« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Divided States of America
At what point did the divide between Republican and Democrat transform
into a version of the split between Sunni and Shia? When did we become
Red States and Blue States, instead of the United States? It didn't
happen overnight, but the divide is growing, and unless checked,
violence is the certain outcome. The country used to come together
after an election, but the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a watershed
moment. Republicans remembered how Nixon was forced to leave office
over official misconduct and murky allegations of corruption, and they
expected when Clinton was caught committing perjury and obstructing
justice, as well as being implicated in at least 3 cases of sexual
assault, he would face the same fate. Democrats however rallied around
Clinton, after earlier assuring that if guilty he would have to go.
Republicans felt a double standard was in effect, Democrats felt
Clinton was being persecuted for a minor offense, and tensions grew.
Then came the election of 2000, where the Gore campaign refused to
accept defeat, leading supporters of both sides to face off in street
demonstrations. The split has intensified with each passing year. Our
right to express our views or even express our support for a candidate
is being met with intimidation. A recent search on 'Bush/Cheney
campaign signs' resulted in numerous stories about yard signs being
stolen or destroyed, and cars and homes vandalized. Now it is common
for someone to be verbally attacked (as opposed to debated) if they
express a different view on an issue. In some cases the attacks are
becoming physical. Where will it end? Is it possible for either Obama or
McCain to put an end to this? I don't know, but if it continues the
eventual outcome is certain and grim. It is fine to attack ideas, to debate policies, and even to attack politicians (who mostly deserve the respect they get), but we must stop attacking each other. As Lincoln said "A house divide
against itself cannot stand", or as the philosopher Rodney King once
said, "Can't we all just get along?"
Comments (26)
Wonderful post. By your framing I assume you are in the independent/republican spectrum, and thats okay. I am glad the "other side" sees the mounting danger.
We must break out of this impasse.
And yes, we can.
July 6, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am in the republican/libertarian camp. I am not as hopeful as you, I hope I am wrong. It would be nice to be able to debate issues without being attacked.
July 6, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Curious. Do you see a possibility of Repubs replacing McCain as nominee? If so, who would you prefer? Thanks.
July 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if he died or became involved in some major scandal in the next few weeks. I supported Romney for his economic experience, but don't consider him 'the ideal candidate', just the better of the field.
July 6, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw your reply to another poster about Jeb Bush. As a Floridian, I can tell you Jeb was extremely popular here, clearly the brightest of the Bush clan. His problem is that his dad and brother destroyed any chance he might have. Too bad, he would have been a good choice.
July 6, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I read that too. Unfortunately, the 'Bush' name at this moment in time is political poison.
I don't know enough about Jeb Bush to give an informed opinion.
Do Repubs (that you know of) have similar opinions of both GB and GWB?
Romney, no doubt, has strong record in business/economics - but seems to be better suited for cabinet (at least initially). Much as I don't like it, his Mormon ties are problematic for many.
Like posted before, I'm not sure if McCain is going to be able (physically, mentally and emotionally) to survive rigors of GE. Do you have thoughts on this?
July 6, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think he is tougher than people think. No one could survive 5.5 years as a POW if they weren't tough, and his mother is still alive and in her 90's.
As far as the Mormon thing, I think that is a shame. You would think that at this point someones religion would not matter. A lot of fundamentalists in the south would have a problem with him, but he was also attacked by a lot of democrats for the same thing. (Much like many of them will attack a Republican for being homosexual while espousing support for gay rights)
July 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
His POW term was a long time ago and it stands to reason that all he endured did not make his body stronger.
I agree about the Mormon issue, but to be honest, I have not researched Romney in depth - (my opinion only) on surface he's a little too 'plastic' for me. Seems a bit 'above it all' and not sure he can actually relate to lower and middle class voters.
What do you think about Crist for VP? I realize McCain needs Florida, but truly believe Crist would be very bad choice. (shudder)
July 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Picking Crist would almost make me vote for Obama, picking Bloomberg would make me vote for Obama. I can't think of too many choices that would be worse than those two. Romney does look plastic, but his economic knowledge would come in handy right now. I am afraid history is repeating itself though, and I see Obama as Jimmy Carter, part2. He is the far left outsider, naive but well intentioned, who will be manipulated into some very bad policy moves. His support for Carters windfall profits tax, and calls to increase cap gains and dividend taxes will crater the markets, drive oil up even more, and force the FED into a Volker type response of 21% interest rates. I hope I am wrong.
July 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has proven he indeed is equipped with much greater political savvy than Carter. Carter's undoing (at least one of main causes) was not surrounding himself with savvy 'counselors'. Obama has done this and will continue to do so.
Carter (I do respect him immensely as humanitarian) assumed that doing what he believed to be the right thing was enough. Also, not to disparage Carter, but Obama is much more wise to the ways of the world and cognizant of the shifting sands in all arenas. Adept.
Again, in my opinion, if McCain is elected, we all will experience history repeating itself. And for me, if I had to choose between 'suffering the consequences' of another Bush or Carter era (which I don't, TG) I'd go with Carter's missteps in a nanosecond.
