« a burning question | Main | everybody knows you're cranky »

politcal limbo

I'm disgusted.

The hatred and moral equivalency I've seen from both sides of the political line is enough to make me sick.

The hard-line right is as bad as the hard-line left. On one side, they say that Bush and America can do nothing right. Even if Bush found a cure for cancer and brought about world peace, they would find some way to taint it or deny it.

On the other side they believe Bush and America can do no wrong. They are blind loyalists who find an excuse for every mistake and a fall guy for every bad action.

I don't even know where I stand anymore. The middle is not a real place, it's just limbo for those of us who waiver. I don't have a side anymore.

Where is the place for someone who is pro-choice, yet pro gun rights? Where is the place for someone who supports the war in Iraq but thinks the war on terrorism is not going well?

There are some sites, some weblogs I can't stand to read anymore because they are just a stream of hateful invective. I Every post is angry, every article is filled with hate.

No one tries to understand the other. No one wants to discuss. No one wants a healthy debate. Everyone just wants to throw mud and start fights. That's the thing that annoys me the most - sites that obviously post material that is specifically designed to start an argument or a controversy. And when the controversy begins, anyone who takes the opposite side is made to feel like a traitor.

Lefties get made at their fellow-lefties for supporting the war. Righties get mad at fellow righties for questioning the president. Neither side wants anyone to have an opinion other than theirs. No one admits mistakes. No one listens. They just yell over eachother and you can hear the hoarseness in their voices even though it's just letters on a screen that you're reading. But you know. You know these people yell when they talk and hold their fingers in their ears when someone tries to argue.

I don't know where to stand anymore. I don't feel like I belong anywhere. It's like being caught in an endless game of Red-Rover, and it's making me feel dizzy and naseous.

The thing is, I don't want to belong anywhere if my only choices are the left or the right. I've been in both places, been in the hard-line area of each group. And let me tell you, one is as ugly and hateful as the other. Zero tolerance on both sides.

I'm tired of being angry at everyone; angry at the people who want to pull our troops out of Iraq, angry at the current administration for not doing enough to protect our homeland. I'm angry at the PC police who want to sanitize everything we do, and I'm just as angry at book burners and the morally righteous.

Is there anyone else in this limbo with me?


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference politcal limbo:

» Left and Right from The Eleven Day Empire
Good article over at A Small Victory; I've written similar things myself here: No one tries to understand the other. [Read More]

» Michele's Confused from The American Mind
Michele writes: No one tries to understand the other. No one wants to discuss. No one wants a healthy debate. [Read More]

» Geting out of the wrong bed dept. from Paranoid Network Intruder Ministries
Michele states: I'm tired of being angry at everyone; angry at the people who want to pull our troops out [Read More]

» 11 Thoughtz from DiVERSiONZ
Lileks style posting this morning as I have many thoughts on weekend events that I am too lazy to categorize, [Read More]

» Roomates In The Afterlife from Silflay Hraka
Assuming there is an afterlife, let's say that the preeminent quality of such an existence is the application of Justice. Why else would Hell exist, save to administer justice in the hereafter for actions taken previously? Not that I believe... [Read More]

» I hate politics from .:/One Little Victory\:.
Michele over at A Small Victory (no relation) has an interesting post on her feeling of political limbo -- basically, that she's sick and tired of the left screeching at the right and the right screeching at the left, and... [Read More]


How about Prof. Reynolds' term, anti-idiotarian?

Works for me.

In a word Michele: Yes!

Where is the place for someone who is pro-choice, yet pro gun rights?

In the voting booth, every election.

I say that to you, and I'm pro-life. But you obviously take your vote very seriously, and those are the people I want voting every chance they get, whether or not I agree with them.

Absolutely, sister. I get frustrated with them both.

