Hopefully there’ll be enough people fed up enough with their respective Congresspeople to throw them out or give them a scare as appropriate.

Plus, I don’t think either party is going to “destroy the country” as far as security and other bread-and-butter issues.

So for me, the upcoming election is a referendum on the governing party. And they deserve to go down in flames. Big, hot, center-of-the-sun-type flames, the ashes burned and reburned until the electrons have been stripped from their atoms, leaving nothing but a subatomic mist in their wake.

Do I think the Dems will do better? Well, they’d have a hard time doing worse. And it would be a mistake to give the Reps a pass on their proven failures merely out of fear of what Dems *might* do.

That said, it can get complicated. I like my own Representative (Ramstad), and will probably vote for him even though he’s GOP. So I’m both part of the problem (voting for a GOP candidate) and part of the solution (voting for a moderate). My excuse is that if the GOP had more Ramstads, they wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in.

Once again I feel as if people aren’t getting this important message: all the railing in the world against Bush & Co. amounts to ZERO so long as the best alternatives the railers deign to present are equal in suck.

The only solution I ever seem to see is for everyone (who has an election they can vote in) to vote Democrat in 2006. The trouble is, that doesn’t look like a solution to me at all. It doesn’t even look like a stopgap solution or “a good start” or even “a decent start”.

Vicky

His popularity is ideological driven, not personality driven. So perhaps I had the “devotees” turned around and the term is more aptly applied to those that choose a cult of personality over an ideological or philosophical underpinning in a candidate. Ideally, a candidate comes with both like Ronald Reagan, and you have a true leader.

My point was simply that I’d much prefer to vote for people based on first, their character, and then, what they stand for, rather than the other way around. Because frankly, I don’t honestly believe that the ideological differences between conservatism and liberalism on their own are enough to reshape the world either for better or worse. But if you have the right person, at the right time, in the right position, regardless of their political stance, there is nothing stopping such a person from making the world a dramatically better place.

It’s a shame that so few such people have any interest in getting involved in politics.

The GOP is losing support, but not over this. The cartoon would have reflected reality better (though I admit not as funny a play on words) had the bubble mentioned the government spending issue.

Please don’t take this as an insult or snarkiness, but that might be the funniest statements I’ve ever read. Just because Alan Keyes is…well…Alan Keyes. A vote for Alan Keyes isn’t a choice one makes, no more so than the devotees of David Koresh chose him over Billy Graham. One is an articulate mainstream-to-liberal black man and the other one is an articulate conservative black space alien.

That’s okay, I did it for you. You can thank me later :)

I tend to lean conservative, but I know for a fact that I would vote for Barack Obama over Alan Keyes if given the opportunity.

2008 will probably be another election where I vote AGAINST a candidate, rather than for one.

As to the Democrats, the Senate’s approval rating is LOWER than the President’s, and the Democrats in particular are around 18%.

I’m fairly certain most people are annoyed with both parties because of Immigration, Senatorial spinelessness, and barrels of pork.

However, given a choice between a GOP candidate who might actually try to have a conservative backbone for once, and a Liberal Democrat (Of the Kerry-Boxer-Biden Stripe) who I know would sell America off for a nickel, I know where my loyalties lie.