Moving on, that was a nice job you did of selective quoting and stitching sentences together while leaving out the pertinent sentences in between. When you use those methods, you can "prove" just about anything you want. But if you'd care to quote the relevant portions of my paragraph, then we can have a rational discussion about it. Somehow, however, I suspect it would be unnecessary, since I think you already knew that what I was saying wasn't how you characterized it.
Sure, he'll take it into account on one level, but if you support him actively chances are stronger that he'll pay closer attention to what you have to say.
Either you're wrong, or Bush and the Republicans have extremely liberal supporters. I'll go with the former. Politicians do what they need to do to get elected. Those that don't, don't remain politicians for very long. It's that whole Darwin thing.
Constitutional power granted to the President doesn't have anything to do with the skill that a person who holds that office has to be able to nutralize his opponents issues.
The fact remains that you're still giving him credit for something, but not allowing him to take the blame for the exact same thing.
"Your point" remains? From your last post: "The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal...."
When the chances of an event are infinitesimal, it's generally rather difficult to predict when it will happen. Unless you've had some success at this sort of thing?
Nader's candidacy subverted the strength of the Democratic vote, and some in the media were too stupid to realize that. These are the kind of boobs in the media industry who supported Eugene NcCarthy in '68, Shirley Chisholm in '72, and Kennedy in '80. They turn to Nader's Green because Gus Hall's Commies are no longer on the ballot.
You're still not seeing the big picture. They lose individual elections here and there, but in the process they're able to maintain "the socialist vision of the Dems" regardless of who's in power. IOW, they understand that politicians and parties are simply means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. I think you're still not getting that. Then again, maybe you are, judging from the next quote from you I've highlighted.
Bill Clinton is the actually the Republicans secret weapon and he will single handedly do more to damage his party than any other Republican or Karl Rove could even think of conspiring to do.
Am I reading you right, now? Are you telling me that Clinton was good for conservatism? Does this mean you don't bear any grudge against all those conservative Perot voters? Well, hallelujah! That means you should have no objection at all to CP voters either, because if it gets Kerry elected, just think of what he could do for conservatism! (especially with a GOP/CP majority in the election)
You and your CP clan are and will be of no value to long term conservative successes. Your kind never have been. CP positions are about as self-contradictory as they are useless snake oil designed for the consumption of equally useless malcontents, so often seen in conservative failures of the past. Predictably so, I might add. Why should this generation not have their supply of these failure peddlers as well? It is said that the poor will always be with us; so too will poor thinkers inspiring their unthinking lemmings, it seems.
Just keep stepping into your circular firing squads and the successes accorded those like you who already have a string of political darwin awards to boast of will surely be awarded your sucker's prize this time around too.