(April 16, 2015 at 1:39 am)Nestor Wrote: ...The Democrats have Hilary and that's it. I will say...if the election really does comes down to Bush or Clinton...
I'm hardly fond of this "heir apparent" thing also. Just because Hillary in 2008, why automatic Hillary in 2016? They just queue up to stand in turn. I prefer Hillary to the Rush Limbaugh clone we might otherwise get, yet I'm worried that Hillary's electability has weakened over the past 8 years. If we get another dynastic Bush/Clinton race, well, then we deserve it for our lack of imagination.
Rand Paul adopts a relatively progressive stance on the drug war and on use of disproportionate criminal justice measures to ruin lives. However I doubt he will win the nomination.
(April 16, 2015 at 1:53 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't see much use for defeatism. ... The bottom line though is that the GOP...are the party of the 15th century.
In particular, if the GOP captures both Congressional houses and the Oval Office, Obama's heath care reforms will die as the House votes repeal for the 984th time, except it now lands on the desk of a president who signs. The GOP realize 2017 likely represents their last chance to kill it. Yet every social advance has gone that way: a conservative Supreme Court struck down Roosevelt's first Social Security Act. I'm too old for much political activism beyond voting and the occasional letter. Still, I can remember when Republicans were at least in the Enlightenment era rather than the Wars of the Roses. In Congress they are prostrate before their Tea Party faction and no longer represent a center-right bloc.
