Last night I was watching Fox News, yes I said Fox News, coverage of the Republican debates. They made it sound as if Ron Paul made a terrible political blunder by not supporting our continuing occupation in Iraq.
FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep06/0,4670,RepublicansDebate,00.html)
According to polling numbers taken 8/6 -8/7 64% oppose the U.S. War in Iraq. While 62% of Republicans approve of the way George Bush is handling the situation with Iraq.
Polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

Now I do not believe Ron Paul has a chance of getting the Republican nomination, but are his actions hurting the Republican’s chances of keeping the White House? In order to get the nomination the Republican must play to their base and according to the numbers 62% believe the Bush strategy is working in Iraq, but in the general election 64% oppose the U.S. involvement in Iraq. So by attacking Ron Paul are these candidates really attacking a majority of the people in America’s views? How will that play in a general election? Is our attention span so short that we will have long forgotten it by November 2008?

I also never thought I’d see the Democratic Candidates raising more money than the Republican Candidates. Look at all the Money (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp)

The topic of this tread is anything to do with the US Presidential Election.

Now I do not believe Ron Paul has a chance of getting the Republican nomination, but are his actions hurting the Republican’s chances of keeping the White House? I'm no political expert, but history and current events tell me that independent candidates tend to hurt democrats more than republicans (he's not running for the republican nomination, is he?). A lot of the jostling I've been hearing comes from a lack of republican candidates that are conservative enough. Paul is a libertarian, and while a few of that party's views line up with republican ideology (on paper) most of them don't (in application).

My contention with libertarians in general and Ron Paul specifically, is that their views seem to support social darwinism to a degree that I do not feel comfortable with. I believe that the market place should be free to operate...within the boundaries of acceptable rules. I believe that government should not interfer with the free market...any more than is necessary to establish those rules, maintain that they are being adhered to, and provide a safety net as deemed necessary.

Sorry for the soapbox. Got away from myself for a minute.

In order to get the nomination the Republican must play to their base and according to the numbers 62% believe the Bush strategy is working in Iraq, but in the general election 64% oppose the U.S. involvement in Iraq. So by attacking Ron Paul are these candidates really attacking a majority of the people in America’s views? How will that play in a general election? Is our attention span so short that we will have long forgotten it by November 2008? You have to take into consideration what percentage of eligible americans vote (about 55% in the 04 election, IIRC), then figure out which groups (if any) control the largest portion of that demographic. If only half the people vote and 60% of them support the war in Iraq, then playing to that constituency will win you the popular vote, even though it might not be representative of the popular opinion. I completely made the 60% number up. These guys have professional political analysts that are much better at making up numbers than I am, but hopefully you get the point :xp:

Also, keep in mind that there will always be a certain number of voters that will vote a certain way because "their" candidate's sign was prettier than the other candidate's sign, etc.

I also never thought I’d see the Democratic Candidates raising more money than the Republican Candidates. Pendulums are very good at swinging :)

Money is nice, but unless a candidate can mobilize his or her constituency, I don't know that it means a whole lot.

The topic of this tread is anything to do with the US Presidential Election.Nice thread! :D

Fred Thompson (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0527143520070906?src=090607_1315_TOPSTORY_tho) mpson_joins_race) has also jumped into the wide open Republican candidate race.

Something Jimbo and I were talking about this morning--in the past whenever candidates announced their candidacy, they tended to make the announcement from their hometowns or the place where they were currently serving in office (if they were), and they would make sure the major news outlets were given the heads up so they could be there to film for the evening news. Never before have we seen people announcing their candidacy on the Jay Leno show or other entertainment shows. I think that's a remarkable shift and says some very interesting things about where candidates feel they can reach the most voters. I think people have seen more of the candidates talking to Leno and Stewart than they've seen them in debates on CNN or Fox.

Kinda reminds me a little of how presidential candidates broke the mold by holding televised debates back in the 50's. Fast forward 50 years and now here we are with banner ads, YouTube campaigns, presidential blogs, etc, etc, etc. Makes me wonder how my grandchildren will be courted by their candidates (and if we'll still have an electoral college :D).

