<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Lowering The Partisan Heat</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/</link>
	<description>Because Common Sense Transcends Distance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:30:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/comment-page-1/#comment-89604</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12155#comment-89604</guid>
		<description>The comment by &quot;Interested&quot; above assumes that divisive politics is a product of representative institutions that have become unrepresentative of &quot;the people&quot; (that assumption is a necessary predicate of the claim that their becoming more representative of the population at large will defuse partisan tensions). The assumption seems baseless, to me. In a democratic system -- including a democratic component of a larger system that need not itself be a democracy, such as the democratic systems within our federal republican form of government -- one would &lt;i&gt;expect&lt;/i&gt; politics to be divided if the people are divided, and every measure indicates that we are. Indeed, when society is polarized, one would &lt;i&gt;expect&lt;/i&gt; politics to be polarized; if it were not, one would have to ask just how representative the system was! For some of us, that is not a pressing concern (I for one think that many of our problems arise from a fetishization of democracy, and its unwise, unthinking extension into areas where it has no imaginable utility), but for those who purport to believe in more democracy more of the time, you fellows have to take the rough with the smooth.

The middle would do well to remember that just because the center holds the balance of power does not mean that it is itself a majority, any more than are the right or the left.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comment by &#8220;Interested&#8221; above assumes that divisive politics is a product of representative institutions that have become unrepresentative of &#8220;the people&#8221; (that assumption is a necessary predicate of the claim that their becoming more representative of the population at large will defuse partisan tensions). The assumption seems baseless, to me. In a democratic system &#8212; including a democratic component of a larger system that need not itself be a democracy, such as the democratic systems within our federal republican form of government &#8212; one would <i>expect</i> politics to be divided if the people are divided, and every measure indicates that we are. Indeed, when society is polarized, one would <i>expect</i> politics to be polarized; if it were not, one would have to ask just how representative the system was! For some of us, that is not a pressing concern (I for one think that many of our problems arise from a fetishization of democracy, and its unwise, unthinking extension into areas where it has no imaginable utility), but for those who purport to believe in more democracy more of the time, you fellows have to take the rough with the smooth.</p>
<p>The middle would do well to remember that just because the center holds the balance of power does not mean that it is itself a majority, any more than are the right or the left.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fraidykatt</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/comment-page-1/#comment-89330</link>
		<dc:creator>Fraidykatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12155#comment-89330</guid>
		<description>Also I just read his piece at the daily KOS and it seems pretty obvious to me that he simply is trying to figure out a new angle to convince the conservative base to turn on Bush so they can have their retribution. 

The left so desperately wants to try Bush/Cheney and half the administration in some massive witch hunt that it truly is sickening to me.  Especially given we are or were in a war with 2 nations and terrorists around the world.

Right or wrong.  I still believe torture is wrong.  But I have a problem with their definition of what constitututes torture and to me everytime I hear them listing what constitututes torture they go so far over board that every prisioner in America could claim they were tortured.

So after reading his piece its obvious he has just one motive.  A new angle on GETTING BUSH.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also I just read his piece at the daily KOS and it seems pretty obvious to me that he simply is trying to figure out a new angle to convince the conservative base to turn on Bush so they can have their retribution. </p>
<p>The left so desperately wants to try Bush/Cheney and half the administration in some massive witch hunt that it truly is sickening to me.  Especially given we are or were in a war with 2 nations and terrorists around the world.</p>
<p>Right or wrong.  I still believe torture is wrong.  But I have a problem with their definition of what constitututes torture and to me everytime I hear them listing what constitututes torture they go so far over board that every prisioner in America could claim they were tortured.</p>
<p>So after reading his piece its obvious he has just one motive.  A new angle on GETTING BUSH.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fraidykatt</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/comment-page-1/#comment-89329</link>
		<dc:creator>Fraidykatt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12155#comment-89329</guid>
		<description>I am interested in Newt Gingrich&#039;s suggestion that conservatives break off into a third party.  I would actually like to see that.  By breaking off into a third party the left over GOP would, I believe, allow for many in the democratic party to cross over and join their fold as they would more likely represent a cross section of GOP and democratic moderates.  In essence you would end up with three parties.  

Democrats of more or less farther left positions.  Moderates or the left over GOP with mass defections of moderate democrats and most likely nearly all the libertarians would defect to this party and the New GOP party which would be most likely the purist conservatives who are more then likely the social conservatives. 

I would say this party split up would be great for America.  With a strong moderate party it would force the idealogical left and right to moderate as well to succeed.

I hope hes right.  We truly need a 3rd party in this nation to fix what ails us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am interested in Newt Gingrich&#8217;s suggestion that conservatives break off into a third party.  I would actually like to see that.  By breaking off into a third party the left over GOP would, I believe, allow for many in the democratic party to cross over and join their fold as they would more likely represent a cross section of GOP and democratic moderates.  In essence you would end up with three parties.  </p>
<p>Democrats of more or less farther left positions.  Moderates or the left over GOP with mass defections of moderate democrats and most likely nearly all the libertarians would defect to this party and the New GOP party which would be most likely the purist conservatives who are more then likely the social conservatives. </p>
<p>I would say this party split up would be great for America.  With a strong moderate party it would force the idealogical left and right to moderate as well to succeed.</p>
<p>I hope hes right.  We truly need a 3rd party in this nation to fix what ails us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Interested</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/comment-page-1/#comment-89323</link>
		<dc:creator>Interested</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12155#comment-89323</guid>
		<description>and for reasons like this

&lt;blockquote&gt;
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He&#039;s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with &quot;adverse&quot; consequences if its chairman persists. That&#039;s politics talking, not economics.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

keep the heat up on this inept President</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and for reasons like this</p>
<blockquote><p>
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He&#8217;s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with &#8220;adverse&#8221; consequences if its chairman persists. That&#8217;s politics talking, not economics.
</p></blockquote>
<p>keep the heat up on this inept President</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Interested</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/04/on-lowering-the-partisan-heat/comment-page-1/#comment-89312</link>
		<dc:creator>Interested</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.poligazette.com/?p=12155#comment-89312</guid>
		<description>it won&#039;t happen until we really do get a President and Congress that represent all of the people.  And not just represent the left as is the current situation (or just represent the right as the previous Administration).   The left spent 8 years blaming everything up to hangnails on the Bush Administration while sweeping their own corruption and incompetence under the rug and now want to naturally not have any partisanship.

Of course now the left&#039;s child-like behavior and ability level&#039;s are forced to be examined in full light.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it won&#8217;t happen until we really do get a President and Congress that represent all of the people.  And not just represent the left as is the current situation (or just represent the right as the previous Administration).   The left spent 8 years blaming everything up to hangnails on the Bush Administration while sweeping their own corruption and incompetence under the rug and now want to naturally not have any partisanship.</p>
<p>Of course now the left&#8217;s child-like behavior and ability level&#8217;s are forced to be examined in full light.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
