Don,

Just asking.
I´ve just read that Kennedy had an ""unrepentant Republican in the midst of Kennedy's Democratic cabinet" C. Douglas Dillon and of course Clinton had a Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. Maybe we could even add Greenspan here. :)

How many Democrats held high government positions in the last few Republican administrations? Say during Bush I, Bush II and Reagan?

I´m well aware that a "token" opposition politician not necessarily means anything. But I´m just curious. Did any of the last three or four Republican Presidents feel even the need to employ a Democrat in a critical administration position?

"Why are Europeans so obsessed with this? Get a life. Mind your own business, control freaks. I almost hope Huckabee becomes the next president just to see the Euro meltdown over not having their way with us. It would be hilarious. Again."

Having our way with you????

Sorry, not interested in that. No meltdown here.
I suggest you call some former Republican politicians if you´re interested in such activities. :)
And by the way, congratulations for the last seven hilarious years!

---

"I agree with the comments above, though Obama is the only Democrat I can stomach. That's because he is the one calling for an end to the politics of character assassation = the Democratic Party's only tactic."

That´s interesting.

Remember the Republican primary 2000? South Carolina?
Smear campaign against McCain? His wife allegedly a drug addict, his adopted daughter from Bangladesh allegedly his own illegitimate child?

Or how about this Op-Ed?
http://tinyurl.com/yyp2jx
"Frank Schaeffer: I should be supporting Allen. Instead, I'm leaving the party."
DallasNews November 1, 2006

Max Cleland 2002?

[Republican candidate] "Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."
USAToday 11/6/2002

"If the mugging of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia is a fair indicator of what is to come, the fall elections will be ugly. Cleland, a decorated [Vietnam] veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.""
"Chambliss did not participate in Vietnam. He had a bad knee, he told columnist Mark Shields,..."
WaPo June 20, 2002

Just three examples that I, a German interested in domestic and foreign policy, remembered. Easily found on the web. I would suggest that the Republican party is no stranger to smear tactics either.

---

"But he dances around the specifics to conseal the fact that he is practically a socialist. We don't want that here."

Interesting again.
Now I don´t want to spend time on the fact that you probably don´t know what a "socialist" really is.
But maybe I can turn your attention to an "old" NYT article?

"Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party -- their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states -- the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers -- are left to carry the load."
NYT January 30, 2004

So Republicans were and probably still are redistributing federal tax dollars from "blue states" to "red states". If that isn´t socialist...? :)

Ohh...
and before I forget:
www,treasurydirect.gov
Government section
The debt of the United States
Debt to the penny

Total public debt outstanding:
01/20/2000 $ 5,706,174,969,873.86
12/31/2007 $ 9,229,172,659,218.31

That´s supposed to be conservative?
Fiscally responsible?
And the Democrats are socialists?
Give me a break!

Now I´m an "Old European, dirty hippie, liberal, atheist, gay loving, socialist (did I forget something?)" guy but I would absolutely "crucify" my government if they almost doubled public debts in just seven years.
You seem strangely relaxed about it...?

Because Republican partisans can´t deal well with jokes and facts?

You made three accusations.

1) Europeans just live around American politics.
We are interested sure but our life doesn´t depend on American politics. So, no meltdown. Accept it and get a life.

And by the way, you didn´t answer that.

2) You said that "character assassination = the Democratic Party's only tactic".
I answered that with three visible current examples where the Republican party used that tactic.

And by the way, you didn´t answer that either.

3) You accused Barack Obama of being a socialist.

Once again, you didn´t answer my question.

----

Simply put, you avoided answering any of my questions.
You told us in your original comment that Obama was a socialist and that Americans wouldn´t like that.

Once I objected, you tried to tell me that I and Europeans are the racists.
Sorry, you made the accusations. You made the statements.
Try to weasel out of them.

"But he dances around the specifics to conseal the fact that he is practically a socialist. We don't want that here."

"I forgot to mention that Kennedy got elected largely on accusing the Republicans of being "soft on Communism." Remember him blockading Cuba? Just the kind of thing Euros scream about."

Uh huh.
Except that the Euros didn´t scream about it.
Remember De Gaulle:
"No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me."

Of course he´s just a cheese eating surrender monkey. And who would mention that without the help of France the 13 colonies might have lost their war against Great Britain?
Certainly not your friends at the NRO.

"Remember the stand-offs at the Berlin Wall? And then there's that little thing known as the Domino Theory and Vietnam."

Nobody forgets the stand-offs at the Berlin wall.
Given current history I´m not that certain about the "Domino Theory". Could you produce one link proving the relevance of the "domino theory" today? And maybe another link proving that while the "domino theory" might be wrong today, it was the only plausible theory back then?

"Where are Germans getting their history from? Pure imagination?"

Uh no.
Unless something changed a lot, German history is focused on WW2.
I´m not so sure where you are getting your history from?
NRO? Weekly Standard?

"And as for Civil Rights, though he and most Democrats wanted it, they didn't want to alienate the Southern Democrats, but the issue was thrust on him in a way he couldn't dodge. Yes, it was DEMOCRATS from the South who were philibustering the Civil Rights Act and fighting it tooth and nail."

Uh huh.
And once the Civil Rights Act happened, which party tried to attract dissatisfied Southern Democrats?
And which party usually got most of the votes in the South in the last 40 years?
You know, after the Civil Rights Act happened?

So, should I conclude that Southern Democrats in the 1960s fought JFK "tooth and nail"? But once they entered the benevolent folds of the Republican party they just forgot about the Civil Rights Act?
Just why is that a little hard to believe?

"Kennedy was also the first president to bring us out of a recession by cutting taxes."

That´s maybe true if my recollection of tax rates back then is true. Of course simply cutting taxes - especially for the richest ones- doesn´t do it. Not to mention that I seem to remember that later recessions were a bit harder and deeper.

"In short, today Kennedy would be a Republican."

That´s probably very unlikely.
1) Kennedy wasn´t stupid.
2) He would probably be appalled of the amount of public debts today.
3) Unlike Republicans today he was a trusted statesman.
Even the French trusted him.
4) He was a Catholic. Given the Republican base today, I´m not sure he could have won a Republican primary.

Very good analysis I think.

Reading blogs and media websites I´ve started to see the same things. (While acknowledging that since I´m not an American citizen and not living in the USA, my own tentative conclusions count very little.)

Concerning the IHT article I think it´s a bit of hype so far. Of course German newspapers will report about the US primaries. And comparing one candidate to Kennedy - who´s still an icon in Germany too - probably doesn´t hurt circulation.

Not to mention that charismatic and likable candidates speaking about change probably would resonate in Germany too. Wages here have been stagnant too, job insecurity has increased. And sadly, our politicians don´t inspire a lot of enthusiasm.

Not to me!

I´m afraid I have to shock you.

Just google pictures of the "Supreme Court".
Federal and state.
What you´ll see are men and women in long black
robes. Totally hiding their figure. Long sleeves.
Totally - gasp - following Islamic rules!
The only thing left is a head gear.

In short, your American Supreme Court is totally
"islamized".

Just compare this to pictures of the German Supreme Court (called "Bundesverfassungsgericht").
Evidently these men and women are wearing robes too.
Brilliant red robes (probably indicating their socialist tendencies and trying to focus attention on them :) ) plus white ties.

Viewing the pictures of the highest courts in Germany and the USA I can only conclude that American judges are a lot closer to Islamic courts than German ones.

/sarcasm