[lsee]

Thank you, that is sage advice indeed, but I was interested in analyzing the opposite type of political discussion as it relates to both the cause and consequence of the enormous deterioration of political debate pertinent to the preservation of freedom in America.

That's saying a mouthful, indeed...but these same individuals do pursue the "political debates pertinent to the preservation and freedom in America" on OTHER threads. The semi-adulatory tone of the "Day in the Life" threads does not indicate deterioration of debate, merely a respite from it. No "analysis" is warranted, since many of us often do find fault with various Bush policies, actions, and attitudes. We just don't air them here. Continued hectoring will only create hostility toward you and your viewpoint.

I wonder if the same "analysis" interests you in regards to the "opposite" discussions on anti-Bush websites? Surely judging everything through a filter of "I hate Bush" is as deliterious to political "discussion" as the pro-Bush "filter" you believe you see here?

Besides, injecting one's personal and/or opposing views into a discussion prevents objective analysis, since it effectively redirects the discussion toward yourself, not toward the issue. That's not discussion OR debate, just distraction and chaos.

[eskimo]

No "analysis" is warranted, since many of us often do find fault with various Bush policies, actions, and attitudes. We just don't air them here.

Curious, what do you believe is responsible for the attitude of those who seem to think that public adulation is some how more beneficial than frank, public discussion of policies and actions?

Besides, injecting one's personal and/or opposing views into a discussion prevents objective analysis, ...

Very interesting, do you actually believe that presenting opposing viewpoints during political discussion or debate precludes any objective analysis of the product of that debate?