It's all over. She's too smart.

[Couture]

Not the people on the floor. The people I've heard speak so far tonight. I agree one hundred percent with you that everyone on the floor feels exactly the way you say.... and there have been speaker to address a few of the things you say. But, there has been little of that tonight. There's been very little of it the last few nights.

I don't want hairs split. I want a plan to get the troops home from Iraq. Home from Afghanistan. Stop the jobs from fleeing the country...this issue they've been covering pretty well and it seems as though they have a plan. A new plan for healthcare. The one we have is broke. We spend twice as much and the quality of care is lacking. We need to stop sacrificing our freedoms due to fear. We need to replace secretiveness with openess. We need to get out of people's bedrooms and back in the schoolrooms.

I don't care how long you were in Vietnam. Just get us out of the George's Nam.

whoop...Kerry time.

 

[amicus]

Political Propaganda...an art form...

Practically nothing said by Shereads is accurate...I take that back, 'absolutely nothing' shereads wrote is accurate.

'The Grand Old Party' GOP, Republicans, are called that as they were the first political organization in America. They opposed the 'Federalists' the ones who wanted (and still do) America to remain a monarchy with a strong central government that regulated the lives of the people. The GOP said, hell no! We want freedom.

They have been at loggerheads every since.


The 'heartland' of America, outside the metropolitan areas is totally Republican, made up of everyday people trying to live their lives with the tax burdens imposed by the 'Liberal' (Federalist) do gooders that are convinced they can spend your assets better than you can.

It is not just 'Republicans' making the point that the Kerry Democrats are trying to copy the Republicans.

Has any one noticed that the Democrat Convention has not produced at platform expressing the goals of the Party?

They can't. The delegates are radical left wing liberals and are ashamed of the planks suggested by that majority. Thus, they have no platform, no ideology other than, 'anyone but Bush.'

That is true moral bankruptcy.

Most Americans tolerate, but do not approve of Abortion.

Most Americans tolerate, but do not approve of Gay and Lesbian issues taking center stage.

Most Americans know that the free market provides the jobs and the goods and services they desire. They tolerate those who would control, restrict and regulate.

There is no draft in this nation. We have a volunteer military.


Most Americans a fully aware of the threats posed by terrorists around the world. They acknowledge the necessity of the searches at airports and seaports. They understand the threat is real and emminent. Most Americans fully understand the necessity of 'Homeland Security.'

Most Americans are even somewhat aware of the tremendous financial hit America took on September 11, 2001 and the consequential economic stress.

It was not just the lives lost, the jobs and buildings destroyed, the terrorist attack rocked the entire monetary and economc base of the United States and the Western world in general.

The amazing thing is...that we have recovered. Recovered from the billions of dollars of destruction, the disruption of the lives of millions of people and our economy is recovering in spite of it all. That is truly amazing.

Further, it is to the eternal benefit of the people of the United States that we 'acted' in the Middle East.

And we did not act alone. Today, over 30 nations participate in the coalition to confront terrorism in Iraq and Afganistan.

So you see, the post to which I am responding, is pure political progaganda.

Kerry/Edwards the first and fourth most liberal in government, are ashamed of that for which they stand.

Democrat/Liberal advocates do not even deserve the title, 'honorable opposition.'

They have been relegated to the back-waters of politics, whining and saying 'me too.'

Amicus...

 

[Couture]

They opposed the 'Federalists' the ones who wanted (and still do) America to remain a monarchy with a strong central government that regulated the lives of the people. The GOP said, hell no! We want freedom.

Amicus...

King George and King George II. Seems to me like the neo-cons are bringing back the good old days of monarchy. A little theocracy anyone? Your freedoms are stolen by the Patriot act.

You are a tool.

 

[ruminator]

The GOP has been hijacked by zealous idealists and the party loyalty is so strong that few have the courage to speak out against it.

I support some of the Conservative ideals but I'll back the Democrats because they've come together and are addressing all of the issues that I think are problems not being solved (or worsened) by the current administration.

