LA Times Ron Browstein: election intensity FRIGHTENING!

DOBBS: Why is this, in your judgment, so frightening -- the intensity?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I say inspiring and frightening. I mean, I think it's inspiring in the sense that no one is talking about the American public being apathetic in this election.

Every sign we have is the people are engaged, polls show more people following the news closely about the election in the past -- the sheer amount of money that Senator Kerry and President Bush and the various interest groups have raised all testify to a country that is deeply involved in this election. I think that's a good thing with all the concerns we've had about participation over really the last generation.

The frightening part is it's almost -- as you go around the country and you talk to people -- it's almost as if people care too much, I think. In the end, someone is going to have to govern a very closely divided country, Lou. And that's the most likely outcome and right now --

DOBBS: You mean do what President Bush has done for the past three and a half years.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, he's going to have to try to hold together the country, perhaps have it be less polarized as it's been for the last three and a half years. And we have, I think, just such intensity of emotion on both sides, people sort of seeing almost apocalyptic consequences to this, that I think everybody has to take a deep breath and remind themselves that these two men are rivals, they are not enemies.

We have real enemies outside the country. And we need to sort of keep in mind that we are going to have to try to all get along to some extent when this is over.

...........
There it is, folks. You CARE TOO MUCH about the future of the country!

Brownstein's beginning to run scared!

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/09/ldt.00.html

...has been set loose on this country. I have friends who are predicting that we will see this country go through a bloodbath if * goes back into the WH.

Bastards! They (whoever THEY are) know that when we hate each other, we aren't paying attention to what THEY are doing.

On edit: clarification

who won't even bother to get off their ass to vote in November.

with all this so-called intensity about half of the voting age population will be sitting on their asses watching Oprah and Judge Judy on election day - just like every other day.

The LA Times has been a reliably objective source throughout the last 6 years of nightmare. Browstein pretty consistantly calls bullshit bullshit in family-friendly prose. I think it's clear what he's saying is that the job requirements for the next president will be to try and heal the hurt caused by our current divisions. He's right about that, by the way. He doesn't go on to say that Bush categorically cannot heal the hurts that he's caused, but that hardly makes Brownstein an enemy of the state.

"Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America’s side in international disputes, reflexively oppose the use of force, and begrudge the resources required to keep our military strong. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require us to act--if need be outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations. And too many adopt an anti-globalization posture that would not only erode our own prosperity but also consign billions of the world’s neediest people to grinding poverty. However troubling the Bush record, the pacifist and protectionist left offers no credible alternative.
"Progressive internationalism stresses the responsibilities that come with our enormous power: to use force with restraint but not to hesitate to use it when necessary, to show what the Declaration of Independence called ‘a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,’ to exercise leadership primarily through persuasion rather than coercion, to reduce human suffering where we can, and to create alliances and international institutions committed to upholding a decent world order. We must return to four core principles that have long defined the Democratic Party’s tradition of tough-minded internationalism: (national strength, liberal democracy, free enterprise, and world leadership.)"

I think the quote is a reasonable statement of a moderate internationalist position -- one I share, mostly.

Do all Democrats have to be pacificists? Or can we believe in projecting American power in support of American ideals, and still remain Democrats?

Only Republicans go to church. Only Democrats wear sandals. Only Republicans drive pickups. Only Democrats recycle.

I adore people who can't think outside the stereotype. Now pardon me while I go wok my tofu

and it's Republicans who have gotten in the way of such things as Lend-Lease, Somalia, etc.

Republicans seem to be very happy to go to war against a theoretical enemy-- old Soviet clients and now terrorists, but are dead-set against anything potentially humanitarian, like getting too involved in Haiti or the Sudan. That is where Democrats have tried and failed, due largely to Republican opposition.

Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs are the exceptions that prove the rule.

The quote is thoroughtly accurate in its recognition that the US is, by design or by default, the last superpower, and as such we do have the obligations of leadership.

The arguments shouldn't be over whether or not we should lead, but HOW we should lead.

over 60 or more years. This is the fantasy of Merika and not the reality.

Anyone remember how united we all were after 9/11 - Bush fucked up America and made Americans hate each other.

We need Kerry to help heal the damage the Bush has done.

This is SOOO tiresome.

I really wish the media would take some responsibility for what they have created. During Clinton's 8 years, the media were in a frenzy about every freaking little event - cable TV devoted 3 hours in prime time every night to this or that story. Democrats defended Clinton, Republicans were outraged and morally indignant - for 8 years.

Republicans were ready when the Florida recount happened, their anger fueled their fight. Democrats were innocent lambs, expecting truth and justice to win out. That is why when people say Gore should have done this or that -- I always respond - it didn't matter because Republicans were prepared to do absolutely anything - anything -- to win.

Now Democrats are united, and we are angry. Some media is sort of stunned by what they have created. Other media wants democrats to be submissive and accept our fate. This crap about whether rock musicians have the right to speak in favor of Kerry - that is all to marginalize and compartmentalize people -- so they don't find each other. The media also wants to be the spokeperson - to tell us how to think and feel and react. The media doesn't like it when someone else is able to break through and deliver a message - someone like a strong candidate/party who finally gets uninterrupted time to deliver a message - like the DNC -- and like rock stars or movie stars who can garner attention from the media.

I have to agree with Brownstein. A lot of people are quite emotionally involved in this race. A scenario where Bush got another very narrow victory that was perhaps clouded with allegations of BBV vote tampering could turn very ugly.

I hope for a Kerry victory by a margin large enough to be undebatable.

this divided country is always parceled out equally between the sides.

In spite of the horrors of the 2000 election, I think a good number of people were willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. (Ok, I'll confess, I was NOT among them!) But from the start, this "uniter" divided the nation -- for me the first nasty move was Ashcroft. There's something to unite the country! The loser couldn't even defeat a dead guy for senate.

His policies have been nothing but divisive. His speech the same. He had a chance to unite the world behind us after 9-11 and arrogantly refused.

They've begun the fight, they continue the fight. If we dare to stand up for ourselves and our beliefs, if we dare to fight back, WE'RE suddenly being divisive and half the problem...

I feel a bit like the kid who's big brother has just hit him. And mom says -- both of you go to your rooms and stop fighting.

This should atleast be pointed out by the media.

"Mr. Bush, you said in 2000 that you were a uniter and not a divider. What went wrong?"

was that America is an incredibly diverse country full of people from extraordinarily different backgrounds who can't easily be pigeonholed.

Were we truly united, then we'd have long since become the frighteningly fascist nation that Republicans dream about.

we wouldn't be so divided now would we...

Put the fringe right back on the fringe.

The cowed media ought to care that they have propped up this inept and corrupt Bush (I'm a uniter, not a divider') administration and not done their jobs to bring us the truth.

John Kerry and John Edwards can bring the country together and will actively work to do so--something the Bush administration has not only not done, but has actively sought to divide this nation.

After all, this is how the Republicans seek to win elections-- with divisive wedge issues-- abortion, gay marriage, veiled rascism, and appealing to the greed within us.

....email address?