just once in my adult life i would like the oppurtunity to vote for someone that i believed in, in national politics, instead of for the lesser of two evils.............ray
Heh ... reminds me of something Mae West is supposed to have said: "When I have to choose between two evils, I always try to pick one I haven't tried before".
I agree. People like us have too many scruples and not enough money to run so were stuck with this system. It's like deciding which chevy to buy cause thats all there is for sale. sad huh. I would like to see an Abe Lincoln on the ballots. Some poor fella that dont take crap and does whats right not what the other snakes tell them to do.
The last president i voted for because i wanted to was Ronald Regan and it looks like i won,t vote for one i want this year. But this is the way the power brokers have it set up and in the end its makes little difference. By the way the united states is a federation not a democracy this was to ensure that small states did not have the same power as large states in the house. Representatives alloted by population. With congress being equal so small states don't gripe to much.
I'd feel more sorry for you folks were you actually doing anything about it. But I haven't seen you folks in here suggesting anyone, pulling for someone worth voting for. I came on this board and supported McCain when he was in the dumpster. And the notion of power brokers being in charge of this is laughable... Sure, rich and powerful people have more actual influence than we do. But did the rich and powerful decide Huckabee was going to come from nowhere and challenge Romney in Iowa, having been outspent by multiples? Hardly. But someone isn't going to come from the grassroots and just show up on a national ticket. If you want something better, you need to fight for something better. I have no doubt that it was people who believe in McCain who have caused his resurgence because they wouldn't let it go. Certainly the rich and power brokers also don't want McCain..... So, play the liberal populist card of the rich and entitled controlling things as you do little more than said whining, or you could actually give participation a go..... not this time, of course, but if you aren't happy with who has been selected for you to choose from, perhaps you need to intercede earlier in the process.
I don't like anyone, yet. Closest is McCain on the war, but little else he offers, except maybe the economy; and maybe Romney, but need to see more of him. It's really early, but I'm not excited about anyone yet, can't rememeber ever being "excited" about any candidate except for JFK, but I was too young to vote then. Why does the media like McCain, the way they like Obama? That part concerns me!
Because he talks to them... he takes them on his bus and does interviews for hours. Reporters dig that. I doubt it's his conservative voting record that pleases them. And sure, if you wait for who is served up to you, you'll never be excited. You were only excited for JFK because you were too young to know any better or to recognize his flaws. But if you're unhappy with who you're given, you can't wait until primaries are already happening to change them. In any other cycle the nominations would've already been sewn up... so, the folks out there that don't know enough about the candidates...... well.... logic dictates you don't really care. If you cared, you'd know who they were. And if you knew who they were before people started voting, the votes might go differently. But waiting to be presented with the candidate that has duped the rest of the polity isn't the way to get what you claim you want. Which leads me to believe that's not really what you want... at least not as much as ignoring it until you are forced to face the election...... but then you get to complain about your options at least, right? This campaign has been going on for more than a year. Anyone that doesn't know what these candidates are for has very little room to complain that these are the candidates.
They keep changing positions on issues; now Huck is for a wall, but he also allowed Mex consul to have office space for a dollar when he was Ark. gov., and would not let state "cooperate" in INS issues. So which is it? McCain wanted amnesty, he even said the word, now, having seen the light, his is for stemming the tide of illegal immigration, first, then a "path". So which is it? Romney flips and flops like another famous New Englander. Polls show in SC that many many are undicided, and , may not make up their minds until they are actually in the booth. Many many registered Independents like me out there too, and we know they elect presidents, or have in the past. For many of us it's likened to trying to decide "which color of a Yugo" you want to buy!!! All our presidents have had flaws, but some were obivously better/ more successful than others, because they were leaders, and could make the tough decisions. A flip floper does not build that kind of confidence. Kerry should have won, but he was seen as as weak leader, by just enough of the electorate. Obama, if he gets the nomination will also be seen as weak and indecisive, and will not win, unless we all become suicidal. With a crop of empty suits and and skits running, none that you'd want at the helm in another Cuban Missile Crisis situation, you bet much of the electorate is undecided. McCain may be best in that sort of crisis, but probalby no better than Bush is now, and he (actually both are) is turning out to be a disappointment for many conservative Rebublicans. As and Independent who did not vote for him, I'm not that disappointed; I've learned to keep my expectations low.
