And, meanwhile, I just wanted to mention again, that the SCHIP bill was a bipartisan effort, with many from both sides being disappointed about the veto. Those same people are working together, (I am laughing) yes, actually working together (imagine that), to bring the bill forward again. That’s probably the bigger story now; those people working together while the swale goes on all around them.

I can see that the dearth of direct info about the bipartisan folks in media, I think… leads to the story being buried, and one wonders, I do, if that too is some kind of strategy to silence news of matters that increase depth of understanding, not just highlight to ‘OJ adnauseum proportions’ the stick fighting in the streets.
dr.e

I agree with Dr. Estes that the right had to villanize him and find issues that struck more emotional chords -abortion, guns, gays with social conservatives, because they couldn’t hit him on economic issues, and he was where most of the country was on social issues.

The reason conservatives went after him with such a vengeance (not saying that there was nothing there to go after) was that their only recourse to him governing in a moderate way that pleased most of the public was to magnify his flaws (which of course, were numerous). He did manage to govern well in spite of Monica Lewinski and the impeachment. He left office with a 70% approval rating (the reverse of Bush) which is what makes conservatives hate him so much. The sinner, far from being vanquished by forced accountability for his sin, flourished.

Clinton didn’t hide under a rock after he left office, he made speeches, created his global initiative, raised money with the president’s father for Katrina and tsunami victims. Rather than being a detriment to his wife’s campaign, he is her biggest asset. Rather than being shunned by the movers and shakers, he is sought out by them. He continues to lead the party and lead world efforts to find practical solutions to big problems. Rush and Sean just can’t stand it.

I son’t know, of course, but I wonder tif it’s not a case of focusing on the need to win and to be able to govern . As we see in the Senate, winning or winning a majority is not enough, and the result is a stalemeate where nothing can move forwzrd.

We cna’t just jettison the oppostions and the obstrucionists out of the country. Some means of winning over a portion of them on policies are necessary. Wether the more unsavory moves to seduce part of the oppostion are necessary, well, that’s another matter.

To my mind, the judgment about ‘pictures’ ends up one way if iconsidered on a theorretical level, but another way when it’s considered on an acuality level.

I agree with you in principle, but ti all breaks down when I try to apply it to specific cases.
When Pres. Bush delivers major addresses with military personnel as a backdrop, is that not equally a case of appealing to emotions and doversion from the substance of the issues? Are the military not a ‘human shield’ just like the Frost boy is accused of being?

Our calls in these cases depend too much on whether we agree or not on the policy being advocated. In the end, we arrive once more at the ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ judgment about pornography.

That’s why I think it’s a msitake to try to make rules about the props, It’s impossible to find a definitive line where the inappropriate begins ans ends.

I dislike (no, hate) all pushy advetising Still, it teaches me to adopt scepticism about all advertising. I let the advertiser speak, and then I apply my own judgement as to whther or not the ad was believable.

I think a healthy scepticism and, above all, civility
would lead us to discussing substance. The alternative, as in the present case, is to spend days arguing about the props- because there will never be agreement about which props are appropriate in which instances. We would be much further along in discussing health care, if we hadn’t been diverted by the firestorm over props.

A parting thought: I was remembering the cute Roberts children at his confirmation hearings. Where they not there to show what a fine unstanding family man Roberts was? What do his children have to do with his competence as a Judge?
Would he be less competent if he were childless, single, or even gay?
You see? Props appealing to emotion.

I wonder if ‘stealing thunder’ from ‘the right’ means the keepers of such thunder then have to create other kinds of ‘thunder’ to hold their place, or try to.

I am just wondering about the underpinnings to all this newly strange feather fighting that used to be done pretty hard with packed pillows, but now seems to be being done by flailing with the whole chicken

dr.e

As much as those on the right would wish it were so, most people don’t connect organisations like Moveon with the Dems. For one thing the Dems were quick to condemn them, unlike the republicans who are happy to defend Limbaugh’s crass ‘phoney soldiers’ comment.

While the far left remains on the fringes, vocal but without real influence, the worst of the far right is at the heart of today’s republican party, or at least that’s the perception, and its growing day by day.

The news of McConnell’s aide and his involvement in spreading lies about the Frost’s confirms the link.

If the picture approach is really just one part of the whole discussion, and if objective debates can really arise from one anecdote (to some extent I think that has actually happened after the Frost episode- if you take out all of the ridiculous noise and the unacceptable smears on the family), then it has some merit. More often the negative stuff outweighs the good IMO though.

*By “best way”, what I mean is the best way which will help him and his family, along with all the other millions of kids who might need help. And, is it a way that is sustainable, and that helps the healthcare system become better and more affordable for all instead of worsening the real problem of healthcare costs?

I appreciate the busy bees that get the work done amid the clamor, but the annoying clamor is what democracy is all about. The clamor keeps the working bees informed about what the work is that they need to do.

Right now I think it’s all just fine. The only thing that ruins it is that opposing sides are not satisfied with taking their turn at the pidium and then sittiing down to let the opposing side speak. Instead, everyone rears up to tear each other to pieces by any mens they can.

The current means of tearing each other to pieces rests with blogs, whether self motivated or spurred into action by mean spirited politicians.

If we could just learn to speak our minds and then sit down, it would all be okay. Even holding up large pictures would be perfectly okay.

The props used matter far less than the civiliy of the participants and the audience.