With Obama, there is a much greater potential for positive change. McCain of 2000, perhaps a chance - but McCain of 2008, not so much.
(And, still think possible McCain will be replaced.)
July 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I remember the economy under Carter pretty clearly. People who are complaining about today have no idea what it was like then. Also, the bungling in Iran allowed the rise of militant Islam which we are all facing today. That is the most disastrous part of his legacy.
July 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you believe it was 'as bad' as what Bush has done? (Whole picture, not just economy.)
July 6, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the economy was much, much worse under Carter.
The rise of militant Islam led directly to 9/11 and much of the terrorism the world faces today, and Carter was largely responsible for that in the way he handled Iran. Also his weakness prompted the Soviets to move into Afghanistan, which is still a mess, and for the Soviets and Cuba to destabilize much of Africa. So, overall, I think he was much worse than Bush in all aspects.
July 6, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to belabor points, so in this debate as to which was worse, we'll agree to disagree.
Hopefully, if you become aware of any 'dark horse' moving up in RNC for nomination you'll post info.
Many thanks for 'chat' - appreciate it.
July 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans remembered how Nixon was forced to leave office over official misconduct and murky allegations of corruption
Official misconduct, si. Murky allegations, no.
Nixon was caught with both hands in the cookie jar, using his office to cover up corruption.
Clinton was caught committing perjury and obstructing justice, as well as being implicated in at least 3 cases of sexual assault
The perjury accusation is arguable. The obstruction of justice accusation depends on the perjury charge. The sexual assault charges we laughable.
Gore campaign refused to accept defeat
Bullseye! Except that the New York Times determined that Gore won. It would not have been particularly close except for corrupt practices by the Jeb Bush administration (for example, arresting black voters on the way to the polls) and voting fraud perpetrated by Gore opponents, undoubtedly sponsored by the Republican party.
July 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your assertion that Gore won is not supported by any facts. Numerous recount scenarios were replayed by the media and other groups, Bush consistently was the winner, not to mention the fact that he won in all of the official recounts. The talk of arresting black voters is simply BS. I live in Florida, I was there for the election. The 2 things that most influenced the results were Nader and the erroneous calling of the state for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle.
Regarding Clinton, he was disbarred, so the perjury and obstruction charges carried weight with the courts in Ark, and the US Supreme court. In addition, the charges made by Jones, Wiley, and Broderick were hardly laughable. There was a reason that the Clinton team had a special group to handle 'Bimbo Eruptions' as they called them, a term by itself that if used by a Republican candidate's campaign would have been a pr disaster.
July 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had forgotten all about the 'Bimbo Eruptions'. (Selective memory.)
For Bush, we need(ed) 'Dumbo Eruptions'.
There is no doubt that Florida's history re elections suppports theory of (to put it kindly) incompetence, mismanagement and dare I say, malfeasance within the ranks.
July 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have exactly one right point -- Bush won every recount, except, of course the last one that the Supreme Court stopped. Because he was going to lose that one -- every peice of evidence suggest that.
As for the assault charges against Clinton, I'd call them laughable. And unsupported. And manufactured. And lies. You know what, I have just as much evidence to say that as you say the other to be true.
What has split the country is the Republican philosophy that the opinion that matters is their own. That dissent equals un-Americanism. What has split the country is a President who lied not about blowjobs, but about matters that got people killed. What has split this country is that same President's complete lack of respect for the law, for the Constitution and for the people who exist under his authority. What has split the country is the Republican methodology of take and then take some more. Of course Democrats are so pissed -- we've tried to compromise, and the other side has used that "weakness" to to take and take and take. They've convinced the media and, I guess the public, that greed is good and it's every man for himself. And the liberals of the world disagee.
I'll be happy to get along with getting along with them, as soon as they give me everything I want. It works for them, why not for us?
Also, for the record, your statements about Florida in 2000 are completely untrue. I was in Palm Beach and Miami. I saw the manufactured protests by the Bush camp. I saw them storm the counters in Miami. I saw them threaten the lives of the committee members. It wasn't both sides taking to streets -- it was your side trying to bully your way into power.
One more detail, just so you know. The Bimbo Eruptions thing? That was from Primary Colors. Which was fiction. Good book, better movie, but fiction. As in made up. You know, like Iraq's nuclear program.
July 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has split the country is the Republican philosophy that the opinion that matters is their own.
I disagree. Far be it from me to attempt to plumb the mind of a Republican, but my guess is that they discovered back in the 70's that division and rancor is an excellent way to win elections.
Unfortunately, the Dems keep attempting to emulate the 'Pubs in this regard.
July 6, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the 'recount' that the Supreme Court stopped, you mean the 'recount' that the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court (a Democrat) wrote was unconstitutional in his dissent, and listed several reasons why it would be overturned, as it was by a 7-2 vote?
As far as the charges you say are laughable, there were 3 different women who have claimed he assaulted them, that is more evidence than your opinion that he did not.
