The Divided States of America

I have an American counter-part – an exact opposite, if you will. I am a Democrat; she is a Republican. I am a Jew; she is a Christian. I live in a major metropolitan city, hundreds of miles away from where I grew up; she lives in a small town in the heartland, around the corner from the house where she was raised.

My fellow American Republican sister and I have differing views on any number of things – reproductive rights, sex outside of marriage, gay rights. On some issues, we disagree vehemently; on others, we differ only marginally.

But if you got my Republican sister and I together and asked us about most of the issues facing the country, our opinions would probably be the same. We both care more about the quality of the education our children receive than whether or not they can pray openly in school. We both worry about the out-of-control deficit, the shortcomings of our health care system, the outsourcing of our jobs to cheap labour markets, and the continuing economic burden on the poor and the middle-class. On a larger scale, we are both deeply upset by the loss of our country’s stature in the world, and the growing threat to the global environment. On the topic of the use of torture and secret prisons, we are both equally outraged.

Having said all of that, the question to be asked is this: Why have my American sister and I been pitted one against the other? Why have we been made to feel that we are not fellow Americans, but enemies?

I have always held that of all of the achievements our country has accomplished, the greatest is the fact that we survived the Civil War, when brother literally took up arms against brother. In the aftermath, we did more than merely survive; we went on to become the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

But can we survive the civil war that this Administration has so insidiously created, a war between Red States and Blue States, between Conservatives and Liberals, between Democrats and Republicans?

The crimes of this Administration are too numerous to mention here. But this is the most egregious of its wrongdoings, and the motive is all too obvious. A nation divided against itself cannot stand up to a government that lies us into war, that benefits corporate conglomerates to the detriment of its citizens, that places the hard-earned dollars of the middle class into the pockets of the already wealthy, that ignores the poor and the homeless, and that turns its back on the very compassion and humanity that made us a respected beacon of freedom around the world.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln tried to pull a divided country back together, while the current president, in the guise of a Party-of-Lincoln adherent, has done his utmost to drive a wedge between us. He pushes the obvious hot buttons at every turn – abortion, gay marriage, religion – and then stands back and waits for the inevitable to happen: further division, one citizen against another, a trickle-down effect of hate-mongering that eventually finds its way into the core of our everyday discourse.

But eventually, a nation divided against itself cannot stand at all.

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, Red or Blue, Mormon or Muslim, pro-life advocate or gay-rights activist, hawk or dove, you cannot help but question the ‘leadership’ of a president who would drive a wedge between you and your fellow citizens. You cannot ignore the destructiveness of an Administration that so delights in the division, rather than the unity, of the nation it leads.

I hope that somewhere out there my fellow American Republican sister knows that regardless of our differences, and in spite of the machinations of this current administration, I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with her in the battle to protect the very foundation our country was built on: unity of purpose, unity of vision, unity of a common American dream.

And I hope she will stand with me in pursuit of those aims, because if we find ourselves unable to find common ground to stand on, we, as a nation, are lost.

What's so strange is that, with all the new technologies we have, it seems like we're back in Civil War times. The lack of a media that educates instead of spins for their corporate masters is a major problem.
The lack of a populace who apparently doesn't give a fig and follows the dogma of their best friend/Rush/O'Reilly/religious leader/whomever, is maddening.
I hope we find someone who can mend the rift and that won't happen until we get the corrupted out of there.

... and you're right. With all of today's modern technology, WHY are we back fighting another civil war, Reds v Blues, especially when we are constantly reminded that we are a 'nation at war' and should be standing together?

WHY indeed ...

we are so busy fighting the bullshit fights we don't band together and DEMAND health care and decent standard of living for all. And elected officials who aren't bought and paid for. We are all waiting for a hero to come along and the hero is us.

Oh, meant to say too- excellent post, thanks.

Forgive me for forgetting who said it, but it's a GREAT quote:

"It's time to realize that WE are the person we've been waiting for."

The media no longer has any interest in reporting the truth. They only care about boosting their ratings so as to pad their wallets, and those of their stockholders. Accordingly they are going to report whatever makes the most money, regardless of whether or not it is entirely true. They will also put as much spin on it as possible to inflate the shock value, which helps to increase their ratings by getting viewers in an uproar and dividing people. News is no longer news, it is propaganda.

:hug:

In reality

I remember seeing the bottom map shortly after the selection. It makes a powerful statement compared to the top map, which is skewed to give the impression that we are a largely 'red' country. Although there are more states with red on top, there is plenty of blue in that map & even in the heartland!

