I am not a protectionist and I hate all tariffs. I do not in any way endorse Obama or Clinton's economic policies; but I am still not convinced about the benevolence of NAFTA and CAFTA.

You and I will have to finish our conversation about this subject sometime, Jason.

What happened to the Democratic Party? This is not the party of Grover Cleveland, FDR, JFK, or even Clinton-Gore. The Democratic Party has moved dramatically to the left since the 1990s. Joe Lieberman is the only good Democrat left. Democrats are no longer the liberal party; they are the Leftist party.
I hope John McCain's landslide victory in November will finally kill the anti-immigrant, anti-free trade wing of the Republican Party. And I hope it will move the Democrats back away from the far-Left.

What happened to the Democratic Party...of Grover Cleveland, FDR, JFK... The Democratic Party has moved dramatically to the left since the 1990s.

I don't know what you've read about FDR, but that guy was at best a socialist. I think Truman & JFK were more to the right, & yes, I agree that the Democrat Party is moving further to the left.

I hope John McCain's landslide victory in November will finally kill the anti-immigrant, anti-free trade wing of the Republican Party. And I hope it will move the Democrats back away from the far-Left.

Landslide victory? Why do I keep seeing Jim Mora with his head cocked to the side asking a reporter "Playoffs? Playoffs?"

I see a lot of Republicans being anti-illegal immigrant. Not anti-immigrant. There's a difference.

But the Democrats aren't going anywhere. They're staying on the socialist side of the spectrum for a while.

I was just referring to Cleveland, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton-Gore vis-a-vis trade.

John McCain will win in a landslide (unless he's found with the proverbial live boy or dead girl between now & November). So, you should start seeing Joe Namath, Miami, Super Bowl III.

...or Mark Messier, 1994.

John McCain will?

I guess I'd have to know your definition of landslide. But in reality, I think you need to lay off the Kool-Aid.

This is not the party of Grover Cleveland, FDR, JFK, or even Clinton-Gore.

It’s definitely not the party of Grover Cleveland, who is one of my heroes. But FDR was a protectionist.

Danny,

Truman was as far to the left as FDR, whose policies were more fascist in nature but collectivist nevertheless. Truman may have been the first President to call for single payer healthcare. When LBJ, another leftist, signed Medicare into law, Truman was at his side.

I would also disagree with you about anti-immigration comments. I’ve heard and seen many far-right Republicans want to limit the number of immigrants that come into the country legally, in addition to ending “illegal immigration.”

The “playoffs” comment literally made me laugh out loud. Hilarious.

I think McCain will be competitive and I think he can win, but win in a landslide? That is way too optimistic.

Jason, I really do not think that McCain can be that competitive because he has two fights to win; one against the Democrat's nominee and the other is the fight for the support of his own party. I think for a lot of independents, Bush is still on the Republican ticket.

This election I believe, is the Democrats to loose.

FDR fascist? As in the Blue Eagle? He's my least favorite politician, period.

As far as Truman, I'll cede the fact that I've never read a book about him specifically. But my point on him is that, compared to FDR, the nat'l debt remained virtually unchanged throughout his reign.

Regarding immigration, I consider the far-right to be of a different animal.

I don't see the average Republican being anti-immigrant, just against illegals. Chambliss & Isakson were initially in favor of the "Amnesty" bill. Bush was in favor of it. The Republican's 2008 presidential nominee was in favor of it too. I think that's hardly being anti-immigrant & could be easily be construed as pro anti-immigrant.

But my point on him is that, compared to FDR, the nat'l debt remained virtually unchanged throughout his reign.

But is the national debt a good proxy for being for bigger government?

I would rather have a national debt of $200 billion dollars on a total budget of, say, $1 trillion, than to have a balanced $3.1 trillion budget.

Jason is right about the health care stuff. If Truman had gotten his way, we would have had a British-style National Health Service in 1948.

But is the national debt a good proxy for being for bigger government?

I would consider it to be a proxy, yes. I don't think a balanced budget is applicable.

Clinton balanced the budget and even ran surpluses. But that's not a good thing. Surpluses mean the government will have to buy up more of the economy.

McCain will win in a landslide. Some Republicans may sit out, but many will choose McCain over the alternative. Lot's of independents and Democrats will vote for McCain because he was a pretty anti-Bush Republican on some issues (specifically he criticized Bush's handling of Iraq). Plus, Democrats (paricularly some of those who would've voted for Hillary) and independents (Lieberman types) will look at the alternative. Thirdly, people who are excited about Barack Obama, namely the brain-dead and kids in their twenties, do not vote.

My comments on surpluses & budgets weren't in a manner to provide support for Truman. It was basically to say that FDR was in a class of his own.

I wish prediction of McCain this year is accurate, although I doubt it seriously. The American people are too stupid to know that Obama is a bag of hot air.