Noticed that BO was on the Daily Show earlier in the evening (or the day before). So, if the whole fairness doctrine thing got passed, I guess that's mean all/no candidates would be guests on Leno/Letterman/Stewart et al.


I'm no political expert, but history and current events tell me that independent candidates tend to hurt democrats more than republicans.

Perot's candidacy is mostly believed to have hurt Bush, not Clinton.

Should be interesting (the result, not so much the process) to see who ends up as the official candidates for both parties.

I think there's some fairness rules for news organizations, but none for entertainment shows e.g. Letterman, Leno, Stewart, etc. Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Obama and has noted she'd like to be more involved in his campaign than just providing money. She's not required to give equal time to the other candidates, so I anticipate Obama will be a frequent visitor on her show and in her magazine.

he's not running for the republican nomination, is he?
Right now Mr. Paul is running as a Republican, but I believe your assumption is correct and he may throw his hat in the ring as an independent. Don’t know how much he would take away from the Democrats as his views and their views are like oil and water. I do not think many independences considering the democrats would suddenly switch to him, as that is a huge leap in ideology.

Also, keep in mind that there will always be a certain number of voters that will vote a certain way because "their" candidate's sign was prettier than the other candidate's sign, etc.
Getting partisan for a moment, I’m hoping that some may vote for one candidate over another in this election because her dress is prettier than the other candidate’s. Of course if more than one is wearing a dress that will be a story in itself.

Pendulums are very good at swinging :)Yes, but Ronald Regan is rolling over in his grave right now.

Nice thread! :DThanks, I was waiting for someone to start one that had nothing to do with God or a lack there of, but I got tired of waiting and started one myself. Although in fairness the candidate’s religious beliefs are fair game.

I think that's a remarkable shift and says some very interesting things about where candidates feel they can reach the most voters. I think people have seen more of the candidates talking to Leno and Stewart than they've seen them in debates on CNN or Fox. I really like Fred Thompson as a actor, but I’ll hold off throwing my support to him for his run for the White House.

If history is any indication he might have a good chance. I remember a little known Governor from some backward southern state going on to a late night show and playing his sax. He was killed by the political experts for doing it, but Bill Clinton got the last laugh. Too bad the news wasn’t as good for Arsenio Hall.

Perot's candidacy is mostly believed to have hurt Bush, not Clinton.Agreed.

She's not required to give equal time to the other candidates, so I anticipate Obama will be a frequent visitor on her show and in her magazine.Good point

and if we'll still have an electoral college :D
Edit: I meant to say I can only hope we don’t still have something as antiquated as the Electoral College by then. Although more than likely I will not be around to see its demise.

Right now Mr. Paul is running as a Republican, but I believe your assumption is correct and he may throw his hat in the ring as an independent. Thanks for the correction. To be honest, I haven't been following his campaign that closely, so I really wasn't sure.

Don’t know how much he would take away from the Democrats as his views and their views are like oil and water. Well we may find this to be true. Considering the amount of financial support that we're seeing for the extremes, I might be overestimating the number of moderate-to-conservative democrats.

I do not think many independences considering the democrats would suddenly switch to him, as that is a huge leap in ideology. Well, I'm a registered independent and while I wouldn't jump in Ron Paul's boat, I would definitely give due consideration to any new candidates.

Getting partisan for a moment, I’m hoping that some may vote for one candidate over another in this election because her dress is prettier than the other candidate’s. Of course if more than one is wearing a dress that will be a story in itself. I'm sure that we'll see a certain percentage of people voting specific ways in the hopes of appearing progressive. While I'm all for progressiveness (?), I'm not going to vote for someone that I feel is incapable of doing the job on that basis alone.

Yes, but Ronald Regan is rolling over in his grave right now. If not him, then I'm sure someone is. But someone was rolling in their grave before that and someone else before them. Great thing about studying history is that you see that nostaligia is bull**** :D

Thanks, I was waiting for someone to start one that had nothing to do with God or a lack there of, but I got tired of waiting and started one myself. Although in fairness the candidate’s religious beliefs are fair game. Actually, I started that thread (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=180935) a while ago :)

I suppose someone should start a Larry Craig thread soon, huh?