There's a book that I read once a year to refresh my memory called "Dealing with People You Can't Stand" about how to communicate with difficult people. In it it says you have 4 options: 1) Do nothing and suffer. 2) Vote with your feet because some situations are not worth resolving. 3) Change your attitude towards the person in order to deal with them better. and 4) Change your behavior in order to make them change theirs. I'm paraphrasing of course, and I highly reccomend that everyone read it, the communication techniques in the book work wonders, especially if you have teenagers.... The thing is, how you deal with other people is ultimately up to you. Good luck! btw, you can get the book fairly cheap on half.com. I've gotten paperback copies for my entire family for as little as 3 bucks + shipping.

No, you're not the only one. I hate polarized politics, especially when the poles make no sense. Why does gay marriage go with weak national defense? Why is the choice between "no abortions ever" and "abortions allowed up to 9 months"? Why is the discourse not about whether Bush is right or wrong in his decision making, but about whether he's telling the truth or lying?

That's exactly how I feel, Michele. There's not one thing in your post that I couldn't have written myself.

Trying to be a calm voice in the middle, with all the constant yelling and screaming from both sides that's par for the course these days, is an extremely frustrating experience. I don't know what the answer is. For the time being, at least I know I'm in good company here in limbo...

While feeling the same frustration,I found an interestiong answer through an intelligent friend of mine(as oxymoronic as that sounds).He told me that I should picture the relationship between the far left and the far right as more of a horseshoe shape.They do almost meet eash other in the middle of their asshattery.Reasonable people ride along the top of the curve.That view kind of helps me a bit.But it is still fun to make jokes about all of them.Humor is still one of the highest forms of creativity,taking two disparate concepts and joining them in a punchline.All I'm saying is that I hope you still pull the yoks out of whatever orifice you choose.And,I mean that.

Michelle, I can't believe you wrote exactly what has been in my mind for some time now!

When asked about what party I belong to, I tell people that I share much of the hopes, dreams and ideals of our founding fathers, so there's no party that represents me.

oh honey mama
as a pro-choice, out gay, democrat, pro-Israel,
not anti-war on Iraq but anti the patriot act and anti bush's reasons for going to war, anti-terrorist and anti palestinian fundamentalist, but pro human rights advocate, anti right wing but totally disgusted with the left wing as of late... i am so with you
it hurts in my very KISHKAS ...

what we need is a new political party called
"the rest of us"
ever after known as TROU..

trou-ocrats... will be able to simply
vote from our hearts and support politicians
who do the same..

what an amazing concept..
dont ya think?

I agree with you in many ways. I really dislike abortion, but I truly believe that there are times (rare times) when it is necessary and fair. It seems I can't be allowed to have that opinion -I either have to go along with near-infanticide (partial birth abortion) or no abortion under any circumstances whatsoever.

I am the wife of a retired military officer. He legally had no political voice (except to vote) until he retired. John is pretty right-wing when it comes to gun rights, national defense, etc., but he is very libertarian when it comes to social issues - neither of us could care less what someone's sexual preference is, as long as they (homosexual or heterosexual) do not prey on children.
I want the country to help those in true need, but I applaud efforts to get people off the welfare spiral and on to their own feet.
Seems like both the Democrats and the Republicans always pander to off their most stringent far out side before elections - during caucuses and primaries. And then we end up with candidates where we have to figure out which is the least offensive.

Great post, as always, Michele!

Amen, hun. Count me in with the ones in limbo for the moment. I've been disgusted with partisanship since I started my blog over, and have shied away from discussing it since the air gets chilled 40 degrees anyway.

On the other hand, I'll have to agree with Kevin McG... the voice is in the vote, and seriously, each one still counts.

You're perfectly normal. Everybody is this way and if they're yelling, well, it's probably for the attention. Just because someone is 35 doesn't mean they act that way. Besides, current politics is about polarization and partisanship. It's the result of 40+ years of PC enforcement as only the loudest and most extreme of ideas gets voiced aloud. The middle is politely told to shut up so the "experts" can be heard.

Yes, your place IS is the polling booth. It's the only way middle america (as in the middle class) will ever get a say in things. And, if you hadn't noticed due to the clamorous screed from both sides, America is still a pretty moderate place. Sure, you have both left and right stongholds (strangleholds depending on who's speaking), but most of our land is a pretty nice place to live and work in. It's a nice balance of social morals and issues from all walks of life and I love it.

