[ek_hornbeck]

I think that you're missing my point. You have fringe third party candidates in every election, most of them are lucky to get close to 1%. Nobody pays attention to third parties unless the D and R candidates are so unacceptable that the only decent alternative to not voting is a third party sideshow. If George H.W. Bush wasn't such a disappointing President, Perot would have gotten <1% of the vote rather than almost 20.

Furthermore, it's hard for me to get worked up over Clinton beating Bush in 1992 since on matters of policy (esp. domestic economic policy) they were virtually indistinguishable. Bush campaigned in 1988 as Reagan's heir but governed to the left of Nelson Rockefeller.

[areukiddingme1]

I disagree with the assertion “Furthermore, it’s hard for me to get worked up over Clinton beating Bush in 1992 since on matters of policy...” I was on active duty then and the clintonestas went after the military and unleased the male/military hating likes of congresswoman Patricia Schroeder on the military, starting with “tailhook” and pursued the neutering of the military with all the zeal of the most devout jihadi and don’t get me started on the don’t ask, don’t tell bull$hit, not to mention the massive force reductions that occurred as a result of Clinton’s BS F’n “peace dividend.” Those were eight of the worst years in American military history!!!

Those were VERY, VERY BAD TIMES for the military and a lot of those dumb a$$ ideas only laid the groundwork for ovomit and allowing him to move forward with allowing gays to openly serve and now even pushing the barriers even further by allowing transgenders to serve and have the military pay for re-assignment surgery, no, I’m 100% sure that none of the dumb$hit would have happened on Bush 41’s watch — There may have been other dumb$hit, but tampering with the military would NOT have been one of them.