I am a tool. I am productive in designing and building the future.

 

[Couture]

A tool is used. I would much rather be a contractor or team member.

The Kerry speech was great. It was much better than I anticipated. He really spoke to not being afraid of these terrorists. We've faced much worse.

He also spoke to protecting jobs, healthcare, and seniors from unchecked gouging by unscrupulous people.

I think George is in trouble. He's probably on the phone with Scalia and Thomas right now.

 

[shereads]

A tool is used. I would much rather be a contractor or team member.

The Kerry speech was great. It was much better than I anticipated. He really spoke to not being afraid of these terrorists. We've faced much worse.

He also spoke to protecting jobs, healthcare, and seniors from unchecked gouging by unscrupulous people.

I think George is in trouble. He's probably on the phone with Scalia and Thomas right now.

They've got a plan, you can be certain. But George isn't in charge of it. Dick is.

I liked the speech, although he's as painfully awkward to watch as Al Gore. Both of them were over-coached on How To Appear More Natural By Gesturing With Your Arms, by the same person who teaches your local used car dealer to make TV commercials...Wouldn't the world be safer if all politics was conducted in print media and illustrated with a photo or two?



I missed Cleland's speech, and Dean's! I thought my TV station would leave regular programming when they came on, and I wasn't paying attention the time. Were they great? Would Cleland have made me cry?

 

[shereads]

Did I say Cheney is in charge? I completely forgot about Karl Rove!

He's even better at this Stealth Presidency businss than I realized.

 

[Guest]

Sher, you're too critical, I think. I thought Kerry was just fine, his arm and hand gestures were much better than most opera singers I've seen. Really.

It was a very fine speech. I thought he came through brilliantly, much better than I expected. He had some great lines (e.g, re. the Saudi royal family). Certainly his delivery was so much more sincere than any I've seen of Bush.

feeling good, Perdita

 

[Wildcard Ky]

The GOP has been hijacked by zealous idealists and the party loyalty is so strong that few have the courage to speak out against it. I

The same could be said for the Dems. People like Michael Moore are being labeled as the voice of Americans by Dems. Both political parties are under the control of the extreme fringes of their party, be it right or left.

I thought Kerry's showmanship was excellent. He was passionate, animated and the audience was enthralled with him. I agree with very little of his politics, but he did a very good job with his speech.

I do think he broke his own vow though. He took a lot of shots at Bush instead of detailing his own plans. The Dems had said this was going to be a positive convention, sans the bashing. It lasted for awhile. I found it a bit hypocritical that Kerry spent 45 minutes doing a lot of bashing then called on the Repubs to run a clean campaign from here out.

If he wants to fight, that's fine. We expect that out of our politics. But don't spend 45 minutes bashing, then call for a clean campaign.

 

[Guest]

Kentucky, I beg to differ. Kerry was critical of Bush but it wasn't "bashing" in my opinion. There's a big difference.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

Kentucky, I beg to differ. Kerry was critical of Bush but it wasn't "bashing" in my opinion. There's a big difference.

Perdita

Bush wakes up every day thanking God there aren't enough votes in Congress to impeach him. If "bashing" is defined as repeating the truth about this man and his handlers until some of it sinks in, it's not even an option. It's a moral obligation.

 

[Subo97]

GOP origins

just a point of historical note.

The Republicans were not created as an antidote to the Federalists. That was the Anti-Federalists. The give and take between Jefferson and Hamilton is undeservedly undertaught in our schools, even at the University level.

The Republican Party was born in the 1850's, made up of former Whigs and Free Soil Democrats as the Missouri Compromise, brokered between Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, began to break down with America's western expansion. The Southern demand that slavery be allowed to expand into the territories ripped the Democrats apart and destroyed Stephen A. Douglas's presidential hopes. The Whigs disintegrated, most becoming Republicans, some joining the Union Party of John Bell, the Southern Whigs joining with Southern Democratic followers of Calhoun to bring about secession.

