Nice post, Fatman. My point about moderates was not to say moderation is bad, but some (present company excepted) can take moderation to the extreme (that is, consider that to be a moderate is the only way to be, that moderation in whatever form the person understands it, is the only rational position to take), and others can, as I said, spin their apathy (a negative word) into a virtue by calling the same thing "moderation".

About the two party system. We cannot have five presidents, and we cannot have five hundred presidents, or 250 million presidents. We only get one. For better or worse, to get elected, a candidate has to cobble together a coalition of views and policies that he hopes will appeal to more people than the other guy. This way we get lead one way, not multiple ways. This is not to say that sometimes, even many times, we have to compromise some things we believe in in order to obtain what may be more important. Ah! Compromise! What a concept!

Actually, when you think about it, that is what our political system is all about. If the guy didn't represent some major part of the populace somehow, he would not be nominated, or even considered for nomination.

There is room to disagree, but I prefer the 2 party system to what occurs under parlimentary systems in Europe. Just my opinion, though.

Again, a thoughtful position. Thank you. Clearly, by comparing what you posted and what I believe, conservative voters cover a spectrum of views. We need to respect that when having our message board discussions. They are much more helpful in that case.

 

Excellent points Steve, I like your style! I agree with you about the parliamentary system, I have actually heard people from other counties say that they dislike not having a direct impact on who will be their chief executive.