When did political parties become cult-like?

[No Elephants]

To me, most adherents of the two major parties sound as though they've drunk Kool-Aid, just different flavors.

Was it always like that and I didn't notice; or did something change?

I have no clue, but it is....I am not even sure what word describes it. Eery, spooky, scary, pathetic, sickening--all apply to some degree, but none is exactly right.

Anyway, does anyone have an opinion on whether it was always this way or whether it changed?

[Enthusiast]

1. Republicans would add the words of Reagan to gospel if they could.

But, as with the bible, they pick and choose.

[No Elephants]

3. True, but I don't see a big difference between that and

Democrats who idolize Bill Clinton or Obama.

And it's more than just one person. Cheerleaders on both sides will explain away almost anything that almost anyone in their party does. Unless there is a conflict with what the President wants, in which case the President wins. And further in that vein, they will throw any individual or group under the bus at the slightest hint of conflict, even Sanders (whom I think is the single best person in federal office).

I used to post on a political board where both Republicans and Democrats posted. During the last two years of Bush's reign, a few of the Republicans began saying a few unflattering things about his spending, but very few. I thought that kind of blind obeisance would be foreign to Democrats. Then Obama got elected and my jaw began dropping.

Mind you, I voted for Obama in 2008--eagerly--but I could not find a good reason for, e.g., giving the invocation at his inauguration to Rick Warren, except being willing to do anything to enhance his chances of his own re-election. (Not the last time I was to come up with that only reason, either.) And it was not a good enough reason for me to justify what he did.

The first tactic of our friends here was to blame it on the Inauguration Committee, ludicrous as it was to claim the Obamas did not know in advance about, and had no power over, the recommendations of the committee. (In fact, I'd be surprised if the Committee was the first to mention Warren's name.)

Yet, Democrats who would have reamed Bush for doing the same thing justified Obama's doing it. Pulled stuff out of the air, they did. And, if his personal ambition got to be the only reason they could defend, they defended that, too, or at least said it was what he should do. I thought Democrats were better than that.

Were we always like that? If not, when did we change? Maybe we were always like that, but it was not as obvious because we were not on message boards? I don't know. I didn't follow politics closely and tried to stay away from controversial topics when talking with friends and neighbors.

I didn't even know my sister was a Democrat, that's how little I discussed politics.

[Enthusiast]

6. I know. It's disgusting............nt

[formercia]

2. This might explain it:

[No Elephants]

4. LOL!

But laying off six Reps would not begin to make a dent in their staff. It is very deep and is in state government, too. Maybe even local.

[Enthusiast]

5. I like it! NT

[Divine Discontent]

7. for shame!

boo! hiss! lol

Democrats can do NO wrong, don't ya know? But, seriously, we are so much a better party than the republicans, but it's a shame that we're being led by many a centrist in DC institutions. :(

Repubs are nearly always (99%!) the ones I hear in public going on about politics, and ripping on the liberals, and most always turning it to Obama and sounding awfully close to racists, if not outright racists.

Which brings me to the point in answering your question. No, it wasn't always this bad. It became this bad when the guy who looks black (half Irish, half African, not that they care - one drop, indeed) was elected by the People, to be the next president of the United States. They went off the rails, batshit crazy, cuckoo bird, smearing their own feces on the wall NUTZO when he became president. They have made personal arms makers filthy rich with their insanity and fear...

[Enthusiast]

8. Oh, it's all because Obama is black.

End of story. The GOP is the party of racism. The "red states" approximation of the old Confederacy is no coincidence. That is not to say there aren't millions of wonderful, thoughtful people living there. But I will never understand a member of a minority voting for these people.

[No Elephants]

12. Not sure why I keep pushing back against the conventional wisdom, but.....

Republicans investigated both adult Clintons up the yin yang, at taxpayer expense no less, until, at long last, they finally found something. Linda Tripp had "just happened" to have befriended a still young Monica and had "just happened" to tell Monics that whatever else Monica did, she should never ever have that blue dress cleaned.

And then, Clinton's reputation and marriage got blown up mercilessly, at least as much as blowing up the Clinton's marriage is humanly possibe; he was disgraced before his still young daughter and only child, who must have suffered terribly, thereby causing him great suffering.

Oh, and he got impeached, only the second President in history. Regardless of how much personal charm the living Bubba has, the legacy of President Clinton will forever be that he was the second president in U.S. history to be impeached and the first to require high school teachers to find a delicate way of explaining exactly why he got impeached.

As an added blow, his wife, whom he obviously loves greatly, albeit perhaps in his way, may have lost support among the Democratic leadership, as well as of the rank and file, for her own ambitions because of it. Afte 35 years of supporting him and working for him, despite his infidelities.

I know that, in November and December 2007, when I was deciding to whom my 2007 and 2008 donations would go, I got down to Barack and Hillary; and I eliminated Hillary because of too much baggage. Innocent or guilty, I had no stomach for re-litigating any of that, in my own mind, in conversation, or on message boards; and I certainly did not want the media re-living it while I hoped against hope that it would not affect the election. Not only that, but quite a few people switched party affiliation because of Monica.

