Is It Time for a “Transpartisan Dialogue” Over “Coffee?”

    190
    21
    SHARE



    At this point, after watching the “Party of No” and the “Tea Party” in action since Barack Obama’s election (and, really, during the entire Bush presidency), I’m highly skeptical that Coffee Party founder Annabel Park’s suggestion of “transpartisan dialogue” will prove to be worthwhile. How can you “dialogue” with people who create their own “facts,” who are impervious to empirical evidence (e.g., the overwhelming science of global warming), who hold ignorant and bigoted views (Islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, key word “phobic”) of their fellow citizens, who hold Democracy itself – and “dialogue,” for that matter – in contempt?

    I mean, I wish Annabel luck, and if anyone can do it she probably can; seriously, the woman’s a force of nature. And maybe, just maybe, a movement of rational, culturally diverse, fact-based, solutions-oriented, and non-partisan (rather than hyper-partisan to the point of blindness) people, opening a “transpartisan” dialogue over “coffee” with the non-crazy elements of the Republican/Tea Party coalition, can win the day in 2010 America.  I’m skeptical, but I hope to be proven wrong later this month when the “Coffee Party” holds its convention in Louisville, Kentucky. Go Annabel (and her similarly super-talented partner, Eric Byler, too)!

    • LittleDavid

      In response to the Tea Party, I once made a suggestion that we come up with a Coffee Party as a response.  A couple weeks later, on NPR (National Public Radio), I heard about Annabel’s efforts.  She certainly didn’t steal the name from me because her efforts were already so far along.  After hearing about the objectives of the group, I decided I could loosely support them, however in order to retain my independence, I would be in the Beer Party gallery of the Coffee Party.  I like my coffee, but I like my beer too.

      However there is no hope for progress when we have statements from the likes of you such as:

      How can you “dialogue” with people who create their own “facts,” who are impervious to empirical evidence (e.g., the overwhelming science of global warming), who hold ignorant and bigoted views (Islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, key word “phobic”) of their fellow citizens, who hold Democracy itself – and “dialogue,” for that matter – in contempt?

      Not a very promising way to open a dialogue is it?

    • LittleDavid

      The evidence is empirical as long as it supports your agenda.  Global warming?  You refuse to address that the CO2 polar ice caps on Mars are receding at the same time Planet Earth faces a similar problem.  I’m not saying green house gasses are not a problem, as evidence supports this.

      Empirical evidence is not empirical when some facts stand in the way of your previously drawn conclusion.  

      You once stated your problem with me was not content but tone.  Look yourself in the mirror and repeat that phrase back.

    • LittleDavid

      I offer a hand shake.

      While I for a long time identified as an independent, due to the rise of the Tea Party and the Republican Party swinging hard right I faced a choice.  Could I still claim to be independent if every vote I cast was always for the Democratic candidate?

      Can you guys/gals be reasonable?  You do need some moderates to align with you right?  You do want to win elections.  I’m hoping I found a home in the Democratic Party but Lowell is starting to make me rethink my decision.