That's a thumbnail sketch. Allen Nevins wrote an 8 volume history called Ordeal of the Union that is ripe with details of the creation of the Republican party and the rise of Lincoln.

the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were more proto-parties thatn political parties. They later morphed intot he Democrats and Whigs, Andrew Jackson being the most notable Democrat and Henry Clay the most notable Whig.

Liberals are not monarchists and Republicans are not anit-monarchists. In a historical sense, all American politicians are Liberals, i.e., they support representative democracy based on universal human suffrage, believe in a government based on popularly elected legislative bodies.

In any other country in the World, our entire range of politicians from left to right, from Kennedy to Helms, would be considered Centrists.

It's easy to throw words around when we rant, but making up History as you go is not very convincing, Amicus.

 

[amicus]

subo97....


'The Grand Old Party' GOP, Republicans, are called that as they were the first political organization in America. They opposed the 'Federalists' the ones who wanted (and still do) America to remain a monarchy with a strong central government that regulated the lives of the people. The GOP said, hell no! We want freedom."


A new voice on the forum....or at least the first time I have noticed the screen name.

"It's easy to throw words around when we rant, but making up History as you go is not very convincing, Amicus."

Well done subo97 Yes I have been truly caught out playing fast and loose with history.


I must then retract the above thumbnail sketch of political parties



"Political Propaganda...an art form...

Practically nothing said by Shereads is accurate...I take that back, 'absolutely nothing' shereads wrote is accurate."


Let it be said that I am not above stooping to the level of others in the midst of an all out free-for-all in the Propaganda Wars.

I do not, however, retract the essential meaning of my sketch of political parties. And that is of the continuing battle between slavery and freedom, good and evil, right and wrong.

It is almost biblical in its sweep and the roots of this eternal conflict remain vague and unidentified by most.

It is always a pleasure and I welcome the input of anyone who actually takes the time to do the research to prove or disprove a contended point.

My point in that portion was to indicate that from the beginning of this nation, be it Federalist or anti-Federalist, is that one extreme wanted more control, restriction, regulation, the other wanted less.

That is still a simplication perhaps even an oversimplication of an historical moment.

One could say quite the same about the Allies and the Axis powers of world war two.

You did bring me an interesting point however, the watershed of the Civil War in terms of political identificaton.

It has been said that the 2004 election is the most important in our lifetimes, a crucial one. I do not necessarily agree with that conclusion, however...

It appears to me that the Democrat Party is running away from its base, running without a visible and stated political platform. It could well be that a landslide loss by Democrats in November may bring about a complete re organization of said Party.

Aren't Presidential elections just so much fun to consider?

amicus

 

[curious2c]

The only thing that bothers me about the Kerry's is their wealth and position. Just as the Bush's, the wealth of the family will make it so they feel that they truly understand the problems of the average person in America.

I'm sorry, but the average American does not have large land holdings, huge bank accounts, multi-million dollar homes, and more than one home on top of that.

In the past as right now, the politicans will go to Washington D.C. and spout off about 'their constituents' and what is best for them...as the rich and out of touch politicans see it. They really believe that they know what is best for the rest of us, even though they have no idea of what we face day to day. Even if they grew up poor, or middle classed, by now to get where they are, it is hard for me to believe that they can still be in touch with me or my peers.

Thersa Hines-Kerry is an intelligent woman, on the surface at least. How much of that is made up though? John Kerry, George Bush Sr and Jr., even all the past Presidents and First Ladies...none have been in touch with Americans or the real world. They have all put up a good show and acted the part...but they have no clue.

In the end, its politics as usual and from this 46 year old man, no change will happen in the rest of my life time either. Politics has become big money and big business. Doesn't matter who is in there either, just the names change, the money and business remains the same.

 

[rgraham666]

Hmm. So far as I know Truman wasn't a rich man, nor was Eisenhower. And FDR was rich.

