Politicians know how to play to their strengths and the voters weaknesses. Some politicians are better at it then others.

Then we have politicians who shoot themselves in the foot. One example is occuring in California in the race for governor. Angelides has democrats against him.

Politicians tend to play to a group or groups of voters, which will give them a large block of votes. Promise these groups what they want to hear and do what you please. Come the next election the voters will have forgotten what you did or what you did not do and you win again. You really have to do something bad for the voters to turn against you.

Then we have politicians who win only because of his/her personality. Competency and representing your constituents is of little importance in such a case. Historically we have politicians who stay in office because they express the will of the people. Well, some of the people. Just think of segregation and the south as an example.

Either politicians should be allowed to serve only one term or each citizen should serve for one year in a political office. A frequent good house cleaning helps to keep the environment better for everyone and does not serve the few.



>I would agree about the estate tax. He obviously looked at it solely from a personal point of view. However, from everything else I've read and heard, this is the only case where I would argue that point.
>
>Everything else is a clear case of publicly stating points of view that the religious right wanted to hear, while actually doing as little as possible. For example, and this is something that was mentioned earlier in the bush presidency, the author, along with his team were responsible for ensuring that republican speeches contained phrases that had significant meaning to the religious right. To the lay person, these phrases meant nothing. They were basically code words to evangelicals.
>
>You can look up Keith Oblermann. He's talked about this the last 2 nights, and you can find clips of his interviews to see more examples of what's discussed in the book.
>
>In addition, Tucker Carlson has brought up this very point earlier. When he was questioned about how he could arrive at a viewpoint that evangelicals were used, he said something about because he lives with these people all day and he knows what they think. And that they could care less about the religious right, other then doing whatever they can to get their vote.
>
>>It appears that the author has a 'more less' accurate view of the current administration. Not surprised at all.
>>
>>However, I have an issue with one of the items - specifically the estate tax. First, stating that only the richest americans benefited from ending the estate tax to begin with is false. Anyone who has had to deal with federal taxes on estates after losing a family member can attest to that (myself being one). True, americans would donate revenue from the sale of the estate to charities to avoid paying the tax (or donate the estate), but that doesn't mean that americans should continue to suffer an estate tax just so charities can get their financial support via that route. I didn't read more indepth (I would have to get the book) to determine if I disagreed with any other items but that one had a personal touch for me so it jumped right out.
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/12/tempting-faith-christian-conservatives-duped-by-bushco-part-ii/