I guess I am fortunate...I have always maintained good relations with people of all different political persuasions. For every michael Moore, there's an Ann Coulter, and so on. Ugliness on both sides.

I think the important thing is that us "common people" keep a positive dialogue amongst ourselves; that we be respectful and try as hard as we can to understand the other side. It's easy to slip, of course. And easy to get frustrated. I tend to take it all too personally, myself. I can't read Moxie regularly these days. It hurts my heart that we could sit across from one another and chat about life while having a nice dinner, but then I read her blog and it's really, really weird. I read it and think "how could she NOT hate me, if she believes that?" But I guess we're all able to rise above our politics to share in common kindness.

I really don't know what I was getting at...but can't we all just get along? Maybe the people who get media attention behave like children. But the rest of us little folks can keep common courtesy and repect in the dialogue.

"Agree to disagree", as it were.

I actually mostly agree with you--although for me, it isn't even "agree to disagree", just, in most cases, to disagree with respect. Let's talk about it, let's see if we can help broaden each other's outlooks a bit, and let's have a good time while we do it.

I've always believed that most people are pretty decent--that given the chance they'll behave in a reasonably good way. I have to admit, the way the Kerry2004 people treated me was disappointing as hell.

Personally, I just endeavor to never let the far left and far right know how stupid I think they really are.

OK, I can't even type that with a straight face.

Andy, you've made a blog dedicated to it. ;)

Z: Ironically, one of our local Kerry campaign staffers is someone I can't stand. We worked together on a previous campaign and she did have that complete lack of kindness and respect...I always wonder if most campaign staffers are people who could never hold down a real job where they actually had to act decent and civilized 40 hours a week.

Hey, good point.

Z, it was probably too astounding that someone came over in politeness to seek discussion and sharpen the old iron. I am beginning to think that the Democrats are rallied around Kerry only because of a shared hatred of Bush, and thus they haven't actually discussed why they hate him, or perhaps why Kerry would be better. Some people like to drink and whine; others like to drink and actually talk.

("Terminal shyness"- I was right. I love being right:)

It started with losing the assumption of shared goals. It was once assumed that both Parties, and their members, wanted the best for America and her people.
Far too many, mostly Dems but too many Pubbies, have rejected that assumption. I can take someone thinking that my ideas on how to get the best for the most are incorrect, believing they have a better plan. They totally prevent any possibility of persuasion when they proceed from the assunption that I believe my ideas will harm people but I want to proceed anyway out of some nefarious scheme.
The ones most guilty of this are those who've made politics their religion. To them it's not political disagreement but heresy.
If we have the initial assumption of good will we may have disagreements, even heated arguments, we will not have hatred.
I cannot have a conversation with someone who starts with the position that I'm evil.

Peter, that is completely correct. Nicely put.

Z: I am so glad you posted something about this. It is situations like this that really piss me off.

Both Z and I tried to have a rational conversation, but instead, we were assaulted with drive-by hatred. What I mean by that is there was one individual who actually wanted to enter into some discourse, but everytime I would try to respond to him, somebody in the group surrounding the one rational person would immediatly start with a one-line hate fest. "He Lied" "He kills children" "He Did it for Oil" "He stole the election" "It's all the plan of the Carlyle Group and Skull and Bones" etc . . . (I added the last one, because I think it is funny) but you know the speil. At first, I tried to ignore these idiots, to talk to the one rational person. After a while though, I felt I had to respond to the others, both because what they were saying is false, but it was rude to me.

That is when the group decended into the misdirection. I would start to respond to one falsehood, only to be immediatly talked down by a different falsehood. It seemed to me that their retoric works well in the echo chamber, but they don't stand up to even a cursory review. I think that may have pissed them off.

Oh well, eventually, I just said goodbye to the rational guy and left, so that I did not punch the 90 lbs vegan stick-man in the "Re-Defeat Bush" shirt.

The one thing that bothered me about walking away was that I think they thought that they won, when really they had yet to reenforce any of their positions, or even start to break down my position.

