I am not convinced voting for W proves that you're a conservative.  I rather think it shows you are a republican.  There is a VERY big distinction.

Well, Josh, I would say that you either need to change friends, or reconsider your politics. Just like those token conservatives that Bill Maher has on his show, you just don’t fit in, and accomplish very little except to annoy.  I suppose there was a time when identifying as a conservative wasn’t as volatile a statement as it has since become. To be able to disagree without being disagreeable is a lost art. 

What you need to understand is that when your liberal friends make negative comments about conservatives, it is a counter-attack against the  constant flow of incredibly nasty attacks from the right.  Mud-slinging, name-calling, vilification, bullying, outright lies are all hallmarks of the nattering nabobs of negativity emanating from hate-talk radio, Fox News and a number of so-called pundits. When the voices on hate/talk radio have become the voices in your head, then you need to get your head examined. The worst of these is none other than Rush Limbaugh. Anybody who calls him a BFF and quotes him immediately compromises any credibility you might have.  He holds the prize as the all-time Worst Person in the World. You might as well quote Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter.

The worst of these are not the “Bunkers”- the well-intentioned but easily misled who have been conned into supporting policies which are clearly not in their best interests, but the “Buckleys”.  These are the effete intellectual snobs who are convinced that they are always the smartest people in the room, those supercilious, condescending self-appointed pundits who sneer at any who dare to question their wisdom.  Is this you, in social situations, with your so-called friends?  If that’s the case, then you should cease and desist from any further discomfort you may be causing them, and find an agreeable echo chamber where you can recite your memorized talking points and brook no disagreement.

Sorry Josh you don't have intolerant Democratic friends, just intolerant friends. Just as you can not characterize every Republican or Democrat as uncivil cads, there is an opposite story when Democrats are the lone voice for their party. I know, I play bridge with them. It has not stopped me from arguing my case. What is objectionable is the personal undeserved invectives that are thrown without consideration that the comments can be hurtful. I myself have been called a Marxist Communist and a murderer of the unborn for my views. So express away and if you are a good friend the conversation may be heated but not personal. After all James Carville and Mary Madelin have kept it together even on the same TV set. I do have to take exception with tuning into Rush Limbaugh.  He is a hateful bigot and plays loose with the facts if they exist at all.  He does represent the most reactionary element of the Republican Party.  Hopefully you are not in that wing of the GOP.

Josh, you shouldn't have to hide from you political choice, neither should democrats. we can all get along with different views. If name calling starts, then just state you don't want to hear it, seems you've been pretty tolerable for along time.

This personal essay tells me nothing about the writer - why exactly did you vote for the re-election of W? The ideological triad presented to affirm your 'conservative' beliefs is not only unarguable from a 'liberal' side, it is so general that it shows a woeful lack of dimensional thinking. The core issues of our political dysfunction start with the quickly disappearing Republican party that was at the core of our political system for a century. If you want to believe that there is nothing wrong with 'conservative' philosophy then you also have to acknowledge that there is, equally, nothing wrong with 'liberal' philosophy. They are, after all, ideological positions which demand adjustment and modification in real-world application. Just exactly when did the hyper-ventilating invective in our political discourse begin? I would suggest that the demonization of socialist philosophy in the post-war years, equatung any socially-minded policy as equivalent to being a Stalinist, would be a good place to start. There was never any such thing as 'left-wing' urban radio comparable to the evolution of right-wing rural radio, a template for the eventual rise of Fox News (which itself established the template and commercial ground rules for MSNBC). The extreme left wing of the Democratic party has never controlled the party as a whole, even during the late '60s and early '70s, the way the current 'Tea Party' crowd is wagging the dog and grinding any policy that doesn't adhere to their rigid frameworks into the dust. I would also suggest your 'liberal' friends got tired of being perpetually demonized by the disciples of William Bennett starting in the '80s and saw the extreme dysfunction of the Bush administration as a valid springboard for a bit of aggressive defense. BTW - I would suggest that keeping your friends by not engaging them in discourse does both sides a tremendous disservice and calls into question the depth and quality of said 'friendship'.

This personal essay tells me nothing about the writer - why exactly did you vote for the re-election of W? The ideological triad presented to affirm your 'conservative' beliefs is not only unarguable from a 'liberal' side, it is so general that it shows a woeful lack of dimensional thinking. The core issues of our political dysfunction start with the quickly disappearing Republican party that was at the core of our political system for a century. If you want to believe that there is nothing wrong with 'conservative' philosophy then you also have to acknowledge that there is, equally, nothing wrong with 'liberal' philosophy. They are, after all, ideological positions which demand adjustment and modification in real-world application. Just exactly when did the hyper-ventilating invective in our political discourse begin? I would suggest that the demonization of socialist philosophy in the post-war years, equatung any socially-minded policy as equivalent to being a Stalinist, would be a good place to start. There was never any such thing as 'left-wing' urban radio comparable to the evolution of right-wing rural radio, a template for the eventual rise of Fox News (which itself established the template and commercial ground rules for MSNBC). The extreme left wing of the Democratic party has never controlled the party as a whole, even during the late '60s and early '70s, the way the current 'Tea Party' crowd is wagging the dog and grinding any policy that doesn't adhere to their rigid frameworks into the dust. I would also suggest your 'liberal' friends got tired of being perpetually demonized by the disciples of William Bennett starting in the '80s and saw the extreme dysfunction of the Bush administration as a valid springboard for a bit of aggressive defense. BTW - I would suggest that keeping your friends by not engaging them in discourse does both sides a tremendous disservice and calls into question the depth and quality of said 'friendship'.

