I realize that there are a good many ignorant, uneducated morons running around the US. As a bit of a cynic, I immediately assume a person is an idiot until they prove otherwise. Yet, for some reason, I find it unsettling that our President and his administration follows the same line of thought.<
>
<
>
I don't like being treated like an imbecile by the people running this nation. It's something they've done repeatedly of late, especially with their justifications for illegal actions they claim are necessary for the safety and security of the country. I keep reading these blatant scare tactic messages from the President's lackeys, and every time I see one I just want to strangle the motherfucker that says it.<
>
<
>
Not to mention that I think the blatant personal attacks against those doing their jobs (such as the judge that recently ruled that the warrantless wiretaps were unconstitutional) are completely out-of-line. Accusing people of trying to "take our weapons away in a time of war" is fucking childish, and the fact that someone even had the gall to say that shit and act like it held ANY meaning makes me want to slap the fuck out of them.<
>
<
>
Are we all children, that shit like this can scare us into obeying the wishes of the President? I certainly hope I'm not the only one who sees right through these methods to what they really are: abusive scare tactics that treat the American public as if we are too stupid to think for ourselves. More appropriately, I hope I'm not the only conservative that sees through this bullshit. <i></i>

_________________

I know a lot of republicans who think that Bush is a horrible president. His tactics are scary, and he has gone way beyond the power of his office. The United States is no longer looked at like a good guy by many nations (not counting the ones that always had a problem with us, like Iran). Americans are hated all over now as a result of the way the current administration does business.<
>
<
>
Whoever the next president is, democrat or republican, will have a lot of cleaning up to do. I can't wait for 2008! <i></i>

I hate to say it, Tyral, but the fact that the American people voted him into a second term pretty much confirms everything that you're saying about them. <3 <3 Beads!<i></i>

I hate to admit it, but I voted for him. At the time, both he and Kerry were equally poor choices in my mind. I felt that keeping our current president in a time of war was the best choice, and ultimately that's what led me to vote for him.<
>
<
>
Had we not been at war, it's entirely possible I would have voted for Kerry. It would have been a toss-up at that point. Had I known Bush was going to start the crap he's been indulging in for the past two years there's no way in hell I'd have voted for him.<
>
<
>
I'm praying we get a moderate in the White House in 2008. We need someone with common sense who is in touch with the American people and our needs as a nation. <i></i>

_________________

Quote:<
>
Are we all children, that shit like this can scare us into obeying the wishes of the President?<
>
<
>
<
>
(twocents)<
>
<
>
What they have done is a lot worse. They play the fear tactic, but give these people a way to react to that fear while masking it as "righteousness", and that works very well for them as a tool because the lower half of the country is quite content to feel "righteous" and never analyze further than that. "Fear? No fear here. We're just doing God's work! You wouldn't understand...God's work doesn't need proof, it just needs faith!"<
>
<
>
It's a pretty insidious little head game the neocons are playing these days. <
>
<
>
Also....remember during the elections when people kept saying "Bush will lead us!" and I asked "do you even care where he's taking you?" and the response was almost universally that Bush could take them to the gates of hell, as long as he did it decisively, and that would be preferable to a liberal/weak/flip flopping/insertwhateverinsulthere president? I thought people were crazy. They thought I was. In the end, though, this administration is playing off that sheep-like tendancy to want a strong charismatic leader. They don't care where they are going, just so long as someone they view as "strong" takes them there.<
>
<
>
Combined with the fear/righteousness thing? It makes for scary politics.<
>
<
>
(/twocents) <i></i>

I don't really want to get into another Bush vs. Kerry debate as it's pretty much been hit on all angles on this board...but I guess I just never understood what people thought was so bad about him. I can sit here and explain to you exactly what I think is bad about Bush and I think everyone else can now too, but if you asked me to put together a good anti-Kerry argument (Which is what I often do with a candidate I support, I ask myself "If I was against this guy, what points would I attack?"), the most I could really come up with was the Bush spin campaign of "omg lol flip-flopper kekeke".<
>
<
>
Beads!<i></i>

