Watching the parade of TV guests, columnists, book authors and politicians with swelling popularity appear on every medium available talking about how we need to get back to basics and get "away from the current administration" got me wondering about the general population and how they're viewing things right now.

Now I'm young, so I don't remember a lot about the immediate pre-2000 election hype, but from what I do remember, it wasn't anything like this, let alone two and a half years before. Maybe it was because it wasn't necessary. But it seems like there is a growing discontentedness among at least those who are interested in voting in this next election. And I think the mistakes this president has made has encouraged a lot of people to get off their asses in '08.

So my question is, do you think all of this talk about cutting our losses in Iraq and just ending that war and getting back to a sort of grassroots politics (as grassroots as Washington can be, obviously) is just talk of the extreme minority, or do you think there is actually some creedence to it and we'll see some serious changes come 2008? Has Bush unknowingly sparked a future great age for the American President? Or is that just wishful thinking for a two-party system?

So my question is, do you think all of this talk about cutting our losses in Iraq and just ending that war and getting back to a sort of grassroots politics (as grassroots as Washington can be, obviously) is just talk of the extreme minority, or do you think there is actually some creedence to it and we'll see some serious changes come 2008? Has Bush unknowingly sparked a future great age for the American President? Or is that just wishful thinking for a two-party system?[/quote]

cutting back n Iraq means stepping foward to Iran.

Post-Bush? Unless we're blatantly attacked or something like that, I can't agree.

And the amount of cutting back necessary to make stepping up to Iran with military force a plausible notion will not happen under Bush, so again, I hesitate to agree with you. Just all goes back to the question of whether we're all jaded enough to go along with this kind of thing. Bush's approval rating speaks to how iffy engaging in another borderline conflict will be for whomever steps up next.

We'll probably repeat this mistake somewhere down the line, but not this close to the occurance.

isreal can do it on there own, dont think for one second we aren't pullin a string or 2 behind that. its all in place i think.

I thought in 04 Kerry would win because more of the younger crowd would vote. That was proven incorrect, and I think if anything, the quagmire in Iraq will make that same crowd more apathetic in 08.

My original reasoning was that the popular perception of Bush's job in office has plummeted since the 2004 elections. I'm not sure how steeped in reality this viewpoint is, but I think the notion of a worse president or a guy who will simply inherit an inept White House and do nothing but keep it warm for another four years will strike fear in voters, especially young ones afraid of armed conflict, and force them to the polls. The only possible chink in this armor is the tired refrain of "we don't matter" or "the two party system limits my ability to choose a suitable candidate," but I think a proper presidential hopeful can overcome that. I'm not even sure if we'll see one in the next election, but if we do, I'd expect voting to increase. Hell, I'd expect it to increase anyway just because we're going to be seeing a horde of new folks. What'd we see, like 40-something percent of the population vote in the last election? I'd expect that to spike in '08, but maybe I'm just optimistic.

I don't think we'll ever see huge voting numbers in terms of population percentage, but, and maybe this is just my hope, I think when a country reaches its bottom in terms of recent history, people typically take a vested interest. Hell, I have. You'd all probably shoot me if you found out who I voted for in '04.

Bush's ratings are down, but really, what has changed about him? He's still detached from reality and shows no signs of change. More people are becoming disillusioned but I believe we're in Iraq for the long haul. I doubt either candidate in 08 will be on the "cut and run" platform. I also doubt some charmful maverick will be in the running, and it will more of the same from both hopeless parties.

But see, I think it's this viewpoint that's on the rise, which was my original point. As each day passes, more people think like this. I can vouch, I'm one of the new converts. This jaded view of the products our system has pooped out. That our candidates have been hopeless as is. It may not be enough to change anything right now, but I think that anything with overwhelming public support can affect change. The longer Bush is in power, the more people will think, "y'know, this whole thing sucks." And more and more people on the media circuit are saying these same things.

So maybe hoping things will change in 2008 is a bit shortsighted, but down the road? If things keep going the way they are, I see brighter things. And again, maybe that's optimism or youth or whatever, but I think it's possible.

I'm shocked that there haven't been assassination attempts on ANY politicians lately.

Although public sentiment for the Iraq war has waned, I don't think that we will see a big shift in policy (in terms of leadership). As well-intentioned as the far left is, the democrats will not be able to win the '08 Presidential election with a far left candidate. They will have to run a candidate who is more of a centrist - note early frontrunner Hillary Clinton drifting towards the center.

In the end, what goes on in the rest of the world will dictate the outcomes of future elections....especially in this post-9/11 world. Look at yesterday's comments of Iran President Ahmadjinedad....that there must be an immediate cease-fire but the long-term solution is the annihilation of Israel. Is this someone who sounds like a person who can be reasoned with? Then there is the looming threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon and the radical balance of power that would take place in the middle east....not to mention the threat to the US an it's allies. But that is a topic for another post.
I don't think we will see things change that much in terms of US foreign policy. It would be nice if terrorism and IslamoFascism didn't exist, but sadly it does and we cannot ignore it and hope it goes away.

3 points.

1. The Iranian spouts alot of his bullshit to strengthen his own domestic postion and uphold relationships he has in the middle east. There is a huge difference between saying the want the annihilation of Israel and attempting it. The latter wpuld result in this own annihilation which is at odds with every politicians core objective - that of self preservation.

2. "Islamo-facism" (is that a WW2 reference to clearly distinguish the evil doers from the good doers) cannot be defeated with the might of the US military. The sooner knuckleheads like Cheney and Rumsfeld are ejected from public office the better.

3. Bush and Kerry were appaling candidates. Both parties need to put forward far better candidates. It is tough to spread the vitues of democracy around the world when your own political system produces such awful unfit candidates.

I think it's started early this time. Hilary Clinton was getting stuck into Rumsfield on TV this morning, shes looking like a frontrunner. I think there is a large portion of the world angry with Bush, so there is more momentum now to replace him when he steps aside

to answer the question in the thread title, no, it's not jaded enough. people who care a little bit mostly lap those money-grubbing pseudo-journalist pundits up. people who care a lot work outside the system or are mostly frustrated within it. people who care about themselves and are born into power work for people who look and act like them, and people who don't care don't care.

that would be the single dumbest thing anyone could possibly do, and at the very least, would raise any politician to martyrdom

I don't think American culture would make a politician who was murdered a "martyr." Did the assasination of President Kennedy raise him to "martyrdom?"

most killers lack common sense

i don't know if this word excists, but i really dig it

This was my conclusion

no, but they named a mountain after mckinley. if that's not martyrdom i don't know what is.

somewhat. he was an average president yet everybody reveres him.