

russ wrote on Jun 2, 2008 1:12 PM:

" funnyme, I am back because of you.

Proof again that Libs have no sense of humor. Yours was a funny story, because of which, the L gets offended and tries to dissect the story and denigrate you for plagiarism and getting the story wrong. Go figure. Matt, shame on you.

Who has the right to say that this blog, column, series of comments, or whatever, is irrelevant or bloviating. I think the back and forth here is mostly interesting and fun, especially ridiculing the L's.

Matt, you must watch O'Reilly! "

Bill wrote on Jun 2, 2008 1:24 PM:

" I would say that liberty and equality were basic tenets of both liberals and conservatives and that neither was mutually exclusive. "

russ wrote on Jun 2, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Bill, I am still not getting the liberty vs. equality thing.

Here is what I meant by personal responsibility: A conservative and a liberal each buy an investment property 3 years ago.

The real estate market goes bad and the mortgage rate increases. Trouble making payments and the bank is threatening to foreclose.

The conservative says to himself, darn, I messed up, I've gotta fix this problem, renegotiate the loan, or take a loss and sell the property, take some cash out of my 401k, or rent it to a tenant. By golly, I'll figure something out.

The Liberal says, "greedy mortgage company, real estate agent lied, sue them. No, call my Congressman and tell him I need a government bailout or a new law to stop foreclosures. George Bush caused this. Oh, woe is me." "

Bill wrote on Jun 2, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Sorry Russ, I’m not getting through very well. I don’t see that as a valid analogy a liberal in such a circumstance could be just as responsible for accepting the liability and I could characterize the conservative as blaming government for obstructing his right to do what he wishes with his property for his failure and criticize government for not creating the proper environment for his success.

Again I do not wish to characterize either rather seek a common workable ground between extremes. The extremes being total equality enter the pure totalitarian state that seizes the ability to regulate through laws and control everything vs. the state of total liberty where no law exists' the state of anarchy.

Again notice that I do not wish to characterize others but that by your quotes you do "

MarkMathews wrote on Jun 2, 2008 3:07 PM:

" Wow, only saw this blog just now... put me down as conservative. Russ, great analogy there. "

Bill wrote on Jun 2, 2008 3:09 PM:

" Easy now Russ, if its throwing bricks I can do that but I think most posters are interested in how they would describe their beliefs and not those of others.

Throwing bricks at each other may be fun but there is no dialog involved and it is a dead end. "

steph wrote on Jun 2, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Woah, Russ, I think you put your foot in it. Government bailouts? Can you say Bear Stearns?
Oh, the irony.

And, shoot, I'm on YOUR side!

But what's wrong is wrong, and making you and me pay (and pay and pay) is WRONG. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jun 2, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Dead end is right, Bill. If I wanted to keep hearing liberal-bashing and stereotyping, I'd listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Back to my real life, now. "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 2, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Wow, Russ you sure read alot into that. I don't have a sense of humor? Weren't you the one who decided he was going take his marbles and go home b/c no one was playing nice anymore.

Funnyme- likewise, thanks for the clarifcation- I get alot of those types of emails from well-meaning friends and families, so I usually give a nudge towards Snopes. While you meant it as a humorous parable- a lot of folks take it seriously.

I have watched O'Reilly from time-to-time, good to keep up on the spectrum out there- bloviating is a great word. I thought his meltdown on You Tube was classic. "

russ wrote on Jun 2, 2008 5:55 PM:

" Bill, I don't think it is throwing bricks, I think it is just calling a club a club (PC).

Which philosophy, L or C, thrives on victimhood? Find or create the victim and then promise to take care of them!

L's love government sponsored, rich folk paid, healthcare for everyone, it is a birthright.

L's try to convince the public, every four years, that the economy is the worst in a century and promise to fix it, while throwing rich folks and evil, greedy corporations under the Greyhound.

Yep, that's the L's.

I believe that US medical care is the best and that healthy young folks have the right to refuse to pay for healthcare insurance and that the US taxpayers need not pay for people who do not belong here.

I believe that the U.S. economy is a powerhouse which is the enviable, economic engine of the of the world. The government is more likely to harm rather than help. "

bill wrote on Jun 2, 2008 6:28 PM:

" Dellasumbrella has forthrightly attempted to describe what Della (sorry I’m not a good typist and I tend to shorten things to nick names which some find overly personal or offensive) believes and avoided the trap of what others might think. Beginning to flesh out what Della’s specific view and perspective are to be place in the political spectrum.

It characterizes no one but Della and is a careful thoughtful personal observation about where certain beliefs might come from. I do not overtly see a description or characterization of the other. There is no attack but an effort to struggle with what one believes and present it with out rancor.

I imagine Della also recognizes that basic to her thought are the concepts of equality and liberty, but I break my own rules. It is not easy. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 2, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Russ-I'm always interested in how people come by their stereotypes. Where does: "The Liberal says, "greedy mortgage company, real estate agent lied, sue them. No, call my Congressman and tell him I need a government bailout or a new law to stop foreclosures. George Bush caused this. Oh, woe is me." come from?

