Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
Before you go further, first read Part One and Part Two. Jason then offered his take on Bi-partisanship. Since this is Sunday, a day of Redemption for most in America, let me show the way for the Three Nazguls of hate Speech: Hartmann, Olbermann, and Scheer.
I do believe in Bi-partisanship; It makes Governments run Locally and Nationally. During the Political season, to the 60% unaffiliated, when both Parties choose a candidate, I offer four things:
For the R candidate: Pros and Cons regarding said candidate; For the D candidate: Pros and Cons regarding said candidate.
Even if you are strongly for your candidate (whatever party), there are reasons people are voting for the other candidate. Unlike the Three Nazguls of Hate Speech, I believe if you care about a candidate, there must be some good in that person. How hard is it to find some good in other Americans?
Since I was a former Liberal Democrat, I know why the other Partisans vote for the other person. Man, wouldn't it be great if the Three Nazguls looked at other Americans who did not vote for their candidate as patriotic rather than stupid. It would go a long way to healing wounds.
On the Policy side, the way of the world is: Help me with my cause, I will help you with yours.
For seven years, Conservatives and Republicans have asked for help from the Left. All we got back were Ad Hominems (used by Hartmann, showing his intellectual vapidity here) and threats of prison and censorship for Republicans and Republican elected officials. As I discussed earlier, a concession by the Left on Iraq ("Democracy trumps Terrorism"), might have opened the door for my open-mindedness on the Conservative side on Global warming. Instead, Ad Hominems.
I did not come to my threats from the last part easily. But the rhetoric, the actions at the LA Book festival, Code Pink, and the actions of a 8 year old kid threatening a president is....radicalizing me.
As a Dem, I believed in Volitaire's words: I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. As a Conservative Republican, I believe in the same thing. When Randi Rhodes was forced off Air America, Sean Hannity defended her right to go back on the air. When Rush Limbaugh was in legal trouble, did Hartmann offer any sympathy or support? No.
In the Valley, in real life, I can be Bi-partisan -- but in the past 7 years, no Democrat has proven that they can be Bi-partisan. I have never said, "I do not love my country as much because of it's leaders," I despised Clinton, but I still respected him when I met him. Why? People voted for him. We have one President at a Time. Simple civility that the Three Nazguls do not push.
Actually, there was one. He was then thrown out of the Democrats for playing the role of Senator Vandenburg.
So, what can the Democrats do, to make up for 7 years of partisanship?
1) The first Democrat (or Nazgul) to say something nice about the Policies of the Current President deserves kudos (and who knows? Votes). The first Nazgul deserves praise. is it that hard to say civil things about a current American president?
2) If Democrats have Policy differences, fine -- but stop trying to criminalize Republicans or their partisans. How does that engender good will? Please explain.
3) You want help on your issues, that requires some give on Conservative and Republican issues. If you can't support domestically, choose foreign policy.
4) Stop trying to censor views contrary to your own (especially Hartmann). Free speech is free speech. There is no "And but..." Speak freely in an opposite views crowd, or the partisanship will grow. And Hartmann has a way of SHOUTING DOWN those he disagrees with -- truly a Nazgul.
5) Be nice to folks who don't agree with your candidate -- it then becomes the other person's job to be nice to you. Not that hard, innit?
Why is Bi-partisanship an issue now? In my book, Messages from the Valley, I am coming to a point of saying one of two things -- I just want everyone's opinion.
Either I can say:
A) Conservatives and Republicans shouldn't hold grudges over the past (look at how we acted in the Election of 1960). However, we should always fight the next candidate in Politics and Policy and use the tactics in the book.
B) Given the actions of the Democrats and their partisans during the Bush presidency, every partisan, candidate and associate must be attacked by both Policy and political means. No quarter, like the Democrats did during the Bush presidency.
A or B? And Why?