Would it be better

[Mr. Blonde]

Let me preface this by saying I feel I am far more moderate than most on here. My ultra conservative upbringing has not let go of me yet. However, I do see on here much venom directed to almost any 20th century Republican president, and it got me to thinking (see I'm moderate not completely to the right). I remember seeing the map of the country after the 2000 election showing that Bush landwise won the majority of the country, and Gore won major cities. And yet, Bush only won around 50% of the population. So it would seem that in the future the major cities will be electing our Presidents. Major cities of course are known for being liberal. Would it be better if America were to have strictly Democratic Presidents?

Like I said it seems like something that could be a reality in the future with population trends and such. I personally vote no, because in the same way that we don't want to swing too far to the right we also don't want to swing too far to the left.

Other opinions?

[Mikimouse]

1. The issue for me is not whether they are from either party...

IF they have the best interests of the population at heart, and are willing to forego the opportunties to simply enrich themselves at the expense of the populace. I wouldn't care if they were from Mars. I feel the same way about the upcoming election. Bush doesn't have anybody's best interest at heart, other than his own, and couldn't give a shit less about the general populace. I think that Kerry does, and will absolutely vote for him in the election.

[Mr. Blonde]

3. Yes, but

I was talking about those who go as far back as Ike to find a Republican they like, and are not sold on him. Several bring up Lincoln as the last one good Republican president. This is probably somewhat facetious I know, and if you believe your history teacher he was a member of what is today the Democratic Party.

I will admit my knowledge of most Republican Presidents is somewhat limited as I was born midway through Reagan's presidency. Ford is one of those presidents you don't get to in Am. Hist. Nixon I know he promised to get us out of Viet Nam and did not, Was impeached for Watergate and HST hated his guts, and that is it.

Ford seems like he was decent, and pardoning Nixon seems like a minor deal, and probably what he thought would be appropriate at the time. We were at war (or just finished?) and the country probably didn't need to be put through the trial of its former leader.

But this is not what the subject is about of course. I agree that the best wishes of a country is more important. I'm sure I will vote Republican at some point in my life. Although I have not yet for the highest office I have voted for (governor).

[Mikimouse]

5. I was 8 when Kennedy became President, so I remember little ...

about Eisenhower. Independent reading reveals some interesting things about him (I am doing this from memory, so no links available, sorry). Eisenhower was little more than a figurehead; he never saw a battlefield that had not been secured and spent his career mostly behind a desk. Remind you of some others? Nixon was a total hooligan, a liar, a weasel, and a very dangerous adversary who kept lists of enemies and acted upon his paranoia. Reagan was also largely a figurehead, who was scripted all the way, and managed to convince the American people that he really cared about them, while he had not one damned clue about what he was doing (or if he did, he deserves all of the vitriol here). Bush I was one of the weakest people ever elected to the office, and did it in grand style (characteristic of how he and otehrs of their ilk practice politics). He didn't win on real issues, he won on character assassination. Bush II, if it is possible, is THE weakest person ever (not really) elected to the presidency. He is nothing but a sociopath who is convinced that the rules do not apply to him, and that he can do whatever he wishes, contrary to the will of the people (now, hmmm, where did that phrase come from?). So, I would have to argue that I know of no recent Repub presidents that I have any use for. I left out Ford because it was clearly obvious that Nixon went 'president shopping' in order to find someone that would grant his pardon. Ford also served on the Warren Commission, so his credibility is zero as far as I am concerned-Mr. Magic Bullet, indeed!

[Mr. Blonde]

8. It will be interesting

when everything comes out about the JFK assasination. I read a biography about Patton, and it talking about IKE never leading in combat. Patton also predicted an Ike run for presidency. Patton would have been an interesting president. Of course we not be here if he were after the USSR developed atomic weapons.

[tom_paine]

2. No, it would NOT be better

I would not want the Democrats to even get as close to Unchecked Imperial Power as the Busheviks are now.

The Founding Fathers created this Moderate Nation with Checks and Balances precsiely to keep the extremes from gaining Unchecked Power.

Of course, you intiial post suggests that the Voting System and the Constitution/Bill of Rights are all healthy, vigorous, functional, and trustworthy.

THAT is a leap I am not yet willing to make, having seen all I've seen in Imperial America in the past 3+ years.

But, bottom line: NO ONE PARTY OR CABAL should EVER be the recipient of Unchecked Power.

The Busheviks have come the closest since Lincoln in 1864, IMHO, though in truth he would have relinquished them and the Busheviks, we know, WON'T. They are looking for long-term wholesale structural change, like the original Caesers and the original Rome.

[Mr. Blonde]

4. I believe

FDR was pretty close too. And at the time could have been president until he died if it were when he did, or 20 years from then. But I guess that is the spoils of guiding a country through a depression and a war right?

[tom_paine]

12. You might say that, but even given the Nazi Threat

FDR restrictions of Civil Liberties was equal to or less than Emperor Bunnypants*.

And, as far I know from my readings of history, his strcutural assualts on the Constitution and his use of Executive Order as Imperial Fiat were almost nil, whereas the Busheviks do such just about every day in some way.

Was there ever a situation where Roosevelt couldn't get something from Congress and he took it anyway by using Executive Order (now known as Imperial Fiat in Imperial Amerika 2004)?

His Supreme Court issues notwithstanding, which never got beyond the talk stage, anyway.

