Politics is a team sport.

johnson1010 · Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:02 pm

What explains the mania surrounding Obama's speach to youngsters on the 9th?

Well, its called team politics. Republicans were pushing McCain last election. the same guy they trounced and derided in 2000 when he was going against Junior bush. They didnt like him then for his quasi liberal stances and they didnt back him.

In the election of 2008, it was quite obvious that they had a pathetic skeleton of candidates that was little threat to the democrats that year, especially considering the drubbing that Junior Bush himself delt to the republicans over the last 8 years. So, eveyone piled on behind McCain, as he seemed like the only candidate that would allow the republicans to retain power in the white house. That is the important part, folks. The REPUBLICANS, not McCain, would have maintained control of the white house.

It is no longer about a candidate, or a candidates ideas. When you vote in a republican, any republican, you are voting in the party.

above quality leadership, above sound policy, above the welfare of the country, it is imperative that a certain party gain or maintain control of the reins of power.

It's like a Lions fan. The Lions have done little to earn your respect or loyalty recently. They may have been an impressive team once upon a time, but what have they done lately? it doesnt matter. When you ask them they say, "WHOOOOOOOOOO LIONS RULE!!!! WHOOOOO!!"

The republicans have obtained the rope-towers vote. They have that on lock. It is the best vote in the country because it does exactly what you want it to, once you set it running in fear toward the voting booth.

Now you vote for or against a party, not policy. This is not good democracy.

geo · Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:53 pm

I agree, there are far too many folks out there who are prone to group think. Unfortunately, this may be due in part to the United States' aging population.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5206a2.htm

Excerpt: In the United States, the proportion of the population aged >65 years is projected to increase from 12.4% in 2000 to 19.6% in 2030 (3). The number of persons aged >65 years is expected to increase from approximately 35 million in 2000 to an estimated 71 million in 2030 (3), and the number of persons aged >80 years is expected to increase from 9.3 million in 2000 to 19.5 million in 2030 (3).

This means that this trend towards "rope-towing Republicans," as Johnson puts it, might only get worse. Normally I consider myself a moderate conservative, but I can't see myself voting Republican any time soon. For one thing, I simply can't stomach the movement towards the religious right. Team politics is indeed a scary thing.

I would be tempted to say something negative about baby boomers here, but it would likely be a grossly unfair generalization. I'll just say the idiots would probably vote for a pile of mule dung as long as it was Republican. Oops, I said it anyway.

Anyway, this flap with the Obama speech is a great example of group idiocy. (And thanks for posting that, Chris). Both my parents and my wife's parents talk like Obama is the anti-Christ. He has a very tough road in this political environment, but maybe the he can hung tough. I do think there are serious problems with the health care bill, but I see that as a symptom of a larger problem more than anything.

johnson1010 · Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:59 pm

I actually think of myself as conservative in many regards. Just not conservative socially.

I am not a "morals" voter. Anytime someone introduces themselves as an advocate for morals or family values, that is more or less a sign pointing them out as the bad guys.

They are the ones who are going to try to keep you from living the way you want, and are going to want you to grab hold of that rope and start towing.

bluet · Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:13 pm


	Mark Cool wrote: Without Politics there will be no country and no administrations, it is a cycle that goes on and on.

So right! Unfortunately politics are a necessary evil. The difficulty for our country right now is the polarization of the two major parties. I think that part of the reason for that is our President, who is sometimes demonized by groups on the right. The same thing happened to W, though it wasn't quite as extreme. So people pick their teams and defend them to the end, right or wrong (or left). It doesn't help that some cable and radio personalities fuel the fire.

The cycles do go back and forth. While one group is in power the other group gets stronger, on and on. :roll:

etudiant · Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:11 pm

Politics means democracy, although many in the west are pretty apathetic about participating in it these days. One can have government without politics, it’s easy; Myanmar is a good example.

I feel surprised that you see polarization between the two major parties in the US bluet. Compared to most modern liberal democracies, one could argue that there is very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They are both comparatively right of center, and there is essentially no voice from the left in US politics today. Those that are seen to be on the very fringe of left wing political commentary, such as Ralph Nadar, or Michael Moore, would be considered fairly moderate in Europe or Canada. Noam Chomsky has gone so far as to say that the US today is a one party state, and debate between the two traditional parties a mere slight of hand to put a positive spin on what is really a very similar agenda.

bluet · Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:45 pm

Living as a Democrat in a Red state I see a very strong polarization between the two parties. I am vilified as a Secular Progressive Liberal here, as are others of my ilk. Perhaps there appears to be little difference in philosophies between the two parties at times, but my own observation is quite different. All I have to do is read the letters to the editors of various publications to observe this difference of philosphies.