A lot of us are right there with you Michele. The solution, I think, is to make our voices heard. The major parties are in the grip of their extremists, because they are the ones who show up when things need to get done. If enough of us "normal" people participated more, that could change. One night at a precinct caucus is worth around a hundred votes for your viewpoint come election time. My view is that we need to get off our butts and get into the process.

I really dislike abortion, but I truly believe that there are times (rare times) when it is necessary and fair. It seems I can't be allowed to have that opinion -I either have to go along with near-infanticide (partial birth abortion) or no abortion under any circumstances whatsoever.

That's how the media like to portray the issue, but the overwhelming majority of people stand quite firmly between those extremes. My wife and I actually have almost identical views on abortion, yet she has long considered herself pro-choice because to her "pro-life" means "no abortions ever, no way no sir nohow."

I think I've shown her that's not true.

Being in the middle, or "waivering" as you put it, at least to me, simply means that you think for yourself and form your own positions, rather than simply blindly subscribing to the canned platform of the right or the left or some political party and defending it without question. Kudos to you for making up your own mind about things.

Run for office, Michele.

At ChicagoBoyz they answered a similar question very recently. (can't recall the link, but I've got them blogrolled on my own blog)

Short answer: You're not going to find a third party which allows you to actually DO anything, other than fulminate and feel self-righteous. (as pleasant as that may be, sometimes)

In my opinion, the only way to change the system is from within. Exterior change has just become impossible, anymore. It would take a major event...a disaster...to make a third party viable. At all.

However, there are groups within the two Parties, who are working for change. In the GOP, there is a group called the Republican Liberty Caucus...essentially, more rational Libertarians, who grew tired of the quixotic Libertarian Party, and are trying to bring the GOP towards a more liberty-centric position.

I've decided that is where I belong, and have just (earlier today, in fact) emailed to find how I can join them.

It may be an appropriate venue for yourself, as well.

Mrs. D.: I would love to, but my past precludes me from wanting to engage in a political race.

If you know what I mean.

Most moderates, centrists, fence sitters etc. have done things in their past that would make them less than qualified to run for office. Most normal people do. It makes you wonder about the people who qualify to be politicians.

Instapundit had a link to this blog, the Centrist, which seems to be encouraging moderates to have more of a political voice.

You are (obviously) not alone.

I tried being a Republican for many, many years, on the "change them from the inside" ideal. Did lots of work for the party, got elected to lots of posts, and had my ideas firmly ignored. I couldn't take it anymore, finally, and left after thirty years.

Pro-gun (I'm firmly in favor of gun-control, which to me means hitting your intended target.) Pro-gay-marriage, and pro-poly-marriage, too, as long as all involved consent (children "attach" to each and every adult in the marriage.) Pro-choice (including partial-birth abortions, but no requirement for them.) Anti-sales-tax. Pro-progressive-income-tax. Pro-freedom-of-religion (including lack thereof; for years I've used "God is dead, long live the State!" as a scarcastic EoM; He's probably not, and the State is definately is not a good substitute.) Would be happy to sign both the DoI and the BoR.

I'm with Heinlein's Prof. Bernardo de la Paz: Rational Anarchist. Make what laws you like; if they happen to be the right thing to do as the circumstances come by, I'll happen to obey them.


Same problem here, Michele. Those skeletons are difficult to keep hidden.

Mary, I had a brief run in with "Centrists" a few years back. Unfortunately, I discovered (much to my horror) that what they call center, I call "fallen off the deep end of the left."

"Centrist" is open to interpretation. I don't know if that group is the same, just be cautious.

probably about six months ago i came to the same conclusion, because both of the "fars" were so out of touch with reality, with MY reality, i wondered what planet they were really on. I don't hear much sense coming from the extremes, or the near-extremes, at all. I just hear "blah blah blah, we're right and you're incorrect". Fuck 'em.

So i stopped really mentioning any sort of politics except the local ones, and started keeping a Crapblog. All other blogs are just subgenres of the almighty Crapblog, anyway. It's all crap, anymore.

