Reply #16: And blues90, I agree with you that the issue isn't simple...

[DeSwiss]

....but for most of America that's the way it seems we prefer for our problems to be cast -- in the simplest of terms. If we bog the issue down in the minutae of all the details everyone will simply turn it off mentally.

Repukes are always appealing to people's emotions on issues like the so-called sanctity of marriage and patriotic themes of nationalism -- as well as the use of "the poor little children" ploy, that seems to portray the idea that the government can raise and protect kids better than parents. Mainly by controlling what we can read, see, hear and by monitoring everyone or if all else fails, putting us in jail.

And yet our policies and actions do more to jeopardize their future than anything else. We are leaving them a legacy of a polluted earth that will be they're responsibility to clean up. And we're also leaving them tons of spent nuclear waste that they'll have to find a place for. So maybe this is the political approach that should be used: "If we don't change this now, we're killing our kids."

As for the leadership question, the problem there is that the very interests who finance elections, are the same ones whose only interest is in maintaining the status quo. So obviously appealing to people in the strongest terms emotionally is the only way to convince them to ignore the pat answers, the nervous nellies and the doomsayers and their moaning and complaints about "why we can't," and start listening to politicians whose message is about "how we can."

IMHO

~DeSwiss