I am sure that occurred to Bubba, who is about the most politically smart American alive today. It must hurt him terribly to know that, if he had been the bright light President he was perfectly capable of being, Hillary would have probably have gotten the Democratic nomination in a cake walk.

Doesn't that prove that Republicans direct a huge amount of animus at a Democratic President, simply because he is a Democrat, having nothing to do with racism?

Wouldn't that mean that at least some of whatever Obama has suffered at the hands of Republicans may be attributable to his political affiliation and not all racism?

They do whatever they think may cost Democrats votes. Yes, it is disgusting that includes appeals to racism. And had Hillary been nominee, it would have been gender. With Kerry, incredibly, it was his war record.

By the same token, are Democratic politicians and Democratic rank and file free of racism?

[No Elephants]

9. I hope you know that have nothing but affection for you and nothing but respect

for your positions. On the other hand, I am sure you know by now that I am almost 100% totally incapable of remaining silent if I disagree.

Repubs are nearly always (99%!) the ones I hear in public going on about politics, and ripping on the liberals, and most always turning it to Obama and sounding awfully close to racists, if not outright racists

Forgive me, but I don't want to focus on the words of politicians, but on their deeds. As the saying goes, talk is cheap. For example, the Democrats made a huge deal of reproductive choice in the last election after McCaskill shrewdly backed Aikens in the Republican primary. (She donated to his campaign, not because he was the best Republican candidate for Missouri and the country in case she lost that once almost certainly Republican election, but because she thought he was the worst. How is that for cynical self-interest that doesn't give a crap about the country?)

As it was, she won because Aikens put his foot in every woman's vagina. And Democrats took that and ran with it. Then Mourdock stepped in and Democrats rejoiced even more.


But, the only difference between Mourdock and his Democratic opponent was that his Democratic opponent would reluctantly allow choice in the case of rape or instance. And, for years, Democrats have done nothing as both the Supreme Court and the states have walked back reproductive choise, to the point of three states enacting trans vaginal utrasounds. Legislatively mandated sexual assault, as a condition of exercising a Constitutional right! Did the D of J jump in to protect federal rights? Did Obama rail?

So, yeah, bad words are worse than good words. But, in the end, no pun intended, the Hyde Amendment is still part of every federal law and two states still mandate sexual assault as a condition of exercising a Constitutional right. And Democrats do nothing--except between Aikens flub and election day, when they flogged the hell out of the issue, to their own advantage.




we are so much a better party than the republicans

no comment

but it's a shame that we're being led by many a centrist in DC institutions.

The think tanks can't lead squat unless the politicians look to them for leadership--mostly for the purpose of their own re-election and financial security. Even lobbyists don't lead them. Politicians don't vote at gunpoint.

Besides, a lot of those centrists in D.C. institutions were once making laws in the halls of Congress or governing our states.

The current head of the DNC is a New Democrat. So was her predecessor.

The head of the Democratic Party recently referred to positions as those as a moderate Republican from a few years ago. He and his White House have insulted and demeaned those of us to their left in many a word and deed and policy and appointment in the last four years.

Let's see. The head of the party, the head of the DNC, the Senate and quite a few House Democrats. (Yes, the Progressive Caucus is supposedly liberal, but, in the end, they usually vote with centrists, if their vote is likely to affect anything.)

At what point do we admit that New Democrats, aka Reagan Republicans, ARE Democratic Party at this point? Perhaps not in words or affect, but in ways that actually affect our lives?

No, it wasn't always this bad. It became this bad when the guy who looks black (half Irish, half African, not that they care - one drop, indeed) was elected by the People

Yes, but my question was not only about Republican cheerleaders, but also about Democratic cheerleaders. Actually, Republicans bother me less than Democrats. I never expected anything but bad things from Republican politicians, so they never diappoint me. In fact, I am not even sure I care about political parties. I care only about actions, not words, not party labels, but actions.

If a Democratic President signs repeal of Glass Steagall and NAFTA, does that mean the global economic of 2008 was not as bad as if a Republican President had signed them? If a Democratic President turns to Republican Morris and Republican Colin My Lai Powell to craft DADT--and then puts it through Congress instead of signing an Executive Order (easier to change, but no political cover for Clinton), is that better than if Dummya had done the same?

If Obama chooses Rick Warren for the invocation at his first inaugural and Giglio for the benediction at his second inaugural, is that much more acceptable to Democrats than if Bush had chosen them? Should it be? Or should it be much less acceptable if a Democrat does it?

"Republican politicians bad." Yes, I agree. Next?

"Democrats much, much better." Not at all sure I agree.

And there is, IMO, the greatest danger for our country and for us as individuals, namely the lack of a Democratic Party that is in deed, as well as in word, significantly different from the Republican Party and mounts strong opposition to Republican politicians.

As an example, I'll tell you a secret. The most damage Romney did while Governor of Massachusetts was Romneycare. It was a Heritage Foundation brainchild, conceived because even Nixon's Republican plan was far too liberal for the Heritage Foundation. Clinton tried and failed to pass it when it was called Hillarycare. Romney passed it in Massachusetts and Democrats sneeringly called it Romneycare. But they loved it when the entire nation got it as Obamacare. Oh, and Republicans who loved it when it called Romneycare threatened to secede whan it was called Obamacare.

