Has it ever been this bad politically?

[RBS]

Has it? I'm talking about the splintering of the country along "liberal"/"conservative" lines.

Has political infighting ever been this bad, ugly and divisive?

What do you think?

I think it's as bad as I've ever seen.

[jesus marion joseph]

Although I can't say I "remember" it, at least as far as comprehending what was actually going on, the Watergate era was probably the closest in contemporary times in terms of political polarization. Of course, from what I read, the Civil War and Reconstruction era was even worse.

[Jazzmoose]

Speaking as a history buff, I'd say it's been like this quite often. The period right after the country was born with the Alien and Sedition Acts being used to browbeat and even jail political opponents wasn't exactly all fun and games.

On the other hand, in the past, the fighting actually seemed to be about policy or important issues. Today "Republican" and "Democrat" seem to have become just a way telling who's on what side, and the issues really don't seem to matter. The important thing is winning and beating the "other side".

[Tanager]

I'm regrettably ignorant about much of US History, but what about the McCarthy era or the height of the Civil Rights struggle?

[Uli]

Originally posted by Jazzmoose


On the other hand, in the past, the fighting actually seemed to be about policy or important issues. Today "Republican" and "Democrat" seem to have become just a way telling who's on what side, and the issues really don't seem to matter. The important thing is winning and beating the "other side".

While I agree in general with that, I feel that the division this admin has created is very much about issues.
imho opinion it's not as much whether one agrees or not with Irak but how they went about it both as regards to our allies and how they fooled the American people.

[cookie]

This is a thread I have wanted to start for a long time, but I didn't know how to frame the title, question, etc. Thank you RBS.

All I can say is that I am increasingly frustrated with the current administration and with the tone of recent polical rhetoric. I do my best to stay informed. I vote. I pay my taxes. Yet, I am more and more infuriated with each passing month---lately passing days. I'm sick of the lies and the spin. I'm sick of the rah-rah and hoo-hah.

I'm sure it's been bad before, but this time period's no plum either.

[RainyDay]

The '60s and early '70s: The War, the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech movement on college campuses. Assassinations: JFK, Malcolm X, Medger Evers, Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman, the 16th St. Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that killed four little girls, RFK, Kent State and Jackson State. There was SNCC, SDS, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Brown Berets, Gray Panthers, the women's movement...Everything was happening.

I remember waiting for a bus every morning in the late '60s with the same mild mannered folks until one morning a huge fight broke out over Viet Nam. This WWII vet was anti war and this old woman was a Goldwater Republican. When the vet got through with her, she hiked two blocks out of her way to avoid us in the morning.

The Cold War was happening and I suppose a lot folks were afraid of Soviet nukes, but honest to goodness, I never was.

Every guy I knew was either on his to or back from Viet Nam. When I got to college, the guys were all hoping to keep their deferments.

Every night Walter Cronkite gave the body count of US military lost in the war. There would be film of bodies being loaded onto helicopters.

Spiro Agnew was forced to resign as VP and then Watergate. The bombing of Cambodia, the mining of harbors.

It was way worse but what was different was that the government seemed to be working. Now, it seems to have completely broken down. Ultimately Nixon was forced to resign. Today, the GOP feels they have evened the score by impeaching Clinton behind a blow job. These bandits in Washington today only care about lining their pockets and forcing us to conform to some twisted standard of morality.

During Viet Nam, there was little fear that the Chinese would blow us up. Now we have to worry about Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, vegan terrorists, militia terrorists. The world feels more dangerous to me and out of control.

Maybe because I don't feel the promise of a better day as I did 30-40 years ago. I really believe the US is dying.

[Monte Smith]

While I am sometimes shocked at the vitriol that is poured out on our country and its government by the fraudulent peaceniks, it isn’t particularly excessive by historical standards.

