No gloating, no whining

[skeptical]

Ok, so I'm happy about the election results for many reasons, not the least of which is that I think we now have someone in the WH that will truly at least attempt to be bi-partisan.

I hope that the Dems have learned a thing or two from the last 8 years about what happens when one party tries to run roughshod over the other. I hope that Obama will govern from the "center left". Progressive, but not radical.

In any case, without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, he will have to work on building coalitions, which is probably a good thing. If you can't convince even a handful of the opposing party to vote for something there's a problem.

But the gist of this thread, the title, is that those of us who voted Dem should not rub it in the faces of those who did not. And those who did not vote for Obama, should try not to be bitter. As Obama said, we have a lot of work to do and he will try to be everyone's President, whether you voted for him or not.

To be sure, there is a significant number of people who will never be happy with him no matter what, and they are entitled to their opinion. For the rest of us on the left, center and center-right, let's try to move beyond the divisiveness of the past and into the future. Not to put too much hyperbole on it, but this is a historic moment for America. A chance for us to finally try to heal our continuing racial and cultural divisions. To get out of the "red state/blue state" mentality and into a new era.

We can, and we must. There is too much that needs to be done.

[applecorped]

But the gist of this thread, the title, is that those of us who voted Dem should not rub it in the faces of those who did not.

Too late. :(

[Upchurch]

There will always be :rule10's on each side. The right thing to do is to chastise them, especially those on one's own side, and start working together as a single nation. We're a freakin' mess right now and there is lots to sort out.

[Tricky]

Too late. :(
You weren't here four years ago. Believe me, it was just as bad in the other direction.

[ImaginalDisc]

You weren't here four years ago. Believe me, it was just as bad in the other direction.

I think it was far worse. I think the tone of those who voted for Obama here is "Yeay!" whereas the tone from those who voted for Bush in '04 was "Ha-ha!"

My Democrat bias may be showing.

[applecorped]

You weren't here four years ago. Believe me, it was just as bad in the other direction.

I'm not surprised. Hopefully it will get better. :o I know my behavior was becoming an issue in this forum so I bowed out until the election was over. I'm trying to be more diplomatic and willing to address and work through differences. Life's too short. :)

[Tricky]

I think it was far worse. I think the tone of those who voted for Obama here is "Yeay!" whereas the tone from those who voted for Bush in '04 was "Ha-ha!"

My Democrat bias may be showing.
Actually, you're right, but I'm biased too. I remember exactly two posters who were polite to the losers. There were no "bridge building" threads like we've seen here. Actually, this gives me hope that Americans are starting to reject hateful rhetoric.

[geni]

I think you are missing a very important point. The show is over so the question becomes when is the next election in a significant democracy?

[quarky]

What, no revenge?

(no fun. we need one day of red-neck butt-kicking)

[RandFan]

I find this thread interesting to say the least and very ironic given the partisanship of the thread starter.

Bush was hated from day 1. I don't know if it was deserved or appropriate. Certainly Bush gave plenty of reason for many to justify their contempt of him post hoc. However many reveled in their resentment for Bush from the beginning. That didn't go very far to engender comity.

So now Obama has won and anyone who starts out disliking and distrusting Obama is guilty of partisanship.

I voted for and campaigned for Obama. Yesterday I made calls on his behalf. I can only hope for the best in the coming years. I sincerely hope for partisanship and healing of wounds that are the result of Bush and his administration. That said I find this thread cynical and unbelievable. Partisanship is a two way street. Finding only the worst in others and constantly harping on only the worst and then asking those who you only see the worst in to not act in kind is silly and dishonest.

[Upchurch]

So now Obama has won and anyone who starts out disliking and distrusting Obama is guilty of partisanship.
Part of that ire also goes to BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128117). It's not just those who dislike Obama.

[RandFan]

Part of that ire also goes to BenBurch (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128117). It's not just those who dislike Obama.I just read that and was coming here to post a quote.

A nice cup of coffee. Wake up. Smell it. Have a few sips.

Then ask yourself why almost every demographic in this country, including white males, rejected your party about as soundly as it is possible to imagine?Never mind the fallacy it's truly disgusting.

Obama quoted Lincoln last night. "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."

It's one of my favorite quotes.

[slingblade]

What, no revenge?

(no fun. we need one day of red-neck butt-kicking)

Why on earth would you want to kick my butt?

[RandFan]

Having calmed down I'm tempted to edit my above post but I think that would be dishonest at this point. I'd like to say that I welcome all those who want bi-partisanship and sincerly hope that it can be achieved.

It's a new day and it should not be started on the wrong foot of acrimony.

I appologize.

I'm on skeptigirl's ignore list so if anyone would be so kind as to quote this to let her know that I am sincere in my desire that we can bury past ill feelings and start anew.

There will be some very difficult times ahead but let's enjoy this moment in the intended spirit of both McCain's and Obama's speech.

[pgwenthold]

I hope that the Dems have learned a thing or two from the last 8 years about what happens when one party tries to run roughshod over the other.

And I hope the republicans have learned something from this election. The country wants change, and so they have to be willing to participate in making that change happen.

I would love to see real cooperation to advance the country. However, as I have said in other threads, the day I see McCain compromise on Iraq is when I know he is serious about doing it.

[Amapola]

Having calmed down I'm tempted to edit my above post but I think that would be dishonest at this point. I'd like to say that I welcome all those who want bi-partisanship and sincerly hope that it can be achieved.

It's a new day and it should not be started on the wrong foot of acrimony.

I appologize.

