Replies

What is true, not exaggerated and both is that Bush is the only leader who should even be remotely considered as suitable for sitting in the White House.
There are NO RATS even clost to suitable, third party candidates aren't even on the radar screen they are such lightweights and the GOPers who might be suitable SUPPORT W.
What does that tell you?
224 -jsuati-

Tells me that we have a hopelessly corrupted political system wherein we are reduced to electing anyone even remotely considered suitable.

- In other words, - principled men who honestly state their political opinions cannot be elected.
A truly bizarre development in 'democracy' as practiced by the dual party rinocrat regime in power.

- In other words, - principled men who honestly state their political opinions cannot be elected. A truly bizarre development in 'democracy' as practiced by the dual party rinocrat regime in power.

Let's grant your point, for the sake of argument. Are you really saying that we need to blame the parties, and not the people who elect them?

It might tell you that but it isn't true. No political system can be less corrupt, for very long, than the nation it serves.

If ours is so corrupt why isn't there one voice worth listening to with a hint of an idea how to change it? It appears to me that the system is LESS corrupt than it used to be, even during the era of the founders. Naive sentimentality and romantic nostalgia aside, there is no "golden age" worth returning to as even a slight knowledge of American history reveals.

Where have you seen any viable alternatives? Who has escaped the radar screen so as to not even be worth considering? Give us some alternatives to consider.

We have plenty of inexperienced, unelectable, theoreticians without a scintilla of practical political experience. Certainly none even worth suppressing or repressing because of their "principles."

Critics of Bush have yet to come up with a valid criticism outside of exaggerations and misinformation when not outright lies.