LJWorld.com

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Well, Garrison, if any part of this story is true, and if indeed you told the guy you were unemployed, after the guy had taken one look at you I'm sure he believed you. And hey - sitting in the bleachers at a kids' baseball game? How so, given the probability that no wine or cheese would have been served there? Perhaps you brought your own, although just being your usual cheesy self might have sufficed.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Well, Garrison, if any part of this story is true,”

His last paragraph is about as true as true can get.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Fighting our sworn enemies who have stated their end-game is to destroy America”

Don Quixote couldn't have said it better, Tom.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

'For the sake of all of us, I hope we get a better columnist than the disgusting incompetent we’ve wasted countless years of our reading life on.'

Yet another column where Mr. Keillor has nothing informative or useful to say, and resorts to the formulaic “Blah blah blah yada yada yada [insert ramblings about nothing in particular here] it's all Bush's fault.” Only this esteemed garbageman can turn a kids baseball game into a completely pointless Bush-bash - and only boohoozo sees anything resembling a point in this cr*p the award-winning LJW keeps printing.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

If all you “W” worshipers dislike Garrrison so much, why do you read him so avidly and regularly?

craigers (Anonymous) says…

I guess it is easy to get people to read your blather if you title it Bush's fault, or blame Bush… Typical.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I'll agree that it was a bit gratuitous, but as long as we have a criminal regime still running the country, and until they are brought up on international war crimes charges, and perhaps national charges for undermining the constitution, gratuitous is all good.

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Typical from an elitist, liberal, NPR hack. No thanks, Mr. Keillor.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Bozo, with the Fourth of July around the corner I'm sure you've taken the time to reflect on how fortunate you are to live in a country that includes Lawrence, Kansas, a place that has become an enclave for radical leftists and neo-marxists, to be free, and to be able to speak your mind in your own zany, confused, and eccentric way.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“That seems to bother the extreme left for some reason. Why?”

––––—

No, what bothers the “left” is the 5-year distraction from the shadowy enemy to foray into Iraq.

Say what you will about Hussein and the humanity (or lack thereof) of his government, but when he was in power, the region was fairly stable.

By the way, what crime was Clinton convicted of?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

” I recall the last president to actually be convicted of a crime while in office was the Democratic Party legendary, Bill Clinton.”

Yep, that was deplorable, but how I long for the days when the worst offenses of our executive branch were lying about a BJ.

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

It absolutely amazes me how the right-wing zealots continue to support this current administation no matter what. At least most Americans understand the harm that this president has caused.

JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…

Tom Shewmon

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

Fighting our sworn enemies who have stated their end-game is to destroy America is “blithely ignored the long-term best interests of the country”?

………………………..
Some Iraqis may be our 'sworn enemies' now, after Bush invaded; but our “real” sworn enemies are still in Afghanistan (and over the hills in Pakistan), which Bush & Co. has ignored all these years. Afghanistan is where our long-term bests interests lie.

Iraq was unnecessary and was carried out incompetently. Now it's a mess, and now we have to deal with it. But it is a very big hole, financially, and militarily, that he didn't have to dig in the first place.

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

“Annoyance (also called pother) is an unpleasant mental state that is characterized by such effects as irritation and distraction from one's conscious thinking. It can lead to emotions such as frustration and anger. The property of being easily annoyed is called petulance.
See also: Garrison Keillor”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petulance