I'm on skeptigirl's ignore list so if anyone would be so kind as to quote this to let her know that I am sincere in my desire that we can bury past ill feelings and start anew.

There will be some very difficult times ahead but let's enjoy this moment in the intended spirit of both McCain's and Obama's speech.

I agree. And both speeches were very impressive, McCain's gracious and Obama's really inspiring.

I really thought it was cool Obama quoted Lincoln. He's said he will reach out to everyone and I do believe he will work on it.

And we need that. This country has become far too polarized. I'd love to see some bridge-building going on.

[applecorped]

I'd love to see some bridge-building going on.

Just as long as this bridge goes somewhere! ;)

[skeptical]

I find this thread interesting to say the least and very ironic given the partisanship of the thread starter.

I will admit I have my biases, but I really don't think I could be called "partisan". At least I strive not to be even if I don't always succeed.


Bush was hated from day 1. I don't know if it was deserved or appropriate. Certainly Bush gave plenty of reason for many to justify their contempt of him post hoc. However many reveled in their resentment for Bush from the beginning. That didn't go very far to engender comity.

Bush jumped the shark for me around 2004, I would not go so far as to say I hate him but I do think his policies have been terrible, and the people he posted in positions of power examples of cronyism at its very worst.


So now Obama has won and anyone who starts out disliking and distrusting Obama is guilty of partisanship.

I don't believe I said that, or anything close to it, but maybe you were referring to others comments. A healthy distrust can be a good thing, I really hope Obama leads from the center and tries to win over those who currently distrust him. I hope he delivers in a bi-partisan way.


I voted for and campaigned for Obama. Yesterday I made calls on his behalf. I can only hope for the best in the coming years. I sincerely hope for partisanship and healing of wounds that are the result of Bush and his administration. That said I find this thread cynical and unbelievable. Partisanship is a two way street. Finding only the worst in others and constantly harping on only the worst and then asking those who you only see the worst in to not act in kind is silly and dishonest.

If you are referring to me, I really think you have me confused with someone else. I do not recall ever "finding only the worst in others" or "constantly harping on only the worst". I honestly don't. If you can point me to anything I have said to the contrary I will be accepting of my chastisement. And while I might be silly at times, I really try not to be dishonest. This thread is not an attempt to be either. Really.

[skeptical]

Having calmed down I'm tempted to edit my above post but I think that would be dishonest at this point. I'd like to say that I welcome all those who want bi-partisanship and sincerly hope that it can be achieved.

It's a new day and it should not be started on the wrong foot of acrimony.

I appologize.

I'm on skeptigirl's ignore list so if anyone would be so kind as to quote this to let her know that I am sincere in my desire that we can bury past ill feelings and start anew.

Ah, I see. I think you confused me with Skeptigirl. I understand your first post now.

Speaking for myself only, I agree. Perhaps we can all start anew.


There will be some very difficult times ahead but let's enjoy this moment in the intended spirit of both McCain's and Obama's speech.

Yes, I thought McCain was very gracious, and Obama sincere in his statement he would "your President too" for those who did not support him.

[RandFan]

If you are referring to me, I really think you have me confused with someone else.

:rolleyes: DOH!!!!!

"Skeptical" NOT "Skeptigirl".

I'm being an idiot dude.

To quote the eloquent and incomperable Miss Emily Leticia, "Never mind"

[RandFan]

Ah, I see. I think you confused me with Skeptigirl. I understand your first post now.

Speaking for myself only, I agree. Perhaps we can all start anew.

Yes, I thought McCain was very gracious, and Obama sincere in his statement he would "your President too" for those who did not support him.:)

[ZenFountain]

I see promising signs of bipartisanship, whether the Republicans particularly want to or not. Last night the last Republican congressman left in New England was booted out in another purging of moderate Republicans due to George Bush's unpopularity. With a commanding lead in the house Democrats won't need much bipartisan support but in the senate, I expect we'll see at least seven Republican senators that are open to bipartisanship in the interest of moving past the poison politics of late.

Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Richard Lugar
Arlen Specter
George Voinovich
Norm Coleman (if he holds on)
Gordon Brown (looks like he'll hold on)

It will be interesting to see how Obama holds this together.

[chipmunk stew]

I see promising signs of bipartisanship, whether the Republicans particularly want to or not. Last night the last Republican congressman left in New England was booted out in another purging of moderate Republicans due to George Bush's unpopularity. With a commanding lead in the house Democrats won't need much bipartisan support but in the senate, I expect we'll see at least seven Republican senators that are open to bipartisanship in the interest of moving past the poison politics of late.

Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Richard Lugar
Arlen Specter
George Voinovich
Norm Coleman (if he holds on)
Gordon Brown (looks like he'll hold on)

It will be interesting to see how Obama holds this together.
Possibly also Kay Bailey Hutchison (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/democratic-senate-victori_n_140959.html) to some degree:
"The people have spoken. We hear the people and now it's time to come behind our president," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, told "The Early Show" on CBS on Wednesday. "The Senate is going to have to work things out in a bipartisan way, and I think the test is going to be right there."

[HawaiiBigSis]

I hope that McCain meant what he said in his concession speech about working with the new president and the rest of the country to improve the future. It is a goal worthy of achievement.

[Grizzly Bear]

I just read that and was coming here to post a quote.

Never mind the fallacy it's truly disgusting.

Obama quoted Lincoln last night. "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."

It's one of my favorite quotes.