I'll say it once more... McCain's position hasn't changed. His goal then is his goal now. What has changed is he had a proposal, it was rejected... he sees why it was rejected, the vast majority of the American people don't trust the government to seal the border... thus, any attempt to deal with the people here, other than rounding them up and forcibly deporting them, won't work... because if you don't seal the border and "solve" the other issues, nothing will really be solved, as more new illegals will pour through the porous border. He recognizes that reality and sentiment. But, having seen the reaction, did he change his goal? Nope... His goal remains the same. But rather than being someone to just pound his head against the sand, he sees the problem, sees a potential solution, and has reworked how to achieve actual success. If the American people don't trust the government to seal the border, such that the rest of the plan would be pointless, then clearly, the border must first be secured.... then we proceed to address the remaining issues. If elected, McCain will seal the border, he will create a verifiable employment system, and he will seek to normalize in some fashion those that continue to remain. That's not a change of position, it's a change of strategy to still acheive the same goal. When we entered Iraq, McCain was almost immediately critical of the way we were carrying out our operations. He said so. He recommended for 3 years a change of strategy which the Administration finally relented to and agreed with when Petraeus came onto the scene in a dramatic way. By your theory, McCain should've either kept with the Rumsfeld strategy, or he should be entirely against the war... but God forbid we alter tactics to achieve victory, right? Oh, that's not what you're saying? Then why suggest that's the case with regard to immigration? McCain believes we need to end illegal immigration, close our borders, verify our workers, and yes, after a period where they'll undoubtedly self-deport as a result of their jobs drying up, a path toward legal status for those that remain and are otherwise not criminals. Rather than just throw up his hands and surrender, like the rest of the Republican party is doing, which is de facto amnesty+, he sees the problem, thinks he has a solution, and is seeking to solve said problem... if he encounters roadblocks, he works his way around them... he doesn't just give up. Nor, however, was he just going to continue on with the same tactic. Sure, his goal is the same with immigration, a solution.... just like his goal in Iraq is the same as ever, victory... But just like Iraq needed new tactics to even attempt to achieve victory, the American people weren't buying the path to victory on immigration that he was presenting.... So, he's recognized that and has altered the tactic to do better. That's a flip flop? Wanting the same goal, recognizing certain opposition, retooling the tactic to achieve what the people want to then achieve the end goal...... that's a flip flop? WHAT? Immigration and our borders are broken. Democrats are willing to do nothing so they can breed out the Republican party over the next 50 years with blacks and mexicans. Republicans are willing to do nothing because they aren't willing to really piss off the mexicans by forcibly deporting them like Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, nor do they want to do so because they'd have to pay more to have their lawn clipped.... So, Democrats want the voting block, Republicans are afraid of the block and want the economic benefits of the illegals. We aren't going to deport all of them. Securing the border and establishing a foolproof database of workers with a biometric ID card is essential to forcing them out on their own ticket... but some won't leave. Of those, some will be career criminals or have conducted criminal activity beyond their illegal status. Those people would be deported immediately by McCain. Those that still remained would be forced to pay a fine and get at the back of the line. That's not amnesty, and though he mistakenly referenced it as such, he's never favored amnesty... there's always been a penalty. What have people like Tancredo or Duncan Hunter done? They're certainly against illegal immigration........ how's their tac working? McCain's an adult with a plan... The plan has been retooled, but the goal is the same: A solution. I won't apologize for that. Would that all politicians responded to the will of the American people, actually listened and still held their convictions, but manifested them through the American will.
I see your points and hope you are right and hope that he, Mc Cain, will have a chance to institute them when in office. If there is little chance of that happening, I know for sure there is no chance at all of it happening under a Hillary or Obama (or both of them)! And none of the other Repubs, except maybe Thompson, get me all sweaty over the prospect that something will actually be done on the illegal immigration front. I beleive many tools exist but little is being done to seal the border, and could be done quickly and without much additional expenditures. I think the "self-deportation", due to clamping down on employers, idea has legs, and the "Arizona experiment" will be interesting to watch. Many good laws are passed, but let's see how this one will be enforced, in a Dem administration, both state, and possibly federal, in the next years. Headline is USA today says: "75 percent of Baghdad secure", and we "Own" those parts of the city. McCain wanted a much bigger surge, but even the little surge, of 30 K troops, is working, apparently, hopefully. I hate to get too optimistic!!
Now, before BB can come in here and declare that a failure because the "surge" was meant to provide stability for political progress, I should probably point out that it took us 10+ years to form our government, 2+ years even after we'd designed it to accept and implement it, and we had a nation which hadn't had all of it's statesmen butchered by a tyrant. The "surge" has been in place since July or August at full strength. They still have bombs echoing in their ears... and yet, the impatience of the Democrats demands results now! Very soon this fast paced world of ours is going to have the brakes put on... we saw some of the brakes on 9/11 when we all did take a forced pause....... I'm afraid a much bigger forced pause is looming because we're a vastly too impatient society that isn't really willing to do what's necessary. TV is partly to blame, certainly. But we expect everything now, and when we don't get it, people like the liberals want to jump ship. You can tell they've lost their minds on any subject when they simply refuse to accept reality and good news. The notion that violence in Iraq is down is somehow evidence that it'll never work escapes me... The idea that because we've given them 6 months of 2004 level bombings and they haven't jumped into the roles of Madison and Hamilton, so we just drop the ball and leave them to their fate also escapes me. Then again, since Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama really want to talk much about Iraq anymore, particularly any real policy direction, it seems to also escape them...
