Who is at fault for the partisanship

Mikeyy · #1 (**permalink**) 09-05-2008, 01:01 PM

I was just thinking about how we were all together immediately after 9-11. We all wanted to get the bad guys. And Bush was at over 90% popularity. Who would you blame for the divided country?

highway80west · #2 (**permalink**) 09-05-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I was just thinking about how we were all together immediately after 9-11. We all wanted to get the bad guys. And Bush was at over 90% popularity. Who would you blame for the divided country?

Well, I hope to be wrong, but could it be the democrats? That's coming from a GOP guy like myself.

I mean we have to listen to what both parties are saying, telling us the other party is to blame for what is happening in the USA and the world, for that matter.

Maybe if Rodney King was not a household word then when he got beat up by the L.A. police, he may be a congressman himself. He spurred Maxine Waters to the congress. And King's words would be: Can we all get along?

cnredd · #3 (**permalink**) 09-05-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I was just thinking about how we were all together immediately after 9-11. We all wanted to get the bad guys. And Bush was at over 90% popularity. Who would you blame for the divided country?

We all wanted to get the bad guys, but it wasn't any Republican throwing out a petition to NOT go to war and instead let the lawyers handle it (Which was the Clinton Doctrine)...

Rove Was Right about MoveOn

Quote:

Some officials at the internet activist group MoveOn are denying charges made by top White House aide Karl Rove, who said in a speech to a conservative group in New York Wednesday that "In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11 liberals believed it was time to submit a petition." Rove continued: "I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what MoveOn.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.' "

After Rove's comments, MoveOn released a statement saying flatly, "MoveOn did not oppose the U.S. military action in Afghanistan." And in an interview with the Washington Post, reporter Dan Balz wrote that MoveOn political chief Eli Pariser "disputed Rove's characterization of the petition calling for moderation and restraint, saying that the petition was a personal project before he was affiliated with MoveOn and that it was not on the group's Web site at the time of the Afghanistan war."

Despite Pariser's contention, there is solid evidence that MoveOn did in fact oppose the war in Afghanistan, and that MoveOn founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd hired Pariser in significant part because of his activism against the war.

The story began with a man who has received little attention in the controversy, a young film student named David Pickering. Visiting his parents' home in Brooklyn on September 11, 2001, Pickering immediately began to worry about the consequences of U.S. retaliation for the terrorist attacks. "It was this incredible moment in which all doors were opened and the world was seeming to come together," Pickering told me in an interview for my book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. "I had this feeling that it would be a shame if that were spoiled by a spirit of vengeance."

The next day, September 12, Pickering wrote a petition calling on President Bush to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to 9/11 and "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

At the same time, Pariser, who had graduated from college the year before and was working at a liberal nonprofit organization in Massachusetts, was writing a similar petition, which he put on a website he created called 9-11peace.org. Pariser noticed Pickering's work and e-mailed him to suggest that they merge their sites. Pickering agreed, and 9-11peace.org featured a petition which read:

Quote:

We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .

Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."

Eli's petition grew to half a million in half a week

Mikeyy · #4 (**permalink**) 09-05-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

We all wanted to get the bad guys, but it wasn't any Republican throwing out a petition to NOT go to war and instead let the lawyers handle it (Which was the Clinton Doctrine)...

Rove Was Right about MoveOn

Clinton got his bad guys.

cnredd · #5 (**permalink**) 09-05-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Clinton got his bad guys.

Fox News Sunday, Interview With President Bill Clinton, 9/22/06

Quote:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

How can you say you "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" two seconds after saying the strategy you were using failed?...

Yeah..."We have a anti-terror strategy, but we'll just leave it to the next president to use it...But it's a good one!...I swear!...We failed at it, but this one's gonna work I tell ya!"...

Mikeyy · #6 (**permalink**) 09-05-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Fox News Sunday, Interview With President Bill Clinton, 9/22/06

How can you say you "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" two seconds after saying the strategy you were using failed?...

Yeah..."We have a anti-terror strategy, but we'll just leave it to the next president to use it...But it's a good one!...I swear!...We failed at it, but this one's gonna work I tell ya!"...

Lets not pull the scab off of this old BS. End of the day Clinton was engaged in terror. So was Clarke. Clarke praises Clintons work compared to Bush on the subject. So lets not even start this because I will just start posting Condi's 9-11 testimony and other relevant material. But I'm tired.

bhkad · #7 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I was just thinking about how we were all together immediately after 9-11. We all wanted to get the bad guys. And Bush was at over 90% popularity. Who would you blame for the divided country?