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

This is one of many articles to come that will describe the world so messed up by Bush that not even the mesiah will be able to turn it around. So as mesiah destroys the economy by raising taxes on productive people, force new taxes for health, refuse to drill for oil, and preach for change and hope, Liberals will continue to blame Bush and the deep hole he put them in.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Logic, how much have you actually studied Saddam's rise to power, the murder of his political opponents, the severe oppression within Iraq during his regime, his and his associates' and family members' treatment of the Kurds and other ethnic groups, his raiding of Iraq's national treasury for lavish personal gain, his invasion of Kuwait and his countless other atrocities? Have you ever seen the film footage of Saddam in front of his national assembly after he seized power, singling out individuals in the audience as “traitors” and then ordering them to be taken away for execution? Even a modicum of study of his regime makes it clear that he was a direct descendant of Hitler and Stalin, employing their insidious methods precisely. It strikes me that those who criticize our liberation of Iraq are either uninformed, brainwashed by the leftist members of the media, or modern-day isolationists cut from the same cloth as those who did not want us interfering with “Europe's problems” in the late 1930's, people for whom FDR felt the greatest disdain. Yes, the process of “winning the peace” has not been handled well, many aspects of it should and could have been carried out more effectively, and I have been personally critical of many aspects of it. It's also true, however, that as soon as a political opening appeared, those who hated President Bush since the time he was elected - joined by those members of Congress who at first vigorously supported the liberation of Iraq but then jumped ship when it was perceived as politically expedient to do so - have given aid and comfort to our enemies, especially in Iran and Syria, by playing politics for political gain. Unfortunately, this has happened in our country since the time of the Revolutionary War, with the Civil War being perhaps the best example - there will always be those who will attempt to put their own political gain ahead of the national interest, which in this case is the forging of a stable Iraq - a result that a number of prominent politicians, powerful members of the media, and the Bush-haters simply do not want, as they cannot abide the possibility that it will succeed. This is the truth, you know it whether you will admit it or not, and no matter how you attempt to spin it there are many of us who are very, very proud of the profound sacrifices that our servicemen and women and their families have made in order to depose a brutal dictator and foster freedom in that region of the world.

panhandle2 (Anonymous) says…

Well, we do get what we vote for. I was apparent from the beginning of the 2000 campaign that Bush was a bit of a blockhead, but voters were convinced that Gore would spend the country into bankruptcy. Turns out that Keillor is right and the voters were wrong. Now we have a candidate, McCain, who relies on Phil Gramm and his larcenous wife for advice on the economy. Gramm, of course, is the guy who deregulated the banks so they could facilitate sub-prime loans. We do get what we vote for.

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

The neocon mantra: Blame Bush for nothing.

jafs (Anonymous) says…

cato,

I completely agree that Hussein was a brutal dictator, and that the world is most likely better off without him.

However, we were sold the war in Iraq as a way to fight terrorism, and as a pre-emptive self defense maneuver, both of which are very likely false. In fact, the situation in Iraq seems to have attracted Al Qaeda and their supporters.

If Bush had said, “Hussein's a bad guy, and we should get rid of him”, I'd have much less of a problem with the war.

Also, as has been pointed out, Bin Laden is still roaming about - we were supposed to “get” him, weren't we? Diverting our troops and energies to Iraq instead of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries which actively protect terrorists seems like a bad idea to me.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Lies about a BJ, or lies to plunge the country into an unnecessary war. Yep, those are really equivalent.

“but I don't think W is a convicted felon, is he?”

Not yet.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

And the policy of containment had kept Saddam in his place for eleven years.

Using atrocities committed by Iraq's leader 10 or 20 years past as an excuse to invade in 2003 doesn't make much sense, nor was it a persuasive part of the case made for invasion.

What is your position on invading Sudan? On invading Zimbabwe? These are nations where brutal governments and dictators are threatening freedom in that portion of the world.

Should we not be fostering freedom there as well?

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

cato,

Stick a sock in it. First of all, I never said Hussein was a just ruler—I said the region was more stable with him in power than not. Second of all, comparing Hussein to Hitler is laughable based on the vast difference in their capabilities and goals. Hitler was intent on expansion and world domination and was a genuine threat to all of Europe; Hussein hasn't been a threat to anyone outside of Iraq for over a decade. Finally, give the “Iraq liberation” BS a rest. Freeing the Iraqi people is nothing more than a add-on justification—one of many that is used in the never-ending attempts by you and the rest of the Busheeple that continually rush to defend the most incompetent POTUS in our nation's history. It's a bit hard to believe the reasons for going into Iraq when the argument changes based on the situation. Sometimes, it's in the interest of national security. Other times, it's because we were freeing the Iraqi people. Then it's because we needed to remove a brutal dictator from the world. Oh, let's also not forget that we entered to fight the 9/11 terrorists. Which is it?

