Sane.  The ones consider nuts, are Odonnel and Angle who both lost .  Though I'd like to point out that the same kinds of attacks were made on those that won.

Rand Paul example was accused of being part of a secret society that thinks the bible is a hoak.  (Not wrong mind you... but a hoax.)

That he kidnapped a woman, forced her to smoke pot and than forced her to woship a "False Idol" called "Aqua Buddha".

A big reason he one was because in that race said "Ok, that's enough fucking dumb personal attacks." and the democrat plunged in the polls after the ads.

Honestly I'm beggining to think the whole thing with most of these candidates was just a political screw job and they were all sane.

Just like John McCain's "illegitamite black baby" (Aka his adopted son.)  and all the things people started believing about Hilary Clinton during her primary vs Obama.

Fact: American extreme liberals =  closer to a moderate in the rest of the world. Do some research on politics around the world, the U.S media does not define the world.

Just because you post a lot on politics in a form does not make you a guru.

Oh, sorry that I didn't read your previous post but I'm pretty sure I was not even talking to you when I entered this thread. If you think attacking someone's intelligence as a conversation starter, than you need to no longer wonder why you can't get laid. You are not correct, you are politically correct, which means you are always wrong.

I am not an extreme liberal, I'm an "independent," but I don't let a label define me. I will always vote liberal simply because they are the only ones that create less wars and to some extent progress human equality. This is more important than money, the economy, and traditions but apparently no thinks so because their actions shows the contrary. If I was going to start a business, I would hire a republican.

Kasz, stop arguing with him and go get laid or something.

Girlfriend is busy writing a paper for publication. 

His voting record in 2008 was the 187th most liberal according to the National Journal. Their more recent vote ratings are behind a paywall, but if anything he has probably moved down and not up over the past couple of years.

You probably don't believe in sex anyway, you right wing nutcase.

Riiiiight.  Yet you think there are no extreme liberals.... and gerrymandering only helps republicans.

Your doing a pretty crappy job at being independant.

As for the less wars thing... you must have a short memory... lets look at the major conflicts since WW2.

WW2 - Democrat

Korean War - Democrat

Vietnam - Democrat

Desert Storm - Republican

Bosnia - Democrat

Yugoslavia - Democrat

Operation Desert Fox and other bombings of Iraq - Democrat (The ones under clinton, some people claimed he did it just to help his approval ratings"

Afganistan War - Republican

Iraq War - Republican

Final tally Democrats 6 - Republicans 3.   Outside of the final Iraq war, i'd doubt any of those wars would of been avoided... and even Iraq only happened because of a few specific people in charge.  If Clinton was president instead of Bush we probably would of been at war with Korea before they got the nukes.

Not to menion that to even start a war you need congressional approval which means both sides agree on it.

Hilary Clinton in the primaries was calling for the invasion of Iran... and Barak O bama said we'd basically invade Pakistan without their approval to get at Al Queda.

There is no real "anti-war" party.

Thanks for this site! It's extremely informative. I wish they'd update it with 2010/current candidates.

come on now the republican party is different then it used to be.  I would probably be a republican 20-30 years ago and before, but i can't bring myself to be one in today's politics.