I had posted this on the JK forum way before the election. I adjusted some of the language to reflect the events...
LIKE HERDING A PACK OF CATS
We Democrats, liberals and progressives are a diverse group with different ideals, different causes and backgrounds. We do not like to think of ourselves as part of a “group” or “party” more than we like to identify ourselves as part of bigger cause. We do not seek direction, we seek purpose. We usually break molds and follow our own instincts rather than to blindly follow somebody else’s rules. We usually resent authority and prefer to be led by example rather than by force. Consequently, here lays the problem that most of our leaders face; successfully bringing us together behind one man and one purpose. It is a difficult task but not impossible.
How can someone achieve such a daunting task? How can one person encompass all the attributes that we want in a leader? The answer is that this person does not exist. It is impossible for someone to be all the things to all people. To carry out the task of bringing us together, a leader must find the cause that is common to all and that would keep us together regardless of the differences among us. A leader must find this cause and keep us focused on that purpose, in order to prevent us from going astray from the main pathway. However, there is no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached. This is what differentiates most of us from most Republicans. Republicans usually stick behind their leaders no matter what, even if those leaders are leading them to their death. We, instead, can abandon the cause if we find that our leader is not leading us towards a worthy goal.
This behavior of total disdain towards authority has worked to our detriment many times. However, more often than not, this rebelliousness has helped move this country forward. If it was not for people like us, women, blacks and the poor would never be able to enjoy the liberties and opportunities they have today. History proves that it is not impossible to bring us together for one cause. The civil rights movement is a prime example of how we helped bring change for the better. We usually join forces when it is absolutely necessary, leaving personal causes aside, and pursuing a goal that benefits the whole rather than the individual.
To successfully pull this wild bunch together, one has to be a skillful leader and a master politician. It is a titan’s task to keep this unruly gang focused on one main goal. It is like trying to herd a pack of cats. However, I think this pack of wild cats, even when fighting amongst ourselves, were able to march together towards the polls in November to try to defeat George Bush and put a real leader in the White House. Once we Democrats, liberals and progressives pull together, there is no stopping us, unless you are able to steal an election.
An unruly bunch http://www.creators.com/0725/LK/LK0728g.gif
Signed:
Lcyberlina
Full Version: Like Herding a Pack of Cats
I guess the pack is starting to disperse already... <_<
I know it's not much consolidation but I'm still here. 
Another nation heard from...down here in the kindergarten on Friday afternoon... having my lunch break at the comp. Try herding five year olds! lol
Hey did you all watch Scarborough country on MSNBC last night? It was really interesting. I'm surprised at myself lately because I'm beginning to enjoy Pat Buchanan's thinking. Have I changed or has he? I thought he was a conservative and I thought I was a liberal.
Hey did you all watch Scarborough country on MSNBC last night? It was really interesting. I'm surprised at myself lately because I'm beginning to enjoy Pat Buchanan's thinking. Have I changed or has he? I thought he was a conservative and I thought I was a liberal.
QUOTE(Lcyberlina @ Nov 23 2004, 03:55 PM)
I had posted this on the JK forum way before the election. I adjusted some of the language to reflect the events...
LIKE HERDING A PACK OF CATS
We Democrats, liberals and progressives are a diverse group with different ideals, different causes and backgrounds. We do not like to think of ourselves as part of a “group” or “party” more than we like to identify ourselves as part of bigger cause. We do not seek direction, we seek purpose. We usually break molds and follow our own instincts rather than to blindly follow somebody else’s rules. We usually resent authority and prefer to be led by example rather than by force. Consequently, here lays the problem that most of our leaders face; successfully bringing us together behind one man and one purpose. It is a difficult task but not impossible.
How can someone achieve such a daunting task? How can one person encompass all the attributes that we want in a leader? The answer is that this person does not exist. It is impossible for someone to be all the things to all people. To carry out the task of bringing us together, a leader must find the cause that is common to all and that would keep us together regardless of the differences among us. A leader must find this cause and keep us focused on that purpose, in order to prevent us from going astray from the main pathway. However, there is no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached. This is what differentiates most of us from most Republicans. Republicans usually stick behind their leaders no matter what, even if those leaders are leading them to their death. We, instead, can abandon the cause if we find that our leader is not leading us towards a worthy goal.
