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?

You forgot 41.

Any thoughts?

Yes. WE need to be at the helm of the Republican Party so that we can begin to reverse A LOT of this stuff SOON! The current heads of the Republican Party still think that they are just engaged in a fun game of chess while the Democrat Socialists are waging a long term war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132111888664060.html

How they cull republicans and certain sectors unless your records are up?

Line me up for my chip. /s

Oh shoot, what if ACORN staffs the computer banks... you know they do fraud proud.

Don’t forget the IRS want your bank info for the mandates.

BTW, note how many times our defense systems have been hacked.