wow!  I have been talking about the divisivness in this country for some time.  This administration is very good at using whatever it takes to divide the country even further.  A divided country won't find its way to working together to oust the unethical liars we now have in office. 

 

The rising gas prices just might unite the country in a way that nobody expected.  And I will also say this:  when you use religion as the breaking point (if you are religious you are republican, if you're a democrat you cannot be religious), then you are dividing the country purposefully. 

 

and just because the republicans represent the majority, it is a slim majority.  does that mean the minority doesn't get any voice?  That's apparently what this administration believes.    that's why we need the checks and balances that are in effect when one party does not have control of everything.  Hopefully, the country will come to realize this.  sooner than later. 

Consider this part of the equation.

 

The Republicans are in the majority.  Based at least upon representation, they represent the majority view of Americans (accepting that that can change very quickly).  As the majority, should they or should they not have a large part of the say in what happens in the legislature?  While I disagree they have "disenfranchised" the Democratic side, isn't that part of their perogative.  They are the majority, and shouldn't have to kowtow to the minority for everything they do.  Consider on the other side of the coin the near constant threat of filibuster used by the minority for everything.

 

I agree that both sides have been ridiculous.  Could we even say childish?  And if the term liberal has become a curseword, how is the term neo-con used?

 

One final "consider."  Compare the rhetoric used by the leaders of both parties.  Look at the comments made by Howard Dean, Harry Reid, et al.  And then look at the comments by Frist, Bush, or even DeLay.  Which are more divisive and vitriolic?  And if we're discussing the actions taken by the administration, are they actions that are opposed or supported by the majority?  Keep in mind that Democrats spent more than five decades taking actions opposed and denounced by the then minority party.  That's one of the points of being the majority.  You get to advance your agenda, despite the vehement protestations of the minority.  Unless, of course, the minority has a venomous hatred to the point that they become obstructionist.  Again, the question.  Is that the fault of the administration, or of those who carry that enmity with them?

 

Take a peek at my site over the coming days and weeks.  I'm going to address this topic in greater detail.

Interesting perspective.  I'll ponder the idea that the hate spews from the left... though I'm not entirely sure that there isn't an equal amount of like-hate pouring from various sides of the right.  Having explored a fairly large number of blogs so far, and read quite a bit of conservative writing in columns, as yet I see a very high porportion of those works doing the follwoing: dehumanizing the term "liberal" - turning it into an epithet or a curse word; ripping traditional perspectives of any sense of dignity or intellectual validity, and generally branding anyone that adopts a moderate stance on issues a "liberal" as if it were some kind of cuse word.  I haven't seen that happen in the majority of liberal writings I have perused; instead, I see a sense of horror and dismay at what's happening to almost 70 years of progressive politics in this country.

 

But the bottom line, I think, is that your post seems to make part of the point I'm trying to make: a spirit of divisiveness exists in this country as it hasn't for a very long time, and that - I assert - to some degree, the current administration and its collaborators in the Republican party and elsewhere have used tactics to exploit those divisions mercilessly.  And to my mind, as President Bush campaigned on a "I'm a uniter, not a divider" platform in 2000, I feel somewhat betrayed by those tactics, irregardless of how Democrats or traditional liberals have responded.

 

My perspective is overall somewhat different from yours; in general, I've observed a winding up and spinning up of "hatred" on the "liberal" or "democrat" side of the equation *in response* to these perspectives being almost completely shut out of the political process - Cheney's energy policy, the Republican majority's manouvers on the senate floor basically disenfranchising the Democratic party en nasse (DeLay voting tactics come to mind as a poignant example).

 

One thing that was evident throughout Regan, Bush I, and Clinton's administration - at least to some part under Clinton's administration - was that there was some sense of biparisanship and respect for office, respect for institutional processes that uphold the overall balance of the democratic process.  Witnessesing extremely hardball partisan floor tactics, the "K-Street" project, and the Bush administration systematically eradicate any sense of liberal or moderate voices' representation - expansions of Medicare aside - has, in my mind, been more hatred-building than whatever gasoline the traditional liberals have tossed on the fire.

 

Now that I've had my say, I'm going to spin right around and say: I agree with your assertion that the Democratic party has been cannabalizing itself since Clinton left office.  I agree that they have no message save "vote for us, we're not them."  I agree that they appear to be posers and have no real vision or voice that seems to be finding traction with the overall American people.