I said this before, I'm very pessimistic about Obama's policies, I'm not happy of the results but I accept that Obama's won by a landslide. It's disgusting to have people rub their crap in my face, and equally disgusting to have people in my own party do the same to other people. So I have every respect for people I disagree with who actually respect my opinions and those same people deserve the same in return.

Either way... I'm angry, but not enough to take it out on people.... at this point bickering about the results hardly changes opinions, and does absolutely nothing to change the results. I'll hope that whatever fears I have about his policies will be proven wrong in the next 4 years...

[skeptical]

Either way... I'm angry, but not enough to take it out on people.... at this point bickering about the results hardly changes opinions, and does absolutely nothing to change the results. I'll hope that whatever fears I have about his policies will be proven wrong in the next 4 years...

If you could pick one or two policy changes that would help quell your fears, what would it be? I have my own ideas about what he will have to change to build consensus in the Senate but I'm curious about where other people's heads are.

[ProbeX]

Skeptical, you have the right idea. Thanks for starting this thread. I'm a Centrist (supported Obama) and think we could be traveling quickly to interesting places inside a handbasket if we don't find a way to have the best minds in both parties roll up their sleeves and get to work, in the spirit of cooperation.

[quarky]

Why on earth would you want to kick my butt?

I don't really. It was a bad joke, and actually I'm feeling the whole healing and bridging thing. Liberals can't kick redneck butt. Its part of the thermodynamics of politics. Plus, they have guns.

[seayakin]

I have high hopes for more real bipartisanship. I remember Bush saying this in 2000 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html) but if you talk to people like Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords, I think you find something completely different. There was nothing bipartisan about the Bush (monkey ears not the intelligent one) years. (I was also thinking if McCain had been president for the last 8 years, I think the country might be far different also.)

However, I saw Bill Bennett commenting last night and he seemed to have a very sound analysis. He seems to believe Obama will lead from the center left and not from the far left as people like Rush Limbaugh will argue. Frankly, if Obama doesn't do this, he will probably be out in 4 years and the republicans could have a counter sweep in Congress. As skeptical indicated, I really hope the democrats pay attention to the Republicans 6 years and realize Americans don't want a strong swing to the left or right.

Enough rambling, I look forward to the future.

[often mrunderstood]

The election was stolen and thousands of voter's were disenfranchised. Diebold machines were hacked and road blocks were set up in affluent neighborhoods. Finally the Dems learned how to steal an election. "That one" will never be my President. Did I get that right?

j/k Congrats to Obama. Now the world loves us again.

[Grizzly Bear]

If you could pick one or two policy changes that would help quell your fears, what would it be? I have my own ideas about what he will have to change to build consensus in the Senate but I'm curious about where other people's heads are.

The two rulings I've held the least regard for during the Bush term are the patriot act, and the reform of imminent domain made a few years back. If he makes any steps toward those, and proves in his executive practices to be more centrist than I project he'll be, then I might sway depending on the success he holds. He's got 4 years to convince me :)

[dudalb]

The election was stolen and thousands of voter's were disenfranchised. Diebold machines were hacked and road blocks were set up in affluent neighborhoods. Finally the Dems learned how to steal an election. "That one" will never be my President. Did I get that right?

j/k Congrats to Obama. Now the world loves us again.


If it is an attempt at satire, it's not very good.
If meant seriously, you are nuts.

[Amapola]

If it is an attempt at satire, it's not very good.
If meant seriously, you are nuts.

Dude. "JK" means "Just Kidding".

And *I* thought it was funny. ;)

[Elizabeth I]

Liberals can't kick redneck butt. Its part of the thermodynamics of politics. Plus, they have guns.

[sarah palin] You betcha! [/sarah palin]

[Tricky]

Dude. "JK" means "Just Kidding".
Here we go to all the trouble of providing a large assortment of smilies, and they still prefer to speak in primative grunts and snorts.:p

And *I* thought it was funny. ;)
Yep. Not bad for a n00b.

[Dr Adequate]

There must be some people over whom I can legitimately gloat.

Rush Limbaugh, for example. I bet if I met him I'd be all like: "Ha! You know how lame you are? Really lame, that's how lame."

Would that be OK?

[kallsop]

Ok, so I'm happy about the election results for many reasons, not the least of which is that I think we now have someone in the WH that will truly at least attempt to be bi-partisan.
...
In any case, without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, he will have to work on building coalitions, which is probably a good thing. If you can't convince even a handful of the opposing party to vote for something there's a problem.



Harry Reid has already said that there are a couple of moderate republicans to bribe convince and he can get any legislation through the Senate. Maybe they will try to get Lieberman back on their team too, or they will keep him in "Iraq war support" toxic isolation. I hope Obama does understand that 55,000,000 people didn't vote for him but Harry Reid is a partisan hack and we'll see how this works in practice.

Obama starts with a clean slate as far as I am concerned. Obama seems pretty sharp politically and he knows the 2010 elections will swing back republican if the Congress approval number stays in the dumps below 10%. The "blame President Bush" excuse that got Obama here is done and he has to actually deliver on his promises now.

This article hits some good points:

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html)

Obama deserves a fairer shake than Bush got.

[Grizzly Bear]

There must be some people over whom I can legitimately gloat.

Rush Limbaugh, for example. I bet if I met him I'd be all like: "Ha! You know how lame you are? Really lame, that's how lame."

Would that be OK?