Steph beat me to the Bear-Sterns situation. "

russ wrote on Jun 2, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Hey teech,

Those stereotypes rolled right out of my head. I gathered my data, in part, from right here on the NVR blog, commentary page, letters to the editor & postings.

Today you can find many threads from folks who are miserable about what the government is not doing for them, why GWBush should be impeached, the greedy oil companies, etc., etc.

Never knew that there were so many angry, miserable people, right here is paradise. They were all L's.

The Bear Stearns bailout proves my point. The government got involved, interrupted the course of the free market and possibly committed taxpayer to billions in guarantees. Perhaps Bear Stearns should have gone down. We needed some Conservatives in government. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 2, 2008 7:57 PM:

" I agree with Russ about people needing a sense of humor. I for one often laugh when I'm reading his comments. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 2, 2008 8:05 PM:

" russ,
Oh come on now, you are making me blush...It's good to see you back!
Your analysis of Liberal vs Conservative hits the nail right.

And because Berns got bailed out as well doesn't change anything about the mortgage bail out either.
The liberal and conservative approach remains the same.

Anyone cares to share any liberal or conservative jokes? "

diehard4ever wrote on Jun 2, 2008 8:35 PM:

" If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish he eats for the rest of his life.

Q:Which side (liberal or conservative) would just give the guy a fish every day? "

bill wrote on Jun 2, 2008 8:45 PM:

" Again Russ, you say more about "L" than about conservatives. You spend more time characterizing the other than explaining the conservative.

Is this a cause to which you would draw adherents? Condemning the other builds no case for what you are for merely what you are against. Just what is this philosophy you would promote? I have tried to demonstrate that liberty and equality are parts of both liberal and conservative opinion but it appears that you might claim that is not so. "

steph wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:21 PM:

" A true conservative really is keen on the idea of each person giving according to means and taking according to need, but we also realize that human nature being what it is, just the opposite occurs. We understand the consequences of socialism and communism, and we don't want it. Without incentive, production falters, and the economy stagnates and shrinks--the pot is not stirred, and the people are suffocated. I find it interesting that liberalism always has its brightest ideas within the context of capitalism--surrounded by the riches of capitalism, socialist liberals then set out to redistribute the spoils to those who, for various reasons, aren't as enriched as others, failing to realize, that capitalism provides the higher waters that lift all boats. Liberals are like petulant teenagers who don't appreciate the resources their hard-working parents provide. Conservatives (fiscal conservatives) realize the unique opportunities our country provides, where even the poorest among us live better than 80% of the rest of the world's population. We want to protect the most productive among us from crippling taxation and over regulation that hinder our economic strength. One of you said, "The trouble with taxes is that you have to trust politicians with the money"--so true, and a fiscal conservative hasn't any reason to trust the government to spend our money wisely. We realize the United States is great because of our people, in spite of our government. We understand why so many people want to become Americans. It has nothing to do with our borders and everything to do with our culture. If everyone was responsible, we'd have a lot less need for more taxation--there'd be plenty for everyone. A conservative knows the dangers of widespread dependence upon an un-dependable bureaucracy--the people become vulnerable to tyranny. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:34 AM:

" Well, Russ, that's a rather biased sample to use. I myself see a lot more angry self professed conservatives in these pages, but I wouldn't use the blogosphere as any reliable source of data.

BTW, isn't this a Conservative/Republican administration. Aren't they the ones who bailed out Bear Sterns? "

funnyme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:39 AM:

" bill,
you should act as a moderator during those candidates debates to assure there is no name calling or bringing out the "dirty laundry" of the opponent but presenting their very own qualities instead...hmmm...maybe you are one of those moderators.
Would that moderator be L or C? or it would depend who the candidates are...So many questions, so little time! "

Lee wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:14 AM:

" diehard4ever. Hi. I was going to answer your question and say that for myself, registered as a Democratic voter and by some of your definitions, a liberal, would give the man a fish while teaching the man to fish. I was going to leave the answer of what a conservative would answer to a good conservative. "

russ wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:01 AM:

" Bill, I respect your comments. I tried to be 50/50 in describing how C's (me) and L's react to the same issues.

I love it when people disagree with me and joke at my expense. Wish the L's were equally self deprecating.

diehard, L's give away fish, C's teach to fish and a tax credit for the pole.

The administration and Congress have few Conservatives. Bush has gotten a little better with the Dem Congress, who have presided over the mortgage debacle, economic slowdown and the rise in gasoline prices. None of that was happening before 2006.

