>>>>>I wish there was some way we as a country could get past all this polarization. Call me naive but I genuinely had hope that Obama would bring people with different positions closer together. After six months in office it is already clear we are still as polarized, if not more so, as we were through the Clinton and Bush years. People don't just disagree any more. Now it has gone way past that into demonization and cries that the other side is leading us on a path to hell.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike, have you read Beck's book? (or any of his books)?
>>>>>
>>>>>What was it about Obama that brought you hope that people with different positions would come "closer together"?
>>>>
>>>>He didn't just say (repeatedly) that he wanted to do exactly that. We both know politicians say a lot of things on the campaign trail. It impressed me more when he put several Republicans in key roles in his administration.
>>>>
>>>>At least you addressed my main point (the first line was a throwaway joke with a smiley at the end of it). That's more than can be said for Tracy and John. "Never lets the facts stand in his way" -- what I said was clearly opinion. And non-partisan opinion at that. It sort of demonstrates my point that I took potshots the minute I opened my mouth.
>>>
>>>Please separate the two posts. There is a clear difference between my posts and John's. Also, if you read your post, it is anything but 'non-partisan.' My point was that you stated an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about. Read your message. You judged the book without knowing anything about it all. You haven't read it but you wrote it off as a partisan book. That was my only comment. Nothing more, nothing less. What is your complaint with that?????? Was that too harsh? You included a paragraph about wanting more non-partisanship in this country et al and yet you toss the value of a book out based on your perception of the author. That is partisan behavior.
>>>
>>>In regards to Democrats and Republicans working together, this admistration has gone further than the previous one in keeping the other party out of discussions and committees and decisions. Working totally alone without Republicans on bills extremely important to this country and then posting the entire package online making it available only a couple of hours before voting cannot be erased by a couple of token Republicans put in key roles.
>>>
>>>All that information is available online and it has been posted here as well so it surprises me that you are uninformed about it.
>>
>>The non-partisan part of my message I was referring to was the main part of it, lamenting that we are so polarized as a country. I did not point fingers at either the left or the right.
>>
>>Again, I did not "toss the value" of the Beck book. All I said was I bet (exact words) it comes from the right, based on what I have read about him. It may be a very good book, especially for those who like that slant on things.
>
>Your first statement was calling the book 'right' and your very next statement rants about polarization. The link between the two was implied in the structure of your message and targeted both the author of the book and the author of the message from my read.

OK, I can see why you took it that way, then. But it really was not meant that way.