To the OP, excellent essay. I will be sending a link to this page to all that I know.

Nominated!

Break it down by county and use red, blue, & shades of purple to demonstrate that there are many counties where the vote count produced very slim majorities for the Republicans. There are no nice, neat, geographic boundaries defining the sides.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

- United States Declaration of Independence
So be it: A Blueprint for Peaceful Revolution
By Dave Berman
9/22/05
This paper is archived at: http://tinyurl.com/au2pj

Executive Summary

We The People have been divided into a Cold Civil War*. This divide was intentionally created by a government that does not seek the Consent of the Governed. Unverifiable "“elections"” leave no basis for confidence in the results reported, and make this government'’s power illegitimate. This government benefits from being divisive, and from the inherent uncertainty it creates with Orwellian paradoxes. This paper describes consensus-building measures to heal the divide. It is recommended that communities across the U.S. support a Voter Confidence Resolution** (VCR), modeled after the template language already adopted in Arcata, CA. Part of this campaign involves contrasting proposed election reforms with current conditions to expose the myth of democracy. Other such myths are discussed in this paper and ideas for debunking them are presented as part of the process of consensus building and divide healing. Peaceful revolution is defined as a shift in the balance of power between the government and We The People. Therefore, going from having no say in elections, to having any say at all, is necessarily revolutionary. The essentials of the VCR lay out the parameters for defining success: we must ensure conclusive election outcomes, create a basis for confidence in the results reported, and establish an accountable government genuinely representing us with our Consent. No one single reform can achieve all this and so we must embrace both the notion of an election reform platform, and the broader paradigm of peaceful revolution.

* A Google search of "cold civil war" returns over 1000 hits. It is not clear who first used the phrase or when, though a German newspaper is cited from 1949 and Ayn Rand used it in the LA Times in 1962. References have been more frequent since the November 2000 U.S. presidential election and generally bear a surface level resemblance to the use in this paper.

** Voter Confidence Resolution, as adopted by Arcata, CA on 7/20/05: http://tinyurl.com/cr2va

Read the entire paper here: http://tinyurl.com/au2pj

Divide & conquer is working all too well here. With the exception of the anti-abortion crowd most of these people hold the same morals & values as we do. This is the UNITED states of America in name only...You are correct, we are very divided & that plays in thier favor.

BTW. My Brother is impervious to truth & as such no longer a part of my life. Sad & it's happened all over America.

It nearly brought me to tears. It ought to be read by every Democrat running for every office everywehere.

The sentiment is **exactly** what our citizens need to hear right now. Democrat and Republican.

To differ honestly is right and just. To cause division is treasonous.

Well said, NanceGreggs. Well said, indeed.

They cannot make their own case - therefore they must divide, distract, and muddy the waters.

Not too hard to do when you own 95% of the media.

Bushco wants America to be divided specifically for the very reason you stated: a nation divided against itself cannot stand at all. He wants to get the nation to the point where it is so divided that it will be ripe for complete takeover by his reich-wing fascists. He only uses the Republican/fundie voters to vote for him and do dirty work in the trenches. Otherwise they are of no more use to him than a dirty tissue. Fortunately some of them are waking up to that fact and switching to the other side.

They have a responsibility - a DUTY - to accurately, and in an unbiased manner, report on the government. Without them, the government can do almost anything it wants, knowing no one will call them on it.

Imagine if there were no internet, and we had to rely on the corporate media alone. We'd be mighty fucked...:(

And even with the greatest page feature DUers are so prolific that great posts fade too quick. This post is one I can't stop thinking about.

but I really have to think that your sister is an idiot.

If she is truly concerned about these issues and outraged at the state of affairs for our nation and for average Americans, and if she still hasn't looked around and realized just what might be causing all her woes, then she is an idiot.

She chooses to believe the Republicans when they tell her that the cause of her problems is welfare mothers, immigrants, and homosexuals. And she does this while the Republicans rob her blind.


Yes, there is a divide in this country. But some of the brainwashed were corrupted willingly, during the Clinton Administration. They thought of themselves as the nation's moral compass, and loved the ego trip they got from being "against the status quo".

The brilliant move on BushCo's part was when they pulled the 180, with the 9/11 attacks. They were able to get these people, who so hated our government in the '90's, to suddenly swing to full, unquestioned support of the Bush Administration. All because they were scared to death.