[Mr. Blonde]

15. No

However, who is to say he would not have grown to like the power he was given to handle the war, and depression and want to keep it after these threats had passed. I'm not trying to piss on his memory or anything like that. I'm just stating that he was another president who was in near absolute control of the country and could have remained so. Luckily, he didn't foul things up and generally improved them.

[tom_paine]

18. Certainly possible. What do you think Bunnypants* would do with 12 years

to rule and an actual electoral mandate?

I don't know myself, but I'm guessing a grotesque and tyrannical amalgam of Imperial Rome, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Farenheit 451.

You made my point, which is FDR had much opportunity to make himself Emperor and declined. Bunnypants* wasn't even elected and he is farther along than FDR in making himself King.

[Mr. Blonde]

20. No, no, no, no

you have it all wrong. It would be the United States of the Southern Baptist Convention.

[tom_paine]

24. LOL! Welcome to DU, Mr. Blonde

:toast:

"Hey, that's easy for you to say. You got a cool name like Mr. White. If it's ok, you wanna trade?"

"Yeah, Mr. Brown souds a little too much like Mr. Shit."

"NOBODY'S changing names! You're Mr. Pink. What'll it be , Mr. Pink? It's eaither my way or the highway, Mr. Pink..."

:evilgrin:

[noiretextatique]

6. yes, it would be better eom

[DNA]

7. My opinion is

that in any normal country the Democrats would be seen for the moderates they are and the Republicans would be recognized as the right-wing extremists they are. So if you call yourself a moderate because you're between the Republicans and the Democrats, you're actually right of center. That's my opinion, since you asked.

Regarding population, in most countries that have a coast, there has been migration away from the center and towards the periphery. And in most countries, the greater the turnout, the more likely the election tips left, which would seem to indicate that most people are more liberal than conservative.

[JHBowden]

10. There is another variable in the United States.

Even though we're in the 21st century, the United States has a *lot* of religious people. The implications of the culture war are frequently underestimated. Because of this, I'm skeptical that increasing turnout is better for either party; people don't vote strictly on their pocketbooks.

[Mr. Blonde]

11. Probably right

"but I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard". As I said I was raised ultra conservative. The other day I told my mom that Clinton is ranked as the 3rd best president ever. She scoffed and said that she thought GWB would go down as one of the greats. I didn't bother to disagree, but obviously don't feel that way I'm not here trolling I'm just curious. I don't see a lot of far left thinking, and this seems to be a good place to find it.

In any case my beliefs are not the topic of discussion although I would be happy to discuss them with you. Do you think the country would be better off if Democrats were exclusively elected to our highest office?

[DNA]

14. I think

we'd be better off with more than one party, a parliamentary system, and proportional representation.

[seabeyond]

9. look at reagan and bush record

and nixon no brainer, he f*ed up. repug. but look at reagan and bush II record. actor and bush, a loser all his life, are the choices the repugs gave us. i really dont know how you can pin this on the dems that repugs have given bush II and reagan, though nixon was low in iq, like the first two, he was a crook.

shruggin shoulders

let them put out a smart president, a man that has a higher iq than the average bear, a man that doesnt just speak of integrity but actually behaves with integrity

clinton, screwed it up with his sex stuff, and all that reach a certain power i am sure especially today their is garbage in their history

but really bush II never been successful at a single venture nor has he ever completed anything in an outstanding manner, where is it my fault i cant respect this.

repugs are just gonna have to get better chosing candidate if they want my respect

and i am a middle of road person too, but since reagan, my late teens early 20's, is the one convinced me the repugs werent the party for me to vote on. they didnt have the integrity they spouted.

mccain, i could have listened to. what are some other repugs,.....think think think, lol lol

[Mr. Blonde]

13. I didn't say the recent choices were good ones

I was speaking in a somewhat hypothetical way about the future. We after all know what is in the past.

Recently, especially with Bush the Right has pandered to Religion. It is not the best way to go about finding a president.

You must be careful about spouting Bush being unsucessful as a reason for him being a bad president. Lincoln was this way also, and he turned out okay.

[seabeyond]

16. mr blonde

a 30 year history of his adulthood is indicitive of his character. and character shows us decision making ability. president of u.s. and power over the world, gosh, would like someone who has evidence in their personal history that they are somewhat good at decision making abilities. we had the opposite evidence of bush. and lookie, he verified for us this is possible to see in a persons history.

[Mr. Blonde]

17. No doubt

a tiger can't change its stripes and all that. My only point was that Lincoln was very unsuccessful for a variety of reasons as well. Bush is not a good president, and maybe the choices he made prior to being president should have tipped off more of the population, but it did not. One would hope that people should expect the future president to be able to run a business successfully. However, I am saying in the future he shouldn't be considered a detriment because for every bad one (Bush) there is a good one (Lincoln).

[seabeyond]

19. was lincoln blowing up frogs too

grinnin.....

making fun of someone being executed, doing drugs, getting illegal abortions, driving drunk, failing school when he had lite and someone to pay for that school. cant compare the two

i know you are not a fan of bush. i get your point. i could look at a person more openly

[Mr. Blonde]

22. sweet

blowing up frogs? but then you can't have frog legs if they are blown up?

[TexasSissy]

21. I keep hearing that most Americans are middle of the road.

I am one of them, I believe. I think the country is best served by middle of the road, as well. But it's not my decision alone. Oh, if it only were!

[Mr. Blonde]

23. I think

near middle of the road is good. Of course at certain points in history, like the depression you need someone like FDR who has no qualms about massive government spending. Of course now we are faced with a president who is conservative yet with no qualms about government spending, but not spending on what the public wants or feels it needs.