This situation just makes me tired, not angry

[jpgray]

The way I see it, you get a group of guys together who want to stay in power and sustain a way of life for the upper class, and this is what happens. You have the media covering Bush's ass because his policies are good business. You had the Democrats divided and waffly on the war resolution because the onus was on criticism so blatantly until after the war. You had the long-shot candidates going after the war from the beginning to define themselves, and the favorites either playing gung-ho war cheerleaders or fence-sitting Januses to go with the media flow.

So no one is representing "good" here, and no one is representing "evil". We have the one who is in it to enrich himself and his kind, and to keep his kind in power for as long as possible. We have the other side who will do less of that, and throw the public a bone once in a while. Then there are the sides which will never be elected.

The only difference between Bush and some of the imperialist Evermondes is that Bush is terrible at what he does. He's no more evil, he's just a lot less clever at covering his tracks. His plan for postwar Iraq was nonexistent, and that is the ONLY reason we are seeing this criticism at all--Iraq was supposed to be a clean imperialist grab, and it hasn't turned out that way. His stumbles are painfully obvious, and that's why the media look ridiculous covering them up to a degree they didn't during Reagan's administration.

Bush is just a product of our system. What it creates it can easily destroy, and that is what's happening to him. If they take Bush down, it won't bury imperialist presidents. We need some Democrat who lies to get on the good side of the system and then dismantles it within four years. That's all he/she will get.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Can't do that

I don't think one can dismantle it in 4 years. One must slowly pass policies that slow, re-direct or re-regulate a bit but not to the point where it shocks the country.

The Republicans were reformers. Look where they took us.

It needs to be a slow tempered movement that allows for all the changes in reality, as is globalism but addresses it with the greatest international cooperation and HUMAN RIGHTS policy.

[jpgray]

2. Corporations have a tremendous influence on politics

An attempt at gradual change will only result in the changer getting booted out in the middle of the process. That is, if the one who tells you he/she will gradually change things isn't just lying in the first place.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Right but

All politics, and economics is global. One needs to move more towards a global movement. Since they are global, we must be. OTherwise you cut it here, you cut it there. Many countries are reeling from greed based global corporate policies.

[jpgray]

6. We need to cut imperialism

It's going to come to an impasse. Interdependence will only take our country somewhere if we have both hands free to shore up social concerns at home. You can't do that when the defense budget eats up most of the tax dollars.

So it's the same situation: corporations don't want to lose their global ventures. Media corporations that are part of defense congolomerates don't want to shrink, they want to grow. Therefore they will support a president and Congress that allows them to grow the most. That ain't the Democrats, and it certainly isn't anyone who is looking to regulate business. While media support isn't the be-all end-all, look what happened to Gore.

[Composed Thinker]

3. A few words

If there's one thing we can learn from the Republicans, it's this: discipline. Say what you want about their politics, they are effective in getting across their message. It's not the solution to all problems, but it would definately help the Democrats if they had more discipline in approaching the political games. And so on.

[jpgray]

4. If Democrats become unified, it's time to start worrying

I personally see internal squabbles and backbiting as a sign of health. If all Democrats agreed on all policy, I think that would indicate the policy was maintaining power and getting filthy rich. The only thing all politicians have in common is ambition.