I said I wouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh after the whole fiasco he tried to pull off on Clinton, but I ended up listening to him again... That kinda sums up his radio shows today :)

[Tricky]

The two rulings I've held the least regard for during the Bush term are the patriot act, and the reform of imminent domain made a few years back. If he makes any steps toward those, and proves in his executive practices to be more centrist than I project he'll be, then I might sway depending on the success he holds. He's got 4 years to convince me :)

I believe you, Griz. I appreciate the way you've posted during the run-up to the election. You are partisan, as am I, but you don't stoop to mudslinging. I think you may possibly be looking for Obama's mistakes more than his successes in the coming days (as partisans like myself tend to do) but I think you'll be willing to evaluate them a lot more fairly than some McCain supporters. I'm proud to have you as my adversary and fellow American.

Bomb-throwers (metaphorically) are important to the political process. En garde, and let the honest arguments begin... erm... in January.

[jj]

Face it, four years ago it was "hah! you can't stop us, we own the country".

There was no grace, no wish to collaborate, and that's part of why they are where they are now.

And now what are they doing at the bitter end, giving lots and lots of money to banks who don't need it, who are handing it out to senior management who didn't earn it.

[often mrunderstood]

Here we go to all the trouble of providing a large assortment of smilies, and they still prefer to speak in primative grunts and snorts.:p
TP ruined smilies. Although, primative would not be far off the mark.

I tend to offend those who take themselves a little too seriously. Would an internet apology make dudalb feel better? They are free and always sincere. ;)

[Meadmaker]

I think the candidates themselves set a great tone on election night. Both McCain and Obama had great speeches.

I also truly liked the way several Republican commentators had obvious pride in their voices talking about the election of a black man as President. They didn't want Obama as President, but they could recognize it for what it was, a symbol of how far we have come as a country, in a relatively short period of time. They still believed in America as the land where anything could happen, even including the election of a black man with an Arabic name as President of the United States.

But, I happened to catch Limbaugh and Hannity for a few minutes each on the radio, and they were as abrasive as ever. Uggh. I also caught a few minutes of Rachel Maddow, who I normally really like, but there was just a little bit too much gloating for my taste one day after the election.

[Daylight]

But, I happened to catch Limbaugh and Hannity for a few minutes each on the radio, and they were as abrasive as ever. Uggh. I also caught a few minutes of Rachel Maddow, who I normally really like, but there was just a little bit too much gloating for my taste one day after the election.

The funny part is Limbaugh and Hannity don't realize it's the abrasiveness and hate that caused the Republicans to lose. I'll cut Rachel Maddow some slack for the hell the "anti-American terrorist loving commie liberals" were put through. But that day is over now too and its time to work towards the future.

[RandFan]

I think the candidates themselves set a great tone on election night. Both McCain and Obama had great speeches.

I also truly liked the way several Republican commentators had obvious pride in their voices talking about the election of a black man as President. They didn't want Obama as President, but they could recognize it for what it was, a symbol of how far we have come as a country, in a relatively short period of time. They still believed in America as the land where anything could happen, even including the election of a black man with an Arabic name as President of the United States.

But, I happened to catch Limbaugh and Hannity for a few minutes each on the radio, and they were as abrasive as ever. Uggh. I also caught a few minutes of Rachel Maddow, who I normally really like, but there was just a little bit too much gloating for my taste one day after the election.Great post. I'm a big fan of Maddow and I agree. I thought it beneath her.

[RandFan]

There must be some people over whom I can legitimately gloat.

Rush Limbaugh, for example. I bet if I met him I'd be all like: "Ha! You know how lame you are? Really lame, that's how lame."

Would that be OK?:) It would be ok and would be just fine with me but I've no doubt the corpulant jerk would get a big smug smile. Let's be honest, he believes that the fact that he is consistently the highest rated national radio host for over a decade is proof that he is right. Your opinion to him? Meh~

[skeptical]

The two rulings I've held the least regard for during the Bush term are the patriot act, and the reform of imminent domain made a few years back. If he makes any steps toward those, and proves in his executive practices to be more centrist than I project he'll be, then I might sway depending on the success he holds. He's got 4 years to convince me :)

I actually agree with both of your points. Unfortunately, I am not confident that both of those will be rolled back. Actually, the second is not really something that a sitting President will be able to affect much. The imminent domain is really a state and local issue now that it has been decided by SCOTUS. i.e. The land is mostly controlled by the states vs being controlled by the Feds. An Obama appointee could help alter the decision assuming a similar case was brought, but it would be highly unusual for SCOTUS to overturn a precedent so quickly.

On the Patriot act, I do have some hope that at least some of its provisions will be rolled back. Since this is an issue of personal privacy rights, it would typically be the more "liberal" side of the ledger that would be against it. But, we shall see.

I am pretty sure he will be more centrist that many believe. Even with majority's in both houses, he does not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so will have to be able to swing at least 5-6 Republicans his way. I think this is a good thing as I have said.

I really do hope he leads from the center left in a bipartisan way.

[trvlr2]

[QUOTE=kallsop;4180695]Harry Reid has already said that there are a couple of moderate republicans to bribe convince and he can get any legislation through the Senate. Maybe they will try to get Lieberman back on their team too, or they will keep him in "Iraq war support" toxic isolation. I hope Obama does understand that 55,000,000 people didn't vote for him but Harry Reid is a partisan hack and we'll see how this works in practice.

Obama starts with a clean slate as far as I am concerned. Obama seems pretty sharp politically and he knows the 2010 elections will swing back republican if the Congress approval number stays in the dumps below 10%. The "blame President Bush" excuse that got Obama here is done and he has to actually deliver on his promises now.

This article hits some good points:

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html)




Not if he nominates people as qualified as Harriet Meyers...