 

Nevertheless, with the overarching collection of recent history facing the Republicans, with Bush as a figurhead, the Democrats, by comparison, look somewhat clean and safer by comparison.  Mabye not having an agenda is a good thing.  Mabye they'll vote the interests of their constituencies instead of the special interests, or the partisan hardballers at the core of the party.  I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Leb, a lot of what you say depends upon where you're standing.  People like myself would say the real problem of "division" has two sources, neither of which is President Bush or his administration.  I would say those divisions that do exist are a result of vitriolic hatred coming from the left.  You say that the extreme right has taken control of the Republican Party.  Yet middle of the road conservatives such as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger and many others have great deal of sway within the party.

 

Can the Democratic Party say the same?  What has happened to the moderate voices of the liberal side of the aisle?  Joe Lieberman has been shunned.  Zell Miller may as well be Satan, or worse yet, a Republican.  And many other moderate liberals have been shown the door.  They are no longer welcome as representatives of the more liberal voices in America.  At the same time you swear the extreme conservatives have hijacked the Republican Party, the Democrats dare not move without seeing how moveon.org, George Soros, or Michael Moore might respond.  And in the end, I'm not all that worried.  That's how politics works.  If those are the people Democrats feel can get them back into the majority, have at it.

 

At the end of the day, President Bush was elected on the platform he is now pushing.  Cutting taxes, pro-life justices, fairly conservative views.  If anything, conservatives feel he has pandered too much to the left.  Allowing Ted Kennedy to take the lead on an education bill, getting sucked into the idea of increasing social welfare programs, etc.  I don't view the source of these "divisions" as the conservatives in America.  I see it as the liberals.  They can't have it their way, so they hate, and hate, and hate.

 

Perhaps the reason there wasn't this appearance of division during the Reagan years because liberals held the reigns of power in the legislative branch and had for decades.  Only when a Republican held the White House was there any serious opposition.  Now, they are out of power and seeth with rage that pours into the public light.  Perhaps these "divisions" you see are the result of that, and have little to do with Bush's actions.

Runningpol, based on many different sorts of politicial science studies and reports from various polls, as well as some social science writings, IMHO this country hasn't been this divided between war vs. antiwar, left vs. right, republican vs. democrat, religious evangelicals vs. secular humanists, or patriots vs. pinko commie scum liberals since the McCarthy years.  Shades of grey and nuanced discourse are pretty much a thing of the past, except in narrow forums like this.  Instead, we have a "with or against" mentality, and if you're in the middle of the road or you split hairs on issues, you're in the "against" camp automatically, from any side.

 

I think to personify it and say it is the result of "this presidency" is far too simplistic.  Carl Rove's machinations behind the 2000 and 2004 elections had a lot to do with amplified conflicting views, polarizing camps into opposing forces, and creating an atmosphere of divisiveness.  Tom DeLay's "K-street project" and the (mis)use of the Republican majority's manipulation of senate floor procedure to force through an agenda that the majority of voters would not have supported, using unlikely open and extremely long votes has something to do with it.  In the end, though, this presidency may in fact be an effect, rather than a cause, a facade for a unified (minority) coalition of neoconservatives, evangelicals, and very narrow wealth-driven interests.  It's hard to see this close in.  Give us 50 years of parallax and we'll be able to summarize it better.

 

Personally, since I became "politically aware" sometime around Ronald Regan's presidency, I haven't seen anything quite like it.  IMHO it's almost as if we're experiencing a cultural civil war, without weapons.  I remember how divided socially and politically the country became during Regan's administration, and even during Clinton's,  but those divisions seemed to be based on pervasive cultural shifts, rather than the Bush administration's reign.  For example, I beileve there was a genuine desire behind the vast majority of Americans to leave behind 50% income tax brackets and 18% inflation, and rebalance federal tax structure, and that this was a broad, significant cultural driver for reform.

 

I saw no such cultural mandate for the Bush administration; rather, they ran on a platform of "bringing dignity back to the White House," "We're not nation-builders," and aw-shucks purity and honesty, cast against the backdrop of Clinton's indiscretions and legal woes.  But The reality of the Bush administration, conversely - and this was quite evident before 9/11 - seems to be a reign of the minority (neoconservatives), through the active and somewhat cynical cooperation of a larger majority (Republicans and Evangelicals) that are pursuing a separate agenda, and a hidden agenda of an almost complete restructuring of federal powers, federal tax structure, wealth redistribution, social programs, and diplomatic policy - a throwback to "gunboat diplomacy."

