"Democrats have proven themselves time and time again that they aren't willing to compromise, or tolerate dissent in their party. Whether it is the country, or their own party, Democrats are the dividers."

Absolutely Matt!

They refuse to know and do what is best for the safety, and good of our country.

I am really going to miss George Bush as President!, because inspite of all the attacks from the left-wing he showed compassion and understanding inspite of the differences in the political arena, No, the liberal left was'nt going to stop him, and they knew it, because he had the grit to face them every January, and pour the truth right out in front of them! and hillry clinton set there with the most sickening smurk on her face just made me sick.

The only thing that will bring this country back to it's state of complete harmony ,is if the left will sincerely consider a change of heart! and start living by the word of God.

Great post Matt.

Jeremiah

Matt, Just curious, You never join in the conversation.
It would be nice of you could join in.

Jeremiah

It makes me sick how our political leaders in this country are in a power struggle that they will do anything to win. These people are supposed to be working for us as civil servants, not working for themselves. I may be a conservative but when there is a liberal in office I pray for them and hope they do what is in the best interest for the country. The liberals today hope that bush fails and they want the country to suffer just so they can take power and claim that there moral philosophy is superior to ours. Most of America is moderate and will not stand for this type of hatred much longer. I do not think that we should be trying to spread democracy in the Middle East by force because they are not ready for it. We should encourage it though. The Iraq war may not be going as planned but that isn’t our fault. Our enemy is a coward that hides behind women and children. It is time to stand up and support our country and our president so we can bring our boys home as soon as possible. If you are a democrat you should be sending a message to your party leaders that trying to sabotage the republicans at every turn hurts the country and is treason. We are all trying to survive in this world. Soon it will be the world vs. Islam, just like the crusades. The communist countries will ally with the fascist Muslims and try to strike fear into the west. We must be victorious and protect our way of life.

When are the Republicans going to make Ron Paul the House Majority Leader? They would actually have someone in office with some common sense.

Maybe that should be their new name: The Divide-ocrats.

I don't care to try to cast blame on who or which side started building the partisan divide that currently exists. But it does exist, and with increasing virulence. And I blame both sides for that, because both sides feed on it. And this topic is a good example -- it's not about building up the GOP, it's about vilifying the Dems. Basically, it's an attack add. No one (or very few) are willing to step into the void and stop the madness. Thus, the partisan divide just keeps growing and growing.

Joe Lieberman is protrayed by those on the right as a voice of moderation -- a uniter not a divider. The trouble is, he made the mistake of stating quite clearly that anyone who didn't agree with his particular viewpoint all the way down the line was aiding and abetting the terrorists. In other words, he was saying that those who didn't agree with him were basically traitors. That is the problem with Lieberman's message -- he attacked his opponent's supporters more than he attacked his opponent. And the basic message was: if you don't agree with me, then you agree with my opponent (fallacy #1), and thus you're a traitor (fallacy #2). That attitude may work in a general election (Bush proved that), but it works less well in a primary, which is, in essence, an exercise in preaching to the choir -- you preach to it, you don't attack it. Lamont, on the other hand, rarely attacked Lieberman's supporters, he concentrated on Lieberman -- frequently in a very desultory manner, I might add: he basically said Lieberman was a nice guy and worthy of respect, but he's wrong, and he's out of touch. That's the message that worked for Lamont. He used the anxiety about the Iraq war as his focal point, but in the mean time he subtlely and successfully portrayed Lieberman as an out-of-touch, inside-the-beltway pol who got too big for his britches.

Incumbency is usually a plus for candidates. But this year a smart challenger can turn it into a liability. People these days are even more negative about Congress than they are about Bush. In fact, the dissatisfaction with Congress has an essentially unprecedented stink about it. IMHO, that's the bottom line lesson to be learned by the Lamont campaign.

Also IMHO, Sen. Chafee in neighboring RI may very well be about to learn the same lesson. In many ways, his situation is the same as (though a mirror opposite of) Lieberman's. Lieberman is an incumbent, and so is Chafee. Lieberman's challenger (Lamont) is a self-made businessman, as is Chafee's (Laffey). Lieberman is considered the Dem most in favor of Bush's strategy in Iraq. Chafee is considered the Rep least in favor of Bush's strategy in Iraq. Both Lieberman and Chafee are considered to be the stronger candidate in a general election because of their more moderate views. However, both Lieberman and Chafee's biggest obstacle is getting through the primary because Lieberman is accused of not being sufficiently "Democratic" for his base while Chafee is accused of not being sufficiently "Republican" for his. In short, the two situations are very similar in an opposite sort of way. The only big difference is this: the present GOP candidate in CT (Schlessinger) is exceedingly weak, thus allowing Lieberman a realistic chance of running as an independent. The Dem candidate in RI (Whitehouse) is strong. Thus if Chafee loses the primary, he doesn't have a snowball's chance of mounting a successful independent candidacy.