And that loyalty still lingers, making them to blind to actually look around and see what problems we are having, who is in power yet refuses to address or fix them, and who benifits from such problems...

I have a couple of siblings who have gone over to the dark side, and as much as it pains me to say it, anyone who supports this administration has chosen to support an ideology that is pure evil. If they really just don't get it - then I can't respect them because they are either too lazy to learn about what's going on, or they are idiots. And their laziness or idiocy (or both) will drag me and my children and my grandchildren down with them. If they do get it, yet support it anyway, then they are willing accomplices in all the crimes that are being committed every day. Either way, they have chosen to side with those who would harm me and those I love most.

Ultimately there are two competing ideologies that are diametrically opposed. One of them, for the most part, is fundamentally good and decent. The other is evil; and although it is disguised as an ideology that is good and decent; it is based on lies and deception that anyone with a room temperature IQ and a shred of decency can see right through. I would like to think that we really are all on the same page where it counts the most, but I know that is a fantasy. I'd like to believe that we can all join hands and sing kumbaya, but sometimes reality is just plain ugly and must be faced head on. Families are being torn apart and that is a shame - but the ongoing struggle against those who would dominate and enslave us is as old as history, and those who side with darkness deserve to lose our respect and our loyalty - family or not.

Such divisiveness can never result in any progress whatsoever. In fact it is regressive.

As honest Abe once quilled, so succinctly. . .

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

I rather presumptuously, further amend , . . . "and surely, our planet in it's entirety."

I've never felt as though a lasting solution could ever lie in a two party system. For years we had gridlock but at least there was sporadic compromise. Now we no longer even have that.

Ideally we really need at least 12 parties. Canada has oodles of parties. It's my understanding that thry even have a "pot party" and a "sex party." Have no clue as to whether they are for more or less of either.

Now with single party control of three branches of government, the media, and the voting technology, it's well past time to resort to alternate approaches to regain all that we've lost in recent years IMHO.

Very simply there is far more that unites the vast majority than that which divides us. The primary concern of most is leaving the planet in far better condition than the one in which we incarnated. In recent years we've been failing miserably at that and oh so-o-o many counts.

Since having an entirely revelatory experience during the global peace meditation on October 29th, I've come up with "19 tricks or Weapons of Massive Reconstruction for Global Amelioration" that require scarcely much time or effort at all.

Eight of those tricks are posted here:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az...

The other more recent "9 tricks" are posted here:

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az...

On that thread, there are four paragraphs in the middle which are quoted from a local neswspaper article which is not necessarily entirely pertinent, scrolled beneath which, is more of my recent writing.

For the other two tricks or receipt of more recent edits, PM me and I will respond.

This land once was respected globally as a land of great diversity, yet we've foolishly bought into the myth that there are only two points of view. This misnomer has only resulted in intractable dualism, rampant shouting matches, intolerance, the disenfranchisement of the vast majority, trivialization of relatively insignificant issues, minimization of issues that loom large for all are kids, and benefits further enriching the so called "who's who of the chosen few" exclusively.

Enough is enough. These 19 tricks will work over time I swear.

Just to be topical here are the latest 2 paragraphs:

"As the echo chamber quibbles over midterm elections and potential impeachment or mere spurious censure. With partisan control of 80% of the voting machinery, my sparkled & feathered "angelic & cosmic sledgehammer" tells me that is more than likely a total long shot. We haven't time or resources to further fritter away for that much longer. We need these un-elected corrupt morons, & greedy selfish sadistic criminals to resign post haste. Consider demanding nothing less. I'll be watching for a while and then may just post plan C. You're all gonna love it : )

But here is a clue. . .when someone is continually lackadaisically incompetent and ignores rules long established, does one continue to keep that person in their employ. . .?

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az...

A greatly encouraging full page ad appeared in the much besmirched "Blue Lady" sponsored by the most "unpatriotic" ACLU over the past fortnight. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/29/05855/837

Have a nice day.

This is very poignant and should strike to the heart of America's real problems. Hatred run amok especially by talk radio.

:loveya:

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 207891 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x150354

And so did Al Gore, today.

Excellent, and much needed post! :thumbsup:

They either ignore torture or are pro-torture. They also insist the economy is great and deficits don't matter. They could also care less if people don't have healthcare as long as they have it.

Do you know any real repukes? Many are bigots, frauds, criminals and hypocrites.

