Sic semper tyrannis
~War is Peace~Freedom is Slavery~Ignorance is Strength~ George Orwell "1984"

few quick points..

1)I am disillusioned with people being disillusined and rewarding the rest of us first with Bush, then with Obama. Why victimize such a great country?  What happened to just watching the weather channel or ESPN if you are disillusioned?

2)While its not hard to find non-liberals who jumped on the Obama bandwagon, this is the first time i've heard of in a while of one of these people who will vote for him agan.. What did it for you, Anton? Which of the numerous resounding successes?

3)On the Tea Party, while I don't necessarily sympathise with everything i hear them talking about, they are simply "nature's cure" to what both parties have created.  You are a rare gem, Anton, who is disillusioned with only one of the two parties.  While in reality there is no dysfunction that republicans are responsible for that the democrats have any hope, even theoretically, of resolving.  And, of course, vice versa.  Democracy cures these periods in US history with phenomena like the Tea Party.  Its not the first time.  The Tea party may not succeed as a political entity, however that block of voters will be available for decades to whatever group chooses to carry them.  And together with the base vote of that group, they create a supermajority that will have a historical role of undoing the bush/obama era, and giving us back our country..  So its just this political system working like its supposed to. 

Well, in the last 3 presidential elections in a row, as this forum shows, I preferred the losing candidate, though not with enough conviction to actually go out and vote.  I even registered for some stupid reason, and all i got out of it was jury duty.

It is hard to say how the situation would be different had Bush and Obama never taken office, as the problems plaguing this country today are more a consequence of the ineptness of both parties and the "disillusionment" of the electorate which by definition percipitates poor decisionmaking, rather than the fault of the individual presidents..  Specifically, McCain would have been not so different frm Obama on the majority of issues, because (in Obama's defense) a lot of what he's done has been forced by the situation during which he took office, and McCain would have been pressured to do the same, which is essentially continue/expand Bush's stimulus rationale, and ensuing control and regulation of the portions of the private sector, that were percieved to be accountable for the "crisis", as dictated by public will, and by proxy, the mass media.

There are only two notable exceptions, where I feel McCain would have done better.  One was a drastically different approach to health care reform,  that I felt would have reduced the cost to the economy while preserving quality and service, and garnering the support to endure future political climates (Obama's will either be repealed by the next conservative, or will be under constant discussion of repeal and political bickering that may retard our governement for decades).   Second - a tax policy more geared towards those who employ people.  For those two reasons alone, I preferred McCain, though overall, I feel that the underlying problems this country is dealing with would not have been addressed by any viable candidate from either party over the last decade.  In my view, the process is now in its infancy (with the Tea Party, as imperfect and feeble as that movement now appears) that is the first step to a supermajority that will eventually produce these candidates. 

Regarding my terminology, the "Bush/Obama" era, I am talking about 2000-2012 (or, god forbid, 2016) during which time this nation will have been gravely injured by a multi-faceted assault from its very own government on its most vital "organs".  Macro-economics is probably the most vital - the era started (as you stated) with a balanced budget of the Clinton/Gingrich alliance (our last arguably competent governement), and will end with borderline national default (at best) of the world's largest economy.  Never in world's history, has so much economic prosperity and opportunity potential been destroyed in such a short period.   Hell, in ANY period.

Other vital organs - including but not limited to military, trade, foreign relations, individual liberties, social problems,  etc. turns out Bush and Obama may have different ideologies and methods, but the in the big picture sense, end result in the context of history for each of these factors, is lining up as if they are the same person.  And in that sense, they are.

So why not group them and call it an "era"?  

History certainly will do just that.

Evgeny,  I think the very forces you describe are taking place in the Republican party as we speak.  As an astute political observer, I watched he Democratic party morph from a balanced party back in the '70's to the ultra liberal party, quasi socialist party it is today.  I remember when the South was totally Democrat.  We had great senators like Sam Nunn and Herman Talmadge from GA just to name a few. (All Democrats.)   But, these Senators added a conservative, more moderating influence upon the Democratic Party, thereby making it far more balanced than it is today.  Consequently, the south was ripe for the taking by the Republicans when Reagan became President.  Since then, the South as a whole has voted Republican simply because the Democrats became too left for us to vote for on almost every single issue, be it defense, economic, moral values, redistribution of income, taxes, etc...  The South has always been for a limited Federal Government, controlled by the Constitution, with limited power and limited influence.  We have always preferred home rule.   Since the Dems want Big Brother to control everything, we left, after they went left.

Back to the Republicans.   There is much internal turmoil in the Republican party exactly because of the forces you and Egor describe.  The true conservatives want to take back the party from the more moderate elements that have led to the fiasco's of the past.  True conservativism wants, indeed demands, a balanced budget.  The Tea party is simply a breakaway from the Republican party.  It is the more true conservatives of the Republican party who are threatening to break away and form a new party unless the Republican party returns to it's more natural roots, i.e. strong national defense, business friendly, low taxes , no nanny state, balanced budget, and much less government interference in business affairs.  In other words, Capitalism.  A government that rewards working people and helps those who are truly needy, but demands individual responsibility from those who simply are too lazy to work, and there are many, many of these kinds of people.

The Republicans will move right.  They have too in order to survive.  Otherwise, IMHO, they will split and the Tea party will become a viable entity.  This move to the right is already taking place before our very eyes.  The Republican candidates in GA are running right as fast as they can go.  Look at Deal for gov.  He is leading.  He's as far right as Obama is left.  This scenario is occuring in every state.  The Republicans will win this November because they moved right.  Now if they only keep there promises, we will return to a more conservative government and prevent the  very bankruptcy of this nation cause by the more moderate and liberal philosophy that has been prevelant during the Bush/Obama era.

khe-khe, its funny how some people still believe in the "underlying system"....  like the crisis we see today is something extraordinary and not a direct result of the very same foundation of this economy.... bubbles based economy will produce "prosperity" periods like Clinton era, but majority of the time it'll be in the gutters....

and it's nothing new... Rome went thru this... so will the US... 

no one is going to overthrow capitalizm, that part is safe. But it's not the same capitalizm as one who built such monsters as Ford , or GE or IBM .... it is now ruled by "effective managers", people with no vision, no morals, no future....

US economy was always based on expansion... there is no place to expand no more.....  US doesn't make nothing anyone wants no more... US is in debt as it never was before....   US is an empire that has come to an end. barbarians have moved in and diluted original population.....  

whole human race is in decline, we missed an opportunity to secure our future, now - we will all die on this rock fighting for last scraps of metal or water or food.... 

There are 3 types of "end of the world" paranoia, which seems to be inherent on the humal psyche in all cultures for all of human history:

1) those dumb enough to give nearterm dates (like "next week", or Y2K, etc.) 

2)A little smarter, those who give dates after they themselves intend to die (so they at least look smart to their contemporary audience).  Mayans, for example.

3)Random threats with no specifics (KGBman).  These, of course, can never be proven wrong :)  And they aren't.  At the very least the sun will burn out or explode someday.

whole institutions, even CIA were surprised by collapse of USSR....

Collapse of US is repeating what happened to Rome very closely..... and at a higher rate..