[skeptical]

But, I happened to catch Limbaugh and Hannity for a few minutes each on the radio, and they were as abrasive as ever. Uggh. I also caught a few minutes of Rachel Maddow, who I normally really like, but there was just a little bit too much gloating for my taste one day after the election.

I cannot listen to Limbaugh. I've tried, I just can't. Its too much inanity. Hannity I can take in small doses on TV, but only small ones. Maddow runs hot and cold for me, she is a little to sugary sweet with her interviews for me, but that's just a personal pref. I can understand a little gloating for the first few days or a week, I hope it dies down after that.

Limbaugh, Hannity, et al I am quite sure will keep on for the next 4 years no matter what happens. As Thatcher once said: "if I walked on water, my critics would reply 'Thatcher can't swim!'". (or something like that)

[Wolfman]

There must be some people over whom I can legitimately gloat.

Rush Limbaugh, for example. I bet if I met him I'd be all like: "Ha! You know how lame you are? Really lame, that's how lame."

Would that be OK?
...well, that was bleedin' obvious...

[Meadmaker]

Great post. I'm a big fan of Maddow and I agree. I thought it beneath her.


Thank you.

It will be interesting to see how the overtly liberal media reacts to the change in the Powers That Be. Will John Stewart be as funny now that Obama is President elect? Will Air America be able to take being on the defensive, as Obama proposes legislation that doesn't take the country by storm? We shall see.

If I recall correctly, I think you once said that you, like me, once actually liked Rush Limbaugh. When he first started, he was the outsider ridiculing the absurdities of the Democratic Party, and political leftists who, in the era that gave us the term "politically correct" got most of the attention. He was actually quite good at ridiculing people, and many of the left were, at that time, easy targets. More recently, the right has been in charge, and their excesses have provided comedians and satirists with lots of cheap material. Will Stephanie Miller and Rachel Maddow still be entertaining when the President and Congress are their allies? Time will tell.

[RandFan]

If I recall correctly, I think you once said that you, like me, once actually liked Rush Limbaugh. When he first started, he was the outsider ridiculing the absurdities of the Democratic Party, and political leftists who, in the era that gave us the term "politically correct" got most of the attention. He was actually quite good at ridiculing people, and many of the left were, at that time, easy targets. More recently, the right has been in charge, and their excesses have provided comedians and satirists with lots of cheap material. Will Stephanie Miller and Rachel Maddow still be entertaining when the President and Congress are their allies? Time will tell. I used to be such a talk show junkie. Wow. BTW, I've called and spoken with Stephanie Miller 3 times when she was on KFI 640 AM (http://forums.randi.org/KFI 640 AM). There was a time when Rush didn't buy his own act. He was really funny. He was outrageous but not as much as he is now. I listen to him once or twice a month. I don't usually listen to the whole show. His argument and logic is so poor I just can't take it.

[shuize]

I also truly liked the way several Republican commentators had obvious pride in their voices talking about the election of a black man as President. They didn't want Obama as President, but they could recognize it for what it was, a symbol of how far we have come as a country, in a relatively short period of time. They still believed in America as the land where anything could happen, even including the election of a black man with an Arabic name as President of the United States.


This is exactly the tone I would like to take as well.

I did not vote for him and I won't try and climb on the "I always supported Obama" bandwagon. However, as the first black president, I wish him well.

I also hope he lives up to his bipartisan themes and moves to govern from the center.

[quarky]

I'm pretty excited about the 'first puppy'.

I kind of hope its a mix; possibly rescued from a shelter.
That would rock my liberal soul.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Having calmed down I'm tempted to edit my above post but I think that would be dishonest at this point. I'd like to say that I welcome all those who want bi-partisanship and sincerly hope that it can be achieved.

It's a new day and it should not be started on the wrong foot of acrimony.

I appologize.

I'm on skeptigirl's ignore list so if anyone would be so kind as to quote this to let her know that I am sincere in my desire that we can bury past ill feelings and start anew.

There will be some very difficult times ahead but let's enjoy this moment in the intended spirit of both McCain's and Obama's speech.I accept your apology even if it was based on another of your false assumptions about me and take you off my ignore list. However, I don't have high hopes I am making a wise decision and I can't say I won't just turn you off again. (Or who knows, maybe you'll put me on ignore next time. ;) )

Even while you say you want to leave past feelings behind, you aren't taking the time to consider those feelings might be based on false assumptions.

Liberals and conservatives have different underlying values, but that doesn't mean facts are not involved in opinions and conclusions. For example, saying people condemned Bush before the problems were evident in his presidency ignores any facts some of us did know about him before he was elected. The Young Republicans Bush was aligned with go back to the Nixon era. And Bush as governor of Texas did nothing to stop the execution of over a hundred people who according to very good statistics on the % of wrongful convictions certainly included innocent men.

OTOH, trying to frame Obama as a socialist is not supported with facts. It is merely campaign framing. We have socialist police and fire departments no one is complaining about. Liberal is not synonymous with anti-capitalism. Sharing the wealth is not re-distributing the wealth. These frames of liberal policies are lies. The Texas executions are facts. The actions of the Young Republicans are documented.

And while we could spend pages arguing about the conclusions I drew from what I knew about Bush and the Neoconservative movement he was a part of, I think it is safe to say, history proved my conclusions were in no way baseless. I would love to see a thread started on the basis for framing liberals as communist/socialists. That is if it could keep to actual supporting evidence. I have a lot of specifics I could cite regarding the Young Republicans and the specific complaints I had with their policies and plans. And, like I said, the conclusions I drew were reinforced over the last 8 years, not discredited.

