If those on the "conservative" side of the political spectrum actually start using "facts, reason, [and legitimate] sources," no Republican candidate will win any race for any elective office for at least another twenty years.

and some free advice

Talk more about why someone should vote for the Democrat instead of focusing on whats wrong with the Republican or as the Washington Post said today where are the ideas.

Chaps post was refreshingly different than what has been appearing here lately. 

If you guys did one of those on Healthcare and/or Iraq you would cruise this and next November 

I'm also saying that if any Republican candidate would attempt to explain his or her proposed "policies" through the use of truthful, fact-based logical reasoning, that candidate would never win an election in this country.  Never. 

It's true that I cite no "sources" for my conclusion, other than my own experience, and I cite no specific examples.  So, fine.  I may be wrong.  If you want to demonstrate that I'm wrong, have at it. 

I'm not calling anyone stupid (at least not today).  What I'm saying is that after searching for the last six years, I've been unable to find a coherent, consistent, "liberal" political philosophy.  In addition, I've been unable to find a "liberal" political position that would hold together under the strain of honest, fact-based logical reasoning and critical thought.

I'm also saying that if any Democrat candidate would attempt to explain his or her proposed "policies" through the use of truthful, fact-based logical reasoning, that candidate would never win an election in this country.  Never. 

__________________________________________________________

I lean right but I would never claim to agree with any of the stuff I just posted and I sincerely hope you don't believe what you actually posted. 

In fact, both of us have made conclusory statements, either or both of which may or may not be "ridiculous" depending on the facts we relied upon or the reasoning process we used in order to reach our conclusions. 

Unfortunately, I don't have the sixty or seventy hours it would take to walk you through the application of fact-based logical reasoning to standard Republican talking points.  The good news, however, is that you can do the same thing for yourself while I'm off earining a living and taking care of my household chores.  Here's how it's done. 

First, put aside the personal investment you seem to have in posturing as a non-partisan, above the fray, choose-one-from-column-A-and-one-from-column-B-but-remain-slightly-conservative, sort of guy.  Instead, allow yourself to examine an idea, argument or conclusion on its merits alone, without regard to whether or not it fits within the confines your personal, political self-image. 

Next, type the phrase "logical fallacies" into our friend "the Google" and study the material you retrieve (print out a list, in case you need to refer back to it later).

Then, when you're ready, choose several Republican policy positions and several Democratic policy positions and ask yourself whether they hold up to fact-based logical reasoning.  If your experience is like mine, you'll quickly notice that each Republican policy position requires support from reasoning that includes the use of at least three logical fallacies (black and white thinking, the straw man technique, and the ad hominem attack being the three most popular).

Once you've done this, and this is is the tricky part, it's time to apply some critical thought to the facts and assumptions used to support the policy positions you've just finished reviewing.  This is the part where you first identify and then examine an argument's underlying assumptions.  Be sure to include an honest and thorough examination of your own underlying assumptions and beliefs, as well. 

For example, after you've identified the facts and assumptions on which a policy position is based, ask yourself questions like, "is this really true, or is it just something I've heard so often that I assume it to be true," and "are my pre-existing beliefs and assumptions coloring my judgment on this issue and, if so, is it time for me to change my personal beliefs and assumptions."  Don't be afraid to spend a fair amount of time on this part of your analysis. 

Then, but only after you've completed the entire process, you will, at last, be ready to assign the labels "ridiculous" or "not ridiculous" to the positions, arguments, or conclusions you've analyzed.

All of this may seem difficult at first, but stick with it.  It gets much easier with practice. 

Good luck to you.  And, be sure to check in from time to time to let us know how fact-based logical reasoning is working out for you.

Its fine that people support different sides. 

To dismiss the other side as illogical and that you can't find ANYTHING you agree with on the other side is extremely narrowminded and dangerous in a democratic society IMHO

I don't think all democratic ideas are illogical that was my point in the post.  For me to think that would be ridiculous.  That is why I have a really hard-time taking anyone seriously when they completely dismiss all of the points made by the other side

P.S. the era of lockstepping either side is dead in NoVA and I would argue increasingly true across the country.  It is majority independent in this area and has been for sometime

"Fine."  Yes, just "peachy."

Political policies have real world consequences.  Often these consequences are quite serious.  We're not talking about ordering Chinese food, where it would be just "fine" for your friend to order something spicy, while you order something mild.  We're talking about public policy choices that cause tens of millions of people, in this country and around the world, to suffer terrible consequences, including death, maiming, starvation and economic ruin.  It's neither fair-minded nor "fine" to flip a coin, split the difference, or simply let each party take turns at random intervals. 

If you've missed it, here's the essence of what we've been faced with for the past six years.  First, a Democrat stands up and says, "two plus two equals four."  Republicans consult the White House and the RNC in order to find out what they are supposed to say in response.  They are informed that their leaders want them to say that two plus two equals one.  Eager to do exactly as they are told, all dutiful Republicans rush out to say, "two plus two equals one, and anyone who says otherwise hates America!" 