It was Kerry's military record, and the claims of those in his unit that he bolstered his own image unethically and that he gained his Purple Hearts illegitimately, that really closed the casket on his campaign for me.<
>
<
>
I also didn't like his outlook on a lot of reform issues. Nor did I like how far-left liberal he was on many of the issues.<
>
<
>
Personally, I'd prefer to see a moderate in almost any situation. Those who swing to either end of the scale almost universally lack in common sense. Both Bush and Kerry fit that bill. <i></i>

_________________

Well, the purple hearts thing is kind of an odd issue, since most people seem to agree that they were being handed out left and right to everyone anyway. It's not really fair to say that he got his 3 for stupid wounds when that seems to have been the norm rather than the exception at the time. <
>
<
>
As for his stance on issues, not much I can refute about that. If you didn't like his stances you didn't like them and that's your right and duty to decide based on that. Beads!<i></i>

Quote:They don't care where they are going, just so long as someone they view as "strong" takes them there.<
>
Quote:People want leadership... and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.<
>
Quote:..We've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. <
>




Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master. <
><
>The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

<i></i>

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

Quote:It's not really fair to say that he got his 3 for stupid wounds when that seems to have been the norm rather than the exception at the time. <
>
<
>
Says who? My beef with Kerry's military service is not so much the medals but the method he used to get out of Nam.<
>
<
>
I served for thirty months in combat in the second most decorated infantry division in Vietnam and never saw anyone get the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in a four month period. I myself hold the Silver Star, one Bronze Star with V device, two Army Commendation Medals and a Purple Heart with Silver Oak Leaf cluster, which means I was wounded six times but that was in a period of two and a half years.<
>
<
>
He used some obscure Naval regulation that said if you held three purple hearts you could get out of combat. I am sure there were a shitload of Marines who would have like to have that option in Nam. Besides the fact that he would not release his full military record, really no different than Bush not releasing his. <
>PARATUS ET FIDELIS<
> "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" George Orwell My Magelo Profile <i></i>

Anyone who's surprised now must not have been paying attention during his first term. <i></i>

Well, fear has worked for religions for many years. Why not governments as well. 2008 cannot come fast enough. <i></i>

Quote:I served for thirty months in combat in the second most decorated infantry division in Vietnam and never saw anyone get the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in a four month period. I myself hold the Silver Star, one Bronze Star with V device, two Army Commendation Medals and a Purple Heart with Silver Oak Leaf cluster, which means I was wounded six times but that was in a period of two and a half years.<
>
<
>
Ok, so he got some medals really fast. I guess I don't see the point here, other than you perhaps making some hint that he somehow "cheated" to get the two stars? We can all agree that the purple hearts were for crap wounds, but I guess I don't see why that's an earth-shattering problem.<
>
<
>
Quote:e used some obscure Naval regulation that said if you held three purple hearts you could get out of combat. I am sure there were a shitload of Marines who would have like to have that option in Nam. Besides the fact that he would not release his full military record, really no different than Bush not releasing his.<
>
<
>
Well, I'm sure lots of Marines would have loved it and would have used it if such a regulation existed for that
anch of the military. But it didn't. It did exist for the Navy apparently and he used it...which apparently you don't like but at the same time say that a "shitload of Marines" would have loved to have had that option. Would you have used it? Would you have thought any less of any of your fellow Marines had they used it?<
>
<
>
And anyway, at the very least Kerry actually went over there, which is more than Bush can say. So if we're comparing the Vietnam records of Bush and Kerry I don't see much of a contest. Beads!<i></i>

No, it wasn't 'fine'. The other side was harping the exact same thing. Remember this is basically why the whole thing came up to begin with. <
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