 

If anything, IMHO, putting the Bush administration on a pedistal and claiming that they're leading a cultural revoltion is giving them far, far, far too much credit.  If anything, they're a puppet monarchy, more-or-less controlled directly by people like Dick Cheney, the special interests behind Tom DeLay, and coalitions of religious conservatives all seeking to rebalance our country's governing structure to support their own narrow interests.

Excuse me?!  Let's see.  President Bush nominates someone he believes has the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice.  The base of his party starts to raise questions immediately.  The leaders of his party, heeding those opinions, start to raise the same questions.  And President Bush refuses to cede his nominee.  He stands by his belief that she is qualified.  He refuses to give in to the noise from the party and the perception that Meiers is unqualified.

 

In the end, she withdraws herself.  Of course, I'll make your argument for you, and say that it is possible she withdrew her name at the president's request.  I doubt that is the case, but will grant the argument.  Even if true, it was less a matter of yielding to perception than attempting to force through a nomination that was most likely doomed to fail.

 

You cite a major rift caused by the president, and I'm still waiting for any details to support that claim.  I think his nominees for the Supreme Court will do little to further your argument, as many conservatives feel some of his nominees are actually to centrist for their liking.  There are a great many options for far more "divisive" nominees (if by divisive you mean people with a view other than yours).

 

Perhaps another question might yield a better response.  When has President Bush made choices based on political expediency?  When has he governed based on assuaging the perceptions of the people.  President Clinton did it all the time, and I have and can cite a great many examples.  President Bush, on the other hand, has suffered in the so often cited polls because he governs based on what he and his administration believes is right, instead of doing the wrong thing just to keep perception of him high.

Fred, that begs the question.  I disagree with your assessment.  The world was screwed up long before President Bush ever took office, as could be viewed by any of the events from the past half century.

 

The same groups this president is opposing took several shots at the United States while President Clinton was in office.  The first WTC bombing attempt, USS Cole, embassies around the world, etc ad nauseum.  President Bush's actions hardly caused their hatred and contempt for western cultural values.

 

But perhaps we shouldn't blame President Clinton, either.  The same groups he dealt with were busy during President HW Bush's watch, as well.  Bombings in Israel, the invasion of Kuwait, the rise of the Taliban.  So apparently it wasn't the views of either recent presidents that caused their hatred of all things American.

 

Perhaps it was President Reagan's fault.  After all, the same general area was responsible for quite a few attacks during his watch.  Of course, that would mean we'd have to look at what Iran did during President Carter's administration.

 

So your argument holds little water.  The only "division" President Bush has caused is the rift that developed between those demanding a strong stance against these aggressors and those who would rather appease them and accept the blame for their atrocities.

 

If you disagree with that statement, consider where the divisions exist, and tell me where I'm wrong.

The Running Pol,

The addage that perception is reality certainly applies.  The addage, however, is often used to highlight that people tend to care more about what they SEE than what IS.  With President Clinton, they SAW a man being hounded and pursued about a matter that was presented as a private issue.  What it WAS was a president caught in an ugly (possibly illegal - sexual harassment vis a vis position of power over an intern) situation, and then admittedly committing one felony and likely committing others in an attempt to cover his indiscretions.  The perception that he was somehow wronged allowed him to emerge from the situation relatively unscathed.  Perception IS reality.  In this case, it was quite wrong in its outcome.

 

In this case, the perception is that the intelligence used to support the Iraq war was flawed.  Despite the fact that evidence continues to mount that the original intelligence wasn't so far off base.  Early indications were that it was bad.  Current estimations seem to support the opposite.  Even so, the perception is what drives sentiment.

 

The perception is also that ONLY the administration had some ulterior motive.  Wilson's agenda is moot, in the eyes of the general public.  Those who look further than what they read in the mainstream news learn more (on both sides, as you have pointed out in the past).  The PERCEPTION is that Plame was outed to make Wilson's report look bad.  As you mention, it might have been far more than that.  As I have mentioned, it might have been nothing so sinister.  One thing is certain, perception is, as usual, probably relatively far off the mark.

 

Interestingly, President Bush refuses to govern based on perception.  That is one thing many like about him.  Whether right or wrong, he has his beliefs.  He does what he believes is best for this country.  You might disagree with him.  You might agree.  He's still going to do it.  Many of less conviction care more about ratings and poll numbers than personal belief.  Consider the issue faced by Senator Kerry, and currently plaguing Senator Clinton.  The apparent lack of true principals on which they would govern as president.  Perception may be reality.  But it makes a poor base for a platform.