Nice try, Mikeyy!

But you are actually posing two different questions.

Who/what is at fault for the political partisanship?

And who/what is responsible for the divisions in this country?

In this case the answer to both questions is essentially the same, but the explanation leading to the same answer is slightly different.

I have given this some thought over many months, starting from the time shortly before the 2004 election.

There are several likely suspects who can be pointed to. Republicans and Democrats and Independents first come to mind. They have all responded to events and circumstances in a predictably idiosyncratic way, which resulted in finger pointing and circling the wagons. This is partisanship in action.

Quote:

Noun 1. partisanship - an inclination to favor one group or view or opinion over alternatives partiality
inclination, tendency, disposition - an attitude of mind especially one that favors one alternative over others; "he had an inclination to give up too easily"; "a tendency to be too strict"
anthropocentricity, anthropocentrism - an inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values
ethnocentrism - belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group
Eurocentrism - belief in the preeminence of Europe and the Europeans
bias, prejudice, preconception - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
tilt - a slight but noticeable partiality; "the court's tilt toward conservative rulings"
sectionalism, localism, provincialism - a partiality for some particular place
unfairness - partiality that is not fair or equitable

But what caused these events and what was behind the circumstances that caused people to act in a partisan manner?

The answer to those questions go deeper than this group. Even though partisanship IS responsible for the divisiveness it does no good to place blame at this level if we are truly interested in trying to understand the whole issue.

The Media should be included in any investigation of the political events and circumstances in this country. And the Media definitely have a LOT to answer for, but they will never voluntarily step up to do so and it would take quite a bit of McCain/Palin reformer mojo to bring this about unless the people stand up and demand it. But again, though there is culpability at this level, the seeds of the cause do not reside here.

We must look deeper.

In summary, if we refuse to be satisfied with political partisanship or the media as the CAUSE of our national divisions then we will be able to resist the temptation to continue pointing fingers of blame at each other and we might actually begin to understand this dynamic.

The blame goes back to the 1970's.

In a simple and brilliantly insightful analysis, Walid Phares unwinds the tape so we can focus on the genesis of this problem.

Walid Phares cover story in Homeland Security Today: "Jihad vs Education"

After reading this article you will walk away from this thread feeling less blame for Democrats and Republicans and any particular administration and the Media for our national divisiveness.

I guarantee it.

bhkad · #8 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Well, I hope to be wrong, but could it be the democrats? That's coming from a GOP guy like myself.

I mean we have to listen to what both parties are saying, telling us the other party is to blame for what is happening in the USA and the world, for that matter.

Maybe if Rodney King was not a household word then when he got beat up by the L.A. police, he may be a congressman himself. He spurred Maxine Waters to the congress. And King's words would be: Can we all get along?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

We all wanted to get the bad guys, but it wasn't any Republican throwing out a petition to NOT go to war and instead let the lawyers handle it (Which was the Clinton Doctrine)...

Rove Was Right about MoveOn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Lets not pull the scab off of this old BS. End of the day Clinton was engaged in terror. So was Clarke. Clarke praises Clintons work compared to Bush on the subject. So lets not even start this because I will just start posting Condi's 9-11 testimony and other relevant material. But I'm tired.

There is a reason which goes far deeper than those you have mentioned here.

Walid Phares cover story in Homeland Security Today: "Jihad vs Education"

Michael1 · #9 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008, 02:57 PM

I think it's misleading to think we were all united after 9/11. We were all equally appalled and upset, but that's about it. We all supported Bush, but we would have all supported whoever was the President immediately after that attack.

Then people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and so on would have been seen as being in very poor taste for being stepping over the line in their partisanship, so they just layed low for a while. It was easy for them to jump back into the Bush hating they had always been doing after a month or two.

You act like unity was the norm, and not the exception. It's not, and this is the way things almost always are...

bhkad · #10 (**permalink**) 09-06-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

I think it's misleading to think we were all united after 9/11. We were all equally appalled and upset, but that's about it. We all supported Bush, but we would have all supported whoever was the President immediately after that attack.

Then people like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and so on would have been seen as being in very poor taste for being stepping over the line in their partisanship, so they just layed low for a while. It was easy for them to jump back into the Bush hating they had always been doing after a month or two.

You act like unity was the norm, and not the exception. It's not, and this is the way things almost always are...

I formally and respectfully invite you to take a look at this article.

Walid Phares cover story in Homeland Security Today: "Jihad vs Education"

It will change the nature of the debate.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
foundit66, highway80west

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins

The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
foundit66