I really like Fred Thompson as a actor, but I’ll hold off throwing my support to him for his run for the White House. I like that he wants to bring back a little thing called The Constitution, but I don't care for his stance on many social issues.

On The Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm)
Project Vote Smart (http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003)

Ahem (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=181612). ;)

As an update for close elections (margin of error is around 3%), using RCP:

Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D): [Clinton +1.0%]
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Barack Obama (D) [Obama +3.4%]
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. John Edwards (D) [Edwards +2.0%]
John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D) [Clinton +3.7%]
John McCain (R) vs. John Edwards (D) [Edwards +4.0%]

The other candinates have the Democrats defeating the Republicans by a higher margin.

Adding in a Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton vs. Bloomberg (an unlikely event due to the fact Bloomberg likes those people)...
Giuliani (37.0%) vs. Clinton (42.6%) vs. Bloomberg (11.6%) vs. Indepedents (6.6%). [Clinton +5.6]

In other words, if Bloomberg enters into the race, he'll throw the Popular Vote over to Clinton. Bloomberg, as a third party candinate, will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats, even when there is allegations that Bloomberg is a RINO due to his liberal policies.

Note too that while the other Republicans candinates get soundly defeated by the Democrat candinates, it might turn back into a close race once the Negative Campagin kicks in.

Who I think will win depends on who gets nominated on both sides, but I think the Republicans might have an edge. People don't like Bush, but he's not running in the election. And while Iraq might be a big issue, the war is not everything. There are stuff such as economic policies, health care, domestic security, diplomacy, etc.

Note this too, that it is becoming a trend that whomever is the Party in power, they will lose seats in the next election. The reason is that people will be disappointed in the Party and want change. So if the Democrats seize the Presidency, they may be preparing themselves to lose control of Congress in 2012...something that might not be a good idea.
***
Third-parties indeed tend to hurt one party, so, in order to neturalize that third-party, all the Big Party has to do is just adopt all the positions of the Third Party. It upsets both the Big Party's followers that they are being hijacked by a smaller party, and it upsets the Third-Party that the Big Party is just plagrizing their national agenda. But it's how Third Parties influnce elections and party platforms in the past. :)

Not sure about the present though. Nobody is clamoring for people to join up with Nader, or the Consitutional Party, so the third parties are so small that the Big Parties won't see a need to shift their positions. Ron Paul has about, say, 1% support, but I do know of many Libertairans just changing parties to Republican.

Do you all want one big thread or threads along this line--1. General election stuff 2. Republican candidates (which we currently have) 3. Democrat candidates 4. If enough interest, Independent candidates? I don't have an opinion either way on this one.

I personally want a spamfest for only one topic. That way, we don't have to see the entire forum get cluttered.

Thanks for the correction. To be honest, I haven't been following his campaign that closely, so I really wasn't sure. Actually I wasn’t correcting you because I believe (even if by complete accident) you have a valid point. After all Ron Paul ran a Presidential Campaign before as an independent. I see no reason he would suddenly fall into party line now.

I might be overestimating the number of moderate-to-conservative democrats. I consider myself to be a conservative liberal. I’m conservative in terms of money and government, but very, very liberal on social issues. Mr. Paul is my Congressman, he even helped me get my special permission to vote in my first election in the 80’s at age 18 (born November 1, old enough to vote, but not to register). I actually vote for him in for Congress because I like him. However, in a Presidential election friendship only goes so far. His view on the gold standard alone is enough for me to cross him off my list of possible candidates.

now here we are with banner ads, I didn’t even notice the banner ad for Obama on this very website when I read this earlier. Now I have to decide if I like it better than the usual girl in her underwear. I like Obama, but the model gets my vote.