Runningpol, setting aide technical and legal arguments, the bottom line for this is really very simple.

 

Perception.

 

President Bush standing in front of the podium and saying he'd fire anyone that participated in this leak, and now (reportedly) having authorized it himself, it purely reeks to high heaven of the same sort of artful deceit, untrustworthiness and misdirection as "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman," and "Read my lips, no new taxes."

 

It's a matter of categorization, not degree.

 

Overall, in the public perception arena, this new revelation and the Administrations' inept handling of it is a stunning blow to President Bush and his close administration advisors' credibility and trustworthiness.  Now it appears overall that this whole administration stand against the leakers and its steadfast refusal to speak out on the issue was a big charade covering up their own folly.  Operative word: cover-up.  It may not have been illegal, but it smacks of impropriety of the highest degree.  Operative word: impropriety.  Appearance of deceit.

 

People haven't been drawing parallels to Watergate - yet - but it's useful to remember that the whole breakin and coverup revolved around a Nixon pogrom against leakers.  There's nothing of that sort of illegal activity happening here, but the shape of the thing seems very similar, in overall form, if not literal and legal degree.  I think the inevitable public reaction is inescapable: to write off the Administrations' trustworthiness across the board, and to reinforce the impression that they did, in fact, engage in a disinformation campaign to start the Iraq war.

 

The black-and-white technical and legal issues still revolve around whether Libby committed perjury or not.  Despite the legal manuverings, it's quite clear that he did.  His main defense - so far - is that he was distracted by other things.  Nobody else has been indicted - yet.  So frankly, I think the issue here isn't really about Libbygate or not.

 

It's about whether or not the President and the Vice President are capable of behaviors that would support the assertion that they engaged in a covert disinformation campaign against critics, and mabye engaged in distortion of Intelligence to start a war.  Having engaged in the art of deception about the leak - not about the content of it - suggests that they are quite capable of having engaged overall deceptions.  Yes, guilt by association to be sure, but it's quite a strong association - the events are hardly unrelated.  The dots are very, very easy to connect, and they paint a grim picture in the public eye.

 

The public is going to connect these dots.  Libbygate -> CheneyBushgate -> they really did fake the intelligence?.  It doesn't matter whether those conclusions are factually right or wrong.

 

It's the perception that matters, in the end.

 

I stand by what I said.  These guys are slimy.  They've been busted with their hand in the cookie jar, and now they look first like deer in the headlights, then like Keystone Cops scurring around trying to fit it all back together.

 

That can't be a good thing for Republicans in November.  Guilt by association, at the polls.

Not to slow down the drooling, but it might be a good idea to step back for one second.  First, there has been absolutely nothing to indicate that President Bush told Libby to do what was done.  Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald filed papers stating that Libby testified that President Bush authorized him to release previously classified material.  By their own admission, those reporting on the subject admit they are jumping to conclusions (they're welcome to do so, but anyone taking their reports as truth is either gullible or has preconceived notions).

 

Second would be the question of "misusing" national security information for political gain.  It begs the question whether it was for political gain or just to shed some truth on the matter.  It is readily apparent to most the Ambassador Wilson was less than forthright in his actions.  Valerie Plame's actions are also suspect, as she is no less guilty of using untraditional methods to accomplish her goal.  Who's right?  I'm still torn, as I do agree that releasing her name may have been wrong.  Then again, her actions raise questions about whether I would want her acting in my nation's security interests.  Perhaps removing her from the intelligence community was the best thing that could happen.

 

And for anyone who condoned the "bald-face" lying to a judge, a grand jury, his wife, his supporters, his detractors, and the American people of President Clinton to now start finger pointing is less than reasonable.  If President Bush told Libby to release Valerie Plame's name, conservatives will likely start pointing fingers, directly at the president.  If President Bush authorized certain information to be released (not names) and knew that Libby was the one appointed to do that, conservatives will likely voice their displeasure that he dissembled when questions about Plame's outing came up.  If President Bush issued a general "that's not classified" order, and had no idea who released still classified information, that he authorized information to be released is irrelevant.

 

The fact that a president authorized previously classified information to be released is "non-news."  It's done all the time.  That it was handled in a "anonymous source" manner is also non-news.  That's also done all the time.

 

The only news here (and it's not really news, this is also done all the time) is that liberals who were completely okay with President Clinton committing the crime of felony perjury are now abhorred that President Bush might have been less than forthcoming about the release of information (and I stress "MIGHT").