[zerostar]

I have a feeling Sarah Palin will go back into obscurity soon enough.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

If he does, I'm sure it's intelligently designed....

I lolled at the above.

Anyways, I think that the McCain camp is learning how to play this game. If we are to believe Zogby, Obama's post convention bounce has evaporated, and McCain has a statistically insignificant lead, with Palin figuring well in polls

The dynamics in this race are so odd. Who would have thought that McCain would make such a clever hail mary pass and undermine Obama's bounce? And then who would have thought that a hurricane would hit the RNC, resulting in the possible non-appearance of the candidate himself? Who knows what the next development will be?

My guess is that the race will remain fundamentally tied, and that it will come down to how many people pull the lever for Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. And races with a strong third party candidate favor Democrats. Barr has 5% support amongst voters, compared to Nadar's 2%.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is being this partisan something you enjoy or feel is necessary or something? You seem to get really wound up over the left. Did Howard Dean kill your dog or something?

I think the left-wing ideology is, for the most part, anti-Constitutional and anti-American, and thus dangerous. I think defeating left-wing partisans and politicans is a very positive and laudable thing.

[zerostar]

Zogby was the farthest off last year and has been consistently inconsistent this year as well.

The national tracking polls have Obama up by an average of 6%. Gallup has him up 8% while Rasmussen Reports has him up 4%.

fyi.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the left-wing ideology is, for the most part, anti-Constitutional and anti-American, and thus dangerous. I think defeating left-wing partisans and politicans is a very positive and laudable thing.

And you'll probably tell us you understand the Constitution, and the principles this country was founded on.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the left-wing ideology is, for the most part, anti-Constitutional and anti-American, and thus dangerous.

While I would normally agree with you on a few areas, I don't know anything more anti-american than torture, domestic spying without warrants, unilateral approach to foreign policy and even the way protesters at the RNC have been treated so-far. RAID on protesters officed? are we going to see a young man gun down right in front of the convention? A once great party has been destroyed by the far right, it makes me ill.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the left-wing ideology is, for the most part, anti-Constitutional and anti-American, and thus dangerous. I think defeating left-wing partisans and politicans is a very positive and laudable thing.

Isn't having one party only, and thus a dictatorship anti-American as well? If some other party had the resources of either the Democrats or Republicans enough to compete with them, that would be grand, but in the meantime you *need* the left in order for the constitution you believe in so strongly to actually work as designed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Zogby was the farthest off last year and has been consistently inconsistent this year as well.

The national tracking polls have Obama up by an average of 6%. Gallup has him up 8% while Rasmussen Reports has him up 4%.

fyi.

Some say that Gallup and Raumaussen have been consistently off too, but yeah, Zogby seems to be the worst of them.

[macintologist]

Hmm it seems the only thing FR cares about is looking at pictures of her

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2070578/posts

This wouldn't be the case if McAmnesty picked a male VP.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Isn't having one party only, and thus a dictatorship anti-American as well? If some other party had the resources of either the Democrats or Republicans enough to compete with them, that would be grand, but in the meantime you *need* the left in order for the constitution you believe in so strongly to actually work as designed.

Or so you assume. George Washington didn't believe in political parties.

But as I said, my optimal vision would be for the Democratic party to implode and for the country to realign between the Republican and Libertarian (possibly a merger between the Libertarian and Constitutional) parties. The Republican Party could be the party for bigger government and more government control, therefore more left-wing, but it would never be as left-wing as the Democrats were. Truly anti-American leftists could join the Green Party (where they belong anyway), or optimally they could renounce their citizenship and move to "greener" pastures in Canada or western Europe.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And you'll probably tell us you understand the Constitution, and the principles this country was founded on.

Indeed I do. Perhaps if you didn't hit your head against a wall so often you'd be able to understand such things, too.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Zogby was the farthest off last year and has been consistently inconsistent this year as well.

The national tracking polls have Obama up by an average of 6%. Gallup has him up 8% while Rasmussen Reports has him up 4%.

fyi.

