RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


How do we see them - partisan or leader?(22 posts)

How do we see them - partisan or leader?moneyman
Jan 6, 2004 8:26 AM
In the Wall Street Journal today is an OpEd piece by Al From, the founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.

From writes: "President Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he's more interested in gaining partisan advantage than in putting our country first."

I find this a very interesting interpretation because I certainly don't see it the same way. Yet when Clinton was President, I believed the exact same about him, i.e., Clinton was more concerned about getting re-elected while Bush is more concerned about the well-being of the USA.

Is it that our partisan viewpoints produce the results we want to see, or is it that both these men truly are only interested in power at the expense of our country?

What do you think?

$$
Neither of them are or were onlyOldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 8:40 AM
interested in power at the expense of the country. That is an absolute fact, despite the braying we'll shortly hear that it IS true about one but not the other. Both are patriots (although one is an idiot. Whoops!) and would never knowingly sell out America to get or retain power. To think so is silly. The country would never stand for it, and believe it or not the country would KNOW if that were happening.

That said, one or both might have some seriously wrongheaded notions about what's *good* for the country. There's the rub, and there's where partisan perceptions and biases enter the fray. And each of us is in full thrall to those biases.
Ed, I think you are right &...........Len J
Jan 6, 2004 2:53 PM
the difference to me is the idealogical "glasses" that the right & the left bring to a particular issue.

Take poverty, a liberal looks at this and (generally) says, How can we as a society help?, a conservative looks at this (generally) and says, Too bad the poor didn't have enough gumption to get in the game a fight to win.

The idealogy comes out of a basic difference in world view. I don't for a minute believe that Bush and his cromies are acting this zealously out of any other reason than they think what they are doing is right.

To moneyman's question, since your "glasses" (or world view" is so out of alignment with the democratic party, of course you are going to react the way you do.

Len
Ed, I think you are right &...........Len J
Jan 6, 2004 2:54 PM
the difference to me is the idealogical "glasses" that the right & the left bring to a particular issue.

Take poverty, a liberal looks at this and (generally) says, How can we as a society help?, a conservative looks at this (generally) and says, Too bad the poor didn't have enough gumption to get in the game and fight to win.

The idealogy comes out of a basic difference in world view. I don't for a minute believe that Bush and his cromies are acting this zealously out of any other reason than they think what they are doing is right.

To moneyman's question, since your "glasses" (or world view) is so out of alignment with the democratic party, of course you are going to react the way you do.

Len
I think your partisan viewpoints. . .czardonic
Jan 6, 2004 10:58 AM
. . .produce the results you want to see.

Whether Bush is a leader is a matter of opinion. That he is severly partisan is not.
No one gets elected presidentOldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 11:12 AM
without being 'severely partisan.'

Partisanship isn't a dirty word, either.

'Political expediency,' a different animal altogether, CAN be a dirty word, if it drives your every decision. But you have to have a goodly dose of it if you're going to keep the office. As far as I can tell, Bush's decisionmaking is driven by political expediency no more and no less than the average president of my lifetime. Presidents, after all, are political animals. Severely so. You can't get elected otherwise.

The only president who seemed little interested in political expediency was Jimmy Carter, and look how he ended up. To a lesser extent, the elder Bush was also detached from hard politics. He was thumped too.
Disagreeczardonic
Jan 6, 2004 11:25 AM
"Partisanship" is a dirty word. No question about it.
Yeah, if you want to eliminate political parties.OldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 11:49 AM
To believe that partisanship is bad, you have to believe that parties are bad. That's a defensible position. But no believer in political parties can say partisanship is bad. Can't have it both ways.
Disagree.czardonic
Jan 6, 2004 11:58 AM
To believe that partisanship is bad, I simply have to read the definition of "partisan" and understand that there is a difference between holding a point of view and holding that all other points of view are threats that should be eliminated from the field of debate.
You're creating your own definition.OldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 12:17 PM
Can't find a definition that says what you just said: 'holding that all other points of view are threats that should be eliminated from the field of debate.'

Even if you could locate such a preposterous 'definition' of partisan, it would not be the commonly accepted definition, which is to hold to a set of public policy ideas as embodied in a political party, and fight politically for the success of those ideas.

For the life of me I can see anything wrong with that. Although I'm sure you'll throw coal on the train of your dialectic and run me down with it here shortly.
Granted, I am interpreting the American Heritage definition.czardonic
Jan 6, 2004 12:31 PM
n.
  1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

  2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.


adj.
  1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.

