And overall supports intellectualism.

And unionism, protectionism, and high taxes.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I stumble into the wrong party?

Where's the party for people that support an open country with strong privacy rights and a dynamic business environment?

You did, actually. But you have creationism trailing behind you. Like a big superhero cape.

What?

Unions, higher taxes, whatever, just don't compare to Guantanamo, Rendition, and Creationism.

And its not entirely clear he'll fix those, but there's hope.

Obama voted for Bush's FISA bill. He voted for the PATRIOT Act II. He voted to continue the war. He chose as VP the guy who claimed to have written much of the PATRIOT Act to pass in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing.

I don't trust Obama on those issues at all, given his record. Bringing sanity to the war on terror isn't that important to him.

McCain also said he would close Guantanamo and end torture.

I'm sorry, but this party looks like a bunch of folks obsessing over a pretty politician who is moderately awful on the issues after 8 years of one who was completely awful on the issues, and not nearly as pretty.

And you should care about unionism. The 94% of Americans who aren't in unions are going to be fleeced by protectionist bills to pad the pockets of the powerful unions that support the Democratic Party.

Well if you are going to call out Obama for those votes, don't quote McCain as opposing Guantanamo Bay when he voted FOR waterboarding.

I agree that for me, torture trumps unions. I don't like unions, but they are fading. Torture is just unacceptable.

The unions will not fade. Their biggest membership comes from federal government workers, whose numbers burgeoned under Bush and are bound to grow under Obama. Also, union firms like GM are getting $billions from the Federal Government to make up for the fact that they can't turn a profit on the market (the airlines did this, too). Tax money will keep them alive even if they are the dinosaurs of the marketplace.

When anti-China tariffs come down the line, you can thank the unions. Obama will not deny them. You can also nix the idea of school choice under an Obama administration, since the National Teacher's Union is a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. It's no wonder that Obama's plan for education is basically "more money! more money!". The unions couldn't have written a more favorable plan themselves.

I think you are wrong about schools. Obama repeatedly mentioned support of Charter schools (though not vouchers) in the debates. He specifically mentioned Michelle Rhee in DC as doing good work, which is highly encouraging to many of us who think Democrats have been on the wrong side of the education debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee

PS, I think you are right about "card check", which seems to me like one of the most important issues in this election which has gotten approximately zero public debate.

The unions have been fading, though. Under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and onwards

I'd rather have weak, declining unions than strong anti-science conservatives like Ms. Palin running loose.

If only it was as black and white as you make it out to be: someone voted X on bill Y, they obviously feel X about Y. I shudder to think what it would be like if all the compromises I had to make every day were laid bare and presented in an absolute either-or form. Considering the complexity of bills and the amendments that are added and even the way they name them (PATRIOT is a prime example), I'm not so sure it's wise to interpret every single boolean vote as documenting someone's entire position on an issue.

'Fix' Creationism? How do you fix a belief? By keeping it out of schools?

The right to create unions is a fundamental American protection. I realize in our lifetimes we have seen some unions become more of a problem then a benefit. This is what happens to most institutions as they become too big and "crufty". Sometimes you swing too far in one direction. The system corrects itself. But to trash one part of the constitution while savagely protecting another part is simply unacceptable. Its all or nothing.

And so far as protectionism goes. This is just another feeling that I am certain _most_ Americans will start swinging in the other direction on. The next year will see China<->U.S. sentiments on both sides growing very tense.

And high taxes? Get this straight: When the FED/Treasury "prints" money, that is a tax!!! And the last 8 years we've seen massive amounts this form of debt.

I have no problem with unions as such. However, I do have a problem when they use their concentrated political power to get themselves government favors at the expense of the rest of the country. Bailouts for failing industries and protectionist measures benefit unions while harming the nation as a whole. They expect the Democratic Party to sacrifice the interests of the nation for their benefit, and it looks like they will get their pound of flesh.

In addition, unions have many legal rights outside of a normal, voluntary gathering of people. In many states, they can force new employees of a company to join. Democrats are currently pushing for legislation to eliminate secret ballots for the formation of unions. When employee preferences are no longer secret, they can be coerced and threatened into supporting the union, which should enable Democrats to increase their union base. In addition, unions can force their employers to bargain with them by law, instead of by voluntary agreement by both parties. Federal law prohibits its agencies from paying contractors less than the union price, which is often high above the market price of similar services.

It is no coincidence that heavily unionized sectors of our economy tend to be failing, bloated, and stagnant. The big ones are undoubtedly a negative influence on American society. And they undoubtedly run the economic program of the Democratic Party; it surely isn't run by any coherent economic school of thought that I can recognize.