This behavior of total disdain towards authority has worked to our detriment many times. However, more often than not, this rebelliousness has helped move this country forward. If it was not for people like us, women, blacks and the poor would never be able to enjoy the liberties and opportunities they have today. History proves that it is not impossible to bring us together for one cause. The civil rights movement is a prime example of how we helped bring change for the better. We usually join forces when it is absolutely necessary, leaving personal causes aside, and pursuing a goal that benefits the whole rather than the individual.
To successfully pull this wild bunch together, one has to be a skillful leader and a master politician. It is a titan’s task to keep this unruly gang focused on one main goal. It is like trying to herd a pack of cats. However, I think this pack of wild cats, even when fighting amongst ourselves, were able to march together towards the polls in November to try to defeat George Bush and put a real leader in the White House. Once we Democrats, liberals and progressives pull together, there is no stopping us, unless you are able to steal an election.
An unruly bunch http://www.creators.com/0725/LK/LK0728g.gif
Signed:
Lcyberlina
LIKE HERDING A PACK OF CATS
We Democrats, liberals and progressives are a diverse group with different ideals, different causes and backgrounds. We do not like to think of ourselves as part of a “group” or “party” more than we like to identify ourselves as part of bigger cause. We do not seek direction, we seek purpose. We usually break molds and follow our own instincts rather than to blindly follow somebody else’s rules. We usually resent authority and prefer to be led by example rather than by force. Consequently, here lays the problem that most of our leaders face; successfully bringing us together behind one man and one purpose. It is a difficult task but not impossible.
How can someone achieve such a daunting task? How can one person encompass all the attributes that we want in a leader? The answer is that this person does not exist. It is impossible for someone to be all the things to all people. To carry out the task of bringing us together, a leader must find the cause that is common to all and that would keep us together regardless of the differences among us. A leader must find this cause and keep us focused on that purpose, in order to prevent us from going astray from the main pathway. However, there is no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached. This is what differentiates most of us from most Republicans. Republicans usually stick behind their leaders no matter what, even if those leaders are leading them to their death. We, instead, can abandon the cause if we find that our leader is not leading us towards a worthy goal.
This behavior of total disdain towards authority has worked to our detriment many times. However, more often than not, this rebelliousness has helped move this country forward. If it was not for people like us, women, blacks and the poor would never be able to enjoy the liberties and opportunities they have today. History proves that it is not impossible to bring us together for one cause. The civil rights movement is a prime example of how we helped bring change for the better. We usually join forces when it is absolutely necessary, leaving personal causes aside, and pursuing a goal that benefits the whole rather than the individual.
To successfully pull this wild bunch together, one has to be a skillful leader and a master politician. It is a titan’s task to keep this unruly gang focused on one main goal. It is like trying to herd a pack of cats. However, I think this pack of wild cats, even when fighting amongst ourselves, were able to march together towards the polls in November to try to defeat George Bush and put a real leader in the White House. Once we Democrats, liberals and progressives pull together, there is no stopping us, unless you are able to steal an election.
An unruly bunch http://www.creators.com/0725/LK/LK0728g.gif
Signed:
Lcyberlina
Hey, Alexander the Great did it!
- perry
QUOTE(Lcyberlina @ Dec 10 2004, 11:21 AM)
I guess the pack is starting to disperse already... <_<
Well, your point is that leadership comes from the top (the leader) down. NOT
Until Democrat leaders learn to FOLLOW the people and VOICE their "consensual" issues, the "herd of cats" will politely skitter away at the first signs of "der leader" mode, hop gracefully up on the window sill, groom a bit watching the brouhaha (they love a good old caterwauling fight between de "Toms"), jump down once the "leaders" separate to view the situation and then promptly pee on the leader's shoes.
You have to EARN a cat's respect BEFORE informing them that herding will get them WHERE THEY WANT TO GO.
I truly believe it's time for the "squeaky wheel" special interests under that huge, old tattered umbrella BETTER PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Most are EXTREMELY good at talking and talking and talking and talking and.... BUT FEW WALK THE WALK.SELF Preservation is the rude reality of the party today.
QUOTE
"You have to EARN a cat's respect BEFORE informing them that herding will get them WHERE THEY WANT TO GO."
thats very very true - i can remember working at the head of a project for a multi-national credit card company, you have many conservative types that just kinda followed the pack, whereas you has fewer but way more independently minded types that acted just like that and indeed you had to earn their respect or you weren't getting anywhere....
- perry
QUOTE(anderson_perry @ Dec 10 2004, 01:51 PM)
thats very very true - i can remember working at the head of a project for a multi-national credit card company, you have many conservative types that just kinda followed the pack, whereas you has fewer but way more independently minded types that acted just like that and indeed you had to earn their respect or you weren't getting anywhere....
