That is why the Republicans are going to get crushed in November. Perhaps a beatdown is what is needed to bring this country back to a real two-party system. Congress without at least a coherent Republican party is a car without brakes. In general, Republicans offer simplistic solutions to complex problems and do not belong in power, but they should be strong enough to keep the Democrats from getting too powerful.
Are you talking about Obama? I agree. He has hardly any experience to be President. But I guess if all you are going to do is tax the hell out of everybody while being President, than anyone will do.
Bad Idea. Even in this election if a third party had even 5% of the vote. It would give them power to deal and throw the election either way. It happens in Europe a lot, sometimes it is the Communist party who has that power. Third party also will allow a small minority of 34% to possibly win.
I think this is probably true. An AP study suggests that Obama could lose as much as 6 percentage points on election day simply due to his race, once people get behind that curtain in the voting booth. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...poll_barack_obama_could_lose_six_percent.html
In general, Republicans offer simplistic solutions to complex problems and do not belong in power, but they should be strong enough to keep the Democrats from getting too powerful. I feel lucky we have Democrats sophisticated enough to solve those complex problems. I am for CHANGE and therefore vote for Obama.
Yea Cesko, as if Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman and Harry Reid are great philosopher-intellectuals. I pray for ZB to tumble 50 handles from here....
Interventionist military: unsustainable with a rotten domestic core. Bailouts: The result of lacking, insufficient, or in some cases inappropriate, regulation. It's not like the housing crisis snuck up on anyone who was AWAKE. http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Crash-Housing-Market-Investment/dp/007142220X (I was fortunate enough to read this book when it came out in 2003.) The aftermath - an orgy of finger pointing. Kinda makes one yearn for term limits. Entitlements: Onerous subsidization of the public sector by the private sector. This one needs to be addressed badly. With regards to seniors, the problem stems not so much from the net levels of entitlements received, but rather the abysmal administration of programs targeted toward this demographic. Having said that, given the inexorable 'greying of America', a rational examination of entitlement amounts cannot be considered 'out of bounds'. Universal health care: I'm for it. But, I don't have a lot of faith in our pork-loving government's ability to make it work. Rationally, it can't happen without corresponding spending cuts - in military interventions and in other programs.
You need to look at the bigger picture. Substantive change, which we desparately need, is highly unlikely to emerge from either of our two major parties. I could bemoan the fact that Ralph Nadar's presence helped get GWB elected in 2000, but that would be missing the point: the two major parties don't offer what we need - reform of the political power structure. All in all, they are quite happy with the status quo, which effectively ping-pongs the balance of power between them, while leaving the American populace out in the cold.