I'm aware of that, but neither Rasmussen nor Gallup have released polls covering McCain's VP announcement. Which is why I cited the Zogby figures, which are the only ones we have at present that encompass the post-Palin voter sentiment.

I do tend to follow Rasmussen and Gallup more closely than the others, though.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think the left-wing ideology is, for the most part, anti-Constitutional and anti-American, and thus dangerous. I think defeating left-wing partisans and politicans is a very positive and laudable thing.

I think that attacking an ideology by acting hateful and snide towards people who hold the ideology is poor form. We should try to show some class and argue like adults rather than children. It also has the bonus that then we'll have actual arguments on our side instead of ad hominem attacks.

(BTW, I still don't really like either candidate in this election. I like McCain less for being a misogynistic hypocrite, but I'm currently considering voting Libertarian as a pointless gesture.)

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think that attacking an ideology by acting hateful and snide towards people who hold the ideology is poor form. We should try to show some class and argue like adults rather than children. It also has the bonus that then we'll have actual arguments on our side instead of ad hominem attacks.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think there's cause to take every comment on this forum so seriously. But yes, I do hate leftist radicals, as is my choice.

I like McCain less for being a misogynistic hypocrite.

Talk about ad hominems. I don't think there is evidence that either of those descriptions apply to him; I don't see how a man who has just selected a female VP, the first for his party, could be characterized as misogynistic. I'd love to see some proof to back up that statement. If anything, the reaction of the left to Palin's candidacy has shown that it is the more misogynistic, anti-female party, except when it comes to killing fetuses.

[smacintush]

Sarah bags Moose











Barry says: "Me too."

[hyteckit]

Republican's comments about Palin:

Hottest Governor
She's Hot
She's Pretty
I would tap her... for VP too.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Talk about ad hominems. I don't think there is evidence that either of those descriptions apply to him; I don't see how a man who has just selected a female VP, the first for his party, could be characterized as misogynistic. I'd love to see some proof to back up that statement.

Yeah I wanna hear an explanation for that too.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Republican's comments about Palin:

Hottest Governor
She's Hot
She's Pretty
I would tap her... for VP too.

Really? That's all they've been saying?

That's a shame…

[Big Mac]

I am watching MCain Revealed on CNN right now, and I want to vote for him even more because of it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think there's cause to take every comment on this forum so seriously.

So seriously? I'm not taking it more seriously than anything else. Anyway, I'll just remind you of the rules of the PL: "You will have respect for other posters and their right to opposing viewpoints." I just think we should keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Talk about ad hominems.

A presidential candidate's character is relevant to the election, I think.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think there is evidence that either of those descriptions apply to him; I don't see how a man who has just selected a female VP, the first for his party, could be characterized as misogynistic.

That's just it — he chose her because she was female, and that's all. He picked a woman not because she was the most qualified or because she filled in some experience void he was lacking, but just because she'd make good arm-candy. Using her sex as a political tool is misogynistic. This isn't, like, Condi we're talking about here. This is a chick who is invariably introduced, both by supporters and detractors, as "former beauty queen." The most remarkable thing she's done is quit NOW.

Seriously, does anybody think choosing Palin was not a political ploy? Even your comments seem to imply that you see it that way too.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So seriously? I'm not taking it more seriously than anything else. Anyway, I'll just remind you of the rules of the PL: "You will have respect for other posters and their right to opposing viewpoints." I just think we should keep that in mind.

Actually, I wasn't addressing any particular person on the forums with those comments. If some people took it that way, it was not my intention to imply that.

That's just it — he chose her because she was female, and that's all.

Are you a McCain campaign insider? Are you John McCain's best friend? No? I didn't think so. I don't see how you can be so certain that he chose her only because she is a woman. I think that's demeaning to McCain and quite insulting given his distinguished service to the United States, and it's demeaning to Palin. Frankly, I would have expected more from you, Chuckit. Moreover, I doubt people would be saying such things if a Democrat with Palin's qualifications were running for V.P.

