Dear Kate, Out of curiousity, can you give any specific examples of this pandering you assert in a general way. I can cite a mass of specifics about what is awful in Bush--just to start he plans to appoint to the head of the FDA a man who says the way women should deal with premenstrual tension is to read the Bible and he refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women, let alone wars and leaks and a failed economy. What are the equivalent "extreme doctrines" on the Democratic side? Cheers, Nancy Date sent: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:05:16 EDT Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]> From: Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: OT or OT? Possible Perspectives To: [log in to unmask] In a message dated 10/6/2003 5:26:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > ...I could substitute the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson here and repeat my > above Pat Robertson diatribe, but instead I'll ask, dear listers, do you > recall when Jesse baptized Mike Tyson a few years ago? My, wasn't that a > "life transforming" conversion? It only served to transform Mike into as > the Bible would say, "twofold the child of hell that he was in the first > place." And thus we come to the problem in the country. As shortsighted and unacceptable as many of the Republicans' policies and doctrines are, there is probably not currently a Democratic candidate for President who would be able to defeat the current President; it's not that some of their policies aren't a good deal better; it's that they present themselves and act as the Republicans do in too many unappealing ways, i.e. name calling and pandering to special interest groups. And in some doctrines, being too extreme the other way so that the majority of Americans would be turned off and, in fact, nervous, and thus the status quo would appear to be the better option.