James Jim, I respect and support your right to say what you think about the election. It's kinda' a great thing that Mudcat and the folk community has opened the door to dialogue on these issues. We have the right to agree to disagree.

Clinton sickens you and you see no value in his presidency. It's funny but I feel the same thing about Reagan and Bush. Reagan was not responsible for the end of the cold war, Gorbachev was. During the Reagan and Bush years we saw the rise of homelessness, unemployment and cutting back on the arts programs in the public schools. We saw money spent on a Gulf War which put a strain on the economy but managed to help Bush's oil friends in the Arab republic, a despotic and undemocratic society. We see in George W the same views and if he is elected, he could send us hurtling backward into the dark ages of racial injustice, labor union busting, prejudice against gays and lesbians, and the overturn of Roe V Wade. I think that such a polarizing candidate is disingenuos when he claims to be able to work with deomocratic and republicans alike. He is too biased in favor of the so-called religious right to ever have that happen. He will be like Reagan, someone who has no personal views or agendas but is a mouthpiece for the conservative party who will do what they dictate for him.

Clinton and Gore are Machiavellian politicians and do love power. Unfortunately this is true of the best of our presidents. Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy and others who were revered were all consumate politicians with strong agendas who would do anything it took to get elected to get their job done. This is what a politican does and it may sicken you but it's a fact of life that these are the people who lead our country. Bush doesn't have that kind of leadership quality. At best, he's like Eisenhower who really enjoyed being a general or his golf game better than the horrendous job of running the executive branch of government.

Here's the question. Can the chief executive of the US be a "nice guy" or a peacemaker for two divergent political philosophies as to how to run the country? Bill Clinton wasn't able to do much with the Republican congress on some issues. The American people love gridlock because they invariably vote in one party for the executive branch and another for the congress. The judicial branch is a case of raw power. Whose ever in office will determine who sits on the bench.

Politics is kind of a murky game where personal values can easilly transform into opportunistic and power-seeking actions.

Glad you were able to vent your spleen and I relish the right to do likewise.

Thanks,

Frank