To take the first example that springs to mind, the great Abe Lincoln had his frothy detractors:

“God damn your God damned old hellfired God damned soul to hell. God damn you and God damn your damned family's God damned hellfired God damned soul to hell and good damnation. God damn them and God damn your God damned friends to hell.”
-Peter Muggins expressing his opinion of the President in a letter to him
Who knew the Al Franken school of satire had a precursor? (No pun)

“His mind works in the right directions but seldom works clearly and cleanly. His bread is of unbolted flour, and much straw, too, mixes in the bran, and sometimes gravel stones. “
-Henry Ward Beecher, on Abraham Lincoln
Can’t say I really understand that one

“Filthy story teller, despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, swindler, tyrant, field-butcher, land-pirate.”
-Harpers magazine, on Abraham Lincoln
Hey, you forgot illegitimate

“An offensive exhibition of boorishness and vulgarity.”
-General McCellan, on Abraham Lincoln
Of course, he was running against Lincoln on the Democrat ticket

But of course, the Lincoln haters didn’t stop with insult. John Wilkes Booth shot and killed him, after asserting: “Our country owes all its troubles to him, and God simply made me an instrument of his punishment.”
Sounds like Gore Vidal

[Ron Thorne]

Monte, with all due respect, perhaps you should heed your own advice before you type the words "fraudulent peaceniks" again.

I well remember air raid drills when I was in grade school (late 40's-early 50's) scurrying under my desk, and hearing a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the McCarthy hearings. I was scared. I well remember the Vietnam era, Watergate, Kent State, The Cuban Missile Crisis and everything else between then and now. I was scared and pissed.

Having said that, I can't remember another time during my life when there was more divisiveness, not only Nationally but Internationally. I also can't remember another time when I was more embarassed to know that I'm being represented by a president who only cares about his own agenda, damn the worldwide opinion or consequences of his actions.

So, how do you feel about fraudulent war mongers, Monte?

Or, for that matter, fraudulent presidential elections?

[SinginSumo]

Are we to infer that Monte Smith is now somehow trying to favorably compare the times, policies and/or overall presidencies of George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln's?

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by SinginSumo
Are we to infer that Monte Smith is now somehow trying to favorably compare the times, policies and/or overall presidencies of George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln's?

You are to infer that I am answering RBS's question, which is a good one.

[SinginSumo]

Too bad that the quality of your answer falls so short of RBS' question...

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by SinginSumo
Too bad that the quality of your answer falls so short of RBS' question...

I have only my poor self to blame, Fatty Tuna.

Originally posted by SinginSumo
Are we to infer that Monte Smith is now somehow trying to favorably compare the times, policies and/or overall presidencies of George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln's?

Are we to also infer that once again our good friend Stumpy has absolutely nothing to say pertaining to the actual subject of the thread, but comes up with a little bit o nothing anyway, by going after someone else's opinion?

[SinginSumo]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Are we to also infer that once again our good friend Stumpy has absolutely nothing to say pertaining to the actual subject of the thread, but comes up with a little bit o nothing anyway, by going after someone else's opinion?

If I have "nothing to say" then why are you taking your valuable time by responding? Monte Smith declined to answer my question except by trying to insult me by calling me a name that only reveals his insularity and ignorance. Mr. Dolan, would YOU favorably compare the times, policies and/or overall presidencies of George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln's?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris A
Or, for that matter, fraudulent presidential elections?

Yeah, I remember how Al Gore was really pushing to have *every* vote counted. Well, every vote that might have been interpreted as a possible Gore vote, or maybe a mistaken Buchanan vote, from samples of selected counties, anyway. (Not that I think Bush's strategy was based on true vote counts, either.) The sad truth is that neither Bush nor Gore really deserved to win Florida, let alone the general election. Shame on the rigid party machinery that won't allow anyone to challenge an incumbent.

BTW, I heard today that there is a former Republican bigwig in New Hampshire who is trying to get a Republican challenger to run against Bush for the nomination in '04. Too bad it won't go anywhere.

OK, rant over. You may resume with the topic at hand (I feel better now).

[steve(thelil)]

If Bush had gotten every damned vote I would still consider his claim to the Presidency to be fraudulent in many meaningful ways.

[jeff54]

Hey, you forgot illegitimate

Lincoln was illegitimate?

[Captain Hate]

Although in the past the political atmosphere has been pretty damn vitriolic, I don't know if there's ever been a time when either side has been completely unwilling to admit that the other side, as ill-considered as they may find them to be, honestly believe that their policies will benefit the most people. When that is gone, any chance for a rational discussion is lost.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by steve(thelil)
If Bush had gotten every damned vote I would still consider his claim to the Presidency to be fraudulent in many meaningful ways.

Profound. Deep. But what does it mean?