Originally from the antiwar protests in September, posted in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4876705

His face and his sign say it all. We are fellow AMERICANS and we must work together with all people of good heart to take back our country.

....this could be the posting of the year, so far!!

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for setting the issues back on track!

I have a friend who lives in rural northern California and I live in semi-rural South Carolina. We differ in so many ways, but when you boil it down, we are more alike than we are different. It is how our friendship has managed to survive our political differences.

and while we may agree about a couple things - they seem to have taken up with about every kind of nonsense that the right-wing presents.

They go along with torture - they think I'm a "traitor" because I'm a liberal - they think the US is protecting us with all of this aggression - they would like to drown our gov't in a bathtub - they don't see the problems that big corporations pose in regards to controlling the gov't and being unregulated - they would like for public schools to die - they hate gay-rights, abortion rights, any kind of rights unless it's majority (Christian) rights...

And yet - I think there must be something we agree on. It is hard to find, though.

I hope many read and pass this on. There's only one thing more dangerous to this country than Bush & Co. and that is division.

NanceGregg offers a wonderful essay in the opening 6 paragraphs but, sad to say, fails in the latter half of her otherwise excellent post.

The divisions between "red" and "blue" America will not be healed until both "red" and "blue" are honest enough to admit that both sides are pretty much equally to blame for the hostile, take no prisoners political environment. Nance says it began with the current administration but was the atmosphere all that better during the Clinton years? or the Reagan years before that? I've been around a while and I think that the idea that one can be opponents without being enemies was discarded by both sides quite a while ago.

Do a little soul searching and ask if this website is any more respectful for the "other side" than those on the Free Republic site. Does anyone honestly think terms like "repukes" and "repugs" connote a respectful disagreement or are they insults hurled for insult's sake? Before anyone goes off on me, I'm not saying that the "freepers" are any better; but ..... are they really any worse?

I guarantee that for every outrageous, divisive statement made by Bush or his administration there is an equally outrageous statement made by a Democratic member of the congress. I still remember that it was a Democratic senator who said that there was "a special place in hell" for those who opposed Hillary's proposed health care plan. Now there was a statement to really move the debate along.

So what's the answer? Again, I'm not saying that Republicans are not to blame for their bad acts. They certainly are. However; Democrats must recognize that they commit bad acts, too. Sooner or later the vast, uninvolved public (which is sick of politics in general) will notice if one party cleans up its act. We cannot control the actions of others, only our own. Why shouldn't Democrats want to be seen as the party of responsible civil debate rather than shrill insult?

I hate Republicans. And there IS a special place in hell for those that opposed Hillary's healthcare.

... for taking the time to write such a well-thought out and articulate critique of the above article.

I felt I must respond, however, in that I think you've missed my point -- or perhaps, more likely, I didn't make MY point clearly enough.

I am a woman of a 'certain age', old enough to remember Eisenhower being in office. So I've seen Administrations, Dem and Repub, come and so. And yes, both parties have been guilty of ratcheting up the rhetoric when it suits their purposes. And yes, a certain degree of enmity always exists between the two; that's part and parcel of American politics.

My point is that this Administration has not come to use divisiveness through circumstances or events, but have honed it to an art and used it consistently as a weapon against the people they have allegedly been elected to lead.

Just as the now-infamous 'terror alerts' have been proven to be connected to events unfavourable to Bush, as a means of creating 'unity' behind him, so the 'tactics of division' get trotted out every time the citizenry seems to be 'joining forces' against him.

A perfect example is the lead-up to the 2004 election. People were starting to realize that they'd been sold a bill of goods re education, jobs, the economy, the war, etc. So Bush and the gang immediately pulled the 'Ban on Gay Marriage Amendment' out of their bag of tricks, knowing it was an issue that DIVIDES Americans who otherwise agree on other issues. Once Bush was safely back in office, no one has heard about such an amendment since, have they?

Divide and conquer, plain and simple. Over the years, I have seen Americans divided on issues like Viet Nam, the trickle-down economic policy, the draft -- the list is lengthy. However, I have never before seen families literally disowning each other over political leanings, or support of a particular Administration -- no, not even during the Nixon years.

I believe this Administration is evil incarnate; of that I have no doubt, based on their actions and their policies. However, they do not represent traditional Republican ideals (e.g. fiscal responsibility, States' rights). We all tend to 'make excuses' for our own party's mis-steps, as are many Republicans right now. It becomes a matter of 'My Party, Right or Wrong'. I don't agree with the concept; I just recognize it as human nature.