The voices you quote, etudiant, may be moderate in other parts of the world, but here, to my dismay, they are radical views to many people, although your points are well taken.

Look at how Sarah Palin, who many believe may be a presidential contender (shudder), is either loved or hated, by party. Look at our President, who also is either loved or hated, and by party. There may be a similar agenda in the end game of the two parties, but the people are polarized and don't want to work together on this. I have seen hate about this even in my own family. This is not uncommon. But, also, many people don't care.

etudiant · Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:49 pm

Yes, I guess I see you’re point about emotions running high. It just seems odd to me that people do have some pretty strong feelings, but they are all shunted toward just one end of the political spectrum.

“Vilified” is a strong term for someone that is a progressive liberal. Do you have any ideas on how these rightist views have seemed to have come so much to the fore? And to how spectacles like Sarah Palin’s road show can be accepted with a straight face?

johnson1010 · Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:05 pm

a lot of it lands pretty squarely in Fox "news's" front yard.

The majority of people accept authority. That means when Fox "news" brings you a poll like this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/fox-poll-120/

few eye-brows are raised.

People don't pay attention to the news. They don't pay attention to politics. Obviously, you do, if you are reading this message. At least, much more than the average consumer. But you and I are in the minority, wheather conservative or liberal.

As a result a "news" program states opinion, regardless of how hollow and pathetic that opinion may be. And they state that opinion repeatedly. We are talking quantity here folks, with very little quality.

The chances are a person will see that in the break room at Walmart and take note of it, then never think about it again. No fact checking, no follow up to see, "Oh, they were extremely wrong about that." The lies are spoken a thousand times and heard by everyone. The apologies and retractions are printed once, in muted letters at the end of the program.

Damage done. Next thing you know, a complete, raging, moron of a fool might end up as the first woman, but perhaps much more importantly, high-functioning idiot, president of the united states.

etudiant · Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:25 pm

I think one of the saddest aspects of society today is the decline in professional ethics in the news media. Many of these organizations have gone from being bastions of democratic society, to being crass entertainment shows. In the case of FOX, it really goes beyond entertainment to being a blatant outlet for partisan ravings. Edward R Murrow I’m sure is rolling in his grave.

Having nutty or just generally incompetent people in high places is of course not without precedent. But what I see as being different today is how few people seem to latch on, and feel some sort of reasonably informed opinion about it. The First World War was a huge case of murder and mayhem caused by incompetence and foolishness, but at the end people changed. Attitudes towards war shifted enormously after the war. The great depression in the 30s was also in large part the result of goofy political ideas, but at least it generated change. New political parties were formed in Canada, that continue to today, in reaction to the extreme conditions of the depression, and they have been moderately successful in promoting social change.

But today we see performers like Sarah Palin or George Bush taken quite seriously, with few, even journalists, bothering to look very deeply.

bluet · Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:33 pm


	etudiant wrote: Yes, I guess I see you’re point about emotions running high. It just seems odd to me that people do have some pretty strong feelings, but they are all shunted toward just one end of the political spectrum. “Vilified” is a strong term for someone that is a progressive liberal. Do you have any ideas on how these rightist views have seemed to have come so much to the fore? And to how spectacles like Sarah Palin’s road show can be accepted with a straight face?

"Vilified" is a strong term but correct for where I live. I have to be very careful about what I say and to whom I say it. Most people where I live are very, very right wing and get hostile towards liberals. I took my Obama bumpersticker off of my car (as did my daughter for her car) because we had people threatening us on the road.

I truly believe that here in Utah that people really believe what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh say and think of us liberals as the enemy. Socialist is a very bad word to the Republicans/right wing, although I do point out that they use the school system, libraries, road system, medicare, etc., list goes on and on, and these are all socialist systems. And all are good, helpful things. Nobody wants to give these things up, but they don't want to admit that they are socialist as well. So how do you deal with these kind of people? They want no government interference, but they want all these "socialist" programs. It is so frustrating.

As to Sarah Palin, I really don't know how people can accept her as a possible viable politician worthy of President. I am truly mystified. If she were to become President of the United States I will predict that many of us will be asking you, etudient, to house us while we try to become Canadian residents. We hope you have lots of room. I bet that will scare you as much as she scares us as potential candidate!

etudiant · Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:47 pm

We have a spare room in the house. If Palin becomes president, just bring some extra canned food, first-aid supplies, and flashlight batteries.

bluet · Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:59 pm

I will bring lots off books and games as well. It could be fun! Thanks!

johnson1010 · Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:20 pm

in the interest of fostering good political debate with the election so close,

WHAAARGARBLE!!

That ought to get me on cable news for a few rotations.

Forum rules

Politics is a team sport. Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!