You say that as if it were a bad thing. Spending tons on defense? Well, excuse Reagan for actually spending tax dollars as The Constitution outlines. For shame!!!!.

Cut social programs? Again, excuse Mr. Reagan for trying to get rid of programs that, Constitutionally, should never have been set up by the Federal Government in the first place. Boy, it really sucks when you have a President that takes seriously his oath to “PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States”. Unfortunately, few Presidents in recent memory have even understood what that oath means. Not to mention the majority of the left.

I should mention that I’m an independent who tends to lean right, but I am interested in what both sides have to say. You are right to imply that the more time that the Democrats spend attacking Palin, with mean-spirited and snobbish attacks in my opinion, the less likely I will be to consider their ideas. But then, as a person of faith, I am also less inclined to consider someone’s ideas when I sense that I’m being pandered to or talked down to because of my beliefs.

That being said, I remain unconvinced that simply throwing more tax dollars at big problems is the way to encourage the innovation and risk-taking needed to solve those problems. I have dealt with a wide range of companies in my life, some of them awful but many of them great, useful, and magnificent. On the other hand, I have had very few barely- acceptable experiences with government, many bad experiences, but never great and magnificent ones.

Typically, my frustrating experiences at the DMV come to mind when I think of government services: long lines, poor service, and unnecessarily bureaucratic policies. The DMV can get away with that because they know that I have no alternatives. I can’t take my business elsewhere.

But, the tech companies that you cover know that they have to be consistently excellent to keep me coming back. Are there still bad tech companies? Of course. But the status quo doesn’t encourage their complacency in the way that it does for too many government services. So why does it make sense to give government even more responsibilities, when it has failed, for the most part, to be exceptional in what it already does?

If the Democrats positioned themselves as the party that embraces entrepreneurs and encourages people to take risks and if they didn’t campaign so heavily on taxing (punishing) the rich for their success, then I would be more inclined to vote for them.

In other words, your fellow Democrats should spend less time talking down to people of faith and mocking likable, unpretentious people like Palin, and you should spend more time convincing people like me that you have good ideas to spark innovation and growth. Maybe then I would listen. Otherwise, I might just cling to my guns and my religion and vote for the other guys.

First of all, when we have elections, we generally accept the outcomes, settle down, and go about our business. We do not man the barricades and storm the White House. This type of nasty discourse is a part of our political and societal nature. Please remember the vicious stories and attacks against a president that many consider to be out best — Abe Lincoln! He was often portrayed in the press as an Ape!

Secondly, when someone run on the issues, they get about 5% of the vote. Witness the lack of success of issued minded candidates such as Ron Paul and Ralph Nadar.

Finally, Pogo said it best ” I have seen the enemy and he is us!” If enough people are disgusted by this type of campaign, they will vote for something different. However, the prurient pleasure must outweigh the disgust because campaigns are getting worse.

Like the old legend, we are all Nero, and Rome is burning.

Mike Obama is a radical socialist lol more a very wet one nation tory or a rightwing Limb dem or a nu labour type.

This is my take on the us political scene.

I think part of the problem the USA has is its political structure is set up for a bunch of landowning enlightenment types who wanted to keep power in their hands. The other problem is that the religious right captured the republican party like the trots tried and failed to do in the 80’s to the labour party.

There is a good theory that the reason why the USA doesn’t play cricket is that the gentlemen (posh types think Boris Johnson) didn’t want to play with the players (lower class labourers and servants)

Also the scary part for the rest of the world is the way such inexperienced people can get to such a powerful position with out pervious experience why did McCain not get Condi as his VP.

It would almost be like if an old flame of mine suddenly got picked be David Cameron’s deputy (she’s a local conservative councillor at the moment)