Seriously, does anybody think choosing Palin was not a political ploy? Even your comments seem to imply that you see it that way too.

I think it was a very shrewd choice, and I sincerely believe McCain views Palin as qualified for the job.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think it was a very shrewd choice, and I sincerely believe McCain views Palin as qualified for the job.

You mean the type of job that Clinton got under his desk form Monica?

[Big Mac]

Wow. McCain's choice has done a lot to unveil hidden male chauvinism of the left.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's just it — he chose her because she was female, and that's all. He picked a woman not because she was the most qualified or because she filled in some experience void he was lacking, but just because she'd make good arm-candy.

You got proof of this or are you just talking out your ass? Oh wait, "it's just obvious" right? Her gender may have been part of it but if you think that is all she brings then you haven't been paying attention.

This isn't, like, Condi we're talking about here. This is a chick who is invariably introduced, both by supporters and detractors, as "former beauty queen." The most remarkable thing she's done is quit NOW.

Shouldn't a guy who is freely throwing around accusations of misogyny refrain from calling her a "chick"?

You can sit here and argue all day about how "strategic" or "political" this choice was, but so are most VP picks. But to sit here and cry "MISOGYNY!" reveals something more about you than it does John McCain.

[Big Mac]

Haha, I missed the usage of chick. Pretty damning, Chuckit. And FWIW, I didn't know she was a "beauty queen" until the day after the announcement, and I had been watching all the coverage and reading a lot about her online.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you a McCain campaign insider? Are you John McCain's best friend? No? I didn't think so. I don't see how you can be so certain that he chose her only because she is a woman.

I certainly don't see anything that makes her the most qualified person for the job (or even belong in the running), and I don't recall seeing anybody here make an argument to that effect. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think that's demeaning to McCain and quite insulting given his distinguished service to the United States, and it's demeaning to Palin.

You're darn tootin' it's demeaning to McCain. I didn't like him very much before this, but I cannot find a reasonable explanation for the choice of Palin other than that it's a shrewd ploy for votes. I honestly think it was a smart move from a strategic standpoint, but I do feel like he's selling America out here.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Moreover, I doubt people would be saying such things if a Democrat with Palin's qualifications were running for V.P.

Actually, Republicans (including McCain) have been mocking Obama for his lack of experience and saying he's gotten by on pure charm and a silver tongue for quite a while. So I don't know about VP, but clearly they'll say such things if a Democrat with Palin's qualifications is running for president. If he'd got Palin for a VP, you're probably right that nobody would comment on it, because she'd be there to make him look legitimate by comparison.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Shouldn't a guy who is freely throwing around accusations of misogyny refrain from calling her a "chick"?

Is it misandry if I call McCain a "dude" or "guy"? It's dialect. I'm sorry if some of those words are offensive 'round your neck of the woods, but that wasn't the meaning I intended.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You can sit here and argue all day about how "strategic" or "political" this choice was, but so are most VP picks. But to sit here and cry "MISOGYNY!" reveals something more about you than it does John McCain.

What does it reveal?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is that sweater you are working on knitting, Dork.? Dork. told me the other day that he is busy knitting sweaters for families of this free market socialist program that he has been involved in.

:sigh:. Those are Communist families that I'm helping, besson3c. You always get them confused with socialist families!

And I'm not knitting anything, I'm shearing the bourgeois American sheep, and spinning their fleece into yarn for the proletariat masses to knit into sweaters, and in the process infecting them with the virus of democracy that I had secretly injected into the sheep when they weren't looking. (I had trouble sneaking up on the sheep, they were skittish for some reason, but I managed.)

This is my plan to finally conquer Communism, tear open the Iron Curtain, and tear down the Berlin Wall! If every family in the Soviet Union knits three sweaters, they will never threaten us again!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I certainly don't see anything that makes her the most qualified person for the job (or even belong in the running), and I don't recall seeing anybody here make an argument to that effect. Did I miss something?