But you have to give the Dems credit. They were in the majority during the surge and major progress in Iraq. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:09 AM:

" diehard4ever and lee,
Me? As a conservative (at least that's how I label myself), would gourmet cook the fish before selling it to him and ask him if he wants a glass of pinot noir from Carneros to go with it...this is making me hungry. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:09 AM:

" Wow, Steph! Very well said. When you comment about the problem with taxation is trusting politicians to spend the money wisely, I hearken back to Bill Clinton’s presidency when he remarked that the problem with tax cuts was that government would have to trust the people to spend their money right. I nearly threw the television out the window at that comment, but quickly remembered he was not actually in that box. "

Concerned citizen wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:23 AM:

" I would have to say that I am a conservative blogger. Once upon a time, when I was a young and naive college student and I thought "everything is beautiful in it's own way..." I was liberal. That was before I started paying taxes and owning property. THEN, I grew up. Also, as a student, I used to believe that our country; our government had to be the most capitalistic, militaristic and colonizing in the entire universe. Of course, since I've grown up; I now realize that is not the case and that ours IS the most free and open society. In the greater sense...not as in "drugs," or other typical stereotypes but, in a very actual sense. We can question our government, verbally abuse our "leaders" and politicians as well as political candidates; anyone who is in the public eye is subject to open season. We can practice religion or not and any religion/belief system is welcome here. Still, there are those who dislike and disdain this country's ideology.

I am at a loss as to why this is. But I am not at a loss in my opinion about those who take advantage of our open policies, our open borders and our overly generous society.

I will always work against opportunists, on every level; be they those seeking to profit at the expense of the environment or others, or those who think this country owes them something, while they have given nothing.

If these things (and others I've voiced previously) make me conservative; then I guess that is what/who I am.

And proud of it. "

Pundit707 wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:49 AM:

" diehard4ever wrote:" If you give a man a fish he eats for a day, if you teach a man to fish he eats for the rest of his life.

Q:Which side (liberal or conservative) would just give the guy a fish every day? "

Easy. The conservative would give him the fish, because he believes in charity but not in free education. "

Bill wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:14 PM:

" Thanks Russ, I’m trying to address you in a descent effort to move the conversation along with out ruffling too many feathers. Hopefully we are big boys and can take a hit.

I only have a limited time to play. Allow me to point out that several people have honestly attempted to outline their beliefs and that conservatives have been trying to do a better job. I think you pushed Teach’s button, which I don’t personally appreciate but things happen. Della has done a good job but no label can really be affixed.

At first I was enjoying Steph’s post but then she slid back into the blame game and was disappointed, here I run the risk of offending the sisterhood. Forgive me as they may include liberals and conservatives.

Even Concerned Citizen has done a good job and not characterized the other. My effort is to understand your positions not to discredit them. I can be tempted to enter the call and response but I am trying to avoid that.

This is one reason I have tried to frame my discussion around the equality/liberty aspect of freedom and democracy. It is an attempt to establish some reference point about which we can go forward. I think we all share the basic beliefs in these four great ideas but do not see eye to eye on how to interpret them or communicate about them. They are however the basis of what we all believe.

I’m still waiting to see if the libertarian and independent posters see themselves in the spectrum, which is another reason I am trying to frame my comments about equality/liberty polarity instead of conservative/liberal. I think that avoids a lot of name-calling. "

Bill wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:24 PM:

" Russ, you see Pundit707 also has a good sense of humor and uses it to illustrate the counter point. "

citizenrick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Please count me as a conservative.

First,
I would teach the guy to fish, and teach him how to prepare the fish (that pinot noir with it sounds good) and teach him how to be grateful that he was given the opportunity to become an independent person.
Second,
I gladly give to charities who donate 85-100% towards conservative principles (family values, military, orphan children,etc.).
Third,
I do believe in taxpayer funded education (it's not free), but I disagree in the way the public education administrators waste our tax money.
You see nothing is free. We all pay for it. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 3, 2008 1:09 PM:

" It's all in our brain. I was just reading about a study of liberal vs conservative brain function. Liberals are more flexible, they tolerate ambiguity and conflict beter. Conservatives are more structured and tend to be more persistent in thought and beliefs.

I'd add a link, but you know how the NVR is about that. "

Pundit707 wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:23 PM:

" citizenrick wrote:

'I would teach the guy to fish, and teach him how to prepare the fish (that pinot noir with it sounds good) and teach him how to be grateful that he was given the opportunity to become an independent person.'

So, the guy doesn't catch anything and blames you for taking the only good fishing spot on the lake. The guy beats you up and takes all your fish. Sheriff says "sorry, you don't have any fish to pay me to take time away from my own fishing to catch the guy, but I can teach you how to use a gun."

Welfare and taxes are not as simple as fishing. But certain conservatives would like to have us believe that the most efficient way for everyone to get their daily fish is to catch them ourselves. "

russ wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Another way to define your political philosophy is to select someone you greatly admire and have the same beliefs, both policy-wise as well as character-wise.

I would be interested to know the three currently or previously ELECTED, nationally known, not local, political figures you most admire, either L or Conservative, of the last 30 years.

