Quote from ARogueTrader:
So because I point out problems or raise questions with the party in power, that isn't promotion of critical thinking?
How do you know that I wasn't equally critical of the Clinton administration, suggesting that application of critical thought wasn't important there too? If you need to know, in my opinion Clinton should have resigned for the good of the country and the good of his party. Though I don't agree with the Republican vendetta against him at that time, handing over the presidency to Gore would have been best in my opinion all things considered for the good of the country and for the good of the stability of the democratic party. Nixon did the right thing to step down, and Clinton should have done the same. The major difference was that Clinton knew he had the votes in the senate to reject impeachment where Nixon knew he was doomed. That said, his actions were selfish in my opinion. However, his selfishness doesn't diminish the positive influence he may have had either.
I always favor questioning of authority and application of critical thinking to the party in power, for if we cease to that there is little to keep them honest. I think it is especially important these days when we see such a polarization in our country, and this sense that one side is necessarily right and the other side necessarily wrong. This type of polarization doesn't lead to open minded discussion of issues, and the growth of hate talk radio just reflects this anger toward those who have different political positions.
If you must know, if Dean is nominated, I might just vote for Bush as a lessor of two evils, and if Hillary were nominated in 2004 I would absolutely vote for Bush.
Yet that doesn't mean I have to cease questioning Bush and his motives, does it?
