(no subject)
Mar. 27th, 2006 10:07 pmi normally have no disagreements with Hugh Hewitt, but i think this is a remarkably stupid idea. it's just catering to the partisan extremist bullshit that's out there, and i kind of expected better from him. if we want to do something about the vast divide that seems to be in politics right now, then stopping with the labelling is the first step. wanna argue how you think X politician or Y politician is making bad decisions, or who's record could be a problem in your perception? fine. then argue the facts and leave out the partisan labels. no party is right simply by virtue of its belief in its own rightness, because it's made up of people, and people are flawed.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 07:52 am (UTC)dunno, but it seems like politicos of every stripe have decided that if you apear realistic or interested in compromise at all, you must be weak... :massive eyeroll:... praying for a candidate in 2 years that is worth voting for. Anyone? Bueller? I swear I'll vote for Nader again in protest... meanwhile, this fall I get to vote for Tom Tancredo for another term in the house... or... um, no-one. The guy is loopier 'n a fruitbat, and yet no one will run against him. Hmmm, maybe hewitt is talking painting it red by default, eh?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-28 08:15 am (UTC)yes, and honestly, i think the government works better that way...is more balanced. i'm never comfortable when the party of the prez has the majority in congress. don't care who's party it is.
In any event, and without knowing the actual book, just the title sounds like a "my way or the hiway" manifesto... It is a fabulous way to unite your opposition, who will read the title and not the book, and use it to whip up their own followers...
YES. exactly this. and it just seemed odd from Hewitt, to me. could be a faboo, reasonable, rational book, but that pick at Amazon made me want to scream.