QUOTE: I'm real interested in who Russia and Iran want to be  the next U.S. president...

Well, that's hardly "the world", but I'd feel better if those nation's leaders "liked" our president rather than despised him.

Obviously, we could be doing -- and need to be doing -- a better job in relating to our allies (and potential allies). Definitely some bridge-building needs to be done there.

But as far as Iran goes, the current regime is never going to like us or our president, no matter who it is. The best we can hope for with Iran and other hostile countries is to garner their respect and find some common ground we can all peacefully live with. But given that Iran is actively supporting anti-Western terrorist groups, dealing with Tehran will require a steady, firm hand at the wheel.

As for Russia, Putin & co. have made it quite clear they want little to do with the West. They're going to do what they want to do, whether anyone else likes it or not. I don't see any U.S. president being able to make much headway there.

The irony though is that the Electoral College does just the opposite, creating a small class of voters (the "swing state" voters) whose votes carry a hugely disproportionate amount of influence on the outcome of the election.   And it allows candidates to basically ignore the issues and concerns of states where there is a clear frontrunner with a commanding lead.  This does not seem right and I doubt it was what the founding fathers intended when they created the system.  The amount of swing states and which states they are varies, but in every election there are states whose votes matter "more" than others to the outcome of the election.

The old joke about the NBA is that since most games are very close and the lead changes rapidly, they could save time by giving both teams 100 points and just having them play for ten minutes.  In most US Presidential elections the same thing is true... they could just spot each candidate 200 electoral votes and then let the swing states decide it.

I really don't think Palin will be running for anything after this.  I followed what some of you noted over the last few pages about the huge fundie chunk of the Republican party and how they can't afford to lose 20% of their constituancy... but I don't agree.  I think Bush did terrible damage to the Republican party, and I think Palin is kind of the last nail in that coffin.

I grant you - it's how Bush was able to barely squeek out a win each election - by bringing the fundies to the polls - but I don't think that's all the GOP has going for it.  Remember - having the fundies on board is a new twist, in the greater historical picture. 

Things change with the parties - I've noted this in the thread a few times.  A Lincoln Republican is different from a T Roosevelt Republican is different from a Eisenhower Republican is different from a Regan Republican is different from a Fundie Neocon. 

I think that the Karl Roves out there see the value in that sort of campaigning - the morality war and the idea that only Republicans have god and all that - but it's also what's turning a lot of people away from the Republican party.    I think if the Republicans are smart they'll start over.  They'll drop the pretense of morality and faith and focus on what's important. 

At least, that's how I see it - and how I want it, to be honest.  I think having fundies in the government is just as bad as having the left-wing extremists in there.  Tree hugging commie pinkos.

Whether Palin has a future or not, I'm hoping this will create a Renaissance in the GOP.  I'm a Republican, and the words of another famous conservative, "I didn't leave my party, my party left me."

That said, as a McCain supporter from years gone by, I appreciate how this election cycle has inspired me to take inventory of what I support politically, fiscally and socially ... and not just be asleep at the wheel.  It's easy to get lost in the noise of one's life and let introspection fall to the bottom of one's to-do list.