Originally Posted By vbdad55 <More corrupt than the Dalys in Chicago vbdad? However you spell the name< oh yeah, old man Daley worked for Kennedy to deliver the vote in 1960 -- and all the voter fraud that started the 'vote early - vote often' comments about Chicago -- where they found hundreds of dead people voting - some more than once --only here ..but of course only the GOP is like that-- the Dem's are all saints....oh brother
Originally Posted By Beaumandy My mother still complains about how Kennedy got elected due to corruption in Chicago. Maybe she is actually onto something.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My mother still complains about how Kennedy got elected due to corruption in Chicago.>> If so... thank God for corruption. 60's Nixon would have been even worse than 70's Nixon.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 well documented after the fact...the thing is it could still happen the same way today...Richie runs a good city, I will give him credit...but he runs it from a position of total power.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy "If it's not close they can't cheat " Great book by Hugh Hewitt that documents the cheating traditions of the democrats here in America. It's in their DNA.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (vbdad)<"this polarization did not start with the W admin - it started under Clinton..."> (jonvn) <By the republicans. < (vbdad) <wrong...> Actually, I think that's right. I'm totally with you, vbdad on both parties being corruptible - it's most likely to happen where one party enjoys near-total control of things; Democrats in places like Chicago, Republicans in recent years more in rural counties. Power tends to corrupt, and neither party is immune. However, I do think that our current polarization can largely be laid at the door of the GOP, and I am trying to be objective here. Any student of American history knows that this is hardly our first or even or most vicious period of polarization. But it IS the worst I've seen in my 46 years. And I believe the current unpleasantness can be laid largely at the doorstep of one Newt Gingrich and followers. Remember, Newt was considered a "bomb thrower" when he took over the House in '94. His rhetoric as a back-bencher was incendiary. When he took over, rather than tone it down, he kept it up. He actually instructed GOP house members to never use the word "Democrat" without also including an appropriate adjective - favored adjectives included "unpatriotic," "out-of-touch," and "sick." Think about that for a second. All are beyond the pale, but "sick?" But there it is. Newt explained to his acolytes that it was important to control the discourse, and the public must be conditioned to associate words such as these with "Democrat." Did the Democrats respond in kind? Too many did, yes. But it was not organized from the top down, as with Gingrich and the GOP. As Will Rogers famously said, "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Still, the die was cast, the rhetoric got worse and worse, and the polarization only increased in '98 with the impeachment, and increased again in 2000 with the disputed razor-thin election. But I do think the recent extreme polarization started with Newt's instructions to his "troops."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If so... thank God for corruption. 60's Nixon would have been even worse than 70's Nixon.> FWIW, although it's quite probable that Daly's machinations swung Illinois for Kennedy, Kennedy would still have won even if he had lost Illinois in 1960.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Actually, I think that's right. I'm totally with you, vbdad on both parties being corruptible - it's most likely to happen where one party enjoys near-total control of things; Democrats in places like Chicago, Republicans in recent years more in rural counties. Power tends to corrupt, and neither party is immune< A voice of sanity -- I applaud your willingness to state something most won't-- ( of course you are now likely part of the new target - we moderates who can't make up our minds and are easily confused ) See once a post starts like this it makes it a whole lot easier to read the rest of the post without waiting to 'retaliate' for being called names. I actually agree with a large portion of the post after that, but let me add this thought. While I think a lot of the wide divide that exists today can be tracked back to Gingrich, and may come more from inside the actual GOP than outside ( as I basically ingore Rush and Pat and the like) - the Dems have their share of bomb throwers also - but the ones that get the most press align themselves with the Democrats - but may not always be politicians. i.e. Jesse ( photo op) Jackson / Al Sharpton / Michael Moore - and a lot of Hollywood types who like to act like they actually have a clue about most anything...who regularly rip into the GOP for anything and everything...regardless of facts.. I hope that makes sense..
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<If so... thank God for corruption. 60's Nixon would have been even worse than 70's Nixon.> FWIW, although it's quite probable that Daly's machinations swung Illinois for Kennedy, Kennedy would still have won even if he had lost Illinois in 1960.< first off 60's Nixon could not have been worse than 60's Johnson -- ( and his war monger Mcnamara )- and how they handled the war -- the current group in power has nothing on these guys when it comes to spinning how the war is going - Mcnamara hiding vital death stats from johnson, and johnson and his group too stupid to see what everyone else did, and constant escalation of a war we were told was winding down... as far as Kennedy winning, I did know that, but I also know Daley's machine stole Illinois for Kennedy...the point was - as you acknowledged - absolute power is not a domain of any one party..