You said she was chosen only because of her gender, to which I asked how you could claim to know that. In reply, you changed the subject to whether or not she is the most qualified, instead of attempting to substantiate your claim that she was only chosen for her gender. Not a valid debating tactic.

You're darn tootin' it's demeaning to McCain.

You are demeaning McCain by impugning his integrity when you claim he chose her only for her gender. John McCain's record of service to this country speaks for itself, in my opinion, and I vehemently disagree with the assertion that he would make an irresponsible choice of running mates for the sake of political expediency. Unless you can offer any proof for that claim, as opposed to simply throwing out ad hominems against Palin, I'll assume that you're just spouting empty rhetoric.

Actually, Republicans (including McCain) have been mocking Obama for his lack of experience and saying he's gotten by on pure charm and a silver tongue for quite a while. So I don't know about VP, but clearly they'll say such things if a Democrat with Palin's qualifications is running for president.

The point I was making there was that if the Democratic party had nominated a woman with Palin's qualifications,Democrats would not be making snide remarks about such a candidate. They are doing so now only for political reasons - they were caught off-guard, expecting Romney instead of Palin.

If he'd got Palin for a VP, you're probably right that nobody would comment on it, because she'd be there to make him look legitimate by comparison.

Huh?

Is it misandry if I call McCain a "dude" or "guy"? It's dialect. I'm sorry if some of those words are offensive 'round your neck of the woods, but that wasn't the meaning I intended.

Would you call your boss, or any other woman who commanded your respect, a chick? I didn't think so.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The real reason he selected her.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDi...3?diaryId=6737

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That blog post is really unfortunate. It's shamefully sexist/misogynistic.

"First Trollop" ??? Really?

So much for equality.

Pam is jealous and validating undeniable truth of life #24
35 undeniable truths of life

24. Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Or so you assume. George Washington didn't believe in political parties.

But as I said, my optimal vision would be for the Democratic party to implode and for the country to realign between the Republican and Libertarian (possibly a merger between the Libertarian and Constitutional) parties. The Republican Party could be the party for bigger government and more government control, therefore more left-wing, but it would never be as left-wing as the Democrats were. Truly anti-American leftists could join the Green Party (where they belong anyway), or optimally they could renounce their citizenship and move to "greener" pastures in Canada or western Europe.

Indeed I do. Perhaps if you didn't hit your head against a wall so often you'd be able to understand such things, too.

Great, but like I said, in the meantime you *need* the Democratic party for this government to work. When and if the Libertarians can rise in prominence, then you can hope that the Democratic party implode without the same negative repercussions.

[Big Mac]

I don't see why you think we necessarily need two strong parties at all times. Our system promotes two strong parties but doesn't mandate their continual, fixed existence. The Whig party predated the G.O.P., and even Lincoln was a member; as the party was dying out Lincoln became a Republican instead. It didn't take long for the Republican party to fill the void left in its wake.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: I'd also really like to understand what gives you such enthusiasm for the Republicans these days. I mean, do you still think that the Bush government has been anything but absolutely horrendous?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see why you think we necessarily need two strong parties at all times. Our system promotes two strong parties but doesn't mandate their continual, fixed existence. The Whig party predated the G.O.P., and even Lincoln was a member; as the party was dying out Lincoln became a Republican instead. It didn't take long for the Republican party to fill the void left in its wake.

You might as well have a dictatorship iff what you truly want is one powerful party and one really weak one. What good would that weak government do?

[Dork.]

Our political system is always going to be two-party as long as we have a winner-take-all election system.

If we had six parties with roughly equal support, then it would only be a matter of time before two parties with similar ideologies decide to merge, and start winning all the election based on their plurality of support. In order to fight this, out of the four parties left, two with the opposite political leanings would decide to merge. The remaining two, having been marginalized, will join up with one of the two new mega-parties or risk being marginalized. Poof! Two parties again!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You might as well have a dictatorship iff what you truly want is one powerful party and one really weak one. What good would that weak government do?