Maybe that is a good thing, if they think that they can win purly by shouting down the opposition, let them. I think that tactic only turns people off.

''Moore and his followers can talk about hate all they want, but I don't see a lot of hate on my side of the fence.''

Coming from the guy who created the ''We hate Michael Moore week?'' Give me a break. Since when were Democrats ''Moore supporters'' anyway? You seem to be lumping 2 extremely generalised groups in the same camp together. Whenever i hear someone from the right lumping all their opponents in the same camp, i think of George Bush.

Fair point on "we hate Michael Moore week"--boy, that was a good week.

Beyond that, though, you're just talking nonsense. Yes, I lump them into the same category for the reasons I've specified before: the Democrats are treating Moore as royalty during the convention. They give him a seat of honor with Carter (another foolish man to treat with so much respect).

When the speakers at the convention repudiate Moore's misdirections and bloviating instead of giving him a seat with the grown-ups, I'll take back what I said.

Further, if you actually read the stuff that I've written about Moore, it pales in comparison to the venom that comes from his mouth. I have nothing on the hate that he spews.

I don't lump my opponents into the same category. I know the difference between a terrorist and a Presidential candidate, for one thing.

''Beyond that, though, you're just talking nonsense. Yes, I lump them into the same category for the reasons I've specified before: the Democrats are treating Moore as royalty during the convention. ''

....Which unfortunatly does not mean all Democrats are Moore supporters. Far from it in fact. Its largely a case of common enemy.

''They give him a seat of honor with Carter (another foolish man to treat with so much respect).''

I agree.

''When the speakers at the convention repudiate Moore's misdirections and bloviating instead of giving him a seat with the grown-ups, I'll take back what I said.''

Im sorry but that is hypocrisy. You clearly feel the same way about these democrats as they do about you. You disrespect them for their siding with Moore and they disrespect you for your siding with Bush. You just seem to put yourself on a higher pedestal, falsely claiming hatred on your side is minimal.

''Further, if you actually read the stuff that I've written about Moore, it pales in comparison to the venom that comes from his mouth. I have nothing on the hate that he spews.''

Oh i dont know about that. It was pretty venomous. And also, some people from ''your side of the fence'' have been trying to push for Moore's trial as a traitor, to name one extreme ''venomous'' attack.

No, there is hate on my side of the aisle, and I know that, although I don't know how you can say that what I've written rises to the same level as what Moore continually says about the President, but that is as it is. I've never called for him to face trial or be expelled from the country, and I think he has every right in the world to say the things he says and make the movies he makes.

I just think he's wrong, he doesn't like America or Americans, and he isn't the kind of guy I'd want to sit and have a beer with. And I'm pretty liberal about who I'll sit and enjoy a beer with.

I don't side with Bush because it's convenient, I side with him because I think he has and will continue to do a good job for me in those areas that matter most to me right now.

And, yes, I do feel that the hate on my side is minimal in comparison. I might be wrong, but that is most certainly how I feel. People like Ted "the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush" Kennedy do nothing to make me feel like I'm wrong.

You obviously have a wildly different opinion on the subject, and that's fine. But when I made the move to be polite to my opponents, the only thing I was faced with was derision.

''I just think he's wrong, he doesn't like America or Americans, and he isn't the kind of guy I'd want to sit and have a beer with. And I'm pretty liberal about who I'll sit and enjoy a beer with.''

Fair enough.

''I don't side with Bush because it's convenient, I side with him because I think he has and will continue to do a good job for me in those areas that matter most to me right now.''

Same again.

''You obviously have a wildly different opinion on the subject, and that's fine. But when I made the move to be polite to my opponents, the only thing I was faced with was derision.''

I think thats kind of sad really. I should point out im not at all supporting the bigots who threw your pretty brave gesture back in your face.

As you said, fair enough.

See, I could happily sit and have a beer (and a fun, lively conversation) with someone like you.