good analysis.

not much more to say really...

Platapus,

who in your opinion would this GOP "real candidate" been then if not McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Or maybe Ron Paul? :) How could they have gone against the popular wish of the republican voters and not chosen McCain? Has it ever happened that either of the parties have put up someone else then who wins the popular vote in the primaries?

I think the republicans will never get the full benefit out of Palin just because they didn't have any women candidates to be presidential candidates and having a woman come in at this stage will look like a trick. That and that their voter base will equally like and dislike the idea of a female VP. Meaning that even if they get some of the ex-Clinton fans to vote because of Palin there is probably an equal number who won't be voting because they have a problem with the idea of a woman as VP especially with McCain possibly succumbing to old age while in office.

I don't have an answer for that. Perhaps my inability to answer this simple question is indicative of my disappointment in my party.

I also think that 2012 is still a long way off. A lot has already happened in the last couple of years, now it's ok to think that a woman might be the POTUS, or a black person. I predict that a lot will continue to change in the world, and this is regardless of whether Obama will be chosen.

Also, in US the president has a lot of power and I think that just in the interest of more efficient leadership there will at some stage be a lessening of the presidents powers. After this it will become a more and more symbolic position where indeed women, blacks, etc. can be chosen. The real power will trickle to the senate and congress and other places of power.

You may be right, but since neither side of "the hill" can get together to agree on lunch, very doubtful that they would "cross the aisle" and be as one voice. Secondly, the "checks and balances" system in place kind of makes it difficult (not impossible) for one branch of government to become king of the hill, so to speak.

I guess we know what obama will do: go to the UN for everything. I'm not sure what Palin will do? It was fun to listen to the radio talk shows last week. I heard both pro and against arguements. This week should be fun on the radio. I am happy that she has executive experience. I don't like senators, so this is a dissapointing election for me. On the surface, I think I like her, but I think we (the American voter) are picking people for the wrong reasons. A black man, just because of his race; a woman, just because of her gender:roll: . I'm not too interested in making history from this point of view. I want the most capable leader. I think both parties are more interested in shafting each other that putting the people first.

Atleast palin is a workin' woman. I just have little respect for anybody with the title of "Senator" as most of them are elitist.:roll: See john Kerry or Ted Kennady.

God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.

But having only two major parties makes it a lot more possible. If Democrats and Republicans ever decided to play nice and work together, "checks and balances" wouldn't mean much.

I automatically think that every party and every candidate running would want to win. Though this is a crazy world we live in. I have read some Hillery supporters would like to see Obama lose. It would give her another chance to run in 2012 if a republican is in office. Humm, so now are both parties throwing it away?

The Lance, whatz up :88) .

We pay a lot of money in salary and benefits to a group of people who really do not accomplish much. When they do get anything done they call it compromise, notice the root word. "You do this for me and I'll take care of you later."

Either way you look at it, still a fubar way to run anything.

God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.


Most reasonable thing i've read in days :)... National Unity governmentcan only exist in two kinds of situation:
- extreme external threat (a war, big natural disaster)
- Totalitarian regime (most probably when two factions join forces against another/s, kind of like the two major factions of the NAZI partie before the reichstag)

It´s highly improbable that in America democracy that should ever happen, it beinbg a profoundly bipartizan-like system...

[quote=UnderseaLcpl] God forbid! That would be the last thing we need. For one thing that would be a one-party system, even more than it is now.
Partisan politics can be a good thing, it keeps the government from getting things done, which is usually the best possible outcome.

[quote=1480]

Crap...Pardon for the unquotion! Sorry for the piracy UnderseaLcpl

I think everyone here has messed up a quote at some point or another. Certainly no need for an apology.