I didn't say anything about dictatorship, or one strong party and one weak party. You seem fixated on this notion of yours that I'm advocating one party rule. I said that one party could die off then quickly enough another would fill the void, and I gave you the historical example of the Whig party dying to make way for the Republican party, a realignment that took around six years to complete. Given how much faster the world moves today, a realignment that took six years in the 19th Century could happen within months in the 21st century. Right now we have two fixed parties who even rig the system for each other to maintain the status quo. Injecting some fresh blood into the system by taking away the invincibility the major parties feel wouldn't do any harm to the country.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean, do you still think that the Bush government has been anything but absolutely horrendous?

Yes let's please turn this into at thread about the Bush administration.

That would be productive.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

That's probably about right. Core left-wingers won't accept anyone with conservative views.

Hence the existence of the Democratic party. By the same token, core right-wingers won't accept anyone with liberal views.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: I'd also really like to understand what gives you such enthusiasm for the Republicans these days.

Weren't YOU the one talking about the post-partisan age before? Is this about the parties or the individuals running?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Isn't having one party only, and thus a dictatorship anti-American as well? If some other party had the resources of either the Democrats or Republicans enough to compete with them, that would be grand, but in the meantime you *need* the left in order for the constitution you believe in so strongly to actually work as designed.

I don't think Republicans are opposed to multiple parties ... as long as they're Conservative.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think Republicans are opposed to multiple parties ... as long as they're Conservative.

Bessie is just putting up a straw man again. No one is suggesting a single-party and I don't recall anyone having done so on this forum.

[Big Mac]

I mentioned that George Washington didn't believe in political parties. Post-partisanship sounds good on paper, until one remembers that there are real issues that divide the country. Perhaps if the American people in general had a clearer understanding of the Constitution and the founding spirit of the country, there would be a considerable amount of consensus on the major issues, thus obviating partisanship. From that perspective partisan politics represent a malady that can be cured, but only through a commitment within the electorate to restore the underlying intellectual basis of the political system in question.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I doubt people would be saying such things if a Democrat with Palin's qualifications were running for V.P.

And that's the point. In that statement, you're Pailin's qualifications aren't great. For a party that has resisted women in power for so long, I think the expectations are higher than for the Democrats, who are almost *expected* to put women into positions of power just because they're women. I would accept that Palin was chosen on her qualifications if there were no other person as qualified. But, I'm inclined to agree that she was selected to grab the votes that went up in the air when Clinton wasn't selected for the Democrats.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Our political system is always going to be two-party as long as we have a winner-take-all election system.

If we had six parties with roughly equal support, then it would only be a matter of time before two parties with similar ideologies decide to merge, and start winning all the election based on their plurality of support. In order to fight this, out of the four parties left, two with the opposite political leanings would decide to merge. The remaining two, having been marginalized, will join up with one of the two new mega-parties or risk being marginalized. Poof! Two parties again!

Yeah, but it would be much less likely for the support of the six parties merged to equal 50/50.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't say anything about dictatorship, or one strong party and one weak party. You seem fixated on this notion of yours that I'm advocating one party rule. I said that one party could die off then quickly enough another would fill the void, and I gave you the historical example of the Whig party dying to make way for the Republican party, a realignment that took around six years to complete. Given how much faster the world moves today, a realignment that took six years in the 19th Century could happen within months in the 21st century. Right now we have two fixed parties who even rig the system for each other to maintain the status quo. Injecting some fresh blood into the system by taking away the invincibility the major parties feel wouldn't do any harm to the country.

I see where you are coming from now. Still, if you take the same players in the game and simply shuffle the deck, you'd still have much the same. What it sounds like you really want is new ideas and new leadership - change! You could massively overhaul and realign a party without changing its name or dissolving it. Surely you would agree that some change on the Republican side would do us some good too?

[Big Mac]

Of course it would be beneficial to change the Republican party. The last Republican Congress did the party and its constituency a tremendous amount of harm. The party we have now leaves a lot to be desired.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Weren't YOU the one talking about the post-partisan age before? Is this about the parties or the individuals running?