- perry
- perry
Hey, I sympathize. Try Theatre Management! Had to herd those kitties for over 22 years - think I have it down pat now....
* sets out large cache of cat nip and smiles :D
QUOTE(Lcyberlina @ Nov 23 2004, 03:55 PM)
I had posted this on the JK forum way before the election. I adjusted some of the language to reflect the events...
LIKE HERDING A PACK OF CATS
We Democrats, liberals and progressives are a diverse group with different ideals, different causes and backgrounds. We do not like to think of ourselves as part of a “group” or “party” more than we like to identify ourselves as part of bigger cause. We do not seek direction, we seek purpose. We usually break molds and follow our own instincts rather than to blindly follow somebody else’s rules. We usually resent authority and prefer to be led by example rather than by force. Consequently, here lays the problem that most of our leaders face; successfully bringing us together behind one man and one purpose. It is a difficult task but not impossible.
How can someone achieve such a daunting task? How can one person encompass all the attributes that we want in a leader? The answer is that this person does not exist. It is impossible for someone to be all the things to all people. To carry out the task of bringing us together, a leader must find the cause that is common to all and that would keep us together regardless of the differences among us. A leader must find this cause and keep us focused on that purpose, in order to prevent us from going astray from the main pathway. However, there is no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached. This is what differentiates most of us from most Republicans. Republicans usually stick behind their leaders no matter what, even if those leaders are leading them to their death. We, instead, can abandon the cause if we find that our leader is not leading us towards a worthy goal.
This behavior of total disdain towards authority has worked to our detriment many times. However, more often than not, this rebelliousness has helped move this country forward. If it was not for people like us, women, blacks and the poor would never be able to enjoy the liberties and opportunities they have today. History proves that it is not impossible to bring us together for one cause. The civil rights movement is a prime example of how we helped bring change for the better. We usually join forces when it is absolutely necessary, leaving personal causes aside, and pursuing a goal that benefits the whole rather than the individual.
To successfully pull this wild bunch together, one has to be a skillful leader and a master politician. It is a titan’s task to keep this unruly gang focused on one main goal. It is like trying to herd a pack of cats. However, I think this pack of wild cats, even when fighting amongst ourselves, were able to march together towards the polls in November to try to defeat George Bush and put a real leader in the White House. Once we Democrats, liberals and progressives pull together, there is no stopping us, unless you are able to steal an election.
An unruly bunch http://www.creators.com/0725/LK/LK0728g.gif
Signed:
Lcyberlina
LIKE HERDING A PACK OF CATS
We Democrats, liberals and progressives are a diverse group with different ideals, different causes and backgrounds. We do not like to think of ourselves as part of a “group” or “party” more than we like to identify ourselves as part of bigger cause. We do not seek direction, we seek purpose. We usually break molds and follow our own instincts rather than to blindly follow somebody else’s rules. We usually resent authority and prefer to be led by example rather than by force. Consequently, here lays the problem that most of our leaders face; successfully bringing us together behind one man and one purpose. It is a difficult task but not impossible.
How can someone achieve such a daunting task? How can one person encompass all the attributes that we want in a leader? The answer is that this person does not exist. It is impossible for someone to be all the things to all people. To carry out the task of bringing us together, a leader must find the cause that is common to all and that would keep us together regardless of the differences among us. A leader must find this cause and keep us focused on that purpose, in order to prevent us from going astray from the main pathway. However, there is no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached. This is what differentiates most of us from most Republicans. Republicans usually stick behind their leaders no matter what, even if those leaders are leading them to their death. We, instead, can abandon the cause if we find that our leader is not leading us towards a worthy goal.
This behavior of total disdain towards authority has worked to our detriment many times. However, more often than not, this rebelliousness has helped move this country forward. If it was not for people like us, women, blacks and the poor would never be able to enjoy the liberties and opportunities they have today. History proves that it is not impossible to bring us together for one cause. The civil rights movement is a prime example of how we helped bring change for the better. We usually join forces when it is absolutely necessary, leaving personal causes aside, and pursuing a goal that benefits the whole rather than the individual.
To successfully pull this wild bunch together, one has to be a skillful leader and a master politician. It is a titan’s task to keep this unruly gang focused on one main goal. It is like trying to herd a pack of cats. However, I think this pack of wild cats, even when fighting amongst ourselves, were able to march together towards the polls in November to try to defeat George Bush and put a real leader in the White House. Once we Democrats, liberals and progressives pull together, there is no stopping us, unless you are able to steal an election.