I'm sure that we'll see a certain percentage of people voting specific ways in the hopes of appearing progressive. While I'm all for progressiveness (?), I'm not going to vote for someone that I feel is incapable of doing the job on that basis alone. I’d really like to see a woman and an African-American President before I die. Even so I will not vote for either of the candidates that currently fit that criteria until they convince me that they can do the job.

Actually, I started that thread (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=180935) a while ago :)
Sorry, I remember reading that thread now. So correction religious discussion needs to go there, please.

I suppose someone should start a Larry Craig thread soon, huh? I almost did, even found a cool song to post, but I hate to kick a man when he is down. Plus, I actually believe it was handled well by all sides, for the most part. Just wish we as a society would become a little less hypocritical. Wonder why politicians have to use the word gay, instead of homosexuality? The entire incident reminded me of the “That’s Gay” thread started by KotO[Revan].

I like that he wants to bring back a little thing called The Constitution, but I don't care for his stance on many social issues.
Like the first part about bring back The Constitution, but I see what you mean about social issues. Found that he presents himself as Environment friendly, but right above under Energy & Oil it says “Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002) and Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000).” I’m not saying I’m necessarily against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but every environmental group I’m associated was sending me emails to contact my representative to stop the drilling. So I assume it was/is a pretty big environmental issue yet it is not mentioned under “Fred Thompson on Environment”.

Do you all want one big thread or threads along this line--1. General election stuff 2. Republican candidates (which we currently have) 3. Democrat candidates 4. If enough interest, Independent candidates? I don't have an opinion either way on this one.

You’re the mod, so mod. Just joking Jae, as far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you feel is appropriate. I trust your judgment (but that does not mean I'm going to vote for who you say to vote for).

I consider myself to be a conservative liberal. I’m conservative in terms of money and government, but very, very liberal on social issues. I don't think it's that uncommon to encounter people that are economically conservative and socially "liberal" (I use the term in quotes because I'd like to see someone operationally define the term ;)).

Mr. Paul is my Congressman, he even helped me get my special permission to vote in my first election in the 80’s at age 18 (born November 1, old enough to vote, but not to register). I actually vote for him in for Congress because I like him. However, in a Presidential election friendship only goes so far. His view on the gold standard alone is enough for me to cross him off my list of possible candidates. I get skittish whenever I hear someone promoting something that sounds like "let the markets do whatever they want while we reduce taxes". It generally means that the rich are about to get even richer while the poor get even poorer. It happens to some degree no matter what, but elected officials that grease the wheels really bother me.

I didn’t even notice the banner ad for Obama on this very website when I read this earlier. Now I have to decide if I like it better than the usual girl in her underwear. I like Obama, but the model gets my vote. Firefox with adblock ftw!

I almost did, even found a cool song to post, but I hate to kick a man when he is down. Plus, I actually believe it was handled well by all sides, for the most part. Well, I personally don't think he committed a crime. Or to be more specific, I don't believe that his actions should be considered criminal. However I think stuff like this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eaEcPUnaA) tends to dissipate sympathy extended in good faith.

Just wish we as a society would become a little less hypocritical. Wonder why politicians have to use the word gay, instead of homosexuality? The entire incident reminded me of the “That’s Gay” thread started by KotO[Revan]. I imagine using the potentially offensive term helps to distance him from the allegations somehow. *shrugs*

Like the first part about bring back The Constitution, but I see what you mean about social issues. Found that he presents himself as Environment friendly, but right above under Energy & Oil it says “Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002) and Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000).” I’m not saying I’m necessarily against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but every environmental group I’m associated was sending me emails to contact my representative to stop the drilling. So I assume it was/is a pretty big environmental issue yet it is not mentioned under “Fred Thompson on Environment”. The unfortunate reality is that republicans might be risking a lot of moderate votes based on their hard line with social issues.

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal.....sounds like the makings of a Libertarian to me! :thumbsup: I should know, because I am one.

The only Libertarian I’ve ever dealt with is Ron Paul. They don’t all believe in the Gold Standard do they? Because my Finance Degree will not let me logically get around that.

