[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Yes, I know that very well. I simply took issue with "a strong economic situation", which we did not have in 2000.

Whether we had one or not doesn't really matter. The public obviously thought we did, and they certainly weren't "weary" of the incumbent, which is the point that I was responding to.

My reaction had nothing to do with Bush (which you know I have no love for, nor the neo-cons), but the erroneous phrase of "far, far right" in general. Whether Bush had to go right of Buchanan (whatever that mean since it's hard to pin down Buchanan on the spectrum) or whether Bush was there all along, I don't know. No, my reaction was simply that even a hardcore neo-con would not be considered far right, when put in perspective of true single-line political/cultural spectrum.

Well, I guess it depends on what you consider "far, far" right, which would be a really silly exercise. It just depends on how you're looking at the scale. My whole point is that He had to move away from the center, and it hampered his re-election prospects.

I was a bit surprised that you took such an antagonistic tone in responding to my post, because I wasn't making some leftist political argument. I was simply stating what happened in the 1992 and 2000 elections.