The last 8 years of prosperity are because of several reasons, some Democrat, some Republican but are much more as a result of timing and hard work by the American people. Not because of the Republican senate (just imagine if all parties decided to work together to get things done more often than they bash each other for sport). If Bush had been re-elected instead of Clinton, we probably would have had similar growth as the technoligical and information revolutions underway at the time were not handed down on a silver platter by ANY political party. Al Gore did not invent the Internet, people did. George W. Bush did not invent the Internet nor did Reagan. Those forces were underway LONG before.
As far as the draw down of American forces? The first drastic cuts were beginning before the Persian Gulf War and became far greater just afterword. Remeber Graham/Rudman? Before Clinton stepped into office, #^&#^&#^&#^& Chenney, under G.H.W. Bush's adminstration, was one of the guys directly involved in the draw down of the armed forces. The evisceration was well underway and did continue for a while under the Clinton administration. The thing that pi$$es me off more than anything about the military is that both Dems and Reps spend more time bashing each other's party for the downfall of the American military and far less than enough time to fix it. Reminds me of recess at elementary school. You want to know one good reason why the armed forces are in such lousy shape? Because you have a large percentage of early grade enlisted men and women, the backbone of the nation's military, getting out because otherwise they have to survive on Food Stamps! The morale is also low because the guys and girls in green and blue are not getting enough support to equip and train to fulfill their primary mission.
Wendy. The recession of the Bush years wasn't long and their was, for some people, a great growth period during the Reagan years. The nasty recession, I'm told (too young to remember) was previous to that in the ' 70s. There was alot of culpability from BOTH parties to that and Vietnam and the oil thing didn't help either. My mother raising four kids by herself with some help from her parents and from state programs typically championed by the Dems (good 'ole project housing living) did not get to see the economic miracle of the eighties. The miracle did not dip that low on the American family radar scope. Not that we didn't try to better ourselves, which we did.
Oh yeh, Clinton isn't the only person that the wheels of impeachment have been warmed up upon
.
Clinton was pretty much a louse. Slippery as the eels we cast. Yes, he did some good things and tried to do others. I do not think that Al Gore is anywhere as bad as Clinton was ethically and I don't think he would be a bad president. Bush may have a little more character (not that much though) but he also seems to be more clueless and did not impress me with his knowledge of the issues at all, foreign or domestic.
Bucannan? Yeh, right.
Nader - see above.
Did you see that they had a Socialist party running??? Can you believe that crap?
This country, which I believe in my heart, IS the greatest country on the face of this earth. I was fortunate to see a little of Eastern Europe during the ' 80s and two things that have had a tremendous impact on me personally was the The Berlin Wall and the Dachau Concentration Camps. The people and nations that can cause atrocities like that are still out there and others can easily emerge again. America and Americans have a duty to be involved in the world and provividing the best leadership to lead the best country in the world is a very important start. The thing that is sickening to me is that we do not get the cream of the crop to lead us. We get guys like Bush and Gore, neither bad people, but certainly not the best this country has to offer, to lead our country and to a lesser degree to help lead the world.
One guy I'd like to see keeps saying he will not run. He has a good balance for foreign relations, is very interested in helping all scales of the American people with a focus on the middle and lower classes. Oh yeh, and he knows a little about the military :P... To bad he considers himself a Republican. Too many Dems would probably not vote for him just because of that. Of course, if he was a labeled a Democrat - many Republicans wouln't give him the time of day either.
As far as the Palm Beach elections and ballots go? I can appreciate how people would have erred on that. Not everyone is as adept at decifering those. Remember, some of those blue hairs have trouble with the bingo cards too... If it goes to court, then American Judicial system will get a crack at it.