I haven't seen anything on the part of Obama so far that indicates he is the radical the Republicans tried to paint him as in the campaign.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If we are going to have an era of cooperation, these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist) are going to have to give up:[Grover] Norquist, along with Bill Kristol, Ralph E. Reed, Jr., Clint Bolick, and David McIntosh, is one of the so-called "Gang of Five" identified in Nina Easton's 2000 book by that name, which gives a history of leaders of the modern conservative movement. He has been described as "a thumb-in-the-eye radical rightist" (The Nation), and "Tom Paine crossed with Lee Atwater plus just a soupçon of Madame Defarge" (P.J. O'Rourke). Norquist's page on the web site of Americans for Tax Reform includes a laudatory quote about him from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Indeed, Norquist co-authored the 1994 Contract with America.

In 1999, he was instrumental in securing early support for then Texas Governor George W. Bush, continuing a decades-long association with Karl Rove ("The Wall Street Journal's John Fund dubbed him "the Grand Central Station" of conservatism and told The Nation: "It's not disputable" that Norquist was the key to the Bush campaign's surprising level of support from movement conservatives in 2000").[6] After Bush's election to the White House in 2000, Norquist was the prime architect behind the many Bush tax-cuts ("Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan").[7]After hearing a Heritage Foundation conference on Sarah Palin and the Conservative Women's Movement on CSPAN this morning, it sure doesn't look like that is going to happen. You can replay the event from this link.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev110708a.cfm

You can put it on a tiny screen at the bottom of your screen and watch it as you do other things. It shows a pretty insane point of view from people who don't think anything like I do. I don't know how you reach a consensus with people who think like this.

For those of you wanting a summary it is essentially an hour filled with straw man arguments about all the things we liberals supposedly disliked about Palin and conservative women. They then go on to praise Palin's communication skills because after all, anyone can learn the details later, the President's job is to lead and communicate the values and moral direction of the country.

[RandFan]

I accept your apology even if it was based on another of your false assumptions about me and take you off my ignore list. However, I don't have high hopes I am making a wise decision and I can't say I won't just turn you off again. (Or who knows, maybe you'll put me on ignore next time. ;) )

Even while you say you want to leave past feelings behind, you aren't taking the time to consider those feelings might be based on false assumptions. I'm glad. Sincerly. I don't know how the future will be but a fresh start is always a good thing. I don't think it helps to assume that past feelings are based on anything in particular. Let's just move forward.

And, like I said, the conclusions I drew were reinforced over the last 8 years, not discredited. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate on how correct your analysis of Bush was. I think it would be appropriate to be skeptical of your reinforcement. Those whose conclusions that Sylvia Browne is a psychic allways have their conclusions reinforced.

The skeptics among us know that we should be wary of confirmation bias. That was the gift of those old dead Greek philosophers.

BTW: I have convinced my mother-in-law that I can predict the order of who will be "made safe" on dancing with the stars with some kind of premonition. The fact that I'm always right reinforces her conclusions.

That's the whole point. It's human nature to find reinforcement for our beliefs. Ego is a powerful thing. We should be skeptical of it.

That said. I look forward to future discussions and it will be my intention to focus on the argument and not the person making the argument.

Thanks,

RandFan :)

[creativecritter41]

Harry Reid has already said that there are a couple of moderate republicans to bribe convince and he can get any legislation through the Senate. Maybe they will try to get Lieberman back on their team too, or they will keep him in "Iraq war support" toxic isolation. I hope Obama does understand that 55,000,000 people didn't vote for him but Harry Reid is a partisan hack and we'll see how this works in practice.

Obama starts with a clean slate as far as I am concerned. Obama seems pretty sharp politically and he knows the 2010 elections will swing back republican if the Congress approval number stays in the dumps below 10%. The "blame President Bush" excuse that got Obama here is done and he has to actually deliver on his promises now.

This article hits some good points:

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html)

Obama deserves a fairer shake than Bush got.

Good article, thanks. I really hope that doesn't happen to Obama because this country needs fixing and I don't care who does it... just DO IT!

[ImaginalDisc]

Harry Reid has already said that there are a couple of moderate republicans to bribe convince and he can get any legislation through the Senate. Maybe they will try to get Lieberman back on their team too, or they will keep him in "Iraq war support" toxic isolation. I hope Obama does understand that 55,000,000 people didn't vote for him but Harry Reid is a partisan hack and we'll see how this works in practice.

Obama starts with a clean slate as far as I am concerned. Obama seems pretty sharp politically and he knows the 2010 elections will swing back republican if the Congress approval number stays in the dumps below 10%. The "blame President Bush" excuse that got Obama here is done and he has to actually deliver on his promises now.

This article hits some good points:

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html)

Obama deserves a fairer shake than Bush got.

I can't believe you inflicted that article on other people.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Wonderful accomplishments, such as failing to capture Osama bin Ladin, starting an unwinnable war with a country that wasn't involved in 9/11, torturing people, suspending civil liberties, and pretending he has unlimited executive power.

I *********** dare you, I double dog dare, you to name an extraordinarly good thing that creature has done.

No, blaming people won't solve the problems we face, but let's not be Sarah Palin about our problems and forget that the causes of our problems shape our solutions.

[jj]

Actually, you're right, but I'm biased too. I remember exactly two posters who were polite to the losers. There were no "bridge building" threads like we've seen here. Actually, this gives me hope that Americans are starting to reject hateful rhetoric.

That's for sure. It was more like "the revolution came, and you were on the wrong side, hahahahahahaha now you're in trouble".