Shame on you for implying that anyone who is critical of our entry into Iraq is not proud of the sacrifices of our servicemen and women. It's that kind of propagandist bullsh*t that makes any reasonable discussion impossible. One can disagree with the reasons for going to war while still supporting the people whose efforts make it possible—after all they aren't making the decision to go to war, they are following orders. It's also ludicrous to assert that taking a particular political stance in the United States has a meaningful effect in Iraq and gives “aid and comfort” to our enemies. Does that even sound like it makes sense? Some fighter in Iraq is assisted when Senator John Smith from the United States says that going into Iraq was a mistake? Do you really believe that?

We shouldn't have entered Iraq in the first place. There is too much wrongdoing in the world and not enough resources for the United States to play world police. It may not be an idealistic viewpoint, but it is a realistic one. The United States has a great deal of power in the world, but by spreading it thin we only nullify it. We can't execute “regime change” in every part of the world that probably would benefit from it. How about we stick to only using military action when there is a despotic regime that actually constitues a threat to the United States? Or am I giving our enemies too much comfort by taking that position?

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

So Nancy, do you actually pay attention to facts, or just shoot from the hip?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury:

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton was accused of perjury and as a result was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998. The Senate acquitted him on the false testimony charge as cause to remove him from office by a vote of 55 not-guilty votes to 45 guilty votes. No criminal charges were ever brought, though Clinton was later fined for contempt of court [5] [6] and, after thorough negotiations, agreed to be temporarily disbarred to avoid the possibility of a lengthy criminal trial.[7]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht…

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04…
“Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury”

No, but he was dis-barred (lost his license to practice law) for it.

madmike (Anonymous) says…

Beo, I read his garbage for the same reason that my office received Tass, Pravda and NPR, so I know what the enemy if thinking!

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Only temporarily, satirical.

At any rate, I never said he was a saint. Just trying to temper Nancy's glee that Clinton was a felon and Bush was not.

chet_larock (Anonymous) says…

“Using atrocities committed by Iraq's leader 10 or 20 years past as an excuse to invade in 2003 doesn't make much sense”

Especially when Rummy was shaking hands with said leader.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Logic, thank you for the wording of the penultimate sentence of your post. Our country did in fact employ military action against a despotic regime that actually constituted a threat to the United States. You and your fellow Bush-hating revisionists, a number of whom are wealthy leftists and powerful members of the media, assisted by the fact that we toppled Saddam so easily and his own people thereafter executed him, have attempted for some time to obscure and deny this for selfish political gain. Perhaps it might help your obvious lack of sensitivity for oppressed peoples to find out exactly how Saddam treated the Kurds. Have you ever seen any of them interviewed? Have you read any of the accounts of what was inflicted on them by Saddam's regime? Many Kurds not among those buried by Saddam's henchmen in mass graves still suffer from the effects of cyanide vapor gases unleashed on them in 1987 and 1988, before their villages were razed to the ground. While the word “genocide” is bandied about now all the time, there is no better example of genocide in recent history than what Saddam did to the Kurdish people. Again, of course, what he did to his own people will never be forgotten by Iraquis, most of whom are very thankful that we liberated them from Saddam. Yes, they don't want us there forever, and the surest sign of our ever-increasing success in Iraq is the fact that they are vigorously questioning how long we should stay. Face it, Logic: The two things that committed leftists in this country wish for the least in the world at the present time are (1) a stable Iraq, and (2) the capture of Osama bin Laden - because either of these blunts their hateful efforts to vilify the Bush administration solely in order to put their fellow leftists in power.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

Cato clearly ignores the support Reagan and his rightwing allies, including Bob Dole, gave to Saddam in the 80s. In fact, this country was still providing financing to Saddam for chemical, biological and rocket delivery systems even after the atrocity Saddam committed when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

Reagan and Bush I also supported Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran and supplied highly sensitive classified satellite information that permitted Saddam's army to target the Iranian army with these chemical munitions.