As to what Democrats have compromised on, I have no idea. They fillibustered everything they could, blocked all appointments they could, and had a hostile attitude from day 1 of his admin.
As far as lack of respect for the law, again I don't know where you are coming from. FISA? Gitmo? the war in Iraq? You should read a little history before you claim that those 'detainees' captured on the battlefield out of uniform and not part of an organized army have any rights. In WWII they would have been summarily shot in the field. As far as the war and 'lying', first, as CINC he does not need your permission or approval to send troops into combat. Second, Congress authorized it, even though he could have still acted without them. Third, his 'lies' were the same ones told by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, et al a few years prior.
Your version of what happened in Florida is colored by your point of view. I was there, I saw a pathetic attempt by democratic county officials to steal an election.
And the Bimbo Eruptions Squad was real, and Hillary was in charge.
July 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. It was not MY assertion, it was the assertion of the New York Times. Perhaps even people in GA have heard of it? Especially clever ones?
He negotiated his disbarment. He was never convicted of anything, so once again you are mistaken.
As for the "bimbo eruptions," his well-known proclivities may very well make him a asshole or an addict. In fact, his recent behavior confirms his assholity. However, they do not make him a criminal, nor do they subtract from his standing as one of the most successful presidents in the history of the country.
But, say, although you do defend your statements about President Clinton, you have allowed my refutation of your points about President Nixon to stand unchallenged. Does this mean you concede those points? If not, I'd be interested in hearing your case.
July 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said he was convicted, just disbarred, so I was not wrong even if it was negotiated.
Regarding assertions by leftwing rags like the NY Times, they carry little weight with me. Many other media outlets and universities scoured over those ballots and in every scenario Bush one.
Regarding Nixon, he was a very complicated man. A quaker pacifist who bombed Cambodia, a devout anti-communist who opened up access to China. He had many success and failings. He was guilty of obstruction for trying to protect his incompetent staff. He fired a federal prosecutor to block the investigation (Clinton fired all 93 of them when he began to be investigated) He was guilty of attempting to misuse official power by requesting IRS audits of enemies. (It is worth noting though that the IRS refused. However, under Clinton, the IRS actively investigated every major republican think tank and organization, including one famous case of an organization that was in it's first year of operation and had never filed a return, yet the IRS somehow knew about them and wanted to snoop around)
July 6, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really understand how Clinton's behavior has any bearing on Nixon's. Are you conceding that Nixon's shenaigans were far from "murky allegations of corruption?" If so, I congratulate you on your honesty.
It's patently ridiculous to label the NYT is a left-wing rag. Dismissing the facts that it is universally viewed as America's paper of record and that its editorials are written by the likes of Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol, it's pretty hard to accuse its reporters of inability to count. Numbers don't lie. I encourage you to actually read the Wikipedia article, at least.
Unless you're one of those who don't care to have your indisputably correct opinion interferred with by mere facts?
WRT Clinton's disbarrment, I'm afraid I need to remind you that you said, "he was disbarred, so the perjury and obstruction charges carried weight with the courts in Ark." This is simply not true of a negotiated disbarrment.
As for the sexual assult charges being true because they came from three different women, does this mean that if three of us on this blog accuse you of activity with male barnyard fowl that you are a homosexual beastialist?
July 6, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding Nixon, in my original post as said 'official misconduct', and he was guilty of that, as I specified in detail later. There were other allegations, 'murky' as I said, that were never proven.
I stand by my critique of the NY Times. It is an extremely biased paper that frequently runs opinion pieces as front page news. It's reputation is from years past. I read the wikipedia link, and I read other sources over the years that detailed all the different possible recounts. Bush won them all, except possibly in one case (that I think involved 'inferring' the intent of overvotes), but certainly in nearly every legal way to recount, he won.
Regarding Clinton's disbarment, you are just being pedantic. If he negotiated a disbarment, he did it for a reason, the courts were obviously considering sanctions against him, and there was certainly enough evidence of wrongdoing for him to agree to be disbared.
As to your last point, now you've just become ridiculous. I doubt very much if three different women who did not know each other, and were known to have contact with Bush, had accused him of assault, you would be so skeptical. (If three women that you knew made the same claims against you, I guarantee that you would end up in court, and very likely convicted) You trivialize the allegations of these women by implying that there is no reason anyone would give any credence to what they claimed. You and your blog buddies do not know me, have never met me, and can not show any association with me, so your claims are dismissable as absurd and potentially libelous.
July 6, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you threatening to sue? Are you aware that I could call you a ring-tailed kinkajoo and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it?
No, I'm sure you'll be chastened to learn that you're just as impotent in your threats as in your arguments.
That guarantee you made reminds me of Dick Cheney saying, "There is no doubt" that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Or Rock Star Rumsfeld telling us he not only knew they were there, he knew where they were.
Oh well, you go into an election with the party you have, not necessarily the party you want, huh?
July 6, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing before I let you run off. Could you please provide a link for the findings of those courts you cite that were ready to convict Pres. Clinton? I don't seem to be able to find any.
July 6, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment