I think compared to Europe our politics are down right calm. We haven't had a political riot in years and 99.9% of the time our politicians don't out right insult each other. Now compared to Canada I have no idea. To be honest I couldn't name single Canadian politician and that is current or former, comedians yes politicians no.

I do agree though that the state of political discourse is worse now that at anytime I can remember. There are a lot of reasons for that but I doubt it will change until both sides are willing to take responsibility for what they are doing to make it worse, in other words no time soon.



His legislation was moderate. The only way to get poll numbers as low as Bush got was to piss off your base while making the center unhappy as well. The base of the other side is never going to like you very long and the middle can slosh back and forth as the middle does but if your numbers get below 40 you are losing your base. If the get below 35 for long you have lost it. A lot of conservative hated Bush but for the most part they hated him for not being conservative enough.



Yes he was the anti-Bush but I do believe that among the base of the left they believed 100% they were getting a true progressive and not a moderate. If you listen he never said he was going to be a moderate he said he was going to build a new majority. The left believed, correctly, that Bush was so unpopular they could beat a republican with almost anyone so they were not looking for a moderate they were looking for the real deal and they sloshed some moderate paint on him for the general but they new it wasn't the real Obama. The republicans are starting believe the same thing now, that they can elect the first true conservative president. Many would say since Regan but by today's standard Regan was a moderate. Unlike the democrats they conseratives place more value on proven leadership and record, that isn't a knock it is an observation. If the dems had elected Hillary with the majorites she would have had there is not telling what she could have done.



Not if you listened to what they actually said, looked at their record and judged them by American standards. McCain was and had always been a moderate on most issues but a he was a hawk on forgien policy and there was a lot of focus on the war at the time. McCain had a proven and sustained record of working across the isle and Obama had none. Obama was making a lot noise about a kindler and gentler political process but at the same time has was attacking and ridiculing people in his fundraisers. The only reason there was any doubt that Obama was not who he said he was is because people wanted to believe despite all the evidence. You don't set in church with reverend Wright for twenty years if are a moderate at heart and the people who willing to be honest with themseleves knew that. One of the things pissing off the left right now is Obama blew all the right dog whislte to let them know he was a true progressive but they don't feel he followed through.

Being a moderate is not why Obama failed, because he isn't one, he failed because he lacks leadership skills and charisma. So maybe moderate backlash isn't 100% accurate but I think that it is part of it. Obama misread his mandate but still a lot of people believe he failed because he tried to hard to compromise and a lot of times in politics perception is reality. There is some truth to it as well but I think it came from lack of true leadership skills instead of being a moderate. His plans were not moderate but he didn't seem to understand that he would need to sell his plans just expect everyone to agree and get in line. He tought winning meant the other side would have to play along and that was his biggest mistake. The party in control has to give the other side a reason to play along becuase they are the ones being held accountable if things don't work.



I would actually support a public health care system if someone proposed one that would work. It needs to divorce employment for insurance and it needs to subsidize the poor up to full coverage. It would be OK if the subsidized insurance wasn't as good as the stuff you pay for yourself but it still would need to adequate. It just shouldn't cover things like acupuncture and aroma therapy and you may need to be on an HMO. It would even be OK if it didn't cover inexpensive things like birth control since that is just shoving politics into helathcare. I didn't support a program that just expanded the current system and its out of control growth model.