There is, nor will there ever be, a place for people who have individual views on separate issues, for no party will ever be formed that will fit more than a few. The best answer in the world would be NO PARTIES...strip them of any determining powers for anything...and then just let people run for offices as they please.

People MUST be weaned from this "tribal clumping habit in any form!

Thing is I can't even figure out if I'm one of the guys who's annoyed you lately. The anti-war people have me so mad, and the Bush-bashing Dems have me so depressed, I just want to start kicking people in the shins at random.

Enh. People. Fuck 'em.

I say we take off, and nuke the entire planet from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

25 comments and no one's referenced "Stuck in the Middle with You" yet?


I don't like extreme ideologies, and I have little stomach for vitriol. What can I say besides "Me too?"

"my past precludes me from wanting to engage in a political race."

C'mon Michele, skeletons didn't seem to hurt Arnold all that much...

Same problem here.
So much so that I started a weblog to attempt to bridge the gap between ideologies.
It's called Chapel Furnace and has members from both sides posting articles and opinions. So far it's been quite civil yet educational.
It's still quite new, and we are always looking for new members.

I've felt like that for a long time--I'll get equally mad at Michael Moore or Ann Coulter if I think they are being narrow in vision and focus, and if they are making generalized statements rooted in malice and not logic.

You know I don't always agree with you, Michele, but I still read your blog because I enjoy seeing your perspective and how you think. I also know that as long as I don't make the same generalizations and errors in logic, that you'll let me spout off, even if you don't always agree with me either.

I've had the experience (here, and elsewhere) where people who don't know me (not you, Michele, but some of your readers) have read what I've said, and assumed that I'm on one side or the other. (The very first time the phrase "bleeding heart liberal" was ever applied to me was here actually. I was very disturbed at the time since I'd been raised a Reagan Republican and despite the fact that I had long since abandoned party politics, I still have this vague aversion to "liberal politics". Funny, isn't it.)

I think that a lot of people feel like this and a lot of people are disaffected with the traditional two party system. The platforms are too narrow, and if you deviate from them in any way, you can't get very much done.

Here's hoping to a groundswell of new politics, where people think for themselves instead of for the party.


As long as our leaders (both political and pundit) think that this is what we want, this is what we'll get.

Public discourse is just that...the discourse of the public.

I won't mince words: you, me, and every other blogger who has ever forsaken a clear argument in favor of invective or snark (i.e.: "Asshat!" or my own favorite, "stupid monkeys!") has contributed to this problem.

It's easy to do. It can be quite satisfying, especially when lots of folks agree with you. And I'm not sure whether it's popular because there's so much of it, or whether there's so much of it because it's popular, but I do believe that one individual solution to the discomfort caused by it is to be mindful of one's own contribution to the problem.

I'm not pointing a specific finger (unless that finger bends back and points at myself as well). But you and I both know where the political Jerry Springer shows are in the blogosphere, and I think it's helpful to admit that, at times, we've envied the attention and the traffic they get, and have sometimes pandered to that crowd.

This could very well be simple, unfortunate, human nature: tribalism. The safety of The Group. Why think too hard when you're surrounded by the social padding of people who think like you, anyway?

But, by god, Standard Media plays into the basest parts of all of us, and if we blogger-types want to be different then--dare I say it--we have a responsibility to be different.


Let's think about this for a minute. You post topics like what women hate about men. If that isn't an example of putting something out there just to be controversial, I don't know what is.

There was also that childish temper tantrum you threw last week over--what was it again? Two women who are supposedly bullying you so much that they never mention you until you send a flaming sack of shit across their bows?

What makes you think that Michele would be annoyed by that?

"If that isn't an example of putting something out there just to be controversial, I don't know what is." - Blogwatcher

What's wrong with throwing something out there just to be controversial?