Your worlds are clear you do not like how political parties have abused unions. Fair enough. Political parties have abused lots of systems.

I'm not a Democrat. I have never been a member of any political party and hopefully never will. You do seem to have in for the Democrats though. Yes, they are in bed with Union officials and people that abuse the intents of a union. And yes, the Republicans are a bunch of rat bastards as well ;).

I really think that in lieu of the recent Wall Street bailouts and given who benefited, you should go "hawking" your "Democrats give too many handouts" somewhere else. Its falling on deaf ears. I have never heard either party provide a coherent economic plan. And that goes back to Reagonmics. They've have 20++ years to show that "trickle down" does anything but further stretch the socio-economic fabric.

I vote for my perceived integrity of the person. I don't much care whether they swing right or left, as long as they get stuff done and do so with integrity.

I don't see how "trickle down" has "stretched the socio-economic fabric". I don't want to live in a country with 70%+ top marginal tax rates. That borders on evil. I wouldn't want to live in a country that never had Reagonomics, and neither would a lot of business owners that currently employ our citizens.

If you google "economic inequality" you will find many resources to educate on how U.S. style economics of the last 30 years have contributed in greater economic inequality, to which most believe is a major underlying factor of social problems.

As to your assertion that the rich live in 70% tax brackets, this is quite untrue. The 70% bracket is unfair but few Americans actually find themselves in this bracket. Those in this bracket are high-wage earners, mostly doctors and lawyers, that don't have much outlets for tax reduction. This group is unfairly punished at the moment and it would be wise to fix this problem.

If you as an entrepreneur find yourself even remotely close to a 70% tax bracket, I highly encourage you to post something to HN like "Ask HN: Please help me find a tax planner with two brain cells to rub together" ;).

There are lots of risks entrepreneurs take. But one reward is great opportunity to reduce tax both as you go and after a big payoff.

As to your feeling that you wouldn't want to live in a a country that never had Reaganomics...there are many great Americans (those that created what we have now) that lived before 1980 that do not share your feelings.

I'm not trying to be abusive. I'm writing this to provide additional perspective.

With regards to unions, the government refused to back the GM-Chrysler loans to build "fuel efficient cars".

With regards to Wall St., AIG has received almost $123 billion in government-backed loans. If anything, it seems like the non-union, free market insurance industry is failing, bloated, and stagnant.

I Democrat's have the young and unions, Republicans have farmers, defense contractors, and old people. It's the same thing "Protect subset X of the population at the expense of everyone else" but I think unions are less damaging to the country for now.

Farmers and old people are pandered to by both parties. Remember, it is the Republican in this race that ran against farm subsidies, while the Democrat whole-heartedly supported them. Remember, too, that support for replacing Social Security with privately-owned retirement accounts is solely a Republican idea. Democrats answer to future deficits in the Social Security program is "tax the rich". That seems to be their answer to a lot of problems. I hope they have read up on their parables involving golden geese.

There is some truth to the old Republican saw that the Republican Party is a coalition of ideologies, while the Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups. It just so happens that a particularly stupid and nasty ideology that most Republicans don't really like has been in the ascendancy since Bush brought it in by stealth. Hopefully, that will change.

Republican's just added the prescription drug plan one of the largest expansions of the federal government in a while.

Farmers get help from both sides but if you look at who votes on specific bills there is significantly more support on the Republican side.

As to old people when they where talking about privatizing social security they where going to increase SS taxes to pay for their plan and not actually reduce spending.

PS: What I think is odd about Republican support is how their support of these groups is in opposition of their stated ideals of free trade (except for sugar) etc.

The Libertarian party: we'll be waiting over there with the whack-jobs in the Green party until America's ready.

When America's ready for your policies, the major parties will steal them piecemeal.

That would be lovely, thanks.

In Germany if you do an across the board left-shift there's an analogous party structure:

  - Social Democrats (Democrats)
  - Christian Democrats (Republicans)
  - Liberals (Libertarians)
  - Greens

(There's also an additional Marixst party.)

Here the Greens and the Liberals (note that "liberal" outside of the US implies classical liberalism) grew up a lot as being a part of main-stream politics. I really wish that were possible in the US because it forces the other points in the political spectrum to actually deal with reality and softens their rhetoric in a pragmatic, but effective way. German Greens nearly as crack-potted as American ones as a result.

And as a cabinet member. A CTO sitting at the table with the Sec of Defense and Sec of State.