On the other hand, Reagan and Nixon were hardly rich. But Shrub and Shrub II are.

So I don't believe that wealth, or lack thereof, has much to do with whether a President can properly represent and serve the country.

 

[Subo97]

roots

Presidential politics is a lot of fun. I enjoy it immensely and I do have strong political opinions but I prefer not to work myself into a dither about it. I really don't believe the election of either of these men will bring about Armegeddon.

I really do think we Americans are in essential agreement on the major basics of our democracy. We have the privilage that many other countries don't have of being able to quibble about the details. Importnat details, to be sure, and details that affect our lives, but I believe that whatever direction this election takes us the republic is still safe.

Amicus, you're right, I'm fairly new to the AH, having spent most of my time on hte SRP boards. Blame me on shereads, and thanks for the welcome.

Curious, I'm not sure wealth is an automatic disqualification from good will. I guess it goes back to that "eye of the needle" analogy that Jesus brought up. Most politicians achieve wealth, to be sure, and it seems to be a requisite for political survival, yet there are many men with common roots that have achieved the presidency: Lincoln, Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Eisenhower, Truman and Andrew Jackson to name a few. FDR was a patrician who did great things for the common man despite his upper class roots. We did all right with upper class wealth in Washington, Jefferrson and Teddy Roosevelt. All things considered, I think htere has been a lot of social mobility in American politics.

Apologies to shereads if we've hijacked her thread. If we wronged you, Tie me up and whip me, girl, I can take it.

 

[amicus]

Interesting thoughts...subo97...

However...(Amicus grins)

Great and sweeping changes do occur in History, with some regularity.

I offer a couple tidbits for your consideration.

Looking at census bureau statistics from 2000, if one projects current trends in regards to African Americans in the south and Hispanics in the Southwest, it indicates that both minorities in those regions will become political majorities in about 30 years.

Since both minorities support one political party at a 90 percent voting rate, I question what this bodes for the future...


Secondly, a pessimistic view of the Islamic Middle East points to a continuing and widening conflict around the world.

This is a new era, old power divisions seem to be under stress. I truly wonder what the next decade or so holds.

Any thoughts?

amicus

 

[Subo97]

thoughts

Oh, amicus, you're evil. Asking for my opinions is like waving a bottle in front of an alcoholic.

As you said, the demographics of America are changing and that will change our politics as well. At first glance, they seem to put the Democrats in a much better position for the future as their coalition currently is strong. But all things change. We white males were never in a majority, we just had the most power. That I think is the current weakness of the Republican party,it's the last bastion of upper class white males. Still, as African Americans and Latinos grow in power, they'll also grow in wealth and privilage and perhaps our two party system will grow out of our current division. I don't worry too much about racial and ethnic shifts, I think the American ideals are strong all across the board. I remember watching Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Had a Dream" speech when I was a boy. The shivers ran up and down my spine because he articulated the same American Dream that my father articulated to me just as his father had done a generation before. All cultures and sub-cultures have strenghts and weaknesses. I think that the deep spiritual faith and patriotism of Afro-American culture is about to do us a lot of good. My mother's family predates the Revolution but my Father's side came to America in hte 19th century. There was a time when a very large portion of hte Republican party was made up of first and second generation immigrant families. A large number of those Free Soil Democrats who formed the Republican Party opposed the expansion of slavery because they were they were hopeful of their own westward expansion.

I love the political fight. I'll gladly roll around in the mud and the blood and the beer to fight about those quibbling dtails I spoke of earlier, yet, in the long run, I don't fear for my grandchildren.

The struggle in the mideast is not new, we have it right here at home. The enemy is not just Islamic Fundamentalism, and it is our mortal enemy, but it is also Fundamentalism of all kinds.