  2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.



And then there is Websters: Adherent to a party or faction; especially, having the character of blind, passionate, or unreasonable adherence to a party; as, blinded by partisan zeal.

I don't see the preposterousness in my characterization. Perhaps that is a condition of the very preposterousness that you mention.

And perhaps your euphamistic definition is closer to the "commonly accepted definition". IMO, that is part of the problem -- it is simply accepted as a matter of course that politicians will exploit their victories to their maximum partisan advantage rather than serving all of the people they represent.
ASIDE TO THE BOARD:: See, this right hereOldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 12:55 PM
is the kind of bullshyt nitpicking squabble that happens whenever Lefties get together. No criticism of czar, since I'm right in there with him. It's just what Lefties DO. They squabble over the tiniest things, holding firm to their purity for dear life, then split into factions.

What do you get when you put three Lefties in a room? Three factions. Communism didn't fail because Marx was wrong. Communism failed because it devolved into 32,437,101 factions that weren't spreaking to each other.

The Right has no such problem. They don't argue about how many Workers can dance on the head of a pin, they go out and win elections. The details, presumably, will then sort themselves out.

Bill Clinton's genius, little remarked upon, was to divorce himself from the self-destructive ideological purity that dooms the Left to irrelevance beyond regarding its own collective navel. Clinton said, in effect, 'Hell, if you want to get the good shyt done, you got to set all that crap aside and GET ELECTED.' Predictably, the Left eventually disowned him.

Forget it, czar. I ain't arguing the definition of 'partisan' no more. Let's argue something more ideologically robust, like whether Cuba has lately devolved into a degenerate workers' state, or was in fact a deformed workers' state from the outset. Now THERE'S a discussion we can sink our Red teeth in!
Disagreeczardonic
Jan 6, 2004 1:02 PM
There are plenty of disagreements within the Right.

Moreover, your praise of Clinton underscores my point. Clinton was successful because he was not a partisan. However much Conservatives hated him personally, they could hardly claim to have been marginalized in the way that Liberals have been marginalized by the GOP under Bush. (Actually, they are pretty whiny, so who knows what they might claim).

I am not going to chase any of your meatbones out the door. If you didn't know, you might have guessed -- I am a vegetarian.
LOL!OldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 1:13 PM
My own belief is, since Communism has never existed anywhere, Cuba was born a deformed workers' state, because of inherent contradictions.
Cuba was clearly a deformed workers state from the start.dr hoo
Jan 6, 2004 1:15 PM
And any true marxist would agree with me. Leninists/stalinists/maoists might not.
Right on, brother! nmOldEdScott
Jan 6, 2004 1:17 PM
didn't used to be that wayDougSloan
Jan 6, 2004 1:48 PM
From LBJ to Clinton, the Democrats who succeeded were not overtly purely ideological. They were more pragmatist or opportunists, maybe with a bit of populist thrown in. It was the Republicans who stood by their "faith" and conservative ideology, no matter the cost. Well, that worked sometimes, but during the 90's I think, largely at the behest of Rush Limbaugh, Republicans figured out that you don't get squat done if you ain't elected. Along came Bush II, more like the pragmatist/populist, vs. an apparent Liberal purist. Republicans have figured out Clinton's game, now, and have the Democrats rocked back on their heels, making them choose between purity, which won't win, and populism, which is already locked up by the Republicans these days.

Times will change again. I firmly believe that 90% of these equations concerns the precise people we are dealing with, and only about 10% with ideology. Things will always change with depending upon the particular candidates.

Doug
Got Thorazine?No_sprint
Jan 6, 2004 11:18 AM
We haven't seen your other personality in some time!
Still with the dull insults?czardonic
Jan 6, 2004 11:28 AM
How sad for you.
Observation, not insult. nmNo_sprint
Jan 6, 2004 11:29 AM
Sorry. Dull <i>observations</i>. (nm)czardonic
Jan 6, 2004 11:32 AM
re: The great divider comes to mindjrm
Jan 6, 2004 1:19 PM
he's divided the citizentry of this country, multilateral foriegn policy vs. unilateral foriegn policy, tax cuts to the rich and loss of jobs oversees, a world ecoonmy vs. isolationism, secular policy vs. faith based policy, patriot vs. unpatriot.

This all from the guy who said he was family friendly and a uniters. His time will come