Let me give you an analogy of our upcoming brain trust coming out of college: Father/Daughter Talk: A young woman was about to finish her first year of college Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth..She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition tohigher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors hadto be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded byasking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting thatshe was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because s he spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.' Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!' The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party'. THIS explains politics in simple terms that even a Democrat can understand.

• http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1120853&format=comments#cnum389674

During my early adult life both parties could be categorized as "centrist", with the Rebublicans leaning more toward the concervative side and the Democrats leaning more toward the populist side. There were moderate republicans and there were conservative Democrats.

The Republican focus was on creating a politican and business environment that was friendly to individual initiative and business development. Under this scenario businesses, especially small businesses which employ most American workers, could prosper without the burdens of excess taxation, bureaucratic regulation, and labor union "featherbedding" that stifled productivity. Everybody, from the lowest paid worker to the highest paid executive, was able to keep more of the money they had worked so hard to earn. Some people did find themselves in a desperate financial situation, and there were few government sponsored safery nets, but the system was intended to encourage and reward individual responsibility, and for the most part it accomplished this very successfully. Many baby boomers, myself included, achieved great success in this environment.

Then the Kennedy/Johnson Democrats gained power. The focus was shifted to governement regulation and the redistribution of wealth. During this period we saw the growth of civil rights legislation, environmental regulations, greater regulation of employment, OSHA, and massively expanded federal welfare programs of all types. This did result in some positive outcomes for the most needy, but only at a great cost to productive Americans. During this time I was experiencing my greatest earnings growth, and I found my taxes increasing exponentially to fund somebody else's laziness. And to add insult to injury we were seeing significant cost-of-living inflation related largely to the federal government's deficit spending. It was during this period that the Republicans very successfully exploited the segregation issue in the South to win over many formerly Democratic populist working class voters whose fear of integration trumped their hatred and distrust of the greedy "fat cat" businessmen whom they belived were exploiting them. I was converted to Republicanism during this period and have remained a registered Republican.

Then we had the first Bush administration followed by the Clinton administration. Althought Bush Sr presented himself as a conservative, and Clinton was viewed as a liberal, both were in fact moderates who seemed able to work effectively with both sides. Who remembers that "Read my lips - no new taxes" Bush raised taxes, or that Clinton, working with a Republican congress, signed the welfare reform act? All those welfare moms had to go to work for McDonalds to make ends meet (no pun intended). How unfair:) Bush Sr was defeated by Clinton mostly because of one of the best decisions he made while in office, to get out of Iraq once we have accomplished our goal of driving them back across the Kuwait border. Clinton was a good leader except for two things: 1) They had to reinforce the floor of the oval office to support his enourmous ego, and 2) he couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

Finally, W was elected, and I'm now ashamed to say I voted for him the first time around. The Republican party became the party of Neo-conservatives and Evangelican Christians. Federal regulatory agencies were neutered, and wherever there was a conflict between science and the bible, the bible won (intelligent design taught as science, stem cell research, etc.) Under Bush I we had Desert Storm, a well thoght out, morally justified, and honestly presented war. Uhder Bush II we got the Iraq war. Anybody see a difference? Republicans became very close to big business interests, and when you combine this with lax oversight we got Enron, and now the big meltdown. What used to be more than 20 major oil companies is now three megagiants. Of course, the Democrats aren't entirely blameless either.

So now we find outselves with our way of life threatened for the first time since the Great Depression by greedy people who flew just under the regulatory radar. We find ouselves in another year of a war we can't win, yet we dare not cut and run. The typical western european hates us, and their leaders must respond accordingly. We're inching toward another cold war with Russia. We have no viable energy policy. Our healthcare system is broken. What did I miss?

So this election I'm supporing Obama as the lesser of two evils, simply because he is more likely to develop and implement an energy policy that makes some sense, at least in the long run with its greater foucs on non renewable supplies, he will get us out of Iraq sooner, he will at least attempt to fix the broken heathcare system instead of just talking about it, etc. But realistically, afer all the "bailout" money is spent neither candidate will have many good options.

However, if McCain wins I'm cosoled that he will not be as incompetent as Bush and that he will have a more pragmatic, less ideologically driven approach to solving our problems. The things I like the most about McCain are the things that the neocons and the evangelicals dislike the most. Which, I suppose, explains why I so fear and dislike Palin so much as his VP candidate.

What's needed for the future is neither of the current leading parties. I would change my alliegance in a heartbeat to a new "centrist" party whose members understand our heritage and our values, but vote for more pragmatic solutions rather than a blind alliegance to religious biases, conservative principles, liberal principles, etc. That's just my two cents.

Now, maybe "what I hear" isn't accurate, but then again, it comes from interviews with Clinton and others. Maybe those were sound bites and there is a larger context, but it does stand to reason that a liberal agenda to promote spreading the wealth would do this. It doesn't stand to reason that a bank operating solely on free market principles would extend loans to dangerously high risk borrowers. Banks, as a general rule, are pretty conservative institutions with a fairly low tolerance for risk.

I see Republicans as being basically three different types. There are Libertarians that don't want to throw away their vote, so vote Republican for fiscal reasons. These are people that percieve Republicans to want limited government. They are sort of fiscally conservative, but not so much socially. I think that is a big group, growing all the time. Maybe after a while, this group will actually be able to vote Libertarian. Then there are people that are socially conservative, but maybe not so much fiscally. Those are the ones that vote for right to life, gay marriage bans, etc. Bush is probably of this type, both father and son. Then there are the ones that are really pretty moderate, centerists as you say. They are not really all that conservative. McCain seems to be this way to me.

Democrats seem to have more different "flavors". There are the college kids and idealists. They seem to vote strictly by emotion. Make a movie like "the China Syndrome" and you have a decade of "no nukes" types. (Then two decades later they'll change their mind) One step up from that, and you have the ones that want socialized medicine, increased assistance programs and stuff like that. They're sort of idealists too, but they tend to think through the problems and look for solutions a little more. Of course, they haven't thought it through far enough to see how truly socialized medicine works, how it provides mediocre care, things like giving nitro pills to elderly with bad hearts and lets them die because it cannot afford angioplasty and bypass surgery. Then you have the union workers and those types. They seem to me to be the closest to the WWII-era Democrats, in that they just want representation for the middle class. Then there are the plethora of single position Dems, the trial lawyers that resist tort reform, the right to choose people, the minorities, etc.

I don't particularly like any of these except the Libertarian approach. I wish that party would reach critical mass. But in the meantime, I'm voting McCain/Palin. Obama scares me, he's so liberal I'm afraid of an economic crash and I think he is unlikely to provide a good influence in our energy policy.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We're in trouble now, but I think the more we socialize things, the worse shape we'll be in.

• Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

Once again, all trails lead back to Bush's cutback on reinforcement of existing laws. "...the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks..."

This video might become the swift boat of the current campaign except it's too long to be used as a tv ad. The message everybody should learn from the current crisis is to never underestimate the ability of the average American to make irresponsible choices, or the ability of the typical business executive to help him make those bad choices.

Which is why we need a canddiate with at least some integrity, like Obama, who is willing to regulate business.

• Community Reinvestment Act