"Just ponder this a little. Try and digest it fully. The victims of a terrible, murderous oppression in the Kurdish area of Iraq, and those now yearning for a democratic breakthrough against theocratic tyranny in Iran, do not look for solidarity and support to the massed ranks of the marching left, the 'peace' movement, as it flatters itself to be; no, they look to a right-wing Republican president."

Why is this so difficult to understand?!?! Dubya gave Afghanistan a democratic breakthrough (they just held elections), and he's giving Iraq one in January. The Kurds know that GWB is a man of action and his word. Why, if they want a democratic breakthrough, would they even begin to think that the Kerry left-wing would be their answer? Bush has already delivered in Afghanistan and Iraq. The logic of why Norm is even asking this question makes my hair hurt!

I think our political parties slowly slide around the circular spectrum of political ideology. Currently, the Democrat party are reactionary, protectionist, and drifting ever further into corporatism (the gateway to fascism).

The Republican Revolution of 1994 was helped by Newt Gingrich's decision to separate themselves from the religious right (i.e. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell). Since that time, the Republicans have actually moved closer to the position of the classic liberal, even progressive in some policies.

We are going to get a very illuminating demonstration of this fact in the near future. The Social Security tax is absolutely the most regressive tax in the United States, without question. We'll find out which party wants to reform Social Security and which party resists a more fair tax policy when it comes to Social Security.

Neither report Mr. Geras mentions provides numbers, just assertions.

Still, let's assume the reports are right. Even then, just because Kurds and Iranians think Bush was better for them doesn't mean they're right: it doesn't mean that Kerry actually would have abandoned them, that Bush won't abandon them (or in the case of Iran, has done squat for them in the first place), or -- most to the point -- that Bush was better for the US.

Carl, how on Earth are (a) the Democrats drifting into corporatism (see the Choctow story, the corporate tax bill), and (b) the Republicans distancing themselves from the religious right (see: the election we just finished, proclaimed by James Dobson to be a victory for the Christian right)?

Do we live in the same country?

President Bush is not at all "religious right" material and that's not why he won this election. Alot of people need to make up their minds. Is President Bush a neo-conservative or a member of the religious right? The two groups are not well-aligned, and one person certainly could not convincingly straddle the religious right and neo-conservative ideologies.

Bush is strong on foreign policy while the religious right tend to be isolationist. Bush supports civil unions while the religious right does not. Bush is a big spender while the religious right is ultra-conservative on fiscal policy.

If Dobson believes that Bush will somehow attempt to load the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, he is terribly mistaken and doesn't know anything about George W. Bush.

Both parties pander to business corporations, that's a given. When I said "corporate", I meant that in terms of a group or association, including but not limited to business corporations. I believe the Democrats are much more driven by corporate groups, including businesses, than Republicans are for the time being.

For example, President Bush and the Republicans generally support tax cuts that benefit the individual tax payer. They also support private medical savings accounts and private retirement accounts. On the other hand, Democrats tend to prefer a layer, either government or business, between the individual and the redistribution. Kerry's healthcare plan was a shining example of this. California proposition 72, sponsored by Democrats, was another good example.

Of course, these are generalizations.

"Of course, these are generalizations."

Well that we can agree upon.

As for me, I'll take facts.

Open Secrets is one of my favorite sites, but your link does nothing to counter my point. The link only shows that both parties accept campaign contributions from business corporations and Democrats are primarily the beneficiaries of various Labor Union contributions.

Actually, the Labor Unions sort of make my point, the example is backwards and a little weak. They siphon dues from the wages of the individual workers to support the Democrat party platform. However, political ideology can't be determined by contributions, but rather by policy.

For example, John Kerry's healthcare plan to increase taxes on individuals and families, earning more that $200K per year, in order to subsidize corporations' purchases of Microsoft and Dell Computer products.

Anyway, we'll see where each party stands when the debates for Social Security and Healthcare Reform start in earnest.

For example, John Kerry's healthcare plan to increase taxes on individuals and families, earning more that $200K per year, in order to subsidize corporations' purchases of Microsoft and Dell Computer products.

Come again?

From John Kerry's Healthcare Policy

As President, John Kerry will offer a "quality bonus" that would enable purchasers and providers to use upfront capital to make changes in quality that reduce errors and improve outcomes. He will also make sure that those health care organizations and physicians investing in IT to improve care are rewarded with financial incentives, including funds to install computerized prescribing systems which can reduce medication errors by 80 percent or more.

I admit that investing in IT doesn't necessarily mean buying from Microsoft and Dell Computer Corporation. It could also mean utilizing the services of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), one of the leaders in helping companies relocate IT functionality to India.

Either way, business corporations win and individuals and families earning $200K per year lose.

California Proposition 72, which was supported by the California Democratic Council, would've forced small business owners to subsidize the exhorbitant premiums being charged by a handful of the largest health insurance corporations in the world without any attempt to address insurance or healthcare reform.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should have Nationalized Healthcare coverage and would be more than willing to support the right plan. However, the rediculous single-payer plans and corporate co-ops being considered by the Democrat Party don't even come close to addressing the problem.

That's why it incredibly amazing that President Bush is the one that actually takes the first step towards a solution with private medical accounts in this presidential term. President Clinton also supported private medical accounts but was only able to sign very limited variations into law, and then only for specific constituencies.

The easiest thing we could do to save some healthcare money is not single payer but single form. As in one form to put in your insurance claim.

The proliferation of paperwork is not a help.

Perhaps instead of government it could be a UL type organization that would be more adaptable than law and regulations.

Perhaps we start with the threat of law.