To go back to the OP, I'm not entirely sure I agree that people are stupid, I think the primary system in this country and the lack of interest in it on the general public's part are largely to blame for the lack of really good options in the general election.<
>
<
>
There were better options available to both parties in '00. '04 was a slightly different matter as there was an incumbent, but in '00 the reason we ended up with the Gore/Bush choice was party loyalty. In my opinion, Gore recieved the dem nomination because he'd 'paid his dues' and it was 'his turn'; Bush because the republicans owed his father. That kind of reasoning almost always works on the party faithful and that is who votes in primaries.<
>
<
>
I'd love to see what would happen if the many millions of moderate voters actually cared enough to participate in the primary system. I think we'd see less divisiveness and radical left/right tendencies in the two nominees.<
>
<
>
Yes, though, the Bush administration uses fear, intimidation, and character destruction to accomplish anything. It's a tactic they've used successfully since his Texas days, so why would they stop?<
>
<
>
The sad thing about it is that while loudly and publicly decrying their right to do as they choose because 'it is necessary to defend this country' they quietly do things that can potentially destroy this nation's security: The NJ turnpike control situation; the Dubai World Ports deal; the growing international debt they like to call the deficit; the allowing of airlines to move into foreign hands. Very scary stuff.<
>
<
>
Kula <i></i>

_________________
“The budget should be balanced. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt.”
- Marcus Tullius Cicero
(106 B.C.-A.D. 43)
Roman statesman

Quote:Well, I'm sure lots of Marines would have loved it and would have used it if such a regulation existed for that
anch of the military. But it didn't. The Marines are part of the Navy. They are not a seperate
anch. Naval regulations apply to them as well. <i></i>

_________________

I have a hard time understanding how people could not see what a completely moronic idiot Bush was after the first three years of his first term. I guess the party Kool Aide must be wearing off. Repugnant faithful are coming out of the woodwork now to finally realize what an idiot Bush actually is. Fucking DUH<
>
Fiercely Apprehensive , 65 Dread Knaught <
>
Proud Servant of "The Dead"<i></i>

Everyone that does not agree with me is stupid!<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

Please protect me, government. But, if in the course of trying to protect me, you dare to do 'this' or 'this' or 'this' or 'that' ... I (or my representatives) will ensure that we take you to court to ensure you can't do 'this' or 'this' or 'this' or 'that'. But, don't you dare not protect me, even if I won't let you do what may need to be done to do it. And, if you fail to protect me, well, darn ... we will be back in as many courts as we can find - constitutional, congressional and the public court of stupid opinions - to convict you of failing to protect the people who asked you to protect them but wouldn't let you try to do so. <i></i>

It would be fine, if it actually helped defense.<
>
<
>
But it doesnt.<
>
<
>
Security by obscurity NEVER works.<
>
<
>
In general the more secrets that exist around/in a system, the more vulnerable that system is; because secrets are hard to change. <i></i>

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

Quote:Please protect me, government. But, if in the course of trying to protect me, you dare to do 'this' or 'this' or 'this' or 'that' ... I (or my representatives) will ensure that we take you to court to ensure you can't do 'this' or 'this' or 'this' or 'that'. But, don't you dare not protect me, even if I won't let you do what may need to be done to do it. And, if you fail to protect me, well, darn ... we will be back in as many courts as we can find - constitutional, congressional and the public court of stupid opinions - to convict you of failing to protect the people who asked you to protect them but wouldn't let you try to do so.<
>
<
>
Is there a point somewhere in there, Chiasma? Oh hell, why am I even asking. Beads!<i></i>

Quote:The Marines are part of the Navy. They are not a seperate
anch. Naval regulations apply to them as well.<
>
<
>
Well then I suppose his Marine friends *did* have that option then! Beads!<i></i>

Let me venture a guess: you've never served in the military.<
>
<
>
If you had, you'd understand why those who have served viewed Kerry so poorly for that particular decision. <i></i>

_________________

Quote:<
>
If you had, you'd understand why those who have served viewed Kerry so poorly for that particular decision.<
>
<
>
<
>
This is the thing that baffles me.<
>
<
>
They view Kerry badly for going to Vietnam and eventually finding a by the books way to leave a war he doesn't agree with. But they elect someone who used family influence and avoided going all together.<
>
<
>
That makes 0% sense to me. <i></i>

That's why the Bush supporters always danced around that little fact, Rugen. Throwing stones from glass houses indeed.<
>
<
>
And I didn't know you were in Vietnam, Tyral. My apologies then! Beads!<i></i>

