Comments on: Idiots on Stilts http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/238.html Kyle and Anne Haight: Annoying People In Stereo Since 1971 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:56:39 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kyle Haight http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/238.html/comment-page-1#comment-1609 Kyle Haight Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:42:55 +0000 http://www2.leftist.org/haightspeech/?p=238#comment-1609 Well, it's somewhat difficult for me to do any kind of serious analysis of your politics since at this point I don't have any real idea of what they are -- other than that they led you to respond negatively to Senator Miller, which isn't really enough detail to form any well-grounded conclusions. So I was left with speculation about background factors that might lead us towards differing viewpoints. My remarks were speculative, and I thought I'd mentioned that when I wrote them. If not, my apologies. In terms of the current election, I think my viewpoint is best summed up by a phrase from Robert Tracinski. I'm an "anti-Bushite for Bush". I find Kerry simply unacceptable on what I consider the single most important issue in the election (the war); Bush is somewhat better but not ideal. On other issues there are things to like and dislike about each candidate. If there weren't a war on I probably wouldn't vote for either of them. As-is, I'll most likely vote for Bush and then move into the pro-war opposition camp, supporting aggressive moves on that front while opposing his more objectionable domestic projects. I may have some comments later on at least one other specific position that IM indicated was attributed (erroneously) to me in that conversation. But fully explaining my views is likely to get complicated, so it's proving a bit difficult to get inspired to write it all down. Well, it’s somewhat difficult for me to do any kind of serious analysis of your politics since at this point I don’t have any real idea of what they are — other than that they led you to respond negatively to Senator Miller, which isn’t really enough detail to form any well-grounded conclusions. So I was left with speculation about background factors that might lead us towards differing viewpoints. My remarks were speculative, and I thought I’d mentioned that when I wrote them. If not, my apologies.

In terms of the current election, I think my viewpoint is best summed up by a phrase from Robert Tracinski. I’m an “anti-Bushite for Bush”. I find Kerry simply unacceptable on what I consider the single most important issue in the election (the war); Bush is somewhat better but not ideal. On other issues there are things to like and dislike about each candidate. If there weren’t a war on I probably wouldn’t vote for either of them. As-is, I’ll most likely vote for Bush and then move into the pro-war opposition camp, supporting aggressive moves on that front while opposing his more objectionable domestic projects.

I may have some comments later on at least one other specific position that IM indicated was attributed (erroneously) to me in that conversation. But fully explaining my views is likely to get complicated, so it’s proving a bit difficult to get inspired to write it all down.

]]> By: Tom http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech/archives/238.html/comment-page-1#comment-1608 Tom Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:35:36 +0000 http://www2.leftist.org/haightspeech/?p=238#comment-1608 Yeah, sorry, Kyle. I've been thinking a lot since that conversation (which I presume IM mentioned at lunch?). Something that I've heard from others seems to be applying to me this year - that politics works so long as I can think of other people as living in the same reality but having different sets of priorities, and fails when it seems that their reactions to the same stimuli are so different from mine that they must be in a different reality. By "fails" I mean that I start to lose respect for my opponents. Both sides seem to have fallen into a us-against-them, siege mentality this year, and when I'm not careful I fall right along with them. I was taken aback and a bit offended by your post in the Zell Miller tangent, because it seemed to me to boil my politics down to "You're surrounded by liberals" (the stereotype, but not actually true) and "you've caved to pressure to conform" (not true, and touching sore nerves with the part of my family that still lives in the same town as you). Rereading the transcript, I still don't see how you can have a positive reaction to Miller's speech, but I'll try to just accept that you do. Respectfully (still), Tom Yeah, sorry, Kyle. I’ve been thinking a lot since that conversation (which I presume IM mentioned at lunch?). Something that I’ve heard from others seems to be applying to me this year – that politics works so long as I can think of other people as living in the same reality but having different sets of priorities, and fails when it seems that their reactions to the same stimuli are so different from mine that they must be in a different reality. By “fails” I mean that I start to lose respect for my opponents. Both sides seem to have fallen into a us-against-them, siege mentality this year, and when I’m not careful I fall right along with them.

I was taken aback and a bit offended by your post in the Zell Miller tangent, because it seemed to me to boil my politics down to “You’re surrounded by liberals” (the stereotype, but not actually true) and “you’ve caved to pressure to conform” (not true, and touching sore nerves with the part of my family that still lives in the same town as you). Rereading the transcript, I still don’t see how you can have a positive reaction to Miller’s speech, but I’ll try to just accept that you do.

Respectfully (still),

Tom

]]>