I believe there are two historical movements throughout all human History: Tradition and Transformation. There are always some who want to change and some who resist change. In the dynamic cusp of these two movements, one of two things will occur, Revolution or Evolution. The beauty of the American Constitution is that it is a mechanism for evolutionary change. We stumble and bumble, but the lid never blows off, because the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Since the American Civil War completed our Revolution, we have the capacity to evolve as a society. That evolution is our greatness. I believe that as America becomes the world, the world will slowly become American. I believe, whatever the political details, the Bill of Rights will become the universal ideal. It already is among the greater part of rational men. In many ways, we are an extension of the Enlightenment. (we just don't wear wigs like Voltaire--we use rogaine )

 

[amicus]

nice comments...your optimism is refreshing amdist all the doom and gloom....

I wish I could share your idealism, but I think revolution is much closer than evolution.

Much like the 9/11 pundits, after it happens we will curse ourselves for not seeing it coming.

There is a plague about the land I think, one of non absolutism, one of situational ethics relative morality. An insideous sort of malady inclines most to look inward and backwards, not outward and forward.

I have dabbled and dangled enough enticing tidbits of controversy on this forum in the past few months to gauge the ferocity of those who oppose any consideration of there being 'truth' to anything.

Young people (assumption) such as the Teenage Venus, come into the adult world without a fundamental set of values and discover that pretty much anything goes.

Recent scandals in corporate finance, governmental ethics and the Catholic church herald an era of indecision and must create uncertainties about the well being of such institutions.

One transplanted from an earlier time, listening to a debate on the definition of 'marriage' might not believe their ears.

Knowing that one third of all women have had an abortion procedure before they reach age 45, should be a wake-up call to someone, somewhere, should it not?

That no one finds it astounding that our best and brightest, supposedly, those who are the educators of our young, march in virtual lock step with a humanist minority, is a puzzle to me.

Even I would be alarmed if only free market advocates and christrian fundamentalists occupied our schools and colleges.

As I have said before, I can understand how minoritiy groups, heavily dependent upon government largesse, march along side the donkey, election after election.

Voting records are available and no one seems to question that 9 our of 10 teachers and professors support one political party. This appears to trouble no one but me.

Well...enough said...I got lost in thinking and the time has slipped away.

I appreciate your comments...

amicus the cynic...

 

[Couture]

Voting records are available and no one seems to question that 9 our of 10 teachers and professors support one political party. This appears to trouble no one but me.

It scares the hell out of me.

That means that the house, senate, and executive branch are all run by the NOT best and brightest (also known as the dumbasses)

 

[shereads]

Re: GOP origins

Liberals are not monarchists and Republicans are not anit-monarchists. In a historical sense, all American politicians are Liberals, i.e., they support representative democracy based on

drum roll...

universal human suffrage,

Oh. Subo my friend. You don't know yet, do you? Those truths that we hold to be self-evident? They're not.



I know. I was surprised, too!

Have fun, sweetie. If your trips to Disney World always incude a visit to Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, you'll enjoy this too. If not, you may want to smoke some Dramamine before you get back in line.

It's easy to throw words around when we rant, but making up History as you go is not very convincing, Amicus.

You boys play nice, okay?

 

[Subo97]

Mr. Toad

My darling, shereads, it breaks my heart to say this. Mr. Toad has been replaced by Winnie the Pooh. yes it's true. Mr. toad and I have a long history, going back to the early 70's when I smoked a joint going through his ride. The ending was great! a car crash and a descent into hell. Now the ride ends with stretch of bounces ala Tigger. Mr. Toad is now in a wharehouse with no plans for ressurrection, shoved into the shadows by Michael Eisner, probably the worst cum guzzling gutter slut in American corporate history.

I have ideals but I'm not naive. As we speak Prince Jeb and his minions have been caught in yet another scheme to manipulate the Florida vote. Fl election officials have just "found" the backup disk from the latest touch screen voting fiasco. It was "inadvertantly placed in a desk drawer", lost for several weeks. The latest felon list was found to be missing Latin names, those deemed more likely to vote for Dubya. Scores of African American voters who never committed a crime were added to the felon list to disenfanchise them. Universal suffrage is under attack in FL as much as it is in any banana republic in Central America.

