2008 US election

No offense, but that is a terrible philosophy to have with regards to politics. You make it seem as if there is one set Republican archetype, and you totally disregard who varied the stances can be within one party. I want a population to have the best choices out there available to them. To support the idea of anything less goes against the spirit of democracy.

You're the one with the add-ons.

I think Clark would have a decent shot of winning. Lieberman probably would have made it close. Dean, Edwards, and Kerry were all obviously going to lose, so it's rather sad that they ended up being the three finalists.

On the contrary, the optimism that suggests that a party with the exact same members, the same senators and congressmen, the same financial backing and the same core supporters will act completely differently in government if led by one man than by another is to have blind faith in a democratic ideal that fails to match the political reality.

If I simply disregarded the varied stances within each party I'd have no opinion as to which candidate should be chosen. As it is, I do (albeit an ill-informed and hastily drawn one). With the Democrat and Republican parties as they currently are, I'd rather see a Democrat president than a Republican one. Full stop.

His kind of mentality is what got the DNC horrible candidates in the last two elections.

Shows how utterly lost the Dem primary voters are... I actually liked Lieberman better than Clark, b/c I found Clark to be a bit too idealistic and less electable.

A little odd, since I suggested the candidate that you yourself would have voted for. Out of interest, what is my "kind of mentality" and how do you know so much about it?

And that's why Clinton acted just like Carter, and Reagan acted just like Nixon. Oh wait.

Presidents have much more power in the US than the political parties, and it is often the President who shapes his party's agenda, not the other way around.

On the contrary, the optimism that suggests that a party with the exact same members, the same senators and congressmen, the same financial backing and the same core supporters will act completely differently in government if led by one man than by another is to have blind faith in a democratic ideal that fails to match the political reality.

And that's why Clinton acted just like Carter, and Reagan acted just like Nixon. Oh wait.

Presidents have much more power in the US than the political parties, and it is often the President who shapes his party's agenda, not the other way around.

Not just like, but Clinton was certainly more similar to Carter than he was to how Bush would have been (it was Bush he beat? ^not an American^).

He had a good knowledge of foreign policy and deferred to the Clinton wing of the DNC for economic advice. Lieberman is a bit too socially conservative and he lacks even an ounce of charisma.

Actually, Clinton was as fiscally conservative as Bush and even though he was more socially liberal, Bush didn't attempt to pass his social conservatism into law. Clinton was much closer to Nixon than he was to Carter, and Reagan's idol was Frankling D. Roosevelt (a democrat). Presidents in the US do not blindly follow the party line.

Actually, it was Calvin Coolidge. He grew up in the Roosevelt era, and, like many others, he idolized him as a young man. However, in his adult years, he was all about Silent Cal.

Considering his radical agenda, I don't think he behaved much like Coolidge. Just like FDR, he thought that American society couldn't exist the way it was and needed a drastic overhaul. The only difference is the direction their radicalism took them.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the two are alike, but just pointing out that Coolidge was his fave.

Did Reagan say this before or after he became senile (i.e. before or after '80)?

It was back when he was running for governor.

And don't be mean about old people and their senility...he was so grandfatherly.

Grandfathers are supposed to be retired and telling stories to tell their children, not selling missiles to Iranians. Plus he went senile 5 years before you were born.

On a somewhat related note, is anyone watching the Roberts hearings? Roberts is abusing Kennedy. I think Kennedy is about to cry.

Oh! I forgot about that! Am watching it know. Arlen's trying to keep Teddy in line. Oooh, and they're talking about Grove City College. Wow, this just keeps gettin' better!