Well, I ususally drop comments on Hoder.com, Your blog is intersting too... I believe everyone is in the same limbo as your are, and if they dont say it, that's because they dont feel it or they are just happy-go-luckies... But.. what can we do?
There is no "RIGH" or "LEFT", classifing political actions based on right or left is just equvalant to ignoring the nature of action in begining and the result at the end. Many people seen as Lefties are extremely righti (i.e. JFK has been known as a democrate president, but his actions and ambitions are close to Ronald Regean)but anyways... we have been in limbo, we are in limbo and we will be in limbo, because politics is the knowladge of managing YOUR OWN INTERESTS, do not believe that GW Bush is an idiot, he just acts on his circles benefits, and everybody does the same, for the US, it is highly intensified based on being a "Hyper-Super-Power"... everything they do seems as arrogence and being bully.. thats correct, but if anyother country in this world had the same power as US does, they would behave the same... we humans mend to make circles around our own interests, couple-family-bigger-family-neighbourhood-"Church-u-attend"-City-States-Country-alliance etc.. are all the same circles that benefits individuals, sometimes we go to extreme by using "Idologies" against other groups that do not belong to us, and we can be brutal, creul, and criminal against them, for instance, all crimes in WWII againsts Jews happened because they were jews! all crimes now to muslims happen because they are muslims,... same idology had been applying against Nazis, is applying for muslims now, See Bill Maher and his book.."when you ride alone, you ride with Osama " or something like that... The illustrated book, enriced by the pictures of anti-nazi posters back to the war time..has been replaced the pictures of Nazis with Muslims ... so why do you want to find a resolution when Muslims are New Nazis? , on the other hand we will see an increase in number of archiology discoveries, trying to find the root of humans, they claim that there have been many human-like creatures with tha ability of tool-making, communication, languages, applying tools and so on, but among many of them just one "the super-race" has been survived but the battle is still carrying on till the real super race achieves.. exact same kind of arguments that Nazis used to justified their actions but this time in the United states of America to justify their bulliness around the world.. now the SUPER-RACE excellent-eqquipped in arms and weaponaries, trying to purify human genes by claiming that some nations, brown-skinned, muslimic, non-christian nations are the threat to our prosperity, dignity and divinity... i do not see any end to this argument unless bloods of innocent people would OPEN the eyes of my american fellows, like what happened in the streets or Penumpe in Vietnam... the so-called enemy of the free world (communists)at that time.. Turned to be innocent kids and women running away from Orange-Factor chemicals... So why not preventing any other war in Middle East? I wanna answer Mr. Bill Maher claim that "When you travel alone, You ride with Osama" well.. "When You Drive Your SUV for pleasure, You drive another Tank in Streets of Baghadad to make sure a reliable source of gas for your car"..

we will never learn how to get along until the mother of nature

Michele, there's a lot more of us than you think.

One thing I'd recommend (and I'm going to do) if you are Independent, register for the local party that's strongest in your area so you can vote in their primaries. Then vote for the one closest to your views. In fact if you're a Dem moderate in a overwhelmingly Repub area or a Repub moderate in an overwhelmingly Dem area, switch over and vote in the primaries. (You can always vote for your preferred candidate in the general election.)
Also, talk other friends who share your views into voting instead of staying home in disgust. A lot of the 'torn between two parties' sorts like us don't vote and the few who do tend to protest vote.

There's the expression... "I'm bipartisan... I support both Republicans and Libertarians..."

pro-choice, pro-gun rights, pro-liberation... What do we call this? Free Republicans? Heh.

Ironbear: It demonstrates a paucity of intellect. You're saying to the world, "I'm too lazy to research this subject, so I'll throw out a firebomb and see what happens."

To be sure, it's fine every once in a while. Everybody does it. But when that is basically ALL you do, you may as well be Hesiod.

His entire style consists of posting controversial topics merely to get linked. He's an idiot.

I have to say that alot of times we disagree on political viewpoints Michelle but this one is spot on. I'm here with ya dear, stuck in some shitty limbo unable to decide WHERE to go.

Whatever happened to the politicians who were socially liberal but fiscally conservative? I liked those people; I could get along with them.

Rumor has it,Linkmeister,is that Ann Coulter flamed 'em and Michael Moore ate 'em.

