I think there are lots of important distinctions between the parties still, though for sure less than there used to be with whats happened to the republican party. (as far as i can tell the beloved "neo-con" is nothing more than a religious zealot with the spending habits of a liberal.)
Ironically, I fail to see this misconception of how a neo-con is 'just' a zealot with a penchant for spending. Neo-cons are fascist enablers at the very least [look at how Bush has turned 9/11 into a Big Brother scenario. A neo-con takes the worst aspects of the conservatives, and amplifies the most offensive aspects. And let the record show, that not all "Liberals" [if you want to call Democrats Liberals. :rotflmao:] are big spenders. I'm a self-proclaimed Green, and am one of the most frugal and responsible individuals you will come across in your lifetime.
But to name a few things of import in this election: do you support gay marriage? do you want to keep the US military in Iraq? do you support the US foreign policy of isolating countries like Iran and North Korea? do you want to spend money on a 700 mile fence? do you want to spend money on a missile defense shield? With things like that on the table its hard for me to see how both parties are "the same".
First of all, I think the Government should have no business in what goes on in it's citizens bedrooms, as long as what does go on is consentual. As I have stated many a time in the past, we have three options in Iraq, increase the troop population by at least three or four times, leave, or continue to occupy their country [as history shows, any occupation, friendly or otherwise stirs negative tensions] the death toll will only rise. Our current foreign policy is spearheaded by a bunch of moronic neo-cons, who think holding their chins in the air, and slapping the terrorists on the wrists will have some sort of effect. In a nutshell, we need negotiate, and come to an accord. Obviously, N. Korea wants attention. Why else would they set off a nuclear weapon, and when offered a chance to talk, they end their program? They obviously have something to say, and we can't sit back and ignore them, while branding them as evil. The 700 Mile fence is the single most idiotic legislative measure since the Telecommunications Act of 1994. Let it be known [by golly!] that there ARE other ways to get into this country. Ask the Cubans, Asians, and our friends to the North for suggestions on how to get into this country illegally.
As far as charisma and leadership: I'm not sure why you think thats unique to American politics, or that American voters aren't aware of it, or that its a bad thing. Its a fact of humanity: some people are charismatic and come off as leaders, others don't. Of course ideas matter, but it also matters how well you persuade people to your cause, how good you look doing it, etc. It's a valid consideration for an electorate to consider the leadership skills (both hard skills and softer skills like speech and likability) of their president, or any other leadership position which is why you see smart looking charismatic people in CEO positions in companies. You rarely (though occasionally, eg: bill gates) see anti-social genius types as successful leaders.
I also don't buy that the government (or more specifically the president) doesn't impact the economy. The government directly impacts the economy by taking money out and putting money into it. (Taxes and spending) It is the biggest spender and the biggest taker of funds. It provides banks stability, which in turn provide stability to nearly everything else. Its why the wrong words out of the chairman of the federal reserves mouth can send the market into a 500 point tail spin. The government impacts the economy dramatically. Directly through spending and taxation, and indirectly through educational and other policies.
To your point about money and votes I agree. Its a tough nut to crack since asking congress to pass laws like real campaign finance reform is like asking someone not to breathe. Aside from the amount of money politicians spend for votes, whats more concerning to me is how obligated they become to the people who gave them the money they needed to win the votes.
Eh, I find the most disgusting aspect of campaigning to be attack ads. There's nothing less Democratic than attacking your opponent with hearsay and propaganda, and using it as political collateral.
