Replies

Hmmm. Rush mentioning Carter and Reagan made me think about some things, that is, the progression of candidates from the left. "(blank for now)" is just a placeholder, no time in this post to elaborate:

-- Wilson (blank for now)

++ Harding-Coolidge-Hoover (blank for now)

-- FDR (and Truman) (blank for now)

++ Ike (blank for now)

-- JFK, all the charisma, correct family background, not enough of a sociopath, not a traitor, ideologue to a certain extent, perhaps a hasty choice to fill in the gap, unwilling to "cooperate"

-- LBJ, placeholder, incremental usefulness (e.g., spinning Fannie Mae off the federal books to hide the debt, etc.)

++ Nixon-Ford (blank for now)

-- Next they tried with Carter, useful and willing tool, too bumbling and not truly evil enough to get things done, definitely a true ideologue (to the depth of his, somewhat limited, understanding), not enough personal charisma, and perhaps not a complete and thorough traitor; was still able to get a few things rolling that have come into play of late (think Community Reinvestment Act, SALT II, stunting Israel, PRC, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, EPA expansion, etc.) - a lot of seeds planted

++ Bang!, countered by Reagan, set backward by decades

-- Next try, Bill Clinton, much better pol and much, much smarter, an ideologue (but perhaps not a true one, maybe more one of opportunity), had a world of potential but personal flaws (and the awkward relationship with Hill) limited his effectiveness, and perhaps still not a complete and thorough traitor; set more in motion (e.g., Pell Grants, HOPE scholarships, gun control, Family and Medical Leave Act, nuclear disarmament, federal land seizure, provided host environment for Gore, etc.) -- a lot of seed-planting and spade work, while fully claiming democrat credit for the economic bounties enacted by Reagan.

++ GWB, stopped the momentum in some cases, or at least throttled back the rate of expansion

-- Now zero, suitable political skills, right skin color ("white guilt" played a dramatically huge role getting him through the primaries and into place), sufficient level of intellect, a TRUE ideologue (born, raised, and thoroughly crafted), a complete and thorough traitor (that has barely been able to disguise his utter disdain and hatred for this country); and I have been wondering if his "sketchy" background is by design (to be used as a fail-safe or kill switch to be used if needed?)

Sorry for the long winded post here, but I guess what occurred to me is that there has been a very clear and distinct progression over time. There has been a lot of experimentation over time, and each candidate has been designed to overcome the flaws and deficiencies of the prior models. If I get some time I'd like to flesh this out a bit more. Any thoughts?