you have a good point refering to the U.S. at our beginning. anyone that showed any inititive or competence was murdered by saddam, what we have left to work with there are basically the 3rd and 4th string. the surge does seem to be working, it's regrettable that we followed rumsfield's strategy as long as we did. GHWB knew in 91' you break it you've bought it, which was one of the reasons we didn't go to take out saddam then. but we're committed now, to pull out would result in utter chaos and the very real possibility of iran gaining more power in that region, which is something the world definitely doesn't need. it's something a lot of people don't seem to consider............ray
I agree with Blue and M359 only to a certain point...I won't get into the details but do want to share my interesting views, which always raises an eyebrow...I'm not an extremist but just bear with me on this one. I have fallowed this campaign mostly by the news and my buddy Micheal Savage, now I know how you feel about Savage M359 but he is a registered Independent like myself and Blue...we need more Independents to run for Presidency...I say this because our views and goals can not be bought off by friends, co-workers or special interest groups...to say it in a nice way, we are not tree huggers (people who suck up to their boss are wrap themselves around their bosses leg)...Independents are level headed thinkers who do the right thing and for the right reasons...Independents are not influenced by money or greed...most would say were on the fence...well that's fine by me, because I wouldn't want to be a part of any party who makes decisions based on special interest groups...I don't care whether your a Democrat or a Republican, they are all scum in my book...how do you think these guys are raising so much money?...because they like them as a person?...NOT!!...because if their favorite politician gets elected then he would be obligated to stop congress that would hinder their business by stopping, bad for business legislation laws...I hate the fact that all you hear is how much money so and so raised...I say put these guys on a American Idol for President TV...why not?...American Idol gets more attention then the election does...run these guys through a series of tests to see how they would respond to certain situations and give them budget simulations and trade situations...basically drag these guys through the toughest test they will endure and let America vote for the two finalists...this would make everything even across the board and eliminate the money factor...maybe I'm a little wacky but I'm pretty sure I'm a normal thinker with a twist. As far as not voting because their are no good people to vote for, then you can't complain!...all you can do is invest your vote at least in the one you feel would do the best job, and that's all you can do.
thats a novel idea capitol, almost anything would be an improvement over the current system where whoever wins is so beholding to the groups that financed their campaign. and just to clarify matters i do vote in the majority of elections federal,state, county, and city even though at times i hold my nose shut when i do............ray
There ya go, you know the situation well enough to make my arguments. Here's a link to dubya's Jan 10, 2007 announcement, and I'll put a snip below ... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. Now, you put 20,000 extra cops on the street of a city the size of New York, who really doubted that it would reduce the violence? But as you note in your first sentence, reducing violence is not the goal. Working with the Iraqi governement we announced eighteen benchmarks to show success of the operation; so far the Maliki government has met exactly one of them [the recent re-Baathification law]. Meantime, we have bought and armed several all-Sunni militia groups which will surely mix it up with the main army of Iraq as soon as we look the other way.
Which is exactly why we aren't going to look the other way now, and certainly not under a Democrat. The Democrats in Congress won't end this war, which they could've done a year ago, because they don't want the fallout to come back on them. Does anyone really think they're going to become President and suddenly take on all the responsibility for what happens after we leave? Not a chance. It's why the Democrats won't say we'll be out by 2013. All they're doing is playing politics with a war and the lives of our people. The Democrats have no intention of ending the war... particularly not when the military side of things are actually working. I'll note for the log, you entirely ignored all of my answers to the question I had pre-identified..........
I agree, Dems may be stupid power hungry and souless, but they do grasp history and the consequences if we leave under their watch and it all turns to brown stuff. Only lib loons think a Hill or Huesain would up an leave the day after they are swown in. About the war I have no fears in a Dem admin, now domestica, that's another can or worms, which they will make us eat.
I agree, Dems may be stupid power hungry and souless, but they do grasp history and the consequences if we leave under their watch and it all turns to brown stuff. >blue +++++++++++++ Dunno, but I think it's too early to conclude the Dems won't do some serious scaling back [at the very least] -- 60%+ of Americans want us out now, and I can't imagine the new leaders will happily continue to spend $2.5billion / week in Iraq as we head into a recession. What do you think about an $800 giveaway, Blue? Would you sell your vote for an $800 loan of borrowed money?
I'll pay last two months gas bill with it. And 60% of Americans can't be wrong either about issues of war and peace! Like 80% of Germans weren't wrong in 1939!!!
