I agree, back and forth political stuff is in full swing. It would be fun to talk substantive issues.
What is more substantive than deciding who will be President this November? Given the remarkable differences between the two candidates and the policies and philosophies they represent, I can think of few subjects more worthy of discussion.
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, with the talk radio culture that was started in the early 90s and now adopted by all sides, you can't have a substantial debate about the issues without making personal insults, at least on a national level. Everyone's guilty of this.
Not really... read the whole thing and you'll see that Will makes the point that what Bush believes today is what he has to be consistent on... Bush can't comprehend that he once opposed a Homeland Security Department... He now takes credit for it and wishes he had done it sooner. If it's wrong or if he has to reverse course, he's not wrong and he hasn't reversed course... his perception of reality is constant. That was the best piece by Will I've ever read. One of the marks of a good columnist is being able to say what people are thinking in a coherent manner. As I read that piece, I was thinking "Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking when I heard the PC, I just couldn't verbalize it in such a logical way." That column is an example of damn fine writing.
Vote them out. I think there's a way to have discourse without it turning into what this D&D has. My mom got infected with Limbaugh-itis (patent-pending) in the 1990s, and we had some knock-down drag-out fights regarding politics. It was ugly. But we stepped back and realized that it's just not worth it. Now, we can have a political discussion without calling liberals a disgrace or conservatives Nazis. It's nice, and we've managed to help each other see the other's point of view. Kinda like the old adage, "think locally", that's what you have to hope for here. Cause it ain't happening on a bigger level. People have made sure of that.