An unruly bunch http://www.creators.com/0725/LK/LK0728g.gif
Signed:
Lcyberlina
I am brand new to this site, having had it referred to me on another by one of your members. Having no stealthy or subversive intent, let me "out" myself up front.
I am a Republican. Even worse, I am an active, state convention level Texas Republican. I am of the libertarian wing of the party and really do not froth at the mouth, at least in public. If my presence here offends, I will withdraw and offend no more, but in trolling through the posts here, I have been impressed with the degree of thought and research I have found. While I regard it unlikely I will convert to Democrat, neither do I seek to convert members to Republicanism, should such a word exist. I hope that a dialogue might accidentally develop allowing understanding. Something I overheard recently moved me to this. Go back to Tip O'Neil and Bob Michaels, those two could contend valiently all day on the floor, but socialized respectfully almost daily. We have somehow reached a degree of polarization that such across the aisle fraternization is regarded by both sides as barely short of treason by either party.
On my part, I subscribe to National Review, but I also take New Republic, and Reason, among others. Yep, I listen to Limbaugh, but I also bought a Sirius subscription so I could hear All Things Considered on NPR. In '94, I was mentioned in a Dallas Morning News article as a delegate at a rally in favor of granting the Log Cabin Republicans' inclusion at the Republican state convention.
That background stated, the "herding cats" title caught my eye, as it was exactly my phrase used in reference to the Republican Party. You give us far too much credit for unanimity of purpose. Last year, start of the rules committee meeting, each member was asked to introduce his/her self and briefly state our goal. My response was that I sought to prevent the Party from moving from its recent electoral success in Texas to forming itself into a circular firing squad.
I don't mean to hammer the obvious, but America has evolved into a two party republic, with minor parties primarily serving as either spoilers (we had Perot, you had Nader), or forums for introducing ideas beyond the pale of the two major parties. Forget the blatherskite that makes up either party's written platform, the best one gets is a general right/left shift with precious little single issue solidarity in either party.
A few quotes from Lcyberlina: "bringing us together behind one man and one purpose"; "a leader must find the cause that is common to all and would keep us together regardless of the differences between us"; "no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached".
Believe it or not, I have heard, almost verbatim, the same words from Republican leaders. The similarity is that since the speaker of such lines is "preaching to the choir", neither speaker for either party feels it incumbent on them to specify exactly what the common cause goal is. I am not disrespecting Lcyberlina, I am sure she is clear in her mind what "the goal" is, just as my party's users of the same language assume I share their goal, notwithstanding that I may have just gone 72 hours straight and sleepless working my buns off to subvert the aforesaid, assumed, and unnamed "goal".
I am probably verging on too long a post, especially for a "newbie" (possibly an "x-ie), but the one actual issue named in the Lcyberlina post was civil rights. This is one area where WE stood together for a common good, but when I say WE, I include both parties. Students of hstory, back me on this, I seek not to disparage, but I speak truth. When LBJ needed a Senator to shepherd the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65 to passage, he called on Everett Dirksen, the arch-conservative Republican of the froggy voice and long tenure, to get it through the Senate. Not only did Dirksen do it, he informally agreed not to brag on his role in it. The senior Democrats in the Senate were nearly all southern state and none dared risk the wrath of a still segregationist electorate. Dirksen not only had a lock-solid seat, he honestly believed in the cause.
Should you decide not ride me out of town on a rail (metaphorically I hope), I can explain how Republicans won Ohio. Forget fraud, promise you, right up till Nov. 1, conservative sites were full of warnings of how Democrat fraud was going to steal the election from us. Clue, as the late great (and I mean that in all due respect to a fellow Irishman) Tip O'Neil said, all politics is local: Hamilton county v Cuyahoga; Franklin county v Delaware, and guess what, we stole the mechanics of it from you.
My goodness, barkeeper - come on in and sit awhile. Good input. And - well - rules o the house to keep your sanity:
Take everything with a grain of salt - it's very grounding...
You'll find a very diverse group here who may only agree on one thing - to knock on the bathroom door before entering.
Now, ABOUT THIS ALPHA MALE THING...... <_< (Don't you guys ever travel outside of a pack normally??)
Take everything with a grain of salt - it's very grounding...
You'll find a very diverse group here who may only agree on one thing - to knock on the bathroom door before entering.