Obviously, the C's will name Ronaldus Magnus Reagan as one. I will select two others and post later. "

citizenrick wrote on Jun 3, 2008 3:53 PM:

" Pundit,
Your recount of the scene might of have been true if I were a liberal, but since I am a conservative, I would be concealing my gun and shoot the loser dead before he even gets to the second punch. And that is my citizenrick's right (given to me by our funder fathers, I think, if my history knowledge does not betray me) to bare arms to protect myself and my property, which by the way, some liberals are working very hard to try to take it away from me. Good luck there! "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jun 3, 2008 4:27 PM:

" As a liberal, I'd prefer to teach a man to fish. That's why I believe in supporting schools to the highest extent possible. But what if they need to eat first...?

Steph, your assessment really rang true, even for me. I recall my parents' anger when I moved out of my college apt. because I left my bed behind for the next tenant. We weren't wealthy, I didn't get the expense part, and I took for granted I could always get another bed. I agree it's much easier to toy with the idea of "socialistic" programs when the nation is pretty well-off. It also seems to me, however, that people in many European countries do okay with a democratic and capitalistic society plus some government/tax funded services. It's a question of will, I think. The time I suggested my family give to Oxfam instead of buying each other Christmas presents, I thought they'd resent it, but they jumped at the idea. If a country does as well as we do, it can usually afford to have some benefits for those who haven't quite made it, or to serve social stability. I don't agree that the United States is great because of its people and not its government. There are great people all over the world -- I've met a lot of them -- trustworthy, kind, hardworking and fun to be with. But our government is to be admired. Even after 8 bad years.

As for Bill's earlier comments about concepts of liberty & equality being part of my definition of liberal, I'd say true, but I think we all define those differently. I probably have 10 different definitions for each myself. "

Bill wrote on Jun 3, 2008 6:48 PM:

" It is a quarter to 7 have you all voted yet? talks cheap and times a wastin'.

If you don't vote what's the beef. those who don't andsay they vote by staying away forfiet their rights to beef you can always vote for your self or any number of cartoons.

I havew personally voted several times (in different elections) for many Disney characters. "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:14 PM:

" Regarding the whole teach and man to fish/ give him a fish question: I would say that for the past 30 years conservatives have been voting for candidates who would run a campaign talking about the long connection between fishing in America and family values.

Once in office they would neither give the man a fish or teach him how to fish, but would pass through massive tax breaks for fishing conglomorates who would then outsource fishing to a third world country who, b/c they have no labor protections- would pay children $.06/ day to catch fish that- since there are no environmental protections- are laced with mercury and strichnine- and would then sell them back to the American, who has neither been given a fish nor taught how to fish, for $35.00 per fish b/c skyrocketing fuel prices have made shipping of child-labor, mercury laced fish incredibly expensive.

If the fishless man remarks that the fish were too expensive, he would be told that its somehow the fault of the fisherman's union, that he needs to quit his entitlement thinking, and that his complaining is helping the terrorists to win.

And you said Liberals have no sense of humor. "

musikluvr wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:33 PM:

" Matt, thanks for the fish story, perfect union mantra...Cultural war anyone? "

Pundit707 wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:46 PM:

" Thanks Matt for underscoring the silliness of the tired fish-fable. :)

And Citizenrick: Not to get technical on a sensitive subject, but your constitutional right to own and carry weapons is to protect your country (hence 'militia' in the wording) not to be a vigilante how tempting that may be. If you read on to the 5th Amendment the bad guys have the right to stand trial before you can shoot them. Unless we are talking self-defense in which case I think that a punch for a punch is more in the spirit of our founding fathers than a bullet for a dirty look.

I don't think any real liberals want to take away the people's right to use arms against the Red Shirts (the British Empire kind, not the ones from Star Trek), but some of us may want to clarify a few things that our fathers did not think quite through (remember that document was written in at time of a real war). However I think that both liberals and conservatives agree that it would be very risky to let the current political system write a new version of the Bill of Rights. Too many special interests could get written into that. So let's be conservative on that issue for now. :) "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:39 PM:

" Matt: Ouch! Your analogy may come a little too close to the current “R” crowd, but here is how the “D” group would respond. Establish fishing universities that will be tax subsidized and charge students $500.00 per unit, require that the student buy fishing equipment at three times market rate, and take four years to teach fish philosophy, and aquatic arts, along with the actual nuts and bolts of catching said fish. Once the student graduates (at which time all the fish have been depleted) The industry will require five years experience on top of the fish degree before said fisher person can even start baiting hooks. Meanwhile, the student has a bazillion dollars in student loans to pay off. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:41 PM:

" Great job on the fish thing, Matt. That's a keeper. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 3, 2008 8:48 PM:

" Obama seems to have sealed the Dem nod, but Hillary is still kicking and scratching ‘till the bitter end.

Impeach Obama!!!!!