I don't see nearly as much of that this time.

[Darth Rotor]

I hope that McCain meant what he said in his concession speech about working with the new president and the rest of the country to improve the future. It is a goal worthy of achievement.
So he's back to being the real John McCain, who is an American first and foremost. Nice to see him back.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I can't believe you inflicted that article on other people.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

Why do you hate Democrats?

I *********** dare you, I double dog dare, you to name an extraordinarly good thing that creature has done.
Something I consider very important (not sure what you deem as "extraordinarily good" in terms of metrics):

over the term of his office, and unnoticed by so many domestically focused Americans, he revitalized and strengthened our strategic ties to India, politically and militarily, which in the long game is critical to the balance of power in both South Asia and East Asia.

One of the nicest things I ever saw him do was tag team with Ted Kennedy on the much maligned "No Child Left Behind" program that, had he not gone to war in Iraq, might have seen a bit more empahsis, for all its internal flaws. Since it didn't pay off in the short term, it's not extraordinary.

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

Why do you hate Democrats?


I hate that moron. Unlike some people I won't pretend someone in my politcal party isn't a dribbling idiot just because they share some ideology with me.

Something I consider very important (not sure what you deem as "extraordinarily good" in terms of metrics):

over the term of his office, and unnoticed by so many domestically focused Americans, he revitalized and strengthened our strategic ties to India, politically and militarily, which in the long game is critical to the balance of power in both South Asia and East Asia.

Actually, I'm entirely ignorant of Bush's diplomatic relationship with India. I'd enjoy being educated.

One of the nicest things I ever saw him do was tag team with Ted Kennedy on the much maligned "No Child Left Behind" program that, had he not gone to war in Iraq, might have seen a bit more empahsis, for all its internal flaws. Since it didn't pay off in the short term, it's not extraordinary.

DR

I work in education (As a clerk. Nothing fancy while I finish school.) No Child Left Behind is a disaster. It's lead to inappropriate testing (No, you can't use a norm referenced test for grade equivilence. Stop asking.) I worked in the testing department here from 2000 until summer '08. The average 4th grader here spends 10% of their school year taking standardized tests to evalutate their progress, rather than learning. (To be fair, 4th grade, like 10th grade, is a particularly test heavy year.) I've seen nuanced curricula turn into relentless test preperation where any material not on the tests is discarded. It forces standards to be low, since it rewards progress as compared year-by-year and it entirely ignores gifted, ESOL, and special needs students since they're not part of the core student body NCLB primarily targets. It's even turned into an unfunded mandate where states, districts, and schools are legally required to comply with regulations they lack to resources to comply with. As Ted Kennedey, whom you just mentioned, said "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."

Schools are also required to hand over all contact information they have for their students to military recruiters. If a sober minded adult wants to join the military, well and good. I can applaud the courage and conviction that takes. However, there's pretty strict U.N. regulations against child soldiers (which the U.S. refused to sign, but that's a seperate issue,) and many parents object to that sort of heavy handed recruiting.

Obviously, I'm not particularly pleased with NCLB. It's stupid in concept, incompetent in execution, and worse than the problems it tried to solve.

[normdoering]

You weren't here four years ago. Believe me, it was just as bad in the other direction.

I think you can still find the evidence of that online:
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/index_old.shtml

My blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I don't think it helps to assume that past feelings are based on anything in particular. Let's just move forward.Moving forward, you made the comment Bush was hated from day 1. I don't know if it was deserved or appropriate. Certainly Bush gave plenty of reason for many to justify their contempt of him post hoc. However many reveled in their resentment for Bush from the beginning. That didn't go very far to engender comity.My reply to this is, some of us knew a lot about Bush before he was elected as President. "Day one" is relative.

I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate on how correct your analysis of Bush was. I think it would be appropriate to be skeptical of your reinforcement. Those whose conclusions that Sylvia Browne is a psychic allways have their conclusions reinforced.

The skeptics among us know that we should be wary of confirmation bias. That was the gift of those old dead Greek philosophers.Is this a Bush apology or just a refusal to acknowledge Bush's term in office has been a national nightmare?

...That's the whole point. It's human nature to find reinforcement for our beliefs. Ego is a powerful thing. We should be skeptical of it. ....

Thanks,

RandFan :)I am aware of confirmation bias. Are you suggesting actual confirmation in this case is not what we see?

Iraq War
Patriot Act
Gitmo
Katrina
Official policy sanctioning torture
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
An apology for "not explaining things better", no apology for anything else

No, Rand, that is not confirmation bias, that is confirmation my original conclusions about Bush were valid.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm for bridge building with the Republicans who are currently rational. How should we respond to those who are not?

Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia9-2008nov09,0,800478.story)

Hannity, Limbaugh promote myth of an "Obama recession" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200811120011)

Fox News Blames Obama For Stock Market Fall (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/07/fox-obama-market/)

John McCain Blames Obama for the Tone of His Own Campaign (http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=29870)

[DavidJames]

No, Rand, that is not confirmation bias, that is confirmation my original conclusions about Bush were valid.Good luck and keep fighting the good fight. I'm done with condescending uber skeptics.

[RandFan]

Is this a Bush apology or just a refusal to acknowledge Bush's term in office has been a national nightmare? I've been quite critical of Bush since Katrina. That said, I think there is very good reason for us to be skeptical of our own bias at this juncture. It's tempting to see everything that has transpired in the last 8 years only in it's worst possible light.