This personal essay tells me nothing about the writer - why exactly did you vote for the re-election of W? The ideological triad presented to affirm your 'conservative' beliefs is not only unarguable from a 'liberal' side, it is so general that it shows a woeful lack of dimensional thinking. The core issues of our political dysfunction start with the quickly disappearing Republican party that was at the core of our political system for a century. If you want to believe that there is nothing wrong with 'conservative' philosophy then you also have to acknowledge that there is, equally, nothing wrong with 'liberal' philosophy. They are, after all, ideological positions which demand adjustment and modification in real-world application. Just exactly when did the hyper-ventilating invective in our political discourse begin? I would suggest that the demonization of socialist philosophy in the post-war years, equatung any socially-minded policy as equivalent to being a Stalinist, would be a good place to start. There was never any such thing as 'left-wing' urban radio comparable to the evolution of right-wing rural radio, a template for the eventual rise of Fox News (which itself established the template and commercial ground rules for MSNBC). The extreme left wing of the Democratic party has never controlled the party as a whole, even during the late '60s and early '70s, the way the current 'Tea Party' crowd is wagging the dog and grinding any policy that doesn't adhere to their rigid frameworks into the dust. I would also suggest your 'liberal' friends got tired of being perpetually demonized by the disciples of William Bennett starting in the '80s and saw the extreme dysfunction of the Bush administration as a valid springboard for a bit of aggressive defense. BTW - I would suggest that keeping your friends by not engaging them in discourse does both sides a tremendous disservice and calls into question the depth and quality of said 'friendship'.

I'm the only liberal in my family, but no one's ever taken me to task for it -- much. But I've never hidden my politics, especially when people are talking about politics. Maybe being open and honest with people you care about is better than sitting there stewing about imagined slights.

Josh, if you are not pulling in a half-million or more a year, you are voting for the people who are going to stick it to you six ways from Sunday. If you are pulling in that much, good luck and as I always say, where you stand depends on where you sit.

I'm actually surprised at the remarkably civil comments here so far, though I'm not sure where the source of my expected rancor would come from. I mean from where I stand while I readily admit there are ample insults and name-calling from some on the left, the right (and commenters of those views) are frequently the loudest nastiest voices overwhelming the conversation, and they're not going to attack something like this. But the vitriol from the harshest part of the right wing is part and parcel of the whole cycle into a loss of tolerance and cooperation in politics today. I mean remember the conservatives are the ones who have magically achieved the power over words and meaning, despite also being the party against intellectualism and education--they have defined "liberal" as a sneer-inducing insult for years, and "patriotism" as equating to chest-thumping flag-pin-wearing bombast. But bottom line, the GOP isn't any more. The extreme right has taken over with ultimatums, uncompromising positions and no interest in governance. Many of us on the left would happily embrace the classic conservative in comparison with the new world of neocons. The value of two sides working together to solve problems is major and it's being lost. From Barry Goldwater, who'd probably be accused of being a RINO now: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

Wouldn't it be better to just say I'm voting Republican this year because... and let your friends see how thoughtful (or dumb) you are. These days the labels liberal and conservative seem to be used only as vague (well, maybe not so vague) slanders.

Why do have to "be" anything. Life is fair more interesting than the liberal/conservative right/left division forced on us by the unimagintive talikng heads. Its like viewing every dispute through a Yankees/Red Sox fan prism. Free yourself from tyranny and think your own unlabelled thoughts

This letter sounds like it was written in 1962 and got lost in the mail. I don't know very many people who could fit into such an incredibly simple and neatly labeled group. I honestly did not get the point he was trying to make. 

You need new friends. Correction: you need to find some friends.

This works both ways.  When asked at a dinner table in 2000 who I would be voting for, my friend's husband lept up from the table when I said  Gore.  He got more & more agitated & said he wasn't sure he could sit at the table with me.  If I called their home, he'd make nasty comments about that "Hell, Massachusetts" where I live.  This is the same guy for whom I flew almost 5000 miles to attend his wedding, sent a generous gift & sponsored his bike charity ride every year.  Now I'm the devil incarnate.  After so much nastiness, I just decided to cool a long time friendship with his wife as it is too uncomfortable.  Oh well.  We can pick up again after they get divorced.  You know it's coming.

Thoughful people, conservatives, liberals, and in between, don't mind listening to opposing ideas. Closed minded ideologues don't, and generaly that's because their ideas are not thought through or fully formed, and thus inherently indefensible. When you have no defense, you must, by default, revert to offense. If you can't defend your ideas without anger, you need to learn and think more. If your 'friends' can't defend their ideas without anger, you need new friends.