But when I see people (as some in this discussion) declaring that ALL Republicans are evil, condone torture, don't care about the poor, etc., my point about the success of the tactic of divisiveness is proven for me.

Some Republicans honestly believe that all Democrats are godless, porno-loving homosexual hedonists, whose aim is to put Drive-Thru Abortion Clinics on every corner of every city in the country.

Some Democrats honestly believe that all Republicans are greedy, corrupt, Bible-thumping whackos who won't rest until every American man, woman and child is forced to convert to Christianity.

People in both of those camps, IMHO, are brainwashed, ignorant of the facts, or just plain stupid.

And that's just the way the Bush Administration wants to keep them, because a nation divided is much less vigilant in scrutinizing exactly what's really going on.

NanceGreggs, I'll return the thanks for your thoughtful follow-up post.

I will offer a different perspective to some of the things you said. I call it a different perspective because I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to see things from all points of view.

You make a good point about the sudden interest in the issue of same-sex marriage in the run up to the election. It may well have been an orchestrated campaign to fire up the Republican base; but my Republican friends would say that it was a natural reaction to what happened when San Francisco ignored state law to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses and the Mass. Supreme Court found a right to same-sex marriage where none had been found before. The fact that we may not agree with that viewpoint does not mean that rational people cannot hold it, or that there is no justification for it, or that one has to be a wild-eyed religious fundamentalist to think so.

I, too am "of a certain age" who can remember back to the Eisenhower administration. I can still recall the outrage, loathing, and calumny directed at Reagan for his "evil empire" remarks. Even though he was the most Republican of Republicans I think that most rational people will admit that history has amply demonstrated that the USSR was both an empire and evil. That characterization was something that all freedom loving people could and should have agreed to with little or no discussion, yet it caused a tremendous uproar. Was Reagan responsible for that division? It's hard for me to say so. I think it's fair to say that the problem most people had with that remark was the speaker, not the content.

I guess what I'm saying is that, to me this level of divisiveness is nothing new. I think the country was much more divided during the heyday of the civil rights movement. The only difference then was that was largely an intra-party division rather than a division between parties. The question remains, how can we expect the other side to seriously consider our point of view if we are unwilling to do the same for theirs? And why should we expect to persuade the vast middle if all we are doing is shouting at those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum?

I think we're on the same page, actually.

You'll have to forgive me, because sometimes I don't articulate my thoughts as clearly as I mean to.

I'm certainly not saying that there hasn't always been division in the country, and the examples of it are plentiful: the Civil Rights movement, segregation v integration, the draft, the Viet Nam War -- it's truly endless.

What I was trying to point out in my original article is that with THIS Administration, the divisiveness is being deliberately fueled by the White House, and trotted out whenever convenient. In the past, presidents have made comments, or acted in such a way that gets the citizenry riled and people wind up choosing sides of an issue. That's inevitable, and past WH procedure has been to try to calm the waters --the, "There, there, can't we all get along" line of defence. That's because past Administrations WANTED the support of the majority of Americans in order to advance their political agenda.

With this WH, however, every time a brush fire is lit somewhere, they throw gasoline on it -- in hopes of dividing us one against the other. My comment about the 'Gay Marriage Ban Amendment' was just one case in point. Bush brought this up in his campaign SOLELY for the purpose of pitting one American against another. He had absolutely NO intention of ever seeing that through -- it was meant to incite the anger of one group of us against the other, because if we started thinking as a cohesive group, and started looking at what he was doing to the country, we might actually have VOTED as a group to get rid of him.

ALL Americans are getting the shaft right now - outsourcing of jobs, fuel prices, loss of health care coverage, the decline in our ability to afford a good education for our children. It's not one party that's suffering here, it's ALL middle-class and poor Americans. So the NATURAL outcome of all of that would be for the working classes to band together, start pointing the finger at who was REALLY at fault for all of this, and stand up and demand change.

That is why division is all-important to the Neo-Cons now in office. When people start seeing a commonality in their plight, they tend to start working, TOGETHER, towards a commonality of purpose -- in this case, kicking these pigs to the curb.

It is no coincidence that Bush ONLY talks about things like Fundamentalist Christianity, abortion, assisted suicide and homosexuality when his keepers think that the rest of us are getting a little too chummy with each other - and might actually start to think, act, and eventually VOTE as a majority.

