McKinley against William Jennings Bryan in 1896 happening again? The destruction of the Democratic party from within is very similar to the split of the parties back then. Dirty politics once gain. As for partisanship, Jefferson and Hamilton come to mind. I think partisanship has not gotten worse, nor did it begin with Reagan or during Reagan's time. Newt probably had a lot to do with that during that time period, but he didn't start it. However, have you forgotten the verbal attacks against Ronald Reagan? It was non-stop and unbelievably cruel. I think what happened is the 'middlemen' dissappeared and there are more far-left and far-right party members now who are unwilling to negotiate and reach a compromise (or deal). Each party spends a huge amount of time denouncing the other party's policies. Yet on the floor they vote for them regardless. I sometimes wonder how Democrats can denounce the Republican policies and yet vote for them. (This happens on both sides) For example, how many Democrats voted for the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, or the FISA Act? How many voted for the Bankruptcy Bill or the Credit Reform Act? And last but not least, how many voted for the Bush Tax Bill? There is so much denouncing going on by both parties and yet the policies are not passed by one party alone.

Look over history. There has never been real civility in politics. Every administration we see it as worse than the administration before. It wasn't that long ago everyone was blaming the Clintons for the partisanship of the 90s.



>>I have not read the book but I would ask if that tonal change has anything to do with the fact that Congress had been in Democratic party control for 40 years and they weren't happy or used to playing 2nd fiddle?
>
>I think, if you look back, you'll find that the nasty behavior mostly _originated_ from the Republican side of the aisle. The Dems certainly learned to play the game fast, but they didn't start it.
>
>Tamar
>
>>>>I'm not just addressing this post to you Mike. If anyone can help me please chime in.
>>>>
>>>>Please explain to me how our view of the utopian "bipartisanship" is reached.
>>>
>>>Last week, I read Andrea Mitchell's book "Talking Back." Among the things she discusses from her 40 years in the media is the change in civility that she saw in Congress in the 90's as part of the Republican Revolution.
>>>
>>>Let me back up and say that having read the book, I do not know her politics. She's married, of course, to Alan Greenspan, and talks about social occasions with a lot of Republicans, including the Cheneys. So the book gave no reason to think the she's of a "Dems good; Republicans bad" frame of mind.
>>>
>>>She talks about how prior to that time, there was a moderate group in both houses that helped get things down in a bi-partisan way. After that, the middle group disappeared (defeated or chose to leave), leaving us with the gridlock system we have now.
>>>
>>>Tamar