Nah, I'm with you. That's why I started voting mostly third party.

Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-evolution, pro-war in Iraq, and Catholic to boot...yeah, I know what you mean.

There is a lot of negativity on both sides. I am pretty right wing and I recognize it.

Blogwatcher: If you'd been watching my blog long enough, you would know what it was all about. Obviously, you haven't been, or you'd know what the "sack of shit" which I threw back at them came from. Since you don't know, you're just revealing that you don't watch blogs very carefully--certainly not mine, anyway.

Ditto the subject of women discussing what annoys them about men, since I've had similar discussions on a variety of topics. The idea is to have fun with it, not be mean and nasty.

By the way, Blogwatcher, do you work for Six Apart, or are you just someone who uses their email address?

TypePad doesn't have that many employees I notice. Shall we try guessing who you are, or should we just ask Ben and Mena why you're making personal attacks toward bloggers who you obviously don't much read but who've worked hard to promote their products?

Nope, don't work for Ben and Mena. Who are they? What's Six Apart? I just chose that address at random. Most comments thread demand an email address. I didn't even know it was a company.

Why, are you trying to find out where I work so you can write a letter to my bosses and complain?

Oh. Michele's one of the cool people who don't make you put in an email address. Thanks, Michele!

P.S., Dean, I saw the links in your comment thread and read back on both sides of the argument. You threw a flaming sack of shit at Meryl and Judith first.

The problem is, when you stomp on a flaming sack of shit, you can put out the flame, but you still wind up splattered with crap.

At the risk of being a dittohead..... can I say "ditto"???

I personally get tired of the righties calling me a damned liberal, and the lefties calling me a ... well never mind what they call me. I prefer the "sensible center", where the world doesn't exist in black and white.

Stop for a minute and have no opinions on anything at all. It's a great break.

Anti-Gun (with reservations), Anti-Choice (with reservations), Pro-Israel (with reservations), Pro-Iraq War, but most of all Pro-Rationality and Pro-Courtesy.

We can differ on matters and still respect each other's willingness to listen as well as speak. People can be on opposite sides of debates and not be Demons vs Saints.

Michele, you're not alone.

shrug I disagree that it demonstrates a paucity of intellect, Blogwatcher. It can demonstrate a low sense of humour - something I'm generally unashamedly guilty of. ;]

Throwing out "forum bombs" can be entertaining... sometimes just to see what reaction they get. They can demonstrate a certain voraciousness in the commenters and linkers who flock to them. There's always something about the scent of blood on the water that does that to people - and politics is a guaranteed explosive topic.

They're also a good way to stir up a lively debate... or a lively brawl. Online'd be awfully boring if no one posted controversial subjects, orprovacative posts.

Note: I'm not even discussing wether Dean does or doesn't toss out discussion bombs on ocassion. I'm considering the subject in general. [And helping to waste Michelle's bandwidth with a tangential discussion. Sorry 'bout that. ;)]

I have an old, old technique for dealing with discussion bombs that dates back to usenet: if I don't find the topic interesting, I move on to another posting. I'm not the "Blog Police", thank gods.

I suggest that anyone who thinks the discussion in question was "inflammatory" go ahead and read the discussion. Most of the comments are thoughtful, intelligent, and/or funny.

Which is the kind of audience I've been spending the last year and a half trying to build. Those who actually read my blog's comments know that I don't allow abusive discussions.

As for you, Blogwatcher: blogs.com is run by a small company called Six Apart, so I figured you were probably someone I knew, and you'd have gotten a personal note.

And by the way Blogwatcher: no, you are still mistaken. If what you "read back" was only what Meryl chose to link, then you only have half the story. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

But hey. Thanks for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and asking them for clarification if something's not clear to you.

Ironbear, I don't disagree that it's fun once in a while. But if a bloggers main tactic is throwing out controversial topics just to get people riled up, it lookslike he doesn't have the brains to write about interesting topics in an interesting manner.

