I fully concur. One of the reasons I beg the question of whether the differences can be resolved short of (at least temporary) dissolution of the nation.

One reason the Left is so accommodating to Islam is that they are quickly morphing into the same sort of absolutist all-or-nothing kind of diktat that Islam is. Bush may well say you are with us or your are against us — but the way he means it is far, far more benign than the way the Left approaches differences with the Right. When Bush, or the Right, says something like that, it’s with a much more sorrow-than-anger attitude. With the left, it’s all anger — How DARE you doubt me? How DARE you disagree with me! I’ll kill you!

That’s not an attitude with which you can compromise. Not in Islam, and not in the Left.

And if the Left and Right cannot find a compromise with one another, what then?

Politics is all about accommodating. It’s all about words instead of fighting, of finding a solution between your differences which may not satisfy either side, but which both can live with. And if one side absolutely will not work towards such a mutually dissatisfactory goal?

The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.
– R. Buckminster Fuller -

I completely agree that group identity plays a larger role than reflective ideology in contemporary politics. What should be a diffuse envelope of positions in a huge multi-dimensional state space has been compacted into two mutually antagonistic tribes on a single left-right axis. The right is guilty in this too, but the left has really taken it to extremes in this cycle.

Wrong “c” presidency. “Carter”, not “Clinton”. And it’ll match or “better”(worsen) all four gruelling years.

Obama is not the man to rebuild the economy.

He remains committed to idiotic expenditures on things the markets won’t support — like wind, solar, and biofuels. He has openly called to reduce US energy generation by 15%. He believes strongly in socialist economic theories.

Does that SOUND like someone who is going to do ANYTHING but tank an already soft economy?

I predict that an Obama election will guarantee a further substantial reduction in the market, which presumably (hopefully) will have stabilized at that point.

This proposition seems a lock, the market does not do well after Dem wins. The only thing which might save a tanking is a vote-ALL-the-bastards out Congressional result that probably favors the GOP.

This allows Obama and most other politicians to say that their history doesn’t mean anything. They are here to replace history with new stuff. They are visionary thinkers of the future.

The truth is that the past is almost all that really matters. Cocktail napkin plans for reforming “society” have never worked, and have created misery. The current financial crisis is based in discarding the “white banker” standards of past lending, in exchange for “social justice lending” of the future.

The past shows what has worked and failed, in reality rather than on paper. New policies for the future must respect what has been learned. New politicians tell us what they have done that improved life (not just their dreams), if we want a good chance for success.

See also http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2008/10/tell-me-about-past.html

The politician doesn’t go all the way to “I wish/dream/pray for a better future” because the crowd might wake up and laugh. Laughter isn’t the desired response to a stirring speech. We would all be better off if we laughed at these statements rather than cheering. Let’s say “Wow. A politician who wants things to be better, cheaper, and easier. Ha Ha.”