JDG wrote:
One question I would love to ask, and I apologize if this sounds a little harsher than it really is, but here is my question:
And how can a neutral, fair-minded observer distinguish the above answer from "Because I am bought and paid for by the Democratic Pary, and there is simply no way in hell that we are going to work with a President of the opposing Party to bridge our differences on the centerpiece economic agenda item of his second term" ????
Just wondering....
One can choose not to be cynical.
Perhaps on either side of this debate there are people with strong beliefs that are not grounded in self-interest? Perhaps Brad is not a pawn of a political party?
I find Brad's predictions of ugliness reasonable, considering the administration's starting point. I hear Bush warning us of financial instruments of mass destruction and I remember how lousy the analysis was the last time he offered a big warning about mass destruction. Fool me once, shame on me...
I have no doubt that there are principles behind the administration's talk about Social Security, just as there were principles behind the war. But these are being sold to us with fear and threats, which is not leadership, but demagoguery, in my view, and so it is already ugly.
Lest anyone jump to the conclusion that I think the GOP invented ugliness in politics, I'll say that I think it's a product of the power of big media in our time, not politics. The GOP's successes of late are the result of doing best at taking advantage of it, I think.
Nick
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