Quote:Let me venture a guess: you've never served in the military.<
>
<
>
If you had, you'd understand why those who have served viewed Kerry so poorly for that particular decision. <
>
<
>
I served more than a few years in the military and I could give a shit less what Kerry did legally during another colossal waste of American lives. It doesn't change the fact that nearly anyone else in the White House would have been better than keeping Bush in office. I still can't believe my country was stupid enough to do that.<
>
820 days and counting for a return of honor and respect to the White House. Oh wait, that's what the Shrub promised us.<
>
Fiercely Apprehensive , 65 Dread Knaught <
>
Proud Servant of "The Dead"<i></i>

Is Bush an idiot? Fiercely Apprehensive , 65 Dread Knaught <
>
Proud Servant of "The Dead"<i></i>

I wasn't, though I am a veteran.<
>
<
>
Military attitude hasn't changed much in 30 years. Hell, it's not changed much in 2,000 years. You don't have to have served during a particular time to think of someone as a dirtbag for leaving his buddies behind and heading safely home. You don't go home before your tour is over unless you have a legitimate reason. Three bullshit Purple Hearts isn't good enough.<
>
<
>
I didn't agree with Bush's method either, mind you. It's funny, though: I voted against Bush in the first election (I voted for Gore LOL) almost entirely predicated upon that and his history of alcohol and drug abuse. <i></i>

_________________

/salute Hyurt<
>
<
>
That's an impressive list of awards. Thank you so much for your service. <
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________

Quote:I hate to say it, Tyral, but the fact that the American people voted him into a second term pretty much confirms everything that you're saying about them.<
>
<
>
No, it confirms that the Dems ran an even bigger idiot against him.<
>
<
>
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Had the Dems offered up someone who wasn't more of a scumbag than Bush then they would have been elected.<
>
<
>
I am glad we will have a 'fresh' election this year with no incumbent and no VP running. <
>
<
>
Time to get a new face on the USA. <i></i>

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Quote:No, it confirms that the Dems ran an even bigger idiot against him.<
>
It was a few things. Hours of video of Kerry changing his positions lead to the flip/flop tag. Swiftboat vets beat the military service and his comments when he got back. Then it was the fact that he didn't clearly define how he was going to do anything differently, and that's the pretty big flaw in any campaign.<
>
<
>
Looks like Kerry has a good chance of beating Hillary out for the nomination in ’08 so we might get a repeat from the anti-Kerry crowd. <i></i>

I think it would be a mistake to run either Kerry or Clinton in 08. I wouldn't vote for either unless the opponent was a nightmare. <i></i>

_________________

Quote:At the time, both he and Kerry were equally poor choices in my mind.<
>
<
>
Which is why I voted for Nader. Of the three top candidates, he had more to offer Americans (at least progressive thinking Americans) than the other two.<
>
<
>
And, I can pretty much assure you that Iraq never would have happened had Nader been in office.<
>
<
>
Unfortunately, Americans are too quick to say, "Oh, he isn't a democrat or a republican so he has NO chance of winning...or else I would vote for him." <
>
<
>
Well, the whole reason people like him don't win is because collective thought prevents it. If people would think individually about who THEY want as the president and which candidate would best suit their own personal needs instead of who has a better chance of winning and riding the band wagon, people like Nader would have a much higher chance of getting somewhere in presidential elections.<
>
<
>
Until people start making decisions for themselves and not voting according to what everyone else thinks, we'll be forever doomed to have shitty presidents whose only focus is to help their political party and their own personal pocketbook out while half of America sits on the sidelines asking, "What about the rest of us?" <i></i>

<
>
I can't fucking believe I voted for the same guy as Bello .<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Fribur, just because we don't see most things eye-to-eye on most topics doesn't mean we can't see eye-to-eye on other stuff. <
>
<
>
Your stock just went up 2 points with me for voting for him. <i></i>

My fix would be: outlaw the 'party' system; everyone is forced to stand on their own..<
>
<
>
Then noone would be able to simply check the 'republican' or 'democrat' check boxes.<
>
<
>
We also need a more public display of past political activities by candidates. <i></i>