Oh, sorry, this is only the nomination. Darn, gotta wait a little longer. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Very good Matt. Funny and sort of accurate ...FTW "

kevin wrote on Jun 3, 2008 9:28 PM:

" Vocal de local is wrong, I am "set in stone". (I get mad listening to Rush Limbaugh because he is too wishy washy on some issues.) I owe it all to former President Jimmy Carter, his driving the country into the ground (remember the "misery index'?) with high inflation, high interest, high unemployment, gas shortages and his horrible handling of the hostage crisis. It definitely made an impression on me, and I have been a Conservative ever since. (It makes me laugh when Liberals try to describe the current economy as "terrible" with 5% unemployment, low interest, low inflation and all the gas (you can afford) to buy).

The one point I would add to the discussion is that, in my opinion, Conservatives definitely identify themselves as such much more readily and also associate with other Conservatives better than Liberals associate with one another. I think it has to do with the basic fact that Conservatives are united in wanting the Government to leave them alone and Liberals are stuck competing for scarce Government handouts... "

Bill wrote on Jun 3, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Or perhaps, Kevin, liberals are a little more skeptical of “frozen in stone” ideas and more willing to step out in that uncertain ocean we all live in. they do not tend to define the world in relationships to absolute truths. They are not as positive as you about what the club believes and less likely to join a cheering squad but more likely to join the game and seek to perpetuate it in a form that can adapt to different circumstances not end the game because current reality does not fit their dogma. "

steph wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:04 PM:

" Yes, the problem with Republicans is that they're not really conservative, except for when it comes to monitoring what happens in others' bedrooms--even if they're enjoying the very same thing in airport bathrooms. Also, they insist on teaching against scientific principles like evolution in schools, which is downright embarrassing. They do have one thing right about education, though, and that is we need accountability through competition "just like they have in Europe," to echo my liberal friends. Republican politicians enjoy pork as much as any Democrats do. The far left who speak for the Democrats are too quick to condemn my country and point our errors, conveniently forgetting all the good we do for the world. This offends me, and I'm not easily offended, though Bill would like me to be offended for all the ladies, as he enjoys feminine sensitivity even when it doesn't exist. My car will not wear any candidate's bumper sticker; I don't trust any of them. I'll hold my nose as I vote for president this year. I would like to see a black president with Obama's charisma and stature, but without the dangerous socialistic ideals. "

steph wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:08 PM:

" Kevin, don't waste your anger on Rush Limbaugh--he's an entertainer. Just laugh. If you really want to get angry, listen to Lou Dobbs--you'll be ready to throw all the politician bums out on the street. They're all a bunch of incompetent, self-absorbed, greedy, idiots. (Who me? Bitter?) "

steph wrote on Jun 3, 2008 11:09 PM:

" Hey--listen up, everyone! STOP pickin' on the teacher! "

ADark1 wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:55 AM:

" BTW?
I personally think ATeacher ROCKS!

>>>Takes another sip!*

For those of you wondering what and why I'm sipping I figured if Nero could fiddle while Rome burned....I can at least Drink and enjoy the flames! :) "

funnyme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:08 AM:

" Matt,
I have to give it to you, that was hilarious.
Certainly that scenario wouldn't be true without a liberal Congress or House of Representatives...It wouldn't be fair to give the conservatives all the credit, would it? "

a teacher wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:13 AM:

" Huh? "

funnyme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:38 AM:

" ateacher,
I believe the reference to the "teacher' is the one who teaches to fish -in the scenario posted earlier.
ADark1,
You're not sipping, you're gulping. Slow down buddy! "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Thanks funnyme, well in my scenario, whether its a liberal or conservative Congress- it certainly doesn't help that they're all having to raise $10,000 per week just to hold on to their seat, so they all have to take soft-money contributions from BigFishPAC.

Thanks also SkipM- touche' on your "D" reply, only you left out that to make it truly accurate for us PC liberals, you'd have to mention that we actually prefer the more species-neutral term "Terrestrially Challenged Aquatic-Americans" to the archiac "fish" "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:49 AM:

" I am loving this dialog! "

a teacher wrote on Jun 4, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Of course, environmentalists would have the fish declared endangered and no one could fish.

Or, with the current environmental policies, all lake would be fished out or so polluted that they'd be dead or have three eyes... "

a teacher wrote on Jun 4, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Ah, I get it. I saw Steph's remarks before my morning coffee, when I am slowest on the uptake. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 4, 2008 11:24 AM:

" Conservatives are definately an "us vs them" crowd. I guess liberals try to make them into us. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 4, 2008 11:30 AM:

" A Teacher: Whoa there my friend. With comments like you “environmentalist” remark, you almost read like a conservative. Have some more coffee:) "

MarkMathews wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Steph, I am with you! Conservatives such as myself only gravitate to the Republican Party because the alternative Democrat Party is anathema to my beliefs. I disagree with not being able to teach creationism in school - what has the left to be SO afraid of? And, where IS that missing link? Why would it be downright embarrassing to teach creationism in the same schools where the leftists of Planned Parenthood have the right to take my daughter from the classroom to have an abortion without my knowledge? It is not only the far left who speak for the Democrats, but many of our terrorist enemies - sometimes they are nearly word for word! My car never has political stickers either, as I don’t want a liberal rock thrown through it. I'd like to have seen Mr. J.C. Watts as the first African America/Black (which ever one gets me in less PC water) president, but we might end up with a friend of the Nation "O" Islam, and God help us if we do. "

Bill wrote on Jun 4, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Russ ol’ buddy; I guess you were asking me about political individuals over the last 30 years? I need to go back farther and could only come up with one, Bobby Kennedy. I hate showing my age and being pigeonholed but it is only fair that I step up with some admission to be slammed about.

