Welcome to Gaia! ::

Theoretically.

Actually, the effect Waters is referring to is exactly why losing this election to the Democrats would make it easier for the Republicans to win Presidency in two years; In two years, people will start getting sick of the Democrats.

Theoretically.

The question is, would you rather hold Congress, or the Presidency? wink I'd rather hold Congress, myself.

It is both good for politics in general to move back and forth between liberal and conservative views, and good for society itself when people do so. And really, what is considered a liberal view now might well be considered a conservative view when we're both ready to retire.

The country has been moving towards a more conservative trend. Most likely a more even Congress will be elected this year (closer to half and half) and I wouldn't be suprised to see a more moderate president (of either political party) in 2008.

I believe there could be a slight liberal majority in Congress, but it depends on how well the conservative fear tactics work (and they have been working very well so far) if this will happen or not.

With how things ar elooking. We may see a liberal majority in gorvenrmnet. Every one has the "Any one but a republican" attitude. The only democrat I would even think about voting for would be Zell Miller. ALmost all the others, though, who I hear may be runingfor presidency seem to have no plan that would benefit this country.

Thats why Bush and Cheney were elected over Kerry and Edwards. They said they had a plan and stuck with it, instead of flopping back and forth.

Rudi Guliani v. Barack Obama?
Condi Rice v. Joe Lieberman?
They both sound like my perfect matchups.

I so agree. At this point, I would be so glad to have a good canidate to vote for, it wouldn't matter what party they were running on (assuming it wasn't the American Nazi Party - I am very much Anti-Nazi, no matter what). I kind of like McCain, if he would run again. I also like Powell, but I think he's not going to run ever.

I don't like Lieberman, as it turns out, most Democrats don't.

Actually he wasn't. He voted for the Patriot Act (one of the many things he was accused of Flip/Flopping on) like almost all of Congress did, then later (like much of Congress) said that he disagreed with some of the ways it was being used.

Every other case where Kerry was accused of "Flip/Flopping", he wasn't. He turned down some military budgets, then later approved BETTER military budgets. He never was for Gay Marriage (but is for Gay Civil Unions).

Bush/Cheney however Flip/Flopped all over the reasons for War in Iraq (involved in 9-11/WMDs/um...Saddom beat my daddy?) but that is acceptible?

Kerry (unlike Bush, I might add) fought in Vietnam. He earned some number of medals for doing so. When he returned to the US, he protested the War, as did many Vietnam vets. Just because he did heroic things for fighting in a war doesn't mean that he isn't ashamed of fighting at all.

There isn't an audio clip, but supposedly Bush did say that to a reporter (according to the reporter). That is contested, so who knows? It isn't as though journalists haven't made things up before.

And Kerry was a nut job, as well as Bush being an a*****e. I don't like either of them. I wonder if anyone worthwhile will run in '08? I might vote for Cthulhu (why vote for a lesser evil?).

I do like that you accidentally mispelled his name "Busch". Like the beer.

I'm done. Both canidates totally stunk in 2004 and in 2000. I don't like Bush. I really don't like the War in Iraq, or any of our reasons for going there. I really hope that things get better soon. I don't want either party to have a sizable majority in Congress, because that tends to mess things up royally. I want a Moderate president (or, alternitivly, Cthulhu) in '08.

I don't agree with the image of Kerry as a flip/flop (or the commercial that implied he would get all of us eaten by wolves), but I'm done arguing about it. Kerry looks like Mr. Munster anyway.

They did not flip-flop on the reasons: They were all reasons that were involved from the beginning of the reasoning process, only the news media only focused on one at a time, making it seem like they thought up new reasons every time an old reason went sour.

Also, that's one. Damn. Issue. Even if it's considered a flip-flop, Kerry flip-flopped on everything! I never knew -what- he supported! Except, of course, legalized abortion while claiming to be Catholic which is a big no-no.

Kerry also did nothing heroic. I'll just stick with what Pyro said.

Personally, I love Bush. There are things I disagree with him on (A great many things, really), but at least I know where he stands. I do not see a single iota of a*****e-ness in him. To me, "a*****e" implies that he does mean things on purpose. What has he done like that?

He seems to me like a great guy, and I really hate that so many people hate him because of his political opinions. As I said, the only things I fully agree with him on are abortion and the war in Iraq. I think we need tax cuts too, but that we need to cut down on the services the government gives at the same time, so that we aren't giving away money we don't have. But for the rest of the major issues? I think that "No Child Left Behind" or whatever it's called was an immensely stupid thing to do. I saw the evidence of it when I was tutoring some elementary students and I was appauled. Basically, all kids do in school right now is learn to take standardized tests.

I disagree with him on gay marriage. Of course religions should have the right to refuse to marry gays, but the government has no such right to discriminate.

I disagree on capital punishment. No crime deserves death, not when you can stop them from commiting crimes in other ways.

I disagree on legalized drugs. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I say, do whatever you like with your body.

But just because I disagree with him on all those things does not make him an a*****e, and does not make him a bad person.