Ok, I read the "discussion" in question back while it was going on and I'm sorry but it was inflammatory. Dean you may think it was thoughtful, intelligent and/or funny. I thought it turned nasty and downright abusive of most people who didn't agree with you. Maybe you should go back and read it again yourself.

Michele, you are so right, there's too much raw bile being spewed by both sides of the political spectrum. Makes it hard to want to associate with either.

Dean, you really have problems with reading comprehension, don't you? I said I read back on BOTH sides of the discussion. Yours and theirs.My conclusion is that you threw a flaming sack of shit at Judith and Meryl,a nd they fired back because of it. I don't need any clarification, and you don't get the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt about the facts.

"Those who actually read my blog's comments know that I don't allow abusive discussions."

What do you call these?

Do you have any idea how pathetic these posts make you look? If you've been working for the past year and a half to get an intellectual following, might I suggest that this is not the way to get one?

On the other hand, your response to me seems pretty typical of your style. Cry that you're being attacked, deliberately misread and misquote what I say, and now I expect you'll start whining about how mean I'm being to you. Wah, wah, wah.

You weren't attacked in my earlier comments. You're not being attacked (much) in this comment. Maybe we'll go at it in a future coment. Maybe I'll put up my real email address, so you can send me a personal letter! Are you going to give me a stern talking-to? I'm all a-quiver.

(At the risk of stepping on Michele's prerogatives...)

Couch Potato, why don't you take this argument with Dean somewhere else?

Hey, I know! Start your own blog! Call it Esmaywatch!

Almost everyone sits at this same crossroads. The rhetoric leaves most of us in to lurch.

But it's not that hard.

Of the two major parties, which one elects and appoints individuals whole stated, public political opinions are at a varience with the parties platform? That right there tells you which party values dogma less.

To put a nail in the coffin I'm trying to build, ask yourself when a pro-life Democrat last took office? And anti-AA Democrat? How about a pro-choice Republican? A pro-AA republican?

See? One party has abandoned itself to its fringes. The other, seems to have started to realise that fringes, ..well, just that, fringes. Pretty on a cowgirl's vest, but ultimately useless. No need to get rid of them, but no need to warp your party around them either.

The party that understands that intelligent people can disagree without evil entering the picture is the one that is easier to give ones alliegence to--particularly considering that you can still hold--and vote--you own opinion without feeling you betrayed 'the Party'.

All that being said, like htom, I, too, have a brass cannon.

The answer is to join the Super Dance Party!

I support are entry into the war to remove saddam. I thought he was the biggest problem in the region. I do not support are institution of democracy in iraq. We defend the rights of other countries to be their own nation and to not allow any other country to force there government upon them, but that is exactly what we are going in iraq. we are forcing our gov't and way of life on them. I stand on the fence in support of our troops in iraq, but against our reasoning for being over there

I don't want to start my own blog, McGeehee, but it appears to be a moot point. I must have scared Dean off.

I guess he only likes beating up on girls, Blogwatcher, and he doesn't know if you are one or not.

Are you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm proud that my country is so polarized this election. We've had three terrorist attacks on US soil (two still unanswered), murdered tens of thousands of innocent people in the process of invading a country that never attacked us, the economy's in trouble, and deficits are huge. Yet people like you waffle on the issues despite the fact that the things you list are perfectly in accord with one of the candidates, John Kerry (authorized the war, pro-guns, pro-choice, AND thinks the war on terror isn't going well). The Democrats did not, after all, nominate Dean or Kucinich (unfortunately).

What did our president say? "you're with us or against us," this is about "good vs. evil".

Though he squandered enough money to do so, Bush did not in fact cure Cancer. Not Malaria, not AIDs. He didn't get us off of oil. He's done nearly the opposite of bringing about "world peace". Let's not get so hypothetical we lose grip on reality.

That being said, may all of you who supported this war be right, at least in the sense of being damned to burn in hell. You have no excuse for blowing the arms off a 12-year old child who had to suffer with 3rd degree burns in hospital for a year before finally dying. But that's what you've done, thousands of times over. And then you have the audacity to complain that people aren't being very nice to you.

Yes, it is ABOUT TIME to get angry.