Do you support Bush?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? What you said was that the Dems wouldn't play politics with these wiretaps "in the wake of 9/11". I took that to mean that you consider us to still be in the wake of 9/11. Regardless of why he has lost bi-partisan support, the fact remains, and you admit it here (right?), the Dems are not unwilling to play politics with something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "playing politics", anyway? I really have little to no conception of what this means, despite how much I hear it.

...okay, that's not entirely true; I think I know what people mean when they say it, but someone humor me anyway and explain what 'playing politics' is. Feel free to PM me if this is an inappropriate thread hijack (not that this thread was very narrow to begin with, though).

[ALawPoker]

When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I say "play politics" I generally mean "take a stance because of the benefit it will do to your political party or agenda, regardless of the consequences (or lack thereof) that the stance has for the country as a whole." It is often characterized by alterior motivations. Other people might have different interpretations of it, but that's mine.

I'm not saying this is an exclusively Democrat thing to do, I'm just answering the fine gentleman's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a fine definition.

Let's just to be clear, though: why then, do Democrats 'play politics' with the War on Terror?

Perhaps you have a different response; but the seemingly obvious answer is, of course, their base demands they oppose President Bush's policies -- that's part and parcel of legitimate politics, right? We elect leaders to enact our will? Isn't that what we hope our elected leaders do? I'm generally assuming we could cite polling data which shows an uber-majority of Democrats strongly oppose most, if not all of President Bush's policies.

So, I assume when we're eventually done with this conversation, we'll discover that the charge of 'playing politics' is esentially legitimate politics, as I have yet to hear a charge of 'playing politics' that had much substance to it -- at least, in the way that those who levy such a charge want it to; as the charge of 'playing politics' is an attempt to some attach nefarious motives to what is an essentially legitimate action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, but I disagree. Let me make sure I understand your point by putting it in simple words: Playing politics results in doing the will of what the people you represent would want done anyways, so even if it's just a game to the politicians, they end up doing what's expected of them regardless.

Is that basically what you're saying?

I would disagree with you on the basis that an elected official's job is (well, should be) to do more than reflect the raw will of the people he represents. There's a reason we don't simply have a national vote on every issue -- we didn't have a national vote to decide to go to war -- we elect officials because it is impractical for every citizen to be fully informed on every issue. Dems would oppose Reps (and vice versa) on just about everything, even without putting much thought into the issue at hand; for our elected officials to do the same thing is to surrender to partisanship. Ideally our elected officials would critically analyze each issue, but the reality is they have to stay fairly loyal to their base even when their base is in the wrong. It's too bad, because more good could be done if there wasn't partisan dead weight pulling on every issue.


This may be getting off topic now, so PM me if you see fit.