I do not see opinions or beliefs framed about the history of who is a great person i.e. Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, FDR, or Regan. All this does is revolve the dialog around who is or is not great and admirable. Rather I see history and thought through the prism of ideas. Looking for that good person who also fits my philosophical/political opinions appears, to me, a futile pursuit. I am fascinated by the ideas of humans not if they meet my standards of a good person. Human foibles are much to varied to hold judgment on for each policy decision I might agree or disagree with.

I find the concepts of freedom and liberty far more important than personality or the personal life of who ever developed that philosophy. I might admire the founders but I will not accept them as saints with the ultimate word on freedom and liberty and recognize that no mater the admiration they also had many character flaws.

Framing political thought around what one believes is conservative or liberal is the easy way out. It gives people a comfortable place to go where they do not really have to look at the meaning of their political opinion. I disagree with those who think that the concepts of freedom and liberty have different meanings. They are complex and if the meaning can be agreed upon we have much to speak of other wise we have nothing. "

steph wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:25 PM:

" My political hero is JFK. He was a true war hero, he cut income taxes, and he stood nose to nose with the Soviets, until they blinked.
Unfortunately, they threw away the mold he was made from. What a dude.

MarkM--stop reading religious texts to get information about evolution. It's a science--it evolves as more and more is learned. As for PP having access to your daughter--what kind of relationship DO you have with your daughter if she's sneaking around behind your back? Hold tight to your children and teach them your values, and cry for the children whose parents are not.

Yes, I, too, tend to vote for Republicans, hoping against all odds that one day we'll actually get a rational-thinking conservative who cares for the American people he or she represents. I think probably most Democrats do the same when they vote for the D candidate. Who are we kidding? Special interests with lobby money are at the helm. That money buys Republicans and Democrats alike. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 4, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Mark,

Why don't you push for one of the Republican African-Americans in the House, Senate, or even a Governor to run for President? Oh wait, guess there aren't any. Quite a melting pot that Republican party is. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Hear Ye: The following are African American REPUBLICANS; Lt. Governor Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann. Perhaps you should check out the African American Republican Leadership Council (AARLC). "

steph wrote on Jun 4, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Then again, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell are Republicans, as is Clarence Thomas. They've all been accused maliciously of not really being black, but I'll leave it to the readers to decide.

Frederick Douglass was a Republican.

The first black governor of a state was a Republican. The youngest governor of a state is Asian-American. And Republican.

There have been several black Republican congresspeople.

Of course, there is nothing like being a black presidential candidate to really unify your whole party and have them all rally around you in solidarity, too--what a melting pot.

Speaking of the Clintons, when Bill was labeled "the First Black President" perhaps someone forgot about Abraham Lincoln's contribution to the cause; but then again, he was a Republican, so it didn't count.

On the other hand, condescending liberals have done so much for African Americans in our country. "

russ wrote on Jun 4, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Bill, I do not think you can separate character from the effective politician and leader, although I respect your opinion. Character matters. One need not be perfect, we are all human, but one must have self discipline for greatness.

Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were effective politicians but I don't think many today would say they were great, inspirational leaders, as were Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt.

My selections for "Conservatives I admire" are:

-Ronald Reagan - everyone conservative's Mr. Conservative
-Mitt Romney - exceptional character, experience and ability
-Bobby Jindal - maybe too soon but he makes things happen. a future presidential candidate along with David Petraeus.

I have not seen a Liberal, post-1970, mentioned yet. Come on L's, how about a name! "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 4, 2008 4:58 PM:

" You can name a handful of people. Thats great. Would you argue that there is a lack of multiculturalism within the Republican party leadership? "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 4, 2008 5:01 PM:

" And Skip my statement holds true. Not a single African American Republican in the House, Senate, or serving as Governor "

a teacher wrote on Jun 4, 2008 5:04 PM:

" Steph, you can't really compare the Republican Party to the 20/21st century Republicans, they are very different.

But you have a point, there are black republicans who are capable of running a presidential campaign. While I have little good to say about Ms. Rice, I think that Colin Powell would have been an excellent president. I certainly would have voted for him. It is unfortunate that he allowed himself to be used to sell war in Iraq, his reputation is trashed. Had he resigned in protest to a war he obviously did not support, It would be he, and not Obama running for President.