Wackos tend to forget history, or should I say, they tend to rewrite history. Orwell said it all….

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Our country did in fact employ military action against a despotic regime that actually constituted a threat to the United States.”

––––––-

You can say this until you're blue in the face, but the simple fact is that Iraq never constituted a viable threat to the United States.

==============================

“Perhaps it might help your obvious lack of sensitivity for oppressed peoples to find out exactly how Saddam treated the Kurds.”

––––-

For an “elder” you sure act like a petulant little child. You have no basis to accuse me of insensitivity for oppressed peoples just because I did not and still do not support the Iraq War.

Do you support military action into Darfur? No? How can you be so insensitive to oppressed people?

=======================================

“The two things that committed leftists in this country wish for the least in the world at the present time are (1) a stable Iraq, and (2) the capture of Osama bin Laden”

–––––—

You are an idiot. These claims are baseless, rightwing, head-up-your-ass propagandist bullsh*t.

Last I checked, it was your patron saint—Bushleague—who drew our focus away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

How ironic that you call me a “revisionist” and then proceed to spew your own self-serving view of the events of the past 5 years.

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“I'm not sure, but I don't think W is a convicted felon, is he?”

Not so far. He has admitted widespread spying on citizens without benefit of a warrant was undertaken at his direction, so he is a traitor who has failed to uphold the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution.

Further, again at his direction, representatives of our country engaged in torture and these acts have brought deserved shame and worldwide condemnation upon our nation.

He may not, yet, be a convicted felon, but he's one disgustingly bad dude.

nomansland (Anonymous) says…

Bunch of Bush supporters on here as usual. It always amazes me the sheer number of people that still cling on to “W” as our gas and food prices continue to soar way up and the country heads for it's eventual depression while we have a do nothing president that just sits his last days in office. Gas prices started to rise in 2001 right after he got into office and have gone up ever since. A coincidence? I think not!

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

Logicsound,

Using Cato's logic, we should be at war with China over Tibet, Russia over Georgia, Columbia over peasant land rights (in Columbia, we are supporting the government against the “oppressed”), Mexico over what its government is doing in Chiapas, etc.

Ironically, following Cato's logic, we should be at war against the government we established in Iraq, which is suppressing the rights of the citizens of Iraq to govern themselves as they want.

The great lie practiced by Cato and other rightwingers is that we are about democracy and liberation. Iran is a democracy, but we threaten them on a daily basis.

Liberation? Hah. The great pattern in U.S. rightwing foreign policy is we support those “oppressed” peoples who are actually CIA rogues bent on providing control of their markets to U.S. sanctioned multi-national corporations in exchange for immense private wealth (payoffs, bribes etc., sanctioned by rightwingers like Bush).

Where do we draw the line in supporting insurgencies? If they're willing to line up on the side of U.S. sanctioned commercial interests, they get our support. If they are unwilling to let America exploit their resources, then they are subject to bombs and war.

A sad, psychopathic equation embraced by the rightwing of America….

Left_handed (Anonymous) says…

Bunch of Bush bashers on here as usual. It always amazes me the sheer number of people that still cling to “Blame Bush” for everything from gas and food prices, even going so far as to suggest that he somehow has the power to control these prices and used his pernicious powers to make the prices go up since 2001. Make sense? I think not.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

So Marion, what you are saying is: Since I don't agree with W and his mindless supporters and what they have done, I'm an enemy of this great nation? Wish I had some of whatever you;re smoking or drinking.

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Bush didn't dig the hole. I'm pretty sure he was on vacation, and had others dig it for him.

“anti-American self-haters.”

Um, huh?

I thought we hated Bush, not ourselves. You neocons really should huddle some day to work out which line of crap you are going to dish out, and then stick with it. And defining so many of your fellow citizens as “anti-American” isn't very American of you, especially with tomorrow being the 4th of July.

In fact, I'd even say it is rather anti-American of you. Do you have self-esteem issues that we need to discuss?