[graypencil]

Like Ron, I too remember the late 40s air raid drills, the atom bomb
scare in the 50s, and the McCarthy and HUAC inquisitions looking
for Communists ( gasp!) undr every goddam carpet.

I also recall the Cuban Missile crisis ( that WAS truly scary) and the entire
Vietnam mistake, the Kent State and other ugly killings of Americans
by Amreicans on their own soil. I remember the ugliness and assisnations
that came along with the civil rights struggle.

and yeah, I remember Watergate and Tricky Dick finally getting
what was comiong to him. ( I also watched history being partially
re-written while attempts to clean up his historical image
were going on in the 90s )

But:

I don't think I've ever seen a time where the ENTIRE crew
in the executive branch ( regardless of their alleged legitimate
right to be in office) was as venal, dangerous , and utterly
disinterested in cooperating with the rest of the world
on so many important matters. I don't recall even in the McCarthy
era our basic civil rights being endangered as they are now.

And most of all ..I can't for the life of me understand why so
many people of the conservative persuasion can't see
whats being done to all of us and our relationship with the rest of the world.

next batter up ...

Mr. Dolan, would YOU favorably compare the times, policies and/or overall presidencies of George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln's?

Well, I have to be perfectly honest here and admit that I didn't keep up with the Lincoln admin as much as I should have. Besides, I was a hardcore liberal back then. When he first started talking about freeing the slaves and such, I thought he was really onto something(and am grateful that he followed through), BUT I was really busy at the time and wasn't able to keep up with much of his other shenanigans. Not to mention the fact that my newspaper boy at the time had quite a nasty streak to him and always threw my paper in the hog waller making it almost completely unreadable.

Having said that, I believe you may be reading a wee bit too deeply into what Monte was getting at. Maybe the tongue-in-cheek thing just isn't compatible with your style.

Of course, your line of questioning is quite an about face from the 'historical perspective' attitude that dominated another thread not too long ago.

What was that about those of us who didn't live through those times not having a right to have an opinion about them?.........................................

[Monte Smith]

Burr v. Hamilton was rancorous.

Just to make Chris swooooooooooooooon.................

[Salvador Dali Lama]

fuckers

[SinginSumo]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Well, I have to be perfectly honest here and admit that I didn't keep up with the Lincoln admin as much as I should have. Besides, I was a hardcore liberal back then. When he first started talking about freeing the slaves and such, I thought he was really onto something(and am grateful that he followed through), BUT I was really busy at the time and wasn't able to keep up with much of his other shenanigans. Not to mention the fact that my newspaper boy at the time had quite a nasty streak to him and always threw my paper in the hog waller making it almost completely unreadable.

Having said that, I believe you may be reading a wee bit too deeply into what Monte was getting at. Maybe the tongue-in-cheek thing just isn't compatible with your style.

Of course, your line of questioning is quite an about face from the 'historical perspective' attitude that dominated another thread not too long ago.

What was that about those of us who didn't live through those times not having a right to have an opinion about them?.........................................

So you are saying that judging a 19th century's president with a pop singer whose popularity peaked from about 1965 to 1970 are similar to compare?

So you are saying that you really don't know enough about Abraham Lincoln to be able to compare his presidency to that of George W. Bush?

[BFrank]

1965 - 1975 was pretty divisive.

Having said that, maybe the question should be: "Has it ever been this GOOD politically?"

Originally posted by SinginSumo
So you are saying that judging a 19th century's president with a pop singer whose popularity peaked from about 1965 to 1970 are similar to compare?

So you are saying that you really don't know enough about Abraham Lincoln to be able to compare his presidency to that of George W. Bush?

To answer your first question, I guess I have to say that I really don't understand the question. You seem to be leap frogging your many trains of thought.

As for your second question, yes, thats what I'm saying. I did not live through those times and can only go by what history books tell me. Who wrote the history books, Sumo? Is history completely unbiased? Lets say that the 'right wing conspiracy' takes control. What will history books say about Bush 100 years from now? Would they be completely accurate and fair? Did George Washington really chop down that cherry tree?

C'mon.

And by the way, you are still completely missing Monte's point to begin with. And as usual you are turning this into something it never was.

[Jazzmoose]

Okay, RBS; unless you've written all of these posts under a multitude of other names, I guess you may be right. It is worse today...