That's what it boils down to... in the event of a primary loss, Chafee goes away and Lieberman doesn't. And Chafee goes away because the Dem opposition in RI is formidable (in fact, according to the most recent polls, Whitehouse will win regardless of who he's up against), whereas Lieberman doesn't have to go away because there is essentially no GOP opposition in CT. And somehow this is an indication that the Dems, but not the Reps, are melting down? I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic. It sounds like politics as usual to me. No melting down is involved as far as I can tell.

Wow, you conservatives have issues, don't you? Why is it so hard for you to understand this race? Lamont is a better match for the Democrats OF CONNECTICUT. Do you really think that Connecticut is the only state in the union? Lieberman would have done better elsewhere--look at Kent Conrad of ND. He is WAY more conservative that Joe Lieberman, Lamont, Hillary AND a few Republicans. And he is cleaning up in his senate race in a VERY conservative state.

If you wingnuts think that the Democrats have sold out there "last hope" for moderation, how do you explain Conrad???

Answer: You don't. The existance of Conrad in the democratic party turns this thread about "division" into a joke. You guys are panicking, and it shows.

There is a difference between intent and implementation.

For many, the original intent for the war in Iraq was a good one. Now we see in many ways the implementation of this intent continues to be poorly handled.

In the same way that the Patriot Act contains many important safeguard the implementation of them has often been perceived to have gone too far or in the wrong direction.

What you are so quick to classify a flip-flop could be seen as a thoughtful reaction to these implementations. I think Joe Lieberman’s loss was a result of his constituents being disappointed with his resistance to react to their disappointment. Voting allows us to be represented by someone who reflects their beliefs.

Rico

Great post as usual. While the partisian divide continues, we have a very powerful enemy who grows stronger and stronger, mainly Russia and China. The war against Islamic Extremists seems to have been largely fought to a stalemate. This can be changed if the political parties will come together and work for the best interests of the country.

Personal attacks lead people to get defensive and they may be less opening to changing course when it may be in their best interest to do so. The Republicans and the Democrats both do this. The Democrats are better at it becuase most of the media is in their corner but the Republicans are by no means innocent. Constructive criticism will be the best way to go.

Ricorun,

RE: "I don't care to try to cast blame on who or which side started building the partisan divide that currently exists. But it does exist, and with increasing virulence ... Thus, the partisan divide just keeps growing and growing."

Liberals started the hate campaign. Their blogs spread it. Their leaders spread it. The liberal media spreads it. We've had six years of nothing but pure hatred from the left. Yes, the Right has begun responding in kind, but the Right isn't quite as "good" at it yet as the left wing liberals who started it all. Hopefully the Right will become even better at it than the left over time.

I've had all I want from the anti-American left. I have no use for any of their agenda, their social engineering, their judicial law-givers, or anything else. I want more Conservative lawmakers who will give back to the Democrats the same personal attacks they have carried out against Republicans, Conservatives, and Christians. I want to see some real fighters. There is no point in trying to compromise with liberal Democrats, because they are never satisfied until it's done totally their way. Hopefully, Republicans and Conservatives are learning how it's done and will be fully ready to engage in our own campaign when the time comes!

We are engaged in a social and cultural civil war right here in American -- started by the liberal left. It's time the Right figures that out and gears up for the fight! Now we need some good strong vocal Conservative generals (leaders) to energize, motivate, unify, plan, and direct the efforts of the various Conservative groups.

AAR

One of the funnier charges leveled by the hapless Democrats, and likely the only one that they can make sure is true, is the message of division. They then blame it all on the President, though anyone with eyes can see who started this.

Daily Kos, for example with his "screw them" attitudes to the Americans killed in Fallujah. Michael Moore. Dick Durban. Pelosi. Reid with his, "We killed the Patriot Act." And the list goes on and on.

The Left wants, nay, thrives on this division and tries to pass it off as the fault of the Bush administration because they won't cave into the Left's outrageous demands like Murtha's "cut-and-run" approach to the war in Iraq.

Well, I say, "What's wrong with division?" It certainly shows where the differences are. It is hard for anyone to sit on the sidelines and claim, "They're all the same..." And this divisiveness hurts - not helps - the Democrats. Which in an odd sort of way is a kind of justice. They initiated it; they thrive on the hate that fuels it; and they pay the price for being the ones blamed for the division.

I personally want to know that my politicians have NOTHING in common with the losers on the left.

Michael Gerson writes an interesting article in NewsWeek and concludes:

Five Augusts from 9/11, in a summer of new fears, in a war on terror that has lasted longer than World War II, public weariness is understandable. And that exhaustion is increasingly reflected in our politics. In a conservative backlash against the president's democratic idealism. In a liberal backlash that has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Ned Lamont, in his primary victory over Sen. Joe Lieberman, summed up the case this way: "We are going to get our troops out of Iraq ... we're going to start investing in our own country again." Lamontism—the elevation of flinching to a foreign policy—is McGovernism, and a long way from "bear any burden, pay any price."