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

Cal, I totally agree with you. I've shouted for a system like that for a long time. My belief is that democracy should em
ace each individual's vote, with the majority of votes winning, and that those votes should be made by the individual's interests at heart - not because they think so and so would have a better chance at winning than some other dude.<
>
<
>
If I had my way, I would revamp the entire political system in America. Presidents would not be elected by electoral votes. They would be elected directly by the voters.<
>
<
>
There would be no republican or democratic parties. There would be no parties period. There would only be non-potically affiliated representatives for every seat in the government.<
>
<
>
This way, people would vote on what candidates said they would
ing to the table, not their political party's adgenda
ings to the table. A lot of political figures promise one thing and then either not deliver or they do something entirely different. That is why we have term limits.<
>
<
>
Speaking of term limits, I'd also impose term limits for every seat in the government, from Congress to the Supreme Court. Two 4-year terms in any given entity is more than enough public service for anyone. And, if they want to still serve the public after they maxed out in one office, they can go do something else; e.g. two terms in the Senate, then 2 terms in the Congress, then 2 terms as President, etc.<
>
<
>
America is ever changing, as are our thoughts and our motivations. I don't want the 70-year old representative that still thinks it is 1943 representing me in Congress. I want the 40-year old that is old enough to know something about the world yet young enough to understand that today's America is not the America from 20 years ago...and make policy based on that understanding. <i></i>

http://www.unity08.org/<
>
<
>
I'm telling you, these guys really seem to be headed in the right direction. <i></i>

_________________

Something confuses me about term limits. I get that the old school stuck in the mud politicians are bad for our government, but they do get re-voted into office every 4-6 years.<
>
<
>
If they do not represent what people want, why do they keep gettting re-elected? <i></i>

Because people are lazy, don't pay attention to politics, and simply vote by party line <i></i>

_________________

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

The biggest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

I don't see how you can really abolish parties though. Even if it's just a bunch of guys who say, "We agree on X." you're going to have organized political groups and lemmings that fall in line behind them. Nothing you do will ever remove that simple human trait. Beads!<i></i>

Quote:If they do not represent what people want, why do they keep gettting re-elected? <
>
<
>
More seniority = better committees ( and in some cases leadership of those committees ) = better pork for the local constituents that voted them in.<
>
<
>
Unless term limits are applied across all states at the same time, it will just redistribute the politcal pull to those states not having them. <
>
<
>
Now, get rid of the pork, and the incentive to re-elect the same tired ass cronies will not be there. At the risk of stirring this all up more, I'll just drop the term "Line Item Veto" and fade back into the shadows. Karao | Taydur Taut | Seymorix<i></i>

Quote:<
>
If they do not represent what people want, why do they keep gettting re-elected?<
>
<
>
<
>
Our entire political system at this point is built around a 99% incumbancy rate.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Our entire political system at this point is built around a 99% incumbancy rate.Well, that, and giving the people
ead and circuses in the form of horrid fiscal policy and intellectually bankrupt policy arguments using flawed Hegelian dialectics to herd us into one camp or the other. Thus, we're made slaves to government funds as well as someone else's ideas, neither of which truly aids either the people or the country. <i></i>

Quote:Our entire political system at this point is built around a 99% incumbancy rate.<
>
Quote:More seniority = better committees ( and in some cases leadership of those committees ) = better pork for the local constituents that voted them in.<
>
<
>
I am trying to separate the rhetoric (which both statements above are) from fact. <
>
<
>
Rugen - does that basically mean people vote for what they know? aka the devil you know is better than the devil you dont? If so, there is a human nature issue there. If not, please explain.<
>
<
>
Bawpin - So people vote for politicians who get things done that benefit them? You use the political hot button "pork" to imply that this is a bad thing. PORK IS BAD M'KAY!! It isnt always. Often what you are calling pork is a political mechanism that can create efficiency. Yes, yes, I know that when stupid or bad things are added to good laws, it gets lots of publicity. The system isnt perfect, no one doubts that. I still feel what you are saying is little more than people vote for politicians who get them what they want. To me that means the system is working as intended.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote: Quote:They don't care where they are going, just so long as someone they view as "strong" takes them there.<
>
<
>
<
>
Quote:People want leadership... and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.<
>
<
>
<
>
Quote:..We've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. <
>
<
>
I always thought Aaron Sorkin knew more about politics than anyone working for the media. <i></i>

