[doryfunk]

I think it is an exaggeration to say that Bush is more liberal than Clinton. Certainly Bush has had more success instituting leftist, collectivist programs, but Im sure Clinton would have liked to pass alot more, but he was stopped, because 'republicans' oppose democrat socialist programs. 'Republicans' only support socialist programs put forward by one of their own.

In reality, Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin on the national level. As George Wallace said years ago, 'Theres not a dimes worth of difference between republicans and democrats.' Most republicans are RINO and most democrats are right with them. When was the last President we had that wasnt on the CFR?

Its easy to control the two parties at a national level with big money donations to support the propoganda machines of the two parties. In reality, it matters little if the democrat or republican candidate wins the race. The primary systems assure that two socialists go into the main election, and the apparent desire for the States to appeal to the masses in a false election makes the outcome self evident. We need some State legislatures to take charge and appoint electors to the electoral college with no pretense of an election of the masses, the way our system was desinged.

[Texasforever]

Ronald Reagan had 6 years with control of the Senate. That was the time in which his agenda was passed after 1986 Reagan was in the same box Bush is in now. Bush had one month with control of the Senate and yet he has actually surpassed Reagan even with a shooting war 7 months into his first term.

[c-b 1]

We need some State legislatures to take charge and appoint electors to the electoral college with no pretense of an election of the masses, the way our system was desinged.

Unfortunately most state legislators fall into two categories, they are as corrupt as those in Washington, or as clueless as the voters that elected them.