Seeing this, our very fair-minded and above the fray "moderates" will enter the discussion (from "stage Right," of course) saying, "tut, tut, gentlemen.  Let's have no more of this petty, partisan bickering.  I'm here to announce that the age of "lockstepping" is over, my friends!  Let's all demonstrate our fair-mindedness and goodwill by compromising on the conclusion that two plus two equals one and one-half!"

Many times, in the political arena, we're required to discuss distinctions between and among various shades of gray.  Even so, two plus two always equals four and it's neither fair-minded nor "moderate" to say otherwise.

It's long past time time to let the Republicans continue to get away with their intended lies, intended misrepresentations, and intended smears.

Thanks for such an eloquent and pointed comment!!!

In fact, if you look at Jim Hoeft's B.D. post on this subject, Squeaky Wheel immediately responds by ...

attacking someone who made a comment!

For a typical example of this practice, see the "I See IP" post.  Squeaky not only publishes private e-mail addresses and IP addresses of people despite specific assurances on the blog to the contrary, but also wrongly accuses individual commenters of masquerading as other commenters.  When (gently) corrected, and told that he is wrong, Squeaky launches into a typical tirade of name-calling and vitriol.

Be sure to read it all the way through.  Then please tell me, what's the use of Jim Hoeft's high-falutin' words when this kind of garbage is left to stink up his blog?

These are wonderful words, as usual, from Jim Hoeft.  They'd be even more wonderful if he put them into action. 

He can start with Squeaky and Brian.

But he won't.

Jim, if you're reading this, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this subject.  Thanks.

I have plenty of examples of that commenter doing so.  Let's compare.

Aw, come on guys... just think.  Thanks in part to Brian Kirwin, Dems will pick up a majority in the Senate!

But I suspect that he does have selective perception.  And so do Squeaky Wheel and Brian.  I'm not sure those two realize how much they contribute to the uncivil tone of their blog and how much it invites the attacks back on them.

In fairness, people are pretty rude back to them. 

But generally there is a theory in psychology of reciprocity and rapport.  People treat others the way they've been treated and they mirror other's tone and body language.

If you watch people in a deep conversation, you can sometimes see really obvious examples of this. 

Here's another example of this. If somebody gets angry with you and his voice starts rising, try lowering your voice a little bit at a  time until you are speaking very softly and calmly.  The trick is to start at a level close to the other person's and start taking your tone and pitch down.

Generally, he will start calming down and speaking lower too.  On the other hand, if you shout at somebody, he will almost always feel his temper rising to match your emotion.

I think that happens on the blogosphere too.  The blogs that have an inflammatory tone almost beg for ad hominem attacks, rudeness, and disrespect.  The ones that keep a civil and level tone usually end up with better conversations.

It really starts with the blogger himself.  And I hope Jim can get control of this and that Brian and Squeaky Wheel tone it down.  They'll get better dialogue, more respect, prove they are smart, and have a better time in the long run.

Will a lower tone of voice help those people? 

But when it comes to speaking softly,  I talk a good game and have also gotten pretty angry on some diaries too.

But hope for civility springs eternal in some of us :)

We need your wit and wisdom.

You constantly use derogatory nicknames for political candidates, and make negative generalizations about individuals who hold particular issues.

Additionally, I have watched this site for many months know and the fact is with few exceptions if anyone disagrees with you they are immediately shot down.  This is somewhat understandable with those of us who lean to the right :-p but it also occurs when other democrats offer other points of view. 

Read Jim's post again.  Its always a two-way street.  You are arguably the number one democratic blog in Virginia.  You have the ability to re elevate the discourse of the blogosphere if you really want to. 

Once again none of this is personal, it is all based on what you post and how you say it.  The rhetoric you consistently choose and then the pure hypocrisy of it all well I just wish you would take your blinders off for five minutes the record does speak for itself...

I am not going to convince you but I would encourage you to take a hard look at the language you consistently choose whenever you talk about anyone besides a democrat (and in some cases it even includes democrats)

You have made up a derogatory nickname for almost every Republican in Virginia.  Now please tell me how this elevates the political climate.  And then you expect us to all play nice.  I am willing to play nice.  Are you?

That is a very different thing from attacking private citizens because you disagree with their views.  I think that distinction must be kept in mind as we discuss this problem.

We could go on and on here, but we'll never agree.  If you don't like nicknames in general, fine (although you might want to talk to George W. Bush about that, including his nickname "turdblossom" for Karl Rove).  My nicknames are based on fact and the public figure's record.  In fact, they're not even really nicknames, more like quotes or references to the person's actions and statements, just to remind people. 

Finally, you might want to check with your Republican brethren, who like to label all of us in the progressive blogosphere the "nutroots," or call our governor "Timmy," or call Hillary Clinton "Hitlery" (how clever!), or call John Edwards "Breck Girl," or call Barack Obama "Osama," etc., etc., etc.  None of those, you'll notice, have any factual basis, unlike my "nicknames." 

*Jim "No Car Tzx" Gilmore (that was his slogan)
*Nick "Feminazi" Rerras (that's a quote from him)

And the problem with using these is...???  But Republicans can call Obama "Osama" and Hillary "Hitlery," neither of which have anything to do with anything but are certainly offensive? (not to mention mocking the governor by calling him "Timmy" after the South Park character).