Quote:does that basically mean people vote for what they know? aka the devil you know is better than the devil you dont? If so, there is a human nature issue there. If not, please explain.<
>
There are many factors that help ensure that the people in office stay in office. For one, most people vote along party lines most of the time. Most people choose the party for whom their parents voted. So it stands to reason that in any given area the majority of the population will vote reliably in one direction. There are some swing voters. Of these, the average person doesn't really know what their representatives have done while in office. People vote for the name they recognize. <
>
<
>
Though obviously not always true, people as a whole tend to vote based on their local economy. When things are tough in their area, incumbents have a tougher time. And vice versa.<
>
<
>
Also, The practice of gerrymandering has little regulation and is the best way for congressional members to ensure their victories even though the people in their district move around or others come in. Take a look at the congressional districts in your area and I guarantee none of them are a nameable shape.<
>
<
>
High incumbency rates also beget higher incumbency rates. As we know, money has very much to do with an election. Because organizations know that the incumbent has a higher chance of keeping office than the challenger, they tend to contribute more to the incumbent (again, not an absolute). An incumbent politician receives more money and therefore most likely wins again. <
>
<
>
If we look at the national level, the seats that change are ones in which the incumbent has retired, died, been involved in a recent scandal, etc.<
>
<
>
Once more, all of these are tendencies. If anyone attempts to give you a firm rule about any aspect of human behavior they are full of it. There is no hard fast rule to who will win or how people vote. Many a politician in my circles has found that out the hard way <
>
<
>
I, too, liked The American President. Though, it was a little on the cheesy side. <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

With regards to term limits:<
>
The fact that a legislator can occupy an office for 50 years is the effect. You can't cure the problem by relieving the symptom. As was said, the problem is that people have no idea what their representatives are doing. If you impose term limits you just have new people that do what they want without the public knowing. There should be defacto term limits, in which people get voted out of office when they stop serving the people and start serving themselves, but not legislation that removes them, regardless of the will of the people. (And the people not knowing what's going on could be argued as a symptom of a greater problem but I won't go that deep!)<
>
<
>
The only case in which I mostly agree with term limits is the executive
anch, because of the risk of tyranny yada yada. It seems a bit hypocritical of me, I know, but the nature of the offices are quite different. <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

The longer a politician remains in office, the greater hold outside interests have over him/her.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Sometimes the best person for the job is the incumbent. <i></i>

Wait a minute? Aaron Sorkin wrote The American President? I knew there was a reason I liked that movie.<
>
<
>
And while yes I definately agree it was more than a little cheesey in some parts the quote Binkee very much struck home with me the first time I saw it. That was probably almost a decade ago and it hasn't changed much since. Quote:If Venen tells me he owns a dog, I'll probably believe him. It doesn't affect me or anyone else one way or another if it's true or not. However if Venen claims he has a unicorn, I damn well want to see it.<
>
-Tarot<i></i>

Quote:someone who wasn't more of a scumbag than BushDoes this really exist in mainstream politics? The closest I can think of is David Duke, or maybe Pat Buchanan when he goes off on his xenophobia trips. <
>
<
>
I think it goes like this: for someone from the right to vote Democratic, it requires a special candidate from the Democratic Party. If the opposing candidate is not something special, then they will vote Republican regardless of how shitty the Republican party offering is. And vice versa for Democrats. You don't go away from your "team" unless the opposing team has something that really catches your eye. It's uncomfortable to cross the aisle.<
>
<
>
Example: Imagine it's Joe Lieberman vs. XXX in the presidential elections. I really dislike Joe Lieberman. In many ways he's the Democratic George Bush. But unless the Republicans offered someone who really captured my interest, I would vote Lieberman, despite the fact that I can't stand the guy. Why? He at least shares some of my values, even if he's an idiot overall. <i></i>