stockula said:
Which is why making a guy who said a few weeks ago "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" chairman of your party is a bone-headed move.

howard dean is just the flipside of ed gillespie. the DNC sorely needed a fierce partisan running the party, just like you guys have. now we have one. two, if you count reid.

so, of course you don't like dean. you're not supposed to like him. just like i think gillespie is pure evil.

phineas

Bozeman, MT

August 2003

FEB 11, 2005 06:04 PM

Keith said:

in_a_blue_state said:

stockula said:
Like I said, Democrats have an awful read on the American public, which is astonishing given that politics are their business. And when faced with that reality, they'll respond with things like "Oh, the American people agree with us. They just don't know it." Or they'll express outright contempt for Jesusland having the temerity not vote for their enlightened betters. Or that the public was terrorized by Bush's fearmongering and Fox News's propaganda. In all cases, the public is regarded as a dumb herd that needs the Democrats to shepherd them, since they know best. The public couldn't possibly agree with conservatives, hawks, and Bush due to their own judgement and reasoning could they?

while i don't agree with all of this, i think there's a lot of truth in it, and that this has been an unfortunate tendency in the left since the reagan years: somehow people overwhelmingly voted for reagan but "they know not what they do."

I think a lot of liberals tend to discount the charismatic, emotional, personal side of politics. We'd like to believe that people do a lot of research, list each candidate's positions and qualifications, evaluate the possiblities for the near future and their past performance, and make an educated guess on the subject. When really most people vote more on a "gut" emotional level, for the person they like the most as a person, and along party lines.

So actually, as far as I'm concerned, Democrats expect the best from people. Republicans know, however, that policy details don't mean shit next to a couple of photos at the ranch and a "straight-talkin'" vibe. Who's patronizing who again?

[Edited on Feb 11, 2005 by Keith]

emotion should be removed from politics. logic instead of emotion.

stockula

Anchorage, AK

May 2003

FEB 11, 2005 06:10 PM

phineas said:

Keith said:

in_a_blue_state said:

emotion should be removed from politics. logic instead of emotion.

That happened, it'd be the death-knell of Liberalism.

[Edited on Feb 11, 2005 by stockula]

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

FEB 11, 2005 06:14 PM

Personally, I don't want government based on logic OR emotion. I want government based on science and the facts. Y'know, the good ol' "reality-based community".

phineas

Bozeman, MT

August 2003

FEB 11, 2005 06:18 PM

Keith said:
Personally, I don't want government based on logic OR emotion. I want government based on science and the facts. Y'know, the good ol' "reality-based community".

logic isn't based on facts?

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

FEB 11, 2005 06:20 PM

phineas said:

Keith said:
Personally, I don't want government based on logic OR emotion. I want government based on science and the facts. Y'know, the good ol' "reality-based community".

logic isn't based on facts?

Not necessarily.

phineas

Bozeman, MT

August 2003

FEB 11, 2005 06:21 PM

Keith said:

phineas said:

Keith said:
Personally, I don't want government based on logic OR emotion. I want government based on science and the facts. Y'know, the good ol' "reality-based community".

logic isn't based on facts?

Not necessarily.

i'd take logic over science any day. science is bullshit without logic.