Also, one of my favorite nicknames for RK is by our good friend James Young, who somehow thinks it's insulting to call us "Raising Dough."  As if raising money for our candidates is a bad thing?  As if Republicans don't like money?  Huh?

I understand you like Jim Hoeft.  That doesn't explain excusing Squeaky Wheel, who is on Jim Hoeft's blog, and who is the single biggest offender in the Virginia blogosphere, bar none, or Brian Kirwin, who can only aspire to be his equal.

If they would leave their garbage on Bearing Drift, you could just avoid that blog (as more and more people do as it continues to melt down.)  They don't.  They insist on polluting other Hampton Roads blogs with their stinking trash, all the while being given a platform by the high-minded Mr. Hoeft.  Just because you like Jim Hoeft personally does not excuse his blatant hypocrisy.

You have no idea how much harassment and downright obscenity these two perpetuate.  They know they're being uncivil.  That's what they do.  They're proud of it.  It's deliberate.

So please don't excuse it and endorse the individual who makes it possible, then turns around and pretends otherwise.  That is definitely good cop/bad cop, and worse.

Their purpose is not to put forth ideas on Bearing Drift, but to harrass and disrupt anyone, anywhere who disagrees with them.  You cannot imagine the content of the comments on other blogs that you are mercifully spared from seeing in the first place.  Please read all the way through the comments on the post listed above under "I See IP," and let me know whether you honestly believe that Squeaky Wheel is in the least bit well-intentioned.

He flat out admits he's not.  He's quite proud of the fact that he's not.  So why are you willing to excuse his reprehensible conduct?  Why is the sainted Jim Hoeft willing to allow and even encourage this conduct?

Why is that "I See IP" post still sitting on Bearing Drift, for all to "See IP," even though they know it's false, and its purpose is nothing but harrassment?  Why didn't Jim just delete that particular post, apologize, and spare us the sanctimonious speech?

Also, please note Brian Kirwin's fascination and repeated commentary on why people post so-called "anonymous" comments.  This Republican party operative is single-mindedly determined to "unmask" anybody who disagrees with him.  He told you he has a whole list of comments from people who disagree with him.  Ask him whether he also has personal information, home addresses, and where people's children go to school.  Why would anybody risk identifying themselves to the low-lives at Bearing Drift, given their despicable behavior?

Please understand that we are in Hampton Roads, the home of the Army of God and CBN.  Tolerance of differing opinions unfortunately cannot taken for granted here, as it can in Northern Virginia.  This is not sport to these people, it is quite serious. So please take them seriously and take them at their word when they honestly tell you, as Squeaky frequently does, that they are just being an ass and trying to harrass people.

That's really all there is to it.  Jim Hoeft has the power to put a stop to it.  The fact that he doesn't put a stop to it speaks far more eloquently about his intentions than all the posts on civility he could ever, ever write.

Sad, but true.  Nobody is responsible for their behavior but them.  They are the leading example of incivility, and they are in no position to lecture any of the rest of us on that subject.

I don't know the motivations of others.  But personally, I will post my comments here and not at Bearing Drift because I do not post on blogs that publish commenters e-mail and IP addresses, in violation of their assurances to the contrary.  I simply don't trust the administrators of that site, and they have proven me right on that point.  It's tough enough preventing computer viruses and hackery without directly inviting such trouble.

As I said above, that "I See IP" post is still sitting there on Bearing Drift, giving the lie to all of Jim's high-sounding rhetoric.

If Lowell wonders why Jim tolerates me, I wonder how he can let your comments stand.

I understand that this particular "story" even got shopped around to the Virginian-Pilot.  Guess which conservative reporter/blogger nibbled at the bait.

Bearing Drift.  Comment at your own risk.  Your e-mail and IP address may wind up in the newspaper.  And stayed tuned for the next lecture on ethics.

I did see the IP address thread that was up on BD.  It's one of the diaries and threads that is precisely the problem.  And  this tendency to out people, after stating a policy of allowing anonymity, is spreading across the blogosphere. 

The truth is people need to realize nobody is truly anonymous and bloggers need to be more honest about their actions.  If they are not going to respect anonymity they need to state it plainly.  In fact, they should have a policy of not allowing anonymous or even pseudonymous comments.  To expose even a pseudonym is unethical.  Either ban the use of nicknames or anonymous comments or respect privacy.

I'll agree with you there.  But that has to go for everybody who has been transgressing. 

And, yes, I am willing to to give both Brian and Squeaky the benefit of the doubt.  Until they prove me wrong.  If and when they do, I'll withdraw that benefit.  That's why I suggested they and Jim read the comments posted here.

They were getting far too much praise and backslapping over on their own site.  Although Lowell posted this diary to praise Jim's diary, a lot of these comments are exactly what those guys need to see.  And they aren't getting that precise criticism over there.

I've found that the best way to try to change people's behavior is to tell them the truth, give them the benefit of the doubt, not attack them, try to be constructive, and see what happens next.

If it doesn't work, then we know their intentions weren't the best.