I get skittish whenever I hear someone promoting something that sounds like "let the markets do whatever they want while we reduce taxes". It generally means that the rich are about to get even richer while the poor get even poorer. It happens to some degree no matter what, but elected officials that grease the wheels really bother me. I get skittish when both of the major parties tell me what they are going to do for me, but conveniently forget to tell me how the are going to pay for it. The Democrats are accused to being “tax and spend” liberals, but why can’t we call the Republicans what they are “borrow and spend” **no clue**(because the way they spend they can’t be called conservatives anymore).

I agree that the market needs to be watched just look at the list of corporate scandals over the past 20 years. wikipdia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_scandal)
forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker_print.html)
Then imagine how much worst it would be without regulations. Money talks without regulations why would auto manufactures correct problems when the bean counters tell them it is cheaper just to pay the liability claims instead of recalling their entire line and fixing the problem. No, I may be conservative in some ways, but I don’t trust anyone to do the “right thing” when money is involved. We need some regulation and monitoring of the markets.
Firefox with adblock ftw! I can’t Microsoft got to the company I work for and their system only supports Explorer. Can’t even use adblock as the company wants us to have to listen and see the propaganda they are spouting on their website.

Well, I personally don't think he committed a crime. Or to be more specific, I don't believe that his actions should be considered criminal. However I think stuff like this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eaEcPUnaA) tends to dissipate sympathy extended in good faith. Agreed, I don’t see playing footsies with police officers should be considered a crime. However, his intolerance and his moral superior attitude make it hard to feel sorry for him. The link was very enlightening and caught me by complete surprise.

The only Libertarian I’ve ever dealt with is Ron Paul. They don’t all believe in the Gold Standard do they? Because my Finance Degree will not let me logically get around that. The mercantile system is so 18th century :D

I get skittish when both of the major parties tell me what they are going to do for me, but conveniently forget to tell me how the are going to pay for it. The Democrats are accused to being “tax and spend” liberals, but why can’t we call the Republicans what they are “borrow and spend” **no clue**(because the way they spend they can’t be called conservatives anymore). Obama wants to reinstate paygo and I'm sure that since Hillary's husband was the one that popularized it, she is going that route as well (she didn't cover it in her book, so I don't know for sure).

This is just one example of something that used to be considered "Conservative" now being labeled "Liberal". I guess the Republican reality is that the world economy is our ATM. Personally, I don't see how that's good for us or how that allows us to project authority as a world power, but hey, what do I know.

On a side note, I think you may find the documentary Maxed Out (http://www.maxedoutmovie.com/) quasi-relevant to our discussion. :)

I agree that the market needs to be watched just look at the list of corporate scandals over the past 20 years. wikipdia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_scandal)
forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker_print.html)
Then imagine how much worst it would be without regulations. Money talks without regulations why would auto manufactures correct problems when the bean counters tell them it is cheaper just to pay the liability claims instead of recalling their entire line and fixing the problem. No, I may be conservative in some ways, but I don’t trust anyone to do the “right thing” when money is involved. We need some regulation and monitoring of the markets. Again, another "previously conservative/now liberal" ideology. People cannot be trusted, therefore checks and balances are needed so that someone is watching the watcher. If someone has a problem with any of the current systems that fine, we can investigate alternatives. But to bemoan the existence of even basic rules of transparency tells me that some people like it when there's no accountability.

Agreed, I don’t see playing footsies with police officers should be considered a crime. However, his intolerance and his moral superior attitude make it hard to feel sorry for him. The link was very enlightening and caught me by complete surprise. I figured that was info you wouldn't find on the fair and balanced Fox News channel, (wonder why the blatantly liberal CNN didn't have it either :rolleyes: ) so I'm glad you liked it.

This is just my opinion, but I think Ron Paul might be trying to win votes by not supporting Iraq. People are absolutely sick and tired of it and by giving them what the Democrats will give as well then he seems to hope die hard Republicans will still vote and those who would be against Bush, Iraq, ect he can get on board.

However I really would like to see Obama (the first African American) or Clinton (the first woman) win. Aside from that a change of parties, a change in the people in power, would be good if only so that the stigma of Bush and the conspiracies surrounding him and the people he has elected into positions of power can be removed.