Defender (Anonymous) says…

“It strikes me that those who criticize our liberation of Iraq are either uninformed, brainwashed by the leftist members of the media, or modern-day isolationists cut from the same cloth as those who did not want us interfering with “Europe's problems” in the late 1930's, people for whom FDR felt the greatest disdain.”

America should never act as the police of the world, period. It is not our right nor our job, and only creates more enemies.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Bush has truly undermined this great nation, the USA. The economy is in tatters, the USA is losing credibility in foreign policy matters, and Bush continues to borrow and spend to fund a wasteful war of choice.

We need to keep this in mind this Fourth of July, how a greedy and selfish cadre of plutocrats has done great harm to our beloved nation.

It is not too late, though. The Constitution and our systems of government are strong and were designed to protect the USA against people like Bushco and McCain.

Bushco have done grave harm, but the USA will be OK and they will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Logrithmic…
“Using Cato's logic…”
This same pathetic argument has been used a million times before. You misstate what someone says then you universalize it. A reason explaining why we did invaded Iraq is different from a reason we should have invaded Iraq or other counties. Also different facts lead to different conclusion, so even if Cat was stating his standard should apply universally does not mean we should attack the countries you suggest because they would fail to meet the same criteria.

“The great lie practiced by Cato and other rightwingers is that we are about democracy and liberation. Iran is a democracy, but we threaten them on a daily basis.”

The U.S. is for democracy and liberation. America is not an evil country with evil purposes bent on world domination despite what the Dems want you to believe. Many liberal democrats throughout history have engaged in military conflicts. If you believe Iran is a true democracy you probably also believe “The People’s Republic of China” is really a republic.

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

Satirical,

Wrong. Cato states that the underlying purpose of the Iraq war was to “liberate” its “oppressed people.”

Seeing as there are many oppressed peoples in the world, are those whose land sits on oil the only one's the only one's worthy of “liberation?”

I do not believe the U.S. is for democracy and liberation. This is clearly proven in the historical record - especially as it relates to native Americans. The Vietnam War is another classic case. As was the invasion of Mexico in 1848. Importantly, if the U.S. was for dmocracy and liberation, why was there a Civil War in our country when some states wanted to opt out of the union and form their own country?

Your delusions might pass with four year olds, but they have no muster with me. I would suggest you quit watching so many John Wayne movies. Is that where you get your historical record?

If America is not bent on world domination, then why do we have military installations in 160 countries around the world?

Go back to dreamland, pal….

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“A reason explaining why we did invaded Iraq”

––––––

But that's kinda the point….we didn't invade Iraq for the purpose of liberation.

If the liberation of the Iraqi people had been given as the primary rationale behind the invasion, the war would not have enjoyed nearly the support that it did.

The problem is that one rationale was given, then when that rationale proved to be baseless, other reasons were spun out.

It's fair to critique cato's line of reasoning because it's disingenous. If the American government and people really cared about liberating oppressed peoples (as cato's reasoning implies we should), then there would be far more discussion about overthrowing other oppressive governments and that rationale would have been used as part of the case for war in Iraq.

You are correct that America is not an evil country bent on world domination, but neither is American a good country bent on world peace. Good and evil are a bit simplistic as labels for a country, which is actually a conglomeration of many people and their diverse ideas. The truth is that America is a country, that sometimes engages in wrongful acts and sometimes engages in righteous acts. I think for the most part, we try to do more righteous things than wrongful things, but it is naive to assume that just because we are the “great America” that we are automatically for good things and are above committing wrongs.

Finally, Iran is not a “true” democracy compared to ours, as the real power lies in the religious leaders, not the elected president. However, UAE (another non-true democracy) should serve as an example that OUR brand of democracy is not necessarily ideally suited for that part of the world.

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

……And the #1 reason that Bush Fluffers still support their beloved W:

“He taste like chicken dipped in delicious oil”

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Both parties have been selling out the American Citizen for the better part of 40 years. If you want to know just how bad we are screwed just look at these charts:

www.perotcharts.com.

Any person standing on a pile of dung and thinking they or their party has the “moral high ground” politically thinking is massively delusional.