Does any of that sound sane to anyone? That's what I mean by two colors of the same strength of Kool-Aid. One is blue, one is red, but they both rot your insides.

[No Elephants]

10. Igore the above post.

I meant to bold only quotes from DD's post, but I messed up, as usual.

Here is the text again, but with the bolding that I originally intended. I also deleted some stuff that just made it way too long.



"I hope you know that have nothing but affection for you and nothing but respect for your positions. On the other hand, I am sure you know by now that I am almost 100% totally incapable of remaining silent if I disagree.

Repubs are nearly always (99%!) the ones I hear in public going on about politics, and ripping on the liberals, and most always turning it to Obama and sounding awfully close to racists, if not outright racists

Words are important, but, for this post, I want to focus on deeds, not words.


we are so much a better party than the republicans

no comment

but it's a shame that we're being led by many a centrist in DC institutions.

Think tanks can't lead squat unless the politicians look to them for leadership--mostly for the purpose of their own re-election and financial security. Even lobbyists don't lead them. Politicians don't vote at gunpoint. So, I'll focus on the politicians.


The current head of the DNC is a New Democrat. So was her predecessor.

The head of the Democratic Party recently referred to his positions as those as a moderate Republican from a few years ago. He and his White House have insulted and demeaned those of us to their left in many a word and deed and policy and appointment in the last four years.

Let's see. The head of the party, the head of the DNC, the Senate and quite a few House Democrats. (Yes, the Progressive Caucus is supposedly liberal, but, in the end, they usually vote with centrists, if their vote is likely to affect anything.) At what point do we admit that New Democrats, aka Reagan Republicans, ARE the Democratic Party at this point? Perhaps not in words or affect, but in ways that actually affect our lives?

No, it wasn't always this bad. It became this bad when the guy who looks black (half Irish, half African, not that they care - one drop, indeed) was elected by the People

My question was not only about Republican cheerleaders, but about cheerleaders on both sides.

Actually, Republicans bother me less than Democrats. I never expected anything but bad things from Republican politicians, so they never diappoint me. In fact, I am not even sure I care about political parties. I care only about actions, not words, not party labels, but actions.

If a Democratic President signs repeal of Glass Steagall and NAFTA, does that mean the global economic of 2008 was not as bad as if a Republican President had signed them?

If a Democratic President turns to Republican Dick Morris and Republican Colin "My Lai" Powell to craft DADT--and then puts it through Congress instead of signing an Executive Order (easier to change, but no political cover for Clinton), is that better than if Dummya had done the same?

If Obama chooses Rick Warren for the invocation at his first inaugural and Giglio for the benediction at his second inaugural, is that much more acceptable to Democrats than if Bush had chosen them? Should it be? Or should it be much less acceptable if a Democrat does it?

"Republican politicians bad." Yes, I agree. And?

"Democrats much, much better." Not at all sure I agree.

And there is, IMO, the greatest danger for our country and for us as individuals, namely the lack of a Democratic Party that is in deed, as well as in word, significantly different from the Republican Party and mounts strong opposition to Republican politicians.

As an example, I'll tell you a secret. The most damage Romney did while Governor of Massachusetts was Romneycare.

Romneycare was a Heritage Foundation brainchild, conceived because even Nixon's Republican plan was far too liberal for the Heritage Foundation. Clinton tried and failed to pass it when it was called Hillarycare. Romney passed it in Massachusetts and Democrats sneeringly called it Romneycare. But they loved it when the entire nation got it as Obamacare. Oh, and Republicans who loved it when it called Romneycare threatened to secede whan it was called Obamacare.

Does any of that sound sane to anyone? That's what I mean by two colors of the same strength of Kool-Aid. One is blue, one is red, but they both rot your insides.

[Enthusiast]

11. Well, I agree.

We are in a world of hurt.

The Republicans conceived Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Clinton could have vetoed it. But he did not. You know the rest of the story.

Now these same "centrist" Democrats will very likely allow seniors, the poor and infirm to pay for the thievery and fraud that resulted from Clinton's sensible centrist deregulation.

Now, President Obama carries on the Clinton tradition. When Obama took office I was appalled that he propped up the narrative that Iraq was a worthy cause and that we had to "look forward". Look forward after the greatest act of treason in our history. Something does not wash here. It looks for all the world like a bait and switch or some exotic scheme or black operation. The least we can say is WTF?

[No Elephants]

13. I know. I am just trying to cut back against attributing every bad thing

to Republicans, and only to Republicans.

I am sure that serves Democratic politicians very well; and they do do their best to condition us to do it. But, I don't if it serves us.

If Republicans were our only problem, we'd be in clover, as the saying goes.

(Not so sure why being in clover is so wonderful--there's got to be a pooping pony in there somewhere-- but I'll go with convention, just this once, though)

[Enthusiast]

14. No question. We would be in clover.

http://youtu.be/GpGEeneO-t0

I know, now I'm just being silly.

[No Elephants]

15. It's about time you lightened the fuck up!

Kidding.

I know that I can be *ahem* intense. And literal.