I am aware of confirmation bias. Are you suggesting actual confirmation in this case is not what we see? I'm suggesting that we need to be skeptical of that confirmation and not take anything for granted.

No, Rand, that is not confirmation bias, that is confirmation my original conclusions about Bush were valid.Then I would be rather skeptical of your understanding of confirmation bias. I apologize and with all due respect but you demonstrate the problem. You are arguing post hoc. It seems like such a simple concept but one only need look at the world today to see that such apparent simplicity is but an illusion. Our adrenalin glands are too big and our frontal lobes are too small. We just can't seem to get it. It's been more than 2000 years and we still fall back on our intuitions even when the ancient Greeks explained why we needed to be more rigorous.

You can guess at anything and every-time you are right it will be proof that your guess was based on your careful analysis. Every single time it will prove that your conclusions before for the guess were right. It could be anything. I could guess that air pressure and temperature will cause a tossed penny to land heads up. And if it does then it proves that I am right. That's the way post hoc works. This is how Sylvia Browne and John Edwards prove that their guesses aren't simply guesses. When the guess matches up with the result it is proof. Just like you. You didn't just guess because you are right. Being right is proof that you didn't just guess. I could beat this horse into the ground but I kinda doubt any amount of explanation will have any effect. You know, like Sylvia knows, that you are right. Your post hoc analysis proves it.

Thanks.

[RandFan]

I'm for bridge building with the Republicans who are currently rational. How should we respond to those who are not?

Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia9-2008nov09,0,800478.story)

Hannity, Limbaugh promote myth of an "Obama recession" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200811120011)

Fox News Blames Obama For Stock Market Fall (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/07/fox-obama-market/)

John McCain Blames Obama for the Tone of His Own Campaign (http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=29870)

With reason.
We should realize that Republicans are humans and are not inherently different from Democrats.
We should recognize the danger of tribalism.
We should not treat Republicans as members of the out-group.
Sadly, given human nature, I don't have much hope for this but I haven't given up proselytizing.

[ImaginalDisc]

I've been quite critical of Bush since Katrina. That said, I think there is very good reason for us to be skeptical of our own bias at this juncture. It's tempting to see everything that has transpired in the last 8 years only in it's worst possible light.

I'm suggesting that we need to be skeptical of that confirmation and not take anything for granted.

Then I would be rather skeptical of your understanding of confirmation bias. I apologize and with all due respect but you demonstrate the problem. You are arguing post hoc. It seems like such a simple concept but one only need look at the world today to see that such apparent simplicity is but an illusion. Our adrenalin glands are too big and our frontal lobes are too small. We just can't seem to get it. It's been more than 2000 years and we still fall back on our intuitions even when the ancient Greeks explained why we needed to be more rigorous.

You can guess at anything and every-time you are right it will be proof that your guess was based on your careful analysis. Every single time it will prove that your conclusions before for the guess were right. It could be anything. I could guess that air pressure and temperature will cause a tossed penny to land heads up. And if it does then it proves that I am right. That's the way post hoc works. This is how Sylvia Browne and John Edwards prove that their guesses aren't simply guesses. When the guess matches up with the result it is proof. Just like you. You didn't just guess because you are right. Being right is proof that you didn't just guess. I could beat this horse into the ground but I kinda doubt any amount of explanation will have any effect. You know, like Sylvia knows, that you are right. Your post hoc analysis proves it.

Thanks.

So, people who have been right about Bush all along are less reasonable than people who ignored Bush's record of failure in business and as Governor?

[RandFan]

So, people who have been right about Bush all along are less reasonable than people who ignored Bush's record of failure in business and as Governor??

I don't hold that postion. I don't advocate it. How does such a conclusion follow from anything that I've said?

[RandFan]

Let me be clear. Bush was, by and large a failure.

If we accept the premise that a legitimate metric of a president's effectiveness is to inspire confidence in his or her administration, and I do, then Bush was a failure.

If we assume that a legitimate metric of a president's effectiveness is the *state of the economy, and I do, then Bush was a failure.

If we assume that a legitimate metric of a president's effectiveness is the state of relationships with allies and foes, and I do, then Bush was a failure.

If we assume that a legitimate metric of a president's effectiveness is the politicization or lack thereof of science, and I do, then Bush was a failure.

Those that believed that Bush would be a failure were correct. The question becomes, was the fact that Bush failed proof that the belief that Bush would fail founded on something more than bias?

*I think the degree of indebtedness needs to be further taken into account. That Bush et al has generated such a large national debt and continuing deficits while at the same time the economy is in the tank is particularly damning. Regan at least gave us a growing economy.

ETA: Not meant to be an exhaustive list.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand what you are saying RF, but you may be confusing my underlying values with my overlying conclusions.

I view the execution of innocent people, all the travesties of the Iraq war, the corrupt use of political power to benefit one's cronies, the perversion of the Constitution such as Gitmo and the misuse of the Justice Dept exemplify as overwhelmingly bad. Anything Bush did right is so paled by these acts that Bush's positives if there are any are meaningless to me. That is my values bias, not my skeptical bias as you are suggesting.

[RandFan]

I understand what you are saying RF, but you may be confusing my underlying values with my overlying conclusions.

I view the execution of innocent people, all the travesties of the Iraq war, the corrupt use of political power to benefit one's cronies, the perversion of the Constitution such as Gitmo and the misuse of the Justice Dept exemplify as overwhelmingly bad. Anything Bush did right is so paled by these acts that Bush's positives if there are any are meaningless to me. That is my values bias, not my skeptical bias as you are suggesting.I've no problem with that.