Those truths are self evident, they need no proving, but they do need protection. In my experience, bad behavior that goes unpunished always persists. The hanging chads were just a smokescreen, the real scandal in 2000 was the votes that never were allowed to be cast in the first place, eligible voters illegaly removed from the roll or improperly turned away from the polls. I have no doubt in my mind that pusilanimous little brother will try again.

 

[Subo97]

playing nice

Actually, us boys aren't doing so bad. I like amicus, I think he's a thoughtful, passionate person, I have a lot of respect for that. He cares, and that's a good thing.

The sentance you highlighted, I admit, was awkwardly constructed. It turned out more aggressive than I intended but , likethe good man he is, amicus let it pass and stuck to the topic.

See, i can be nice-nice.

 

[shereads]

The only thing that bothers me about the Kerry's is their wealth and position. Just as the Bush's, the wealth of the family will make it so they feel that they truly understand the problems of the average person in America.

Yes, they and the Kennedys are rich as Croesus and have many faults, no doubt. The essential difference is one of compassion. You can only fake that to an extent; there is a point at which anyone in a position of power has to choose to exclusively benefit himself and his own social/economic class, or to fight - maybe not always, but once in a while - for the powerless.

When Bobby Kennedy wanted to know what it was like to be poor in America, he didn't ask an aide to submit a report. He went to the poor themselves. He spent sweltering summer days in shacks in the Appalachian mountains, and in the personal diary published after his death he expressed his shame at having been ignorant of poverty. Experiences like that changed him from an arrogant kid to a man who wanted to change the world, and might have.

He spent the day after Martin Luther King's death in an urban ghetto trying to quell a riot, and when his car was surrounded by the angry crowd, his security detail couldn't convince him to leave. Instead, he got out of the car and made himself more available and visible. He shared the anguish of these people, to the extent that it was possible for a white man born to privilege. And he knew it wasn't enough.

If Bobby Kennedy, or his one surviving brother (yes, I know about Chapaquiddick, I'm acknowledging the gravity of it, and setting it aside for a moment to make a point) or if any of the Kennedys of JFK's generation and today's, are in politics for an entirely self-serving purpose, why bother? There are easier ways to line a family's pockets and expand its dynasty than by voting against a tax break for yourself and voting in favor of bill after bill that will cost you more than its proponents can afford to pay you for the favor. On the other hand, show me a conservative president or senator who consistently votes to trim social spending and in favor of tax cuts, and I'll show you one who's spent no more time in the homes and neighborhoods of the poor than it takes to kiss the baby for the cameras.

I'd also ask you to consider how presidents have spent their time in retirement. Jimmy Carter is a man of considerable wealth, and he's dedicated his post-presidency years to causes like Habitat for Humanity - not just as a spokesman whose face is on their fundraising materials, but building houses. Hauling lumber. Hammering nails. Why should he? If he's doing it just to stay in the spotlight, there must be easier ways. And in the hours Carter and his wife have spent swatting flies in Third World countries, and in pockets of poverty here in the U.S., and working alongside people who sweat and maybe even smell bad, shouldn't a Nobel Peace Prize winner have been smart enough to think of an alternative?

Clinton is having some fun and getting rich, but he's also devoted a substantial amount of time to raising awareness of the AIDs epidemic in Africa. What's in it for him that he couldn't have any other way?

Clinton grew up with next-to-nothing with an alcoholic stepfather who liked to slap Clinton's mom around. He went to Oxford on a scholarship, which he somehow won without a private-school education, tutors, or a parent whose power and influence could send him to a college of his choice. Say what you will about his character and list the ways he's compromised his beliefs, but it won't negate the fact that the causes he fought hardest for are the ones who can't buy influence in Washington: the working poor, single moms, people whose lives mirror his own when he was growing up; the environment, whose lobbyists could be bought a thousand times over by the corporatations who oppose them.