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I actually agree with a large portion of the post after that, but let me add this thought. While I think a lot of the wide divide that exists today can be tracked back to Gingrich, and may come more from inside the actual GOP than outside ( as I basically ingore Rush and Pat and the like) - the Dems have their share of bomb throwers also - but the ones that get the most press align themselves with the Democrats - but may not always be politicians. i.e. Jesse ( photo op) Jackson / Al Sharpton / Michael Moore - and a lot of Hollywood types who like to act like they actually have a clue about most anything...who regularly rip into the GOP for anything and everything...regardless of facts.. I hope that makes sense..> It does... but remember that just because you ignore Rush and the like (and many Democrats ignore the like of Sharpton), doesn't mean everyone does. We've seen right here that some hang on every word Rush says. So yes, Rush and co. on one side and Sharpton and co. on the other have contributed to the polarization, no question. And I think from the non-pols, it's pretty much a wash. From the pols, I do think the recent degraded discourse started with Gingrich and pals.
Originally Posted By jonvn "wrong..." No. They started in on Clinton and the pointless abuse of the civil system with him. "get those statues ready to idolize all Dems'" I'm not idolizing anyone. I simply remember what happened. And the best part is that when someone says something about Bush, the same people who tried to destroy our government while Clinton was in office will call you a traitor, or some other thing. It really is a disgrace.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I remember some pretty vitriolic attacks made by Democrats against President Reagan. I think the roots of the divide we see today goes back farther than the 90's.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I remember some pretty vitriolic attacks made by Democrats against President Reagan. I think the roots of the divide we see today goes back farther than the 90's.>> I guess I don't remember that, and I'm a Reagan fan having voted for him twice (though I'm not about to declare him the greatest president in U.S. history like some want to). But I remember criticism directed against specific policies... military spending, Iran-Contra etc. and NOT general criticism against Reagan the man or Republicans in general. I really believe the current divide was intentionally created by Gingrich and his boys with their constant personal criticisms of Clinton and their degrading of Democrats in general.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The divide in this country came when Clinton was impeached ( as he deserved )and the democrats lost Florida in 2000. Once Bush was elected the left, who are nuts anyway, totally lost it. Since then they have only become more crazed. Just ask them their plans for anything and their answer is.. " Bush is an idiot ". Then they say vote for them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I really believe the current divide was intentionally created by Gingrich and his boys with their constant personal criticisms of Clinton and their degrading of Democrats in general.> The "constant" criticisms of President Clinton and Democrats by Rep Gingrich and other Republicans were against specific policies.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Once Bush was elected the left, who are nuts anyway, totally lost it.<< Yes! Up until that point, Democrats and Republicans had more of an Oscar Madison/Felix Unger relationship. They drove each other a little crazy, but they still stayed together for poker night when Murray the cop would join them. Some think things were pretty divided back in the Viet Nam era.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Some think things were pretty divided back in the Viet Nam era.>> I guess more folks should have realized that it was kind of like M.A.S.H. and that war could really be kind of fun.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I remember some pretty vitriolic attacks made by Democrats against President Reagan." The opposition party generally will attack the President. But nothing like what started happening in the 90s.
Originally Posted By ecdc "The "constant" criticisms of President Clinton and Democrats by Rep Gingrich and other Republicans were against specific policies." Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are always attacks from the opposition to the party in power. Nothing new there. What did become new under Clinton though, was the uber-personal attacks and the culture wars generated solely by the religious right. Clinton's policies weren't just under fire. Clinton was under fire for being "bubba" or "Slick Willy" - names that people on these boards still use today. As has already been pointed out, the name calling came into play thanks to Gingrich and his supporters in the so-called "Christian" right (oh the irony - I'm sure Jesus is all about name calling). The culture wars are well-documented in James T. Patterson's history, "Restless Giant."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I guess I don't remember that, and I'm a Reagan fan having voted for him twice (though I'm not about to declare him the greatest president in U.S. history like some want to). < well since we are in the same age bracket - think back to some of the very personal attacks -- abot his age / senility / realtionship with Nancy etc...I agree some of the 'personal' stuff started then. It wasn;t quite as relentless as it is today, but absolutely was there a lot. and as far as the greatest president - too many years and too different issues to pick one, but he is in the team photo as they say in my opinion