Watch for something REALLY divisive to be blabbed about in the months to come - why? Because the MAJORITY of Americans are now saying that Iraq was a mistake, and the MAJORITY are saying that Bush should be impeached if he's broken the law via his wire-tapping program. They don't EVER want to see a majority of us taking an anti-Bush or anti-Administration stance on ANYTHING.

That was my point - I hope it makes sense.

BTW: I see you are from Nashville (or currently live there). I lived in Nashville for a year, back in 1973, and I still remember it as one of the most fun years of my entire life! Does Morrison's Cafeteria still exist? How about Shoney's? If so, I'm on the next flight ...

I think we are pretty close together on most things. My only difference with you is that I'm more of a "nothing new under the sun" person. Perhaps it's apostasy to say so, but I don't think the current administration is any more guilty of fostering divisiveness than several in the past. I think that people tend to feel today's problems, pain and aggravation along with joy, success and triumphs more that yesterday's and that tends to make us feel what we are confronting now is either the worst or best that's ever been. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.

To answer your other question. Shoney's still exists much as you remember. Sadly, Morrison's was bought out by Piccadilly many years ago.

... because I still believe that this Admin fosters divisiveness more so than any other. So we both have our HOs - it's unfortunate that as Americans, we even have to have such a discussion ...

As for Morrison's being gone, that's REALLY bad news (can I blame Bush for that, too, while I'm at it? I'm sure there's a connection somewhere, LOL)!

Thanks for such an interesting and though-provoking exchange - here's hoping we meet again on other threads!

in making things seem worse now than ever is the advent of the internet & the 24 hour news cycle. People today have access to more information than ever before and it's all spun to one side or the other.

Also, the internet tends to create echo chambers. It can seem like somebody's blaming Bush or Clinton everytime their cell phone signal drop or they can't find their car keys. But I believe this is a small minority, most people I know, of all political stripes, are just trying to live their lives and pursue happiness. And they all seem to agree on what they want, the disagreements are about how best to achieve it.

I think the appearance of division is fostered primarily by the media using wedge issues to keep people tuned in.

He told us himself.

...about the quality of education, the deficit and healthcare, then she is a rare Republican indeed. Most only care about how much power they can accrue and how much cash they can stuff into their bank accounts.

... with the current crop of Republicans as seen on TV!

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are no more representative of working-class Republican voters than Falwell or Robertson are representative of the average American Christian.

I suppose that every volunteer who assisted Katrina victims was a Democrat, just as every fire-fighter and cop who died trying to save others in the World Trade Centre on 9/11 were Democrats. Only Democrats are good, honest people - Republicans are, to a man, evil incarnate.

Thanks for proving my point about this Administration convincing the masses that these trite notions are fact.

My point was that the Admin WANTS Americans to see each other as the enemy. It suits their purposes -- and apparently, it's working REALLY WELL, isn't it?

... but not too broad. I don't think that every Repug is evil and that every Dem is good. I'm sure that there are some good Republican cops, firefighters, rescue workers, etc. But they are few and far between, IMHO.

... but again I would reiterate that we've GOT TO STOP judging each other (Dems and Reps) based on the loud-mouths who have the microphones and the air-time.

Thanks to the overt complicity of the MSM, we have all been bombarded with talking heads who claim to be representative of their constituents; they're not. The average Rep voter is no more like Ann Coulter than I am like Hillary Clinton. And unfortunately, both of those women are quoted day-in and day-out, as though they speak for the masses; they don't.

Republicans are losing their jobs, their health care coverage, their savings and their homes at the same rate Democrats are. We're ALL paying massive increases in gas at the pump, and heating oil for our homes. The middle-class, on both sides of the political spectrum, are getting royally reamed in equal doses. Therefore, it makes sense that we ALL want the same things: good-paying jobs, affordable health care, lower oil prices, etc.

That's why DIVISION of the populace HAS TO WORK in order to keep the Neo-Cons in power. If the citizenry starts thinking in terms of all of us 'sticking together' to fight G.W. Bush's policies that enrich Big Oil, Big Pharma and his Big Corporate cronies, these guys are OUT ON THEIR ASSES.

Just sayin' ...

And BTW: WELCOME TO DU!!!!! :toast:

"We, as a nation, are lost."

:applause:

But if Borklito didn't get the votes to be on SCOTUS, I don't think there would be an outcry in my household. I'm the activist of the two.