the outcome of the election

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually, I don't think the same can be said for the republicans and the fundamentalist right.  The reason being that the far right in the republican party doesn't have the control over the party's direction as do the very liberal parts of the democratic party.  That's not to say they don't have infuence in the republican party, just not near as much.[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Maybe. But I crossed over in the opposite direction (lifelong Republican to reluctant Democrat) in the last 12 years. And the two biggest drivers of that crossing were the inexcusable behavior of the Republicans during Clinton's administration and their self proclaimed agenda to 'return this country to christianity' (no disrespect meant to true Christians, but the ignorant nonsense that the fundamentalists preach does not deserve a leading capital). I'd rather err on the side of personal freedom than on that of legislated morality. YMMV.

. . . That fundalmentalist right is willing to stick to a few issues they feel are important such as gay marriage and stem cell research and go with a more moderate candidate so long as those things are included in the platform.[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Yes indeed. The fundamentalist right does indeed use the hot button, knee jerk issues to get the vote. If god is on your side, then any means are justified, for you'll always get forgiveness at the end.

What I left unsaid in my other post agrees with what you stated at the end of your post pete.  I think one that one thing this campaign and election have shown very well is the failing of our two party system  Both parties are far too entrenched.  We need at least a third party to shake things up. .[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Yes. However, our two party system is a fundamental result of our overall system of government. At every level and for every office, representation is not by fraction of constituency but rather 'winner takes all'. In every representative government, there must be coalitions to get enough power to function. In governments that have some form of representation proportional to constituency, the coalitions are usually formed right before or right after the elections and are of short duration. In our form of government, the coalitions are formed well before the elections (indeed, a century or more at this point) in order to have the mechanism with which to win the election. To actually remove the two party system would entail a rewriting of the Constitution in spite of the fact that nowhere in that document is there any mention or recognition of political parties (which did indeed exist at that time, and thus the writers did not omit them from ignorance.) The possibility of forming a third party, and of having that party become so successful that it drives one of the two existing parties into oblivion is there. But the net result with political parties in the USA (much like with the cola wars in the USA) is that there can be only two.

As long as I'm on the subject of things I left unsaid in my other post, let me add one more.  The majority of the posts about the outcome of this election that I see made by people outside of the US ask "How could you possibly have re-elected Bush?".  Odd, they don't seem to ask "Why didn't you elect Kerry?".[right][snapback]59234[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I can completely understand why no one asked why we didn't elect Kerry. I myself was prepared to vote for the gentleman with the cloven hooves and pitchfork rather than allow the present administration to continue its 'don't tax and spend' policy for four more years. However, the only attractive attribute that Kerry had, IMO, was that he was not Bush. As far as I am concerned, interest in this election ended shortly after the first few primaries, when the only refreshing people the Democrats had (along with the seven dwarfs) retired from the race. The Republicans, of course, I expected to go with a (middling) popular president.

And, something that has not been discussed (that I've seen) is just how much of a 'mandate' is there when a "war time" sitting president wins the election by such a slim margin? But, given that Shrub claimed a 'mandate' with a *lost* election, I guess actually winning one does give him some bragging rights. ;)

--Pete