The problem is the polarized politics of the Republican AND the Democratic Parties. These idiots only excell at naming post offices and highways and do nothing for long term issues. The Dems harp about the Repubs, and vice versa and nothing gets done except “wedge issues” and these political idiots giving themselves a $10,000 a month retirement for life after sevring for one year. VOted on by the current congress and passed by a large majority of Dems and Repubs.

Never mind that the Social Security program either party is working on is not going to fix it, and the Dems and Repubs both want to include illegal immigrant and non-citizens in coverage and benefits.

Both parties have been sleeping while “Rome Burns”. There has been no national policy under either parties majorities in congress and presidents. There has never been a realistic addressing of terrorism and what actually “national security” means. Both idiots in both parties need to put american citizens first, and the rest of the world can and will sort itself out.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

No asbestos, the Democrats are sleeping, the Republicans are playing the violin.

Both are going to end up being a catastrophic disservice to the American people. But then again, we vote these idiots into office…

autie (Anonymous) says…

So why is it that when anyone is critical of the current Bush policies, Iraq, economy or anything else, they get labeled by the right as being un-American. Then the next implication is that they are influenced by the communist, liberal, left wing press. It certainly strays the argument off course..same old lame a** responses. Doesn't matter what the original question was. So back to the article..insightful well written piece about the observations of a regular guy..with hope for the future and his daughter. It is my daughter's birthday today and my hope that her generation is bright enough and energetic enough to pick up the pieces of this current mess (that hole that was dug). Because it is there and it needs filling. And GW's been in charge since most of the digging occurred. to write it off as dumb cause Garrison is a leftist, anti american is just plain stupid..you neocons would fall under the heading of “Wooden Headedness”. Does that mean Barbara Tuchman is anti american too?

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

As an independent, I will not vote for Dennis Moore, Brownback or Roberts.

As an independent, I will not vote for McCain or Obama.

There are other candidates to vote for, even if by write-in. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two lessers.

I do not have a party affiliation because I believe they are both corrupt and support American empire. Neither party has put forth any program that would “liberate” the American taxpayer from the trillion dollar defense and domestic spying departments. Neither party has put forth any program that would end American interventionism (criminal invasions and bombings of other countries). Neither party has proposed legislation that would force Congress not to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund (and thereby ripping off our retirement monies). Neither party has proposed a program that would invest in renewable energy (because independence is not what they want for us).

Enjoy the fruits of your labor….

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

With these right-wingers, if you don't like Bush, you don't support the troops, you hate America and you are a left wing loon.

Like I said, it simply amazes me how people can still bury their heads and continue to prop this administration up. Thank goodness that most of America see's Bush for what he is and for what he has done to this great country.

but, but, Clinton……..

autie (Anonymous) says…

and speaking of Barbara Tuchman..George could be a whole new chapter in her book, “March of Folly”. or how to screw up the world in eight years or less.

Orwell (Anonymous) says…

Logrithmic:

By refusing to vote for “the lesser of two lessers” you increase the likelihood that “the greater of two lessers” will be elected. That's your right, but don't think you're doing anyone a favor by demanding perfection as the price of your vote.

BigAl (Anonymous) says…

And how quick these right-wingers forget that the republcans spent 8 years and millions and millions of dollars going after Bush. In comparison, Bush has been on a cake walk. The so-called liberal press has given him a free ride.

HootyWho (Anonymous) says…

If i'm not mistaken,,,Clinton was found not guilty,,,,

autie (Anonymous) says…

Hootywho? Is that anything like Gomer in the bushes with a mouth full of sandwich…”I'll do my owl”.

jeremyhay (Anonymous) says…

Maybe the US constitution is at fault? No chance for new parties? Maybe (for example) the German constitution (which was influenced by and approved by the US) is a much better bet?
Perhaps coalition governments represent the people far better than the “one or the other” US model?
The US makes a lot of noise about being “democratic” - when the electorate have so little choice and when the Supreme Court and various lobbies (e.g. AIPACS) have so much power, one must wonder if this “democracy” is a delusion?