So, E,PLURIBUS,UNUM, quit making excuses. Do some research. Take responsibility.

Pot, meet Kettle. You two should get along fine.

a) habeas corpus

He'd voted for the patriot act and all it's gifts

The Patriot Act didn't eliminate habeus corpus. That was the military tribunal legislation that went through last year. Do some research.

b) social security

They all promise to fix it, but never do

One could argue that, by defending social security against Bush's plans to eliminate it, Kerry did about as much as can be done at the moment. Please, do some research.

c) sound tax policy

No change, same corporate backers as bush.

Not the same corporate backers, sorry. Sure, there are some in common, simply because most industries hedge their bets. But the overwhelming majority of contributions from the oil industry and corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel go to make sure wars happen to make the oil flow. Kerry's contributions from those industries were much, much smaller, and he would have been far less beholden to those industries. To ignore this very significant difference makes your arguments look foolish. Please, do some research.

d) sound healthcare policy

at best he'd put his wife on the project

That is possibly the most clever point you've made. And for god's sake, look at it!

e) sound environmental policy

You're confusing him with Gore

Newsflash, Tyler: Gore isn't the only one with a sane view about the environment. In fact, most democrats realize that the environment needs to be protected if it's going to continue to sustain life on the planet. Only the republicans have a hard time understanding this. You might want to look into this a bit closer.

f) that he would have mishandled Katrina so completely?

Who knows. He might have kept the same cronies in place.

Then again, Kerry might have used his super powers to prevent Katrina in the first place. What the hell, it's just as likely as your suggestion.

Why do you hate jesus? Seriously though, you got me on this one. w's jesus freak factor is scary.

Sorry, we've got you on them all. Every point you've made to in any way suggest that Bush was a better candidate than Kerry has only made you look stupid/uninformed. At first, I thought you were one of the most cynical liberals around, until...

BTW, I did have my way. I'm a conservative republican.

Now it all makes sense!

First of all, the fact that you believe republicans are conservative shows a profound political ignorance. Just to remind you, the year is now 2007, and the republicans have not pushed conservative policy for at least 10 years, if not more.

Next, we have your admission that you voted for this disaster that has struck the country and the world. I can understand someone who voted for Bush in 2000. If you didn't read anything about the candidates or watch the debates, you might just assume a little change would do us good. In 2004, though, a vote for Bush was a nihilistic vote expressing raw stupidity. No doubt you've realized what a disaster has occurred as a result. However, you're unable to take a good long look in the mirror and accept personal responsibility for that disaster. (Don't feel bad; your lack of emotional maturity in this regard is shared across the board by your fellow republicans.) So, as a means of dealing with your discomfort, you've decided to float the idea that, even to this day, Bush was still a better choice than Kerry. You've provided your "rationale" for this, which we've seen is entirely bullshit.

So I say to you, Tyler, in all seriousness:

Quit making excuses. Do some research. Take responsibility.

I also preferred Dean, but it was easy to see the DNC establishment doing a shock-and-awe on him. Even Salon put their best writers on it, writing column after column about how unelectable Dean was, back before their prophecy was self-fulfilling.

The difference between the DNC and the RNC is this: the DNC would love to be in the exact position as the RNC was from 2002-2006, unopposed and able to unilaterally run the country, power for power's sake. However, the DNC is tied to several policy positions that are actually somewhat egalitarian, whereas the RNC's policies are exactly the opposite. Therefore, the RNC is best suited to pursue dictatorship, as we've seen, whereas the democrats will always be hamstrung in their attempt, as we saw during the Clinton years. Sure, Clinton brought in Carnivore, Eschelon, etc. But they pale in comparison to Bush's full frontal attack on the constitution.

See what happens to the country when so many people like Tyler won't do the hard work?

Yep. That's precisely our problem in this country right now. We've got too many lazy-minded people who make important decisions based entirely on petty concerns (who's the best guy to have a beer with, who's going to protect the sanctity of marriage from the virulent homosexual agenda). And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, we get the government we deserve.

I am not of the blame America first camp. I say blame America by a consistent standard as one blames others. However, I do wonder if American culture, by evolutionary standards, is currently fit to survive, or if it merely plods along on its built-up economic and military power, and would crumble immediately without those things.

How did the reporter reply to this absurd question? Hopefully the reporter said, "Why, your administration, of course, that started a war of choice against UN approval, etc." However, something tells me the reporters all chuckled in that inside-joke sort of way, and then moved on to more pressing matters, like Edwards' haircut.