the outcome of the election

[jrichard]

Hi,
All too true.  However, the same can be said for the Republicans and their association with the fundamentalist far right.  Look at the numbers.  Each side represents less than 45% of the nation (and a lot of those 45% from each side pick their party because, although it is extreme, it is extreme *their* way).  And yet, overall, the nation is in agreement on many, indeed most, topics (although the media never really addresses that, do they?)

What this nation needs is not a better Republican party or a better Democratic party.  What this nation needs is a new party, composed of the 80 to 90% of the people who are smart enough to realize that extremes are to be avoided.  Of course, that will never happen -- or at least not until media stupidity becomes a terminal disease.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59219[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I don't think the same can be said for the republicans and the fundamentalist right. The reason being that the far right in the republican party doesn't have the control over the party's direction as do the very liberal parts of the democratic party. That's not to say they don't have infuence in the republican party, just not near as much.

It's running the gauntlet of those liberals who are unwilling to compromise which makes it so difficult for a moderate democrat to make it through the primaries and gain the nomination. Strangely enough, the democratic party seems to be as unwilling to address the diversity within their own party as they are to address the diversity within this country.

On the other side, the republicans are doing to opposite. Overall, going through the primaries on the republican side of things is much more a process of finding a candidate who can appeal to a wider audience. That fundalmentalist right is willing to stick to a few issues they feel are important such as gay marriage and stem cell research and go with a more moderate candidate so long as those things are included in the platform.

There was a time not so long ago that I never thought I'd say this in anything but a joking fashion, but the republican party is succeeding by appealing to the average american. While I'm not all that old these days, I'm also not that young anymore and in my lifetime I've gotten to see the parties almost reverse. When I began voting, it was the republicans who were considered more the elitist party and the democrats had the reputation of representing a larger cross-section of the country. Now, that's almost reversed. Given a little more time with things continuing as they are, that reversal will complete. It saddens me that at some point we went from standing up for minorities and giving them a voice to thinking we need to take care of them because they are incapable of thinking for themselves. It's not a message these days of "take our hand and we'll help you" as much as it is one of "just shut up and do what we tell you because we know better than you do what you need".

What I left unsaid in my other post agrees with what you stated at the end of your post pete. I think one that one thing this campaign and election have shown very well is the failing of our two party system. Both parties are far too entrenched. We need at least a third party to shake things up. The diversity of opinions and cultures in the US has always been one of our greatest strengths. The current political situation is becoming very vanilla. Every candidate has to be everything to everyone. Political correctness is mandatory. Diversity and disagreement are condemned. Both parties are guilty of this, not just the democrats. I just feel that the republicans are not quite as far down this road as the democrats are.

As long as I'm on the subject of things I left unsaid in my other post, let me add one more. The majority of the posts about the outcome of this election that I see made by people outside of the US ask "How could you possibly have re-elected Bush?". Odd, they don't seem to ask "Why didn't you elect Kerry?". It just doesn't seem to matter to Europeans especially who we elected as long as it wasn't Bush. And now, they call us narrow-minded for re-electing him. Hmm, no offense intended, but who is being narrow-minded here? Who is saying that our election should have taken nothing but their interests in mind?

jrichard