The individuals, but there are many players in the game, and I don't sense that the Republican base has been fully regrouped and realigned to fully galvanize behind McCain like the Republicans galvanized behind Bush. There are your old school Republicans, your social conservatives, your Bush supporters/neo-cons, and your more moderate conservatives. McCain is having to try to appeal to everybody, which is very difficult since the party seems rather fragmented right now. So, while my "Republicans" label was sloppy and inaccurate, I really don't know what I should have said instead.

Personally, I prefer parties that are not borg-like machines.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I see where you are coming from now. Still, if you take the same players in the game and simply shuffle the deck, you'd still have much the same. What it sounds like you really want is new ideas and new leadership - change! You could massively overhaul and realign a party without changing its name or dissolving it. Surely you would agree that some change on the Republican side would do us some good too?

The problems we saw with the republican congress and the Bush administration is the result of a single party in control. This is the same kind of result we are going to see if Obama is elected and congress remains in Democrat control.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Of course it would be beneficial to change the Republican party. The last Republican Congress did the party and its constituency a tremendous amount of harm. The party we have now leaves a lot to be desired.

So you'd rather a hypothetical broken, fragmented party with little support that calls themselves Republican and upholds some conservative ideas even if they are in no shape to actually do anything than a party that calls themselves Democrats that might be able to do some positive things that even you would be in favor of?

So, it sounds like you just want to severely red tape any party that isn't Republican by name? Isn't this just holding the country hostage to a particular ideology?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You said she was chosen only because of her gender, to which I asked how you could claim to know that. In reply, you changed the subject to whether or not she is the most qualified, instead of attempting to substantiate your claim that she was only chosen for her gender. Not a valid debating tactic.

I guess I didn't spell it out explicitly enough. There is no other reason to choose her, and it was entirely predictable that her sex would get a lot of attention, so I conclude that is why he chose her. Anybody's free to offer an alternative theory, but so far nobody has come up with anything.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

John McCain's record of service to this country speaks for itself, in my opinion, and I vehemently disagree with the assertion that he would make an irresponsible choice of running mates for the sake of political expediency.

What is McCain's record of service to this country that makes him so holy nobody can ever question his motives? One of the most highly decorated men in Vietnam was recently sent to jail for corruption after becoming a Congressman of many years, so I hope you aren't implying that we can't question anybody who's been in the military. It's the nature of politics to make people compromise.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The point I was making there was that if the Democratic party had nominated a woman with Palin's qualifications,Democrats would not be making snide remarks about such a candidate.

Wow, you think? And now that the Republicans have nominated a woman with Obama's qualifications, the Republicans won't make snide remarks about such a candidate. One might almost be led to conclude that people have biases! Seriously, this is an ad hominem. You're attacking the Democrats rather than attacking their positions. Your attacks on the Democrats are accurate, but they're irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Would you call your boss, or any other woman who commanded your respect, a chick? I didn't think so.

Yes, I would and have. And my boss calls women she respects "chicks." As I said, it's how people talk around here. But if it's such a big deal for you, I'll try to remember not to use it here from now on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The problems we saw with the republican congress and the Bush administration is the result of a single party in control. This is the same kind of result we are going to see if Obama is elected and congress remains in Democrat control.

I disagree.

The problem with the Republican Congress and Bush administration was that both insisted on putting their ideology above the country. There have been many leaderships with a mixture of Republicans and Democrats in important positions. Competency is competency - you can a competent secretary of the treasury, for instance, regardless of what party they are thought to be associated with. Why was Paul O'Neil fired? He himself said that he was fired because he was questioning government spending and racking up such a huge debt. Why were judges screened to ensure that they were conservative? Why was FEMA managed by Michael Brown? Richard Clarke? It is clear that Bush valued loyalty and conservative ideology above everything else. Both O'Neil and Clarke served effectively under Republican administrations in the past!

The problem with the republican congress and administration was a leadership deficit, not a problem of what letter preceeded their names.

[Wiskedjak]

To take some of the edge off this conversation, IO9 has an interesting observation