Even now, I would vote for him. "

russ wrote on Jun 4, 2008 5:44 PM:

" steph, John It would have been interesting to see the legacy if Kennedy had lived. He started our involvement in Vietnam...Lyndon Johnson finished Kennedy's legacy, perhaps. He did cut taxes, growing our economy.

Three years in office was sufficient to earn rock star status but not to change the world. Abraham Lincoln looked pretty bad after three years but was our greatest. Kennedy caved into Khrushchev in 1961 but was heroic during the Cuban missile crisis.

Would John Kennedy have gone on to future greatness or to become a Teddy Kennedy or Bill Clinton? We will never know. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 4, 2008 6:53 PM:

" Hear Ya,
What exactly do you mean with multiculturalism? What does it look like in the political arena? And what would the pros/cons be? "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 4, 2008 7:55 PM:

" Funnyme-

From Wiki- "The term multiculturalism generally refers to a de facto state of racial, cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a specified place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighborhood, city or nation.

My original comment was in response to Mark saying he wished J.C. Watts would have been the first black President. I was merely pointing out that he happened to be the last black republican to serve in House, Senate, or Governor. I guess the biggest Pro to diversity within political party leadership would be that I can't think of a single con, "

russ wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:13 PM:

" Hear YE, 91% of black Americans vote Democrat. 60% + of white males vote Republican. Do you consider that racist?

Who is your favorite black Democrat Senator? Obama only counts for half, at most. Who is your second favorite?

Which is your favorite black governor?

Have black Americans benefited from total devotion to the Democrat Party for the last 60 years?

Why haven't the Democrats fixed all of the problems so apparent from videos of the Trinity Christian Church in Chicago, and other churches?

What does all of that prove? "

russ wrote on Jun 4, 2008 8:54 PM:

" I was listening to Air America today as I often do for entertainment, to keep track of the left wing crazies. Randi Rhodes and audience were finally getting it, after last night's events, that the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, are dishonest, lying, self-motivated, do anything to win &%%$#@%*(. Poor ole Barack Obama.

Well I'll be darned, we Conservatives got it long ago, when Bill wagged his finger at us. Randi said that was the moment she began to have some doubt. Bill has magnificently enhanced his image the last 15 months.

Sounded like Liberals are slow learners. But Bill was a good president. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:15 PM:

" I'll bite.

I like Jimmy Carter. Not so much as a president, but he has never stopped working for a better world since he left office.

Paul Wellstone, who died far too early. I listened to him talk once and I was impressed with his common sense.

Bill Bradley - A smart man, he would have been a great president.

I am also impressed with Gavin Newsome. The man has guts. I listened to him on the radio once tell a caller who felt he should run for governor that making San Francisco a sanctuary city probably doomed any plans he had for higher office. But he said he felt it was the right thing to da and he'd do it again. "

Hear Ye wrote on Jun 5, 2008 12:56 AM:

" Russ-

I actually wasn't referring so much to racism. I am thinking more of an obvious disconnect.

Contrary to what you think Obama does fully count as an African American Senator IMO.

There are quite a few of the 40+ black members of the House that I favor. Please don't make me choose just one or two favorites.

As far as Governors I really don't know enough about Paterson or Patrick to say who if any would be my "favorite".

i don't think any group outside of maybe the very wealthy have always benefited from total devotion to any political party over the last 60 years. But again, thats not the point. So... "

steph wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:26 AM:

" teacher... *sigh*
Jimmy Carter?? Weren't you a teeny bit embarrassed when he went and met with Hamas in April? Cause I was. Was that a stunt to thumb his nose at our government, or did he really believe he could talk to those nice fellas and bring peace to the middle east? Delusions of grandeur, maybe? I couldn't help but flash back the Iran hostage crisis--ineffective then, still ineffective now and just not gettin' it. Wow. That was it for me with regard to Jimmy Carter. That and his grandstanding at Coretta Scott King's funeral--tacky, tacky, TACKY! He should stick to Habitat for Humanity--that much I do admire him for.

And Gavin? It's hard not to like him, and I do admire him for taking a stand on gay marriage, but you do NOT schtup with your BEST FRIEND's WIFE and then pay her to keep quiet! You just don't do that, so...meh. Well, maybe if you're a politician you get away with it, but I don't admire that about a guy. "

Bill wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Character is always a highly over rated quality. I’ll stick my neck in the nose yes Jimmy Carter for character and however much I must admit it Reagan for effective politician. That does not mean I agree with either their character or politics.

LBJ was most likely the most effective politician in my lifetime and he may have been an SOB but I cannot speak for character. He must be a hero to some for standing toe to toe with the communists in the misguided adventure in Viet Nam.

The great man syndrome is a ok for leadership but a poor substitute for thought. "

Bill wrote on Jun 5, 2008 10:07 AM:

" That should read noose, as in hang me. Funnyme should like that. "

funnyme wrote on Jun 5, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Bill,
Thanks for the laugh.

