OK, I reread it.
A slightly left-of-center candidate runs for president. In a rational world he would win easily.
Say what? Simply an indication of Moyer's bias. Right at the start of the article.
left-wing candidates ? who have no chance of winning, but are engaged in politics as theater ? draw off crucial support.
Believe it or not, we did not pay that nutcase to run. We should have financed his campaign, though.
The candidate, though by every indication a very good human being, is not a natural campaigner
How can this be? This guy won several senatorial terms. He was hardly an inexperienced beginner. He had more political experience than his opponent, didn't he?
Could it be he lost on merit?
The result is a stunning victory for the hard right.
I know where the hard right is. It's not GWB.
It's by and large a tolerant, open-minded country; but there is a hard core, maybe 20 percent of the electorate, that is deeply angry even in good times.
So what's new? You think this is true only of the US? Half of that 20% are leftists rioting for different causes.
And owing to the peculiarities of the electoral system, this right-wing minority prevails even though more people actually cast their votes for the moderate left.
Fair enough. YOu don't get to change the rules after the race is run though. There have been something like 200 attempts to kill the electoral college. Appears it won't happen. Get used to it.
They aren't a majority; Mr. Le Pen received about 17 percent of the vote, less than Ross Perot got here in 1992
There's an old saying in politics: One-third of the electorate will vote for anything. Actually, I think it's more like 20%. It's a difference 20% depending on the issue, but anything can pick up 20%. And not just in the US.
In spite of what you're told, your country is not the root of all evil.
Instead, it seems to be about traditional values.
Duh. Politics is about LAWS. VALUES determine what people think the laws should say. What else would you expect? The fact that they are not the values and laws you want, ... well, this is a democracy.
Your continuing to focus of Clinton's sex life and ignore his strengths as president is a shame
See above. It apparently never even occurred to Slick Willie (and I think that sobriquet is approproate here) that
he would get caught
he couldn't stop it because he was President
he would be judged for actions that did not affect economics
but he was. And should have been.
And then there's John Ashcroft.
Yeah, let's end on an anti-right rant.
Even on Nixon's part.
Nixon had his moments. And he had fatal flaws. They did him in. I don't think anyone argues that he had to be removed from office. |