However, his intolerance and his moral superior attitude make it hard to feel sorry for him. The link was very enlightening and caught me by complete surprise.

His bit about "I'm a congressman/senator, what do ya think of that" style intimidation tactic soured me on any sympathy I could have marshalled up.

I can see only one scenario, barring an outright win in the primary(as if that's going to happen), for Ron Paul to have any impact on the general election: by garnering the vote of the anti-war crowd.

hypothetical circumstances:
1.Pro-war republican wins nomination (I'd guesstimate 90% or better odds)
2.Hilary Clinton wins Democratic nomination (all the Paul camp would have to do is point out that she voted for the war in the first place)

of course, there's still absolutely no way that Dr Paul would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election should that scenario go down, but it might just make a few more people think seriously about libertarianism, paleoconservatism, and the principles of limited government. I hope.

edit @ NancyAllen=> Dr Paul didn't support the war in Iraq (even though it isn't technically a war) from the beginning. Of course, Obama didn't either, and I applaud both men for standing on their convictions.

edit @ NancyAllen=> Dr Paul didn't support the war in Iraq (even though it isn't technically a war) from the beginning. Of course, Obama didn't either, and I applaud both men for standing on their convictions.

You mean he wasn't always anti war? Anyway it's good that we have both camps being braver than Bush and saying that whatever is happening in Iraq, you can stand by whatever story you want on this, it's obviously not working and we need to either get the Iraqi people to stand without Saddam or just flat out bite the bullet, save some face and bow to the demands of the opposition by bowing out from Iraq.

I split the thread to give Libertarianism (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=182207) its own thread--it's a big topic by itself. :)

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_po/thompson_evangelicals)Prominent) evangelical leaders who spent the summer hoping Fred Thompson would emerge as their favored Republican presidential contender are having doubts as he begins his long-teased campaign. Looks like the neo-conservatives may be without a candidate this election.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_po/thompson_evangelicals) Looks like the neo-conservatives may be without a candidate this election.


Maybe the fundies are without a "favorite son," but I still see several pro-war, big-government neocons.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070909/ap_po/thompson_evangelicals) Looks like the neo-conservatives may be without a candidate this election.

There's tremendous frustration among evangelicals right now with all the candidates on the GOP side, and certainly on the Dem side, though Obama seems to be a clear choice out of all the Dems. Hillary Clinton just comes across as too willing to govern by polls, and the rest don't seem to have the necessary money or clout to win the nomination. I can't speak for fundamentalists, but I wouldn't be surprised if the feeling was similar.

Among the GOP candidates, there doesn't seem to be anyone who's espousing very conservative views and who's also electable--that part is true. I suspect a lot of this is candidates trying to actively distance themselves from the ultra-conservative side of the party in order to avoid any association with Bush and to increase their chances of getting elected. However, this means the more conservative members of the GOP is feeling left behind as the candidates shift towards the more liberal end of the GOP spectrum to avoid association with Bush's conservatism. I would be quite surprised if Bush was asked to campaign with any of the candidates outside of maybe TX since his favorability is so low that he'd be almost a liability in any GOP campaign.

I suspect a lot of this is candidates trying to actively distance themselves from the ultra-conservative side of the party in order to avoid any association with Bush and to increase their chances of getting elected. However, this means the more conservative members of the GOP is feeling left behind as the candidates shift towards the more liberal end of the GOP spectrum to avoid association with Bush's conservatism. I would be quite surprised if Bush was asked to campaign with any of the candidates outside of maybe TX since his favorability is so low that he'd be almost a liability in any GOP campaign.

Absolutely. I think some would disagree with me on this but it is my belief that part of the reason some things, religion for example as it is the topic that dominates our forums, are attacked so heavily is because of Bush, or rather because of his portrayal of religion. In fact regardless of how fair the label would be Bush will be remembered as the greatest evil the world has ever seen. So of course because of how much everything he has touched has become so demonized people would want to be seen as being the anti Bush.