Now, ABOUT THIS ALPHA MALE THING...... <_<
(Don't you guys ever travel outside of a pack normally??)
good post barkeep
Also a Repub fm NJ and state level party rep
We all must unite for the good of the country. To keep from going too far either
way and be balanced w/out changing to the USC
Also a Repub fm NJ and state level party rep
We all must unite for the good of the country. To keep from going too far either
way and be balanced w/out changing to the USC
Welcome barkeeper.
I think many of us here are still in shock that a divisive, and I will say evil man, like George Bush can be elected (if he was...) by any majority at all.
I agree with the first post on this thread that we have not learned to come together yet for the greater good, although I really saw it begin to happen with Kerry.
I am an American citizen living in Canada and am quite impressed by their multi-party system. I also am interested in the fact that the Iraqi elections will be multiparty and very similary to cumulative voting.
I think a 2 party system is the wrong way to go, and we need to get some more minority party representation in the legislature (both fed and state). I don't know how that will ever be accomplished, since the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping things along the lines of "winner take all".
What's wrong with a "minority" government and having to build coalitions anyway?
I think many of us here are still in shock that a divisive, and I will say evil man, like George Bush can be elected (if he was...) by any majority at all.
I agree with the first post on this thread that we have not learned to come together yet for the greater good, although I really saw it begin to happen with Kerry.
I am an American citizen living in Canada and am quite impressed by their multi-party system. I also am interested in the fact that the Iraqi elections will be multiparty and very similary to cumulative voting.
I think a 2 party system is the wrong way to go, and we need to get some more minority party representation in the legislature (both fed and state). I don't know how that will ever be accomplished, since the powers that be have a vested interest in keeping things along the lines of "winner take all".
What's wrong with a "minority" government and having to build coalitions anyway?
QUOTE(barkeeper @ Dec 14 2004, 05:10 AM)
I am brand new to this site, having had it referred to me on another by one of your members. Having no stealthy or subversive intent, let me "out" myself up front.
I am a Republican. Even worse, I am an active, state convention level Texas Republican. I am of the libertarian wing of the party and really do not froth at the mouth, at least in public. If my presence here offends, I will withdraw and offend no more, but in trolling through the posts here, I have been impressed with the degree of thought and research I have found. While I regard it unlikely I will convert to Democrat, neither do I seek to convert members to Republicanism, should such a word exist. I hope that a dialogue might accidentally develop allowing understanding. Something I overheard recently moved me to this. Go back to Tip O'Neil and Bob Michaels, those two could contend valiently all day on the floor, but socialized respectfully almost daily. We have somehow reached a degree of polarization that such across the aisle fraternization is regarded by both sides as barely short of treason by either party.
On my part, I subscribe to National Review, but I also take New Republic, and Reason, among others. Yep, I listen to Limbaugh, but I also bought a Sirius subscription so I could hear All Things Considered on NPR. In '94, I was mentioned in a Dallas Morning News article as a delegate at a rally in favor of granting the Log Cabin Republicans' inclusion at the Republican state convention.
That background stated, the "herding cats" title caught my eye, as it was exactly my phrase used in reference to the Republican Party. You give us far too much credit for unanimity of purpose. Last year, start of the rules committee meeting, each member was asked to introduce his/her self and briefly state our goal. My response was that I sought to prevent the Party from moving from its recent electoral success in Texas to forming itself into a circular firing squad.
I don't mean to hammer the obvious, but America has evolved into a two party republic, with minor parties primarily serving as either spoilers (we had Perot, you had Nader), or forums for introducing ideas beyond the pale of the two major parties. Forget the blatherskite that makes up either party's written platform, the best one gets is a general right/left shift with precious little single issue solidarity in either party.
A few quotes from Lcyberlina: "bringing us together behind one man and one purpose"; "a leader must find the cause that is common to all and would keep us together regardless of the differences between us"; "no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached".
Believe it or not, I have heard, almost verbatim, the same words from Republican leaders. The similarity is that since the speaker of such lines is "preaching to the choir", neither speaker for either party feels it incumbent on them to specify exactly what the common cause goal is. I am not disrespecting Lcyberlina, I am sure she is clear in her mind what "the goal" is, just as my party's users of the same language assume I share their goal, notwithstanding that I may have just gone 72 hours straight and sleepless working my buns off to subvert the aforesaid, assumed, and unnamed "goal".
