|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
October 31, 2004Oliver Willis is the ProblemReacting to a suggestion from John Kerry that he will choose Republicans to serve in his administration if he wins, Oliver Willis says: Have we learned nothing? Bipartisanship is dead. The much beloved John McCain sat silent as Rove & Bush orchestrated the Swift Boat smear, and gave a speech for them right after it. These guys want nothing to do with us, and we should have nothing to do with them. If we win, we make them play by our rules. And if they win, we make 'em hurt. I didn't used to think this way, but then, I was naive before. First of all, I heard nothing from John McCain after the "Swift Boat smear" other than the people making those ads where wrong and that the President of United States should say so and demand the ads be taken off the air. He then proceeded to do the right thing and attempt through a court of law to close the 527 loophole that he intended to close by working for the passage of campaign finance legislation that he created, and the President of the United States signed I might add. You cannot be angry over those who smear John Kerry over his Vietnam record and then accuse someone who served just as bravely from ignoring that smear and doing nothing about it. It is just plain hypocritical. Second of all, if Oliver Willis gets his way the divisions in this country that exist will continue to exist and the Democratic, or the Republican, Party will be worse off because of it. Whoever wins is going to govern a divided country and they cannot do so effectively without reaching out to the other side. I have said over and over that the Bush polarization is over exaggerated, and it is, but there is not a doubt in my mind that if the President wins he has to do a better job in his second term of doing what he did in Texas as Governor by befriending Democratic Lt. Governor Bob Bullock. Oliver is a disappointment. What used to be a pretty good blog from a partisan "new Democrat" has joined the usual ideological, “hate Bush” or “hate Kerry” BS that is prevalent in the blogosphere today… And yes Erasmus, I have no problem with calling the rhetoric on Oliver Willis’s blog hate speech. It is a shame that such a useful tool as a blog is misused by so many. Because of my "new" job I, unlike most Americans, will have no choice. I will support either Bush or Kerry because the winner will be the President of the United States, and to do so will be an honor. However, it is likely that many Republicans will never give Kerry a chance if he is elected, nor will many Democrats give Bush a chance if he is re-elected. A leader would have the vision to see beyond that problem and attempt to reach out to the other party regardless, rather than join all the other hacks in the mud like a bunch of pigs. I commend Kerry for suggesting he would appoint Republicans. It was a very Presidential thing for him to do. Comments
I prefer the old, "naive" Oliver. I note that a number of Oliver's commenters disagree with him. I believe that Kerry is absolutely right, and I which he said this at greater volume, because this is the first time I've heard of it. We're in big trouble, and we need a government of national unity. Bush has not provided it. I will agree with Oliver that I am disapointed in McCain for supporting Bush, seemingly enthusiastically. But from what I've seen, when politicians of the other party accept a cabinet post, they do so in good conscience and do not serve as moles. Posted by: rickheller at October 31, 2004 02:30 PMOliver's comment was childish and seemed to be made out of pique more than anything else. It's not a game, it's the well-being of the country. Moreover, it's pretty "naive" of Oliver to think that a Democratic president elected by a razor thin margin with a Republican Congress will be in any position to make "them" play by "our" rules. Posted by: MWS at October 31, 2004 04:36 PMMathew, That is one weblog not on my reading list, so I really have no idea. But I trust your judgment. I have a real conflict of values when it comes to today's politics. Taking the 'high road', although ethically preferable, tends not to be rewarded by the voters -- all else being even, which it often isn't. Does one play by the defacto rules, or spend time and energy trying to improve behavior? Of couse, one can and probably should do both -- that's the practical answer. One thing that is forbidden in my book: 'the other side did it too' is a completely worthless excuse. Anyone using it should be piled onto immediately! Posted by: Erasmus at October 31, 2004 05:35 PMI'm bi-partisan; I like to treat both candidates with equal contempt. Posted by: Rick DeMent at November 1, 2004 06:49 AMHey Rick D! Please come again. Posted by: bk at November 1, 2004 10:46 AMI always wonder how the environment can be so poisonous when most people I talk to are sickened by this incredible divide. This reminds me that my social circle is not representative because his site is much more popular than mine. Posted by: Angie at November 1, 2004 04:48 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|