You're welcome to provide a lecture on the evils of Democratic presidents. The Kennedy clan provides a long and sordid list of sins, no doubt about that. Carter was such a weak president, he was somehow defeated by a pathetic gang of nameless Islamic extremists. Once he was out of office, that problem was handily dealt with by men of purpose, which is why we haven't heard a peep out of Islamic extremists since we got rid of Carter.

Clinton couldn't keep Bill Junior in his pants, and his politics were often compromised to an extent that made even his staunch supporters squirm and stammer.

Yes, they can match the other side sin-for-sin and weakness-for-weakness, and they seem to have less skill at minimizing the importance of their drunk driving arrests or whether they inhaled. But please don't lump these people together with those whose political lives have been dedicated to protecting their wealth and expanding their power, to the exclusion of anything else.

If every politician in America until now had been no different than the group currently in power, there woud be no social programs because the people who benefit from them have no infuence, no power, and helping them requires a person to earn the "tax and spend" label. You may not agree on social spending, but you should at least acknowledge that its existence is evidence that some rich people are less selfish than others. You can argue the virtues of trickle-down economics, but whether it's smart policy or voodoo isn't the point here.

The point is that some politicians are willing to pay taxes to alleviate poverty and social problems, if they think that's the way to do it. When they argue against a tax cut, they're not just arguing to keep your money, they're arguing to sacrifice some of their own. Wouldn't it be easier for them to shut up and keep the loot?

Being rich doesn't make a politician incapable of compassion. Being an ass does.

 

[shereads]

Re: thoughts

Oh, amicus, you're evil. Asking for my opinions is like waving a bottle in front of an alcoholic.

As you said, the demographics of America are changing and that will change our politics as well. At first glance, they seem to put the Democrats in a much better position for the future as their coalition currently is strong. But all things change. We white males were never in a majority, we just had the most power. That I think is the current weakness of the Republican party,it's the last bastion of upper class white males. Still, as African Americans and Latinos grow in power, they'll also grow in wealth and privilage and perhaps our two party system will grow out of our current division. I don't worry too much about racial and ethnic shifts, I think the American ideals are strong all across the board. I remember watching Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Had a Dream" speech when I was a boy. The shivers ran up and down my spine because he articulated the same American Dream that my father articulated to me just as his father had done a generation before. All cultures and sub-cultures have strenghts and weaknesses. I think that the deep spiritual faith and patriotism of Afro-American culture is about to do us a lot of good. My mother's family predates the Revolution but my Father's side came to America in hte 19th century. There was a time when a very large portion of hte Republican party was made up of first and second generation immigrant families. A large number of those Free Soil Democrats who formed the Republican Party opposed the expansion of slavery because they were they were hopeful of their own westward expansion.

I love the political fight. I'll gladly roll around in the mud and the blood and the beer to fight about those quibbling dtails I spoke of earlier, yet, in the long run, I don't fear for my grandchildren.

The struggle in the mideast is not new, we have it right here at home. The enemy is not just Islamic Fundamentalism, and it is our mortal enemy, but it is also Fundamentalism of all kinds.

I believe there are two historical movements throughout all human History: Tradition and Transformation. There are always some who want to change and some who resist change. In the dynamic cusp of these two movements, one of two things will occur, Revolution or Evolution. The beauty of the American Constitution is that it is a mechanism for evolutionary change. We stumble and bumble, but the lid never blows off, because the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Since the American Civil War completed our Revolution, we have the capacity to evolve as a society. That evolution is our greatness. I believe that as America becomes the world, the world will slowly become American. I believe, whatever the political details, the Bill of Rights will become the universal ideal. It already is among the greater part of rational men. In many ways, we are an extension of the Enlightenment. (we just don't wear wigs like Voltaire--we use rogaine )

Eee! I'm so proud. I knew you when you were just a an SRP writer with a mean libido, a tender heart and a way with words.

<sniff>



One of my boy toys is leaving the nest...I need a moment.