Replies

I have no intentions whatsoever of allowing that to happen again, if it is within my power to do so.

I sincerely doubt anyone here does. Of course, the devil's in the details; we must determine how best to achieve that end. Are we better served to use vitriol and insults to shut down debate, or to allow all sides to be presented and the best argument to carry the day?

Each of us must make that determination, and posters on all sides have done so (to varying degrees). The Bush Administration itself must make these same decisions: How explicitly must it extend an olive branch to conservatives? What about moderates?

Ultimately it's difficult to know what methods work best. Personally, I believe that reasoned debate is the best way to win others to my cause. Others may disagree (and vehemently have).

Of course, the devil's in the details; we must determine how best to achieve that end. Are we better served to use vitriol and insults to shut down debate, or to allow all sides to be presented and the best argument to carry the day

I read the whole thread and JMO, the posters over there have their own debate, which is vitriol and insults.

The have more animus towards Jim Robinson than John Kerry.

But what the hey, if you think that people whose main beef is against the Pubbies rather than liberal demos are conservative, that's your right to have. No one is shouting you down or throwing insults at you, I'm questioning your point that these people actually advance conservatism in the real world.

"we must determine how best to achieve that end. Are we better served to use vitriol and insults to shut down debate, or to allow all sides to be presented and the best argument to carry the day?...Personally, I believe that reasoned debate is the best way to win others to my cause."

That is really the only important question. FreeRepublic has been my favorite political site for many years. But my devotion to getting Bush or any other conservative comes first. (I'm active in real-life politics too) I fear that by overreacting to some criticism, or by being so offensive in our methods, or supporting or allowing blatant injustices, we only hurt Bush by alienating our own.

I'm not talking about habitual Bush Bashers or conspiracy freaks - I'm glad to see them gone. But there are those who might have problems with specific policies but are reasonable in their debate. Most important, these are the people would hold their noses and vote for him anyway.

They haven't all gone to LP etc, some (including those of us who would strongly debate against the anti-Bush posts) just stop posting on threads that become nothing more than a mud-throwing contest. It's embarrassing and shameful. I have a big doubt that Bush would choose that to be the face of his team, knowing how destructive it is to his cause.

The goal is Votes. Most Voters can be swayed by intelligent arguments, but when they are vilified and ridiculed unjustly (I know, no one has to be fair, but there are consequences for supporting irrational insults and "slander") they become so offended, they go to LP etc, and their vote becomes less and less secure for Bush.

It's just my measly opinion, but I think there needs to be a balance. I'm sure it's hard to find, especially if it's crept up on you, but there are warning klaxons going off that should be heeded.

PS. The best way to make the weirdos/obsessives at LP's Biker Bar stop bashing posters here is to stop the posts here that give them fuel for fodder. Our position is strong enough that it can be proven with logic and good sense - we do not need to resort to habitual personal attacks on dissenters. Juvenile posts only provide a straw man that allows them to ignore the good points against their position.