I am probably verging on too long a post, especially for a "newbie" (possibly an "x-ie), but the one actual issue named in the Lcyberlina post was civil rights. This is one area where WE stood together for a common good, but when I say WE, I include both parties. Students of hstory, back me on this, I seek not to disparage, but I speak truth. When LBJ needed a Senator to shepherd the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65 to passage, he called on Everett Dirksen, the arch-conservative Republican of the froggy voice and long tenure, to get it through the Senate. Not only did Dirksen do it, he informally agreed not to brag on his role in it. The senior Democrats in the Senate were nearly all southern state and none dared risk the wrath of a still segregationist electorate. Dirksen not only had a lock-solid seat, he honestly believed in the cause.
Should you decide not ride me out of town on a rail (metaphorically I hope), I can explain how Republicans won Ohio. Forget fraud, promise you, right up till Nov. 1, conservative sites were full of warnings of how Democrat fraud was going to steal the election from us. Clue, as the late great (and I mean that in all due respect to a fellow Irishman) Tip O'Neil said, all politics is local: Hamilton county v Cuyahoga; Franklin county v Delaware, and guess what, we stole the mechanics of it from you.
I am a Republican. Even worse, I am an active, state convention level Texas Republican. I am of the libertarian wing of the party and really do not froth at the mouth, at least in public. If my presence here offends, I will withdraw and offend no more, but in trolling through the posts here, I have been impressed with the degree of thought and research I have found. While I regard it unlikely I will convert to Democrat, neither do I seek to convert members to Republicanism, should such a word exist. I hope that a dialogue might accidentally develop allowing understanding. Something I overheard recently moved me to this. Go back to Tip O'Neil and Bob Michaels, those two could contend valiently all day on the floor, but socialized respectfully almost daily. We have somehow reached a degree of polarization that such across the aisle fraternization is regarded by both sides as barely short of treason by either party.
On my part, I subscribe to National Review, but I also take New Republic, and Reason, among others. Yep, I listen to Limbaugh, but I also bought a Sirius subscription so I could hear All Things Considered on NPR. In '94, I was mentioned in a Dallas Morning News article as a delegate at a rally in favor of granting the Log Cabin Republicans' inclusion at the Republican state convention.
That background stated, the "herding cats" title caught my eye, as it was exactly my phrase used in reference to the Republican Party. You give us far too much credit for unanimity of purpose. Last year, start of the rules committee meeting, each member was asked to introduce his/her self and briefly state our goal. My response was that I sought to prevent the Party from moving from its recent electoral success in Texas to forming itself into a circular firing squad.
I don't mean to hammer the obvious, but America has evolved into a two party republic, with minor parties primarily serving as either spoilers (we had Perot, you had Nader), or forums for introducing ideas beyond the pale of the two major parties. Forget the blatherskite that makes up either party's written platform, the best one gets is a general right/left shift with precious little single issue solidarity in either party.
A few quotes from Lcyberlina: "bringing us together behind one man and one purpose"; "a leader must find the cause that is common to all and would keep us together regardless of the differences between us"; "no guarantee that we will remain on line until the goal is reached".
Believe it or not, I have heard, almost verbatim, the same words from Republican leaders. The similarity is that since the speaker of such lines is "preaching to the choir", neither speaker for either party feels it incumbent on them to specify exactly what the common cause goal is. I am not disrespecting Lcyberlina, I am sure she is clear in her mind what "the goal" is, just as my party's users of the same language assume I share their goal, notwithstanding that I may have just gone 72 hours straight and sleepless working my buns off to subvert the aforesaid, assumed, and unnamed "goal".
I am probably verging on too long a post, especially for a "newbie" (possibly an "x-ie), but the one actual issue named in the Lcyberlina post was civil rights. This is one area where WE stood together for a common good, but when I say WE, I include both parties. Students of hstory, back me on this, I seek not to disparage, but I speak truth. When LBJ needed a Senator to shepherd the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65 to passage, he called on Everett Dirksen, the arch-conservative Republican of the froggy voice and long tenure, to get it through the Senate. Not only did Dirksen do it, he informally agreed not to brag on his role in it. The senior Democrats in the Senate were nearly all southern state and none dared risk the wrath of a still segregationist electorate. Dirksen not only had a lock-solid seat, he honestly believed in the cause.
Should you decide not ride me out of town on a rail (metaphorically I hope), I can explain how Republicans won Ohio. Forget fraud, promise you, right up till Nov. 1, conservative sites were full of warnings of how Democrat fraud was going to steal the election from us. Clue, as the late great (and I mean that in all due respect to a fellow Irishman) Tip O'Neil said, all politics is local: Hamilton county v Cuyahoga; Franklin county v Delaware, and guess what, we stole the mechanics of it from you.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.