Doug --

Jay,

>No problem. I understand that my example was pretty strong. It's just that a lot of prople are quite cavalier about the notion of allowing one's subjective 'take' to be the final arbiter of 'truth' and that's just plain nonsense.

And I share that concern. The messages that we hear, particularly from advertising, suggest that we are isolated individuals who must satisfy their ever increasing desires for material wealth.

That overlooks the values that we have been brought up in, and the ways in which we come to find, as responsible adults that we have to live through and choose values in ourselves, our spirit, neighborhood, community and nation.


>You bet. I was deliberately looking for a 'stark' example. However, depending on one's moral code, I dare say that many people are far closer to him than they would like to admit. Imagine Alec Baldwin, for example, who suggested that Republicans should be shot, and so stating. Where's the outrage over that for example?

I cringed when I heard reports of that quote from Alec. But I think a lot of people feel that is offensive. They trust that others' experience that too. And, you know, I find it difficult enough managing my own life to find the added responsibility of vocalizing every feeling about everyone else's behavior <g>

And, we hear it out of context -- although it's hard to imagine any public context where that's appropriate. I probably have said as outrageous a thing, but in the company of my friends who know me, and would laugh because of the absurdity of the statement which was the bottom line intent of my speaking.<s>

>
>>At some point there are generally accepted rules. From everything I can see Mr. Gore has been far more willing to bend those rules to the point of breaking them. If someone is philosophically aligned with any given position there is a huge temptation of 'wink' at violations. I have seen this with the Gore camp consistently over the last 7 1/2 years whereas I have not seen this with the Bush camp over the last few months. I have seen this with those in the Republican Party I'd think of as the Country Club Republicans and I have seen what I think is mis-thinking on the part of the Christian Coalition (loosely so called) and I say that as a Christian myself.
>

As an American, the area of political fund raising is deeply troubling. Again, I think both parties are pretty much the same. The Dems have probably skirted the law, Repubs have a lot of obligation to their corporate supporters -- and I think both areas really detract from the will of the people expressed through voting.

>However, I am not willing to agree that because one has strong views that this automatically precludes them from being objective.

I never asked for your assent on this.

>...Are you a flaming liberal?

It depends on what your definition of "flaming" is! (Big Self Deprecating Grin)

>Fine with me as long as you are honest with yourself about it and with me as well. I will disagree with you over many issue to be sure <g> but that's ok since I know where you stand.

>My issue with many (not all) of today's liberal Democrats is that they are willing to promulgate lies to get what they want, which at the end of the day, seems to be nothing more than a grasp for power. Do Republicans do this as well? Sure, many of them do. However, it seems to me that generally the Republicans at least acknowledge the need for a more Federalist approcah to governance. Not as many as I would like mind you <g> but more than the liberals.

Doug -- I really don't think that you need to say that Republicans are morally superior to Democrats in order to be a Republican. I think that people should feel free to be a Republican because you: like them, endorse their policies, etc.


>>My biggest gripe with the column is that it is fear-based -- by focusing on personality he leads one to imagine that our politics is personality-based. In fact it is based in law -- and I could quote many of his articles in the past where he would affirm just that.

>*chuckle*

>I find this amusing... Do you remember the Democrats (including the redoubtable AlGore) scaring old folks in 1996 with the refrain, "They're coming to take the children!" or some sort of bilge like that. It was a representative in the House...

Fear is well known as one of the most powerful galvanizing factor to bring group solidarity. That being the case, it's a natural tool for politicians, and sometimes appropriate. However, I'd have to say that many cases of fearmongering lead to really lousy public policy so I tend to investigate that motive pretty carefully. I am equally suspicious of George Will and Al Gore doing that.

>>Well, the manual recount is a legally mandated process open to either party which is designed for close elections -- which this is. I, too, fear endless legal challenges. I understand that Republicans are exploring challenges and recounts in other states. In fact, when George Bush took a 9 vote lead in New Mexico, the Republicans requested and received an order impounding ballots in a variety of jurisdictions -- which left several hundred votes still uncounted and impounded. Saw in today's paper that Gore offered the following: no new balloting, a manual recount of the entire state of Florida, and he would accept the results for the State. Sounds like a way to wrap things up to me.

>No, the manual recount is not "legally mandated". A recount is legally mandated, not necessarily a manual one. Two have already taken place. Bush came out ahead. The Dems don't like the results so they press for more.

Poor choice of words. What I meant to say that is that a manual recount is available by Florida state law...

>Jay, I couldn't agree more! I very much appreciate your passion for youe positions. I have learned from you and I would hope you could say the same.

Agreed. I think discussions like this also help us understand one another as human beings, and citizens sharing one body politic.

>Now... As long as 'W' wins we'll be ok. < BG >

Well, we'll soon see! But, don't hold your breath <g>