I see, so giving someone access to US Healthcare is a reason for an act of war...hmmm. You hoonestly believe that Ford or Reagan would not have granted The Shah the visa to be treated for cancer?

Surmise, assume, and best guess all you want....hell, call it the Swiss Cheese Model if that fits your need. Carter made the decision, Ford didn't and Reagan wasn't afforded the choice..

So a POTUS not giving in to the demands of a foreign power inimical to the US is what makes someone one of the worst presidents?

• Worse than starting a war on false pretenses?
• Worse than engaging in a felonious coverup?
• Worse than getting stuck in your own Bathtub?

UHUH.

Quote: "I believe that a moderate 'common ground' party would win every election. I can't begin to count all the times I have heard the comment " I'm pissed that my party has been stolen by the extremists"... from both republicans and democrats. All thanks to a party system that gives the extremes a disproportionate amount of say in who it's party runs."

I disagree completely. Both parties pander to their respective bases, but the acutal policies they put forward are remarkably similar.

You watch. In the pandering phase, the Republican candidate will say he's pro life and the Democrat candidate will say he/she is pro choice. But if elected, the Republican isn't going to go full fledged behind a right to life ammendment, any more than the Democrat is going to work overtime to implement Medicaid funding of abortions. When it actually comes to policy, they'll wind up fighting around the fringes of the issue, like parental notification for 13 year olds seeking abortions.

In the pandering phase, the Democrat candidate will get the endorsement of the Brady Campaign and the Republican candidate will ge the endorsement of the NRA. If elected, the Democrat isn't going to try to ban all guns. The Republican candidate isn't going to try to get the '68 GCA or the '34 NFA repealed. Again the fight will be over trivia on the fringes, like a so-called ban on so-called "assault weapons," which is more a term about firearm cosmetics than firearm function.

In the pandering phase, both Hilary and Obama have plans for universal health care, but no matter whom we elect - even McCain - what we're going to get is a creeping incremental expansion of Medicare/Medicaid that turns what is already a bureaucratic monstrosity into something even more bloated, political, overpriced, and bureaucratic.

Sorry, but we are not getting a fight between extremes here. We are getting a fight between barely discernible shades of grey that claim to be black or white respectively when they are pandering to their bases.

alath

Presidents are most effective at the veto or it's threat and the question becomes whether the candidate is pandering to the extremes to get the nomination or is a real believer. Will they veto gun control legislation gay marriage legislation etc.? The battles you are talking about are congressional.

But my point was that the primary system gives disproportionate power to the extremes making it near impossible for the candidate who would be the president for 'all the people' to get on the ballot. The two parties are very different in party planks but remember that neither ever has the power to impose the will of the extremes. This is why I am always happier when the white house and congress are controlled by different parties because then the really stupid stuff won't get thru.

This disproportionate voice also creates a debt system where the candidate owes something to their extreme base.

From a Statistics standpoint the moderate party draws from that 70+ percent of the populace who are willing to compromise to make improvements in the system. They would find candidates who never had to claim to extreme viewpoints just to get on the ballot. And that my friend would put and end to the power that has been assumed by the extreme partisan hacks that unfortunately dominate politics. Unfortunately the press would never allow this, as partisan hack sell news.

Not so fast with the conspiracy theories. The NYT, LA Trib, Chicago Sun all would make MORE money if a viable "mderate centrist" independent ran than they do in a partisan atmosphere precisely because unusual events sell papers (and TV time and pundit time). So to blame this on the media is like saying that really good indie movies will attract a bigger audience than the second sequel to a formulaic action thriller, it just isn't so.

"We have met the enemy, and it is us" - Pogo

A moderate centrist candidate doesn't stand a chance because fundamentally most Americanns care more about the sale at the Bon Marche or who the NY Giants pick 32 in the NFL Draft, than they care about who is running for POTUS. I'll bet more people attend the Superbowls held in Pasedena (roughly 105k) than have attended ALL of Obama's rallies PUT TOGETHER. More people cared whether Favre plays next year, than whether Obama beats Clinton.

And that means that those who ARE vocal, who ARE active, who ARE willing to put their $$ where their beliefs are, are going to drive the political debate. No, its not the "press would never allowing [a moderate candiate]", it is that the public just doesn't care enough to make sure one gets nomiated.

Rubma wrote: ...who was it that granted the Shah's request to come to America for Cancer treatment? Consequences that befell Carter....poor guy, had a choice and made the wrong one.

Interesting thought, but consider this: World wide it was good for the US's world diplomacy.

'You watch. In the pandering phase, the Republican candidate will say he's pro life and the Democrat candidate will say he/she is pro choice.'

very good point. by he time the election rolls around, they will be saying the same shit. it has been like that forever.