I look at their individual votes rather than the party’s rhetoric when evaluating them- because both sides spin events to represent what they want their reality to be. As a political junkie, I am very interested in what works in elections (which surfaced in my prior posts)- as a voter, I find I have to delve past the soundbites to get the real deal. Its not perfect, but I don’t think I’m making bad decisions at election time either.

But the comments may be difficult to reconcile because some represent my Political Science background vs others which express my wishes for the future of the US.

You say that the public will have to demand more- well guess what? You and I and a collective whole lot of other you’s and I’s are the public. So when you make statements to people you know in your everyday conversation, when you make comments on blogs, when you vote a certain way, when you watch certain pundits who speak a certain way- you are sending a message to politicians about what you will tolerate and approve.

Sometimes I do vote for the lesser of two evils, other times I abstain from voting as I did in the last election when I didn’t cast a vote for my Congressional rep. It wasn’t anything to do with him personally, but a vote of no confidence based on the performance of the last GOP Congress. He won reelection anyway, but I feel better knowing that I didn’t enable bad behavior.

Most people vote from their gut, and don’t really look into the substance of claims made by the politicians during a campaign. It’s sad, but what can we really do to change it?

What does crticizing campaign tactics really amount to, when on election day one rewards bad tactics by voting the practioners into office, anyway?
Unless bad politicking is punished at the polls, all this high-minded philosophizing is worth no more than a hill of beans.

I can’t even resolve this for myself. The third party solution suggested by many, would not work for me unless I really believed in the platform of such a party and their campaign tactics remained on the high ground. Not voting at all could result in the worst possible candidate winning. I don’t see any way out. But I don;t fool myself into thinking that I’m ‘better’ because I have qualms I’m part of the gamemanship.

So, no, I do not concede that you and I are two sides of the same coin on this because I don’t see you holding the Democrats to that standard.

That doesn’t mean that I advocate using b, b, and h in most situations, but I feel that in some quarters there is too much advocacy for the opposite, the use of soft power over hard in virtually every situation except a direct response to an attack.

I am of course speaking in generalities of the type of foreign policy that most GOP voters would not endorse; I’m not accusing any or all of the Democratic candidates of espousing that extreme position. I do, however, see liberal/progressive bloggers who would wish for such a candidate.

Again, sorry I don’t have more time to get into it…will see if there’s an appropriate time to bring it up in another thread, another day if possible.

(1) After 6 months of 24/7 inculcating the American public to the sheer evil of Republicans, are the Dem candidates “winning in a walk” against all these Republican Bush-syncophants?……p.s. check pollingreport.com before answering. Why isn’t it 80/20 Dems ahead?? (2) perhaps many Americans are more against losing this war than actually just against war? (3) there have really been no “big asks” for money yet on the R-side. The fundraising thus far are “be-seen-at and with” affairs…..when crunch time comes, it is done by one-on-one contacts.

Help me understand your point of view.

Well, then…any of them you’d like to have a beer with?

I’d have a beer with any and all of them. Getting my vote is quite another matter.

But, there has been much discussion over whether the Dems lost in 2000 and 2004 by appearing as policy wonks instead of appealing to voters’ emotions. This time I think they will use more of an emotional appeal.

The Dems can win by Bush-bashing as they did in ‘06.

The Republicans are making it easy right now. The leading candidates are all posturing themselves as tougher and more obstinate than George Bush. All they claim is that they can do things better. But they can’t complain too much about Bush’s execution either, because that will also anger the base.

Democrats just need to point that out.

The Dems can win by Bush-bashing as they did in ‘06.

If that’s really what you believe, and if the Democratic leadership agrees with you, I fear for the Dems that they may be in for a surprise.

I am quite sure that it will not be enough.

So, you’re saying all the leading candidates from both parties are being equally phony?

I wouldn’t use the word “phony” but they’re being a little economical with the truth imo.