I just named someone who only served one term recently. Nothing more.

Well, you aren't the person who gave the thrice-wrong answer, as the quote box shows.  But adding "Bush Sr." to that statement without commentary implies endorsement of the answer you added to, making you, technically, wrong by association. 

(i.e. your reply of "Bush Sr." implied that you were clarifying the earlier answer to be "Nixon and Bush Sr.", which would be incorrect.)

Frankly we need to get rid of the party system. Its worthless and split our country into virtually two sides, with a few smaller collectives, that pretty much aim to destroy one-another over having slightly different views.

Given the last poll I saw, if there was a 3rd party that was anti-government (Tea Party), they would be larger than the Republicans, and almost as large as the Dems....So there is the ability for it.

Heck, if Perot hadn't backed out of the 92 election for a few months, he would have beaten Clinton.

So long as he can get people back to work, then his approval ratings will go up.

The tea party i though was nothing more then a very small group of people who though power and media make them seem like the majority of the usa though that way. This is the new problem that the small groups can take over the majority due to technology.

Jski - Its more of a frame of mind and political ideology than just a group of people. It is the anti-spending wing of the American people.

I see but what i had said it true they are finding that in California its these small groups that are contorting the reforms that the publican vote on. Its going to be something as the next generation that going to have to be dealt with. Power though technological control. I think this may be happening to a point with these trends but it would be foolish or very scary to think that its comply due to this.