>>I'd vote for making the word 'Republican' to mean corrupt, narrow minded, bible belt and hypocritism . Because this liberal beating is ridiculous. Sure, no side is innocent of anything, but using the word liberal as a name calling in itself is really where civilisation stops. I have been liberal in my country for all of my voting life. And though you might say: well, I could have guessed that, keep in mind that liberal up here does not mean what you think it means. It is as far right as you can go in holland (in mainstream anyways). That's why I laugh at those imcompetent americans who have poisoned their politics with corruption, mud throwing and have sickened their population in pointing out the other political party as beeing some kind of creepy entity and blame them for everything that goes wrong. I guess you will take everything that happens in life as Good or Wrong and liberal and republican. This typically a stance that belongs in an age of 500 years ago.

>Fortunately your vote wouldn't count over here. So your myopic view is a non factor.

Watch out, that is what they said to arnold swarzenegger as well :)

>>Maybe you should go on a trip through europe and ask in every european country what they think of President Bush and americans in general. You'll be surprised of what about half a billion voices have to tell about the US. I'd say: Grow up!! All seemed to be much better under clinton.

>That'a a Eurocentric view of us and our leadership. I take comfort in the fact that many Europeans don't like Bush, because so many are liberal.

Nope, we have more (social) democrats than liberals (big difference, because the social democrats are on the centre and left and the liberals are on the right (yes right)). And we did not complain about ronald regan.

>Bush isn't a Ronald Regan, but fortunately he isn't a Jimmy (which way is up) Carter or a Bill (I'd like to meet your wife) Clinton either.

Bill was popular up here. He still is.

Walter,