I disagree with you that "character" is over rated or something you agree on. Character is something I admire in a person.
I could disagree with your politics, but if you have character qualities we could still hold a decent conversation, even if we shout at each other or attack our political views.
I admire Ronald Reagan and I also happen to agree with his politics! "

a teacher wrote on Jun 5, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Actually, Steph, I was happy that someone is trying to talk to Hammas, because, like them or not they have a say in what happens in Gaza (being the fairly elected gov't there).

As for the King funeral, it was about time for someone to speak to Bush about his policies.

I have no problem at all with what he's done.

You do have a point about Mr. Newsome's behavior with his friend's wife. However, I'm with Bill on the private behavior issue. I'm more interested in getting things done (legally) than who's stchupping who. "

Bill wrote on Jun 5, 2008 3:20 PM:

" Lets be honest about character. It is a subjective quality. Unless we can agree upon what is good character it takes us no place. Carter’s engagement of Hammas is not an indication of good or bad character but of willingness to seek a solution. One may view his actions as the wrong path but it has nothing to do with character. If you are insistent on going down that path then what attributes define good character? And what behavior personifies it?

It is more than naiveté to rely on political leadership to exemplify the qualities we believe that “Honest Abe” or George Washington possessed. The quality of deviousness is one possessed by every great leader many times over and especially by every successful person in or out of politics and it is generally considered a character flaw.

If we agree that lying is bad character we must accept that we will be lied to and that those that do also do not posses good character. Every president must at some point tell less than the truth, every politician must obfuscate at some point. To deny this is to deny reality.

When John McCain says he will never lie to the American People he loses me because he takes me for a fool. If you are skirting the truth you may not be technically lying but you are avoiding honesty and any commitment to veracity. This is being devious. "

matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 5, 2008 4:18 PM:

" The character discussion always reminds me of that, by now somewhat cliche, but still poignant exercise that asks participants to select the best candidate of the following three:

Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his significant other.

Obviously the twist is people gravitate towards Candidate C, until its revealed that these are in fact accurate- but incomplete- descriptions of A) Franklin D Roosevelt, B) Winston Churchill and C) Adolph Hitler

Its all in the presentation, I guess. Sort of like Jimmy Carter- in my mind one could accurately say that Carter in fact held the line by honoring America's policy to not deal w/ terrorists and refused to give Iranian radicals what they wanted in 1979 (i.e. the Shah returned) and even though it costs him his presidency, all the hostages were eventually returned unharmed.

Pres. Reagan's people, on the other hand, could be said to have unrepentently made covert and illegal deals with the extremist regime in Tehran (Oliver North).

OK, now that I have presented the double anathema to conservatives of implying Ronald Reagan is less than a modern saint, and Jimmy Carter may have actually done something right, I am fastening my viking helmet and awaiting the onslaught. "

russ wrote on Jun 5, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Matt, I am not sure I agree with your descriptions of A, B and C, but there is no reason there cannot be a Candidate D, ideally high personal character (integrity) and a very able leader.

A factor not mentioned is "likability", high for GWBush and Bill Clinton, very low for AGore and JKerry, for example.

Teacher and others, regarding Carter, no problem with his policies? Were you around during the misery index? I remember being very grateful in getting a 10.75% mortgage. Unemployment was about 8%, "Carters malaise", the worst president of my lifetime. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 5, 2008 8:33 PM:

" Russ: Yes I was around for the misery index. So? The misery index for Ford and Regan was not all that much lower (15(Ford) and 13(Regan) compared to Carter's 16)). Worst President? Well he left office with a 34% approval rating, which is (currently) 9 pts better than the current occupant. I think your fellow Americans may disagree.

Anyway, if you read what I wrote you'd note that I didn't think he was much as a president. I'm more impressed with him after his presidency. "

Skip M. wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Russ: I am not sure you get Matt’s point. Candidates A, B, and C were all real world leaders during one of the most significant periods in world history. If you want to include a fourth candidate from that era, who would you suggest; Mussolini (Italy), Hirohito (Japan), Stalin (Russia)? "

cab e-girl wrote on Jun 8, 2008 10:47 PM:

" As bad a president as Jimmy Carter was... he is even a worse former president. The man (loose terminology-sorry) should stop running around playing games with our foreign policy. He failed as president with his policies here and (ie. huge inflation, economic failures, outrageous interest rates, oil shortage etc.and abroad (think Iran hostages and the failed hostage recovery and making sure a Marxist was in charge in Nicaragua) His foreign policy was a huge failure, and led to human rights disasters for the people of Nicaragua and Iran. Need I say more there?

As an ex-president his meddling ensured that Hugo Chavez landed in power, not only a huge loss for Venezuelans but for the surrounding countries. Care to live in Venezuela? So you say he is a champion of human rights? Look which side he has landed on. In every case the wrong side of history. To name a few, Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat and Manuel Noriega and now Hamas? All champions of human rights? No, and would of you want to live in anyone of these countries. I think not.

Building huts? I am all for him swinging a hammer. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: