Very well put Jack. :roll:
Normally I do not get involved in the discussion of politics or religion. As of right now I am not convinced either candidate will or can do anything. The point I would like to bring out is, with all this discussion on how things have gone to he** in a handbag with the Senate and/or House of Reps and their inability to solve anything or make life better; Why hasn’t either candidate done anything to improve conditions of the legislative arm of the government?
McCain has been in congress for twenty some years and things have not gotten any better as far as pork projects, real help for the middle class, lobbyists, etc. The list goes on.
Obama has not been in congress long enough to gain any type of clout to change things. But he too hasn’t initiated any progeam to help all of us.
In my opinion, why didn’t either candidate show actual leadership in Congress and make improvements to the list mentioned above? Instead of being out campaigning, stay in congress and get some legislative action on improving the life of the average Joe. Neither had done that. Show us some leadership! Man do we need it now!
Two questions: If McCain is so pro-military why has he voted time and time again against the vets? If Obama has the answer on many issues, why hasn’t he stated in plain language a plan to minimize or eliminate the problems?
OK now, let the drivel continue.
Actually, no. These two are who, out of some 22 different primary candidates, the two political parties chose.
One point on that. At least the Republican choice (which was not my first choice, personally) was made democratically (by voting, one person, one vote) while the Democrat candidate was chosen through a series of manipulations of the vote based upon the Democrat Party rules. Florida and Michigan didn’t even get to vote, as an example, and in Texas, Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama got the delegates.
Back to my original point. WE, THE PEOPLE, choose, through the parties, who will be the two candidates. That is why, I believe, that primary voting is MUCH more important than the General Election. Whenever I hear people saying that both candidates are bad, I ask if they voted in the primaries. Almost always, they say no.
Then I tell them that they only have themselves to blame and to quit complaining.
Hope this helps;
Will,
You need to realize that there was plenty of manipulation going on on both sides of the aisle.
One by rules.
One by forming alliances.
I was speaking about the choice of the candidates.
But, as you say, many form alliances by running (both in primaries and in the General) as “third party candidates”. They are losers and, I predict, always will be. Greens, "losertarians, constipation, etc; all the parties are losers, but they can detract from the votes of the big two.
And, therefore. manipulate the election.
And so was I.
Do you think the Huckster staying in when he had no chance might have had an affect. I do.
McCain takes lead over Obama: poll on Yahoo
You may be right, but it didn’t have much effect. Huckabee was helping to keep his future prospects alive and fishing for a VP slot. I do not think that there was cooperation between them.
I do not know the Hucksters motives but he basically destroyed Romney’s chances by staying in IMHO.
It might be a very different race except for that.
So, if you don’t know his motives (and there could be many, I think you would agree) then how can there be manipulation? Doesn’t manipulation, through alliances, require cooperation?
Agreed, but in this case we really don’t know.
It isn’t hard to imagine a back room deal between the two to Ace out Romney.
Just speculation and a suspicion on my part.
The Hucksters campaign never made sense to me from the get go.
Point taken. But, the evidence points against it. What did Huckabee bet in return? The V.P. slot? I will bet you.
In any case, and please try to understand what I am saying and it is not intended as a slam, your original post smacked of innuendo that there was, de facto, a deal between them. Now, you state, rightly so, that it was just speculation.
Why is it that everyone “speculates” and does so negatively, about politicians? We always want to think the worst of them. We always slam them. Theirs is a thankless job.
If we all think (and the key word here is “think”) so poorly of them, why do we keep voting for thems.
I am of the opinion that, when it comes to politics, most people DO NOT think, they just go with their emotions. Many politicians (really, many political managers) know this and do a great deal to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. And, most people respond. Then, these same people, who are always saying that they are concerned with the “issues”, fool themselves into believing that they have made their decision based upon reason and slam the politiction when the don’t produce.
Case in point. Many voted in a Democrat House and Senate. Many who did so were Republicians who were (rightly, in my mind) PO’d at the Repubs spending like drunk fools (i.e., Democrats :mrgreen: ) when they got into power. So, the Dems took charge.
Look what has happened since the Dems took over:
- Gas prices rose over $1.00 a gallon.
- Congress’s approval rating has dived to 17%
- Next to nothing was done this term, in terms of legislation. The only significant bill passed was the Minimum Wage law. The fact, this Congressional term has had the 2nd lowest amount of legislative action in history.
- The county has had an economic nose dive (but still not in recession).
In short, Congress is responsible for many items of government, and the Dems have really messed it up.
Let’s give credit, and blam, where it is due.
*]
I blame uneducated voters and the utter failure of the Republicans to teach and govern from conservative principles since 1994.
Ditto.
And, think what it will be like if Obama wins and has a Dem Congress. Hello, again, “fairness doctrine”. So, all broadcast political speech will be regulated by the government and they get to decide what is “fair and balanced”.
One of the ironys of this past primary season was that Hillary Clinton found out and agreed that only Fox News was “fair and balanced”. The MSM was in love with Obama and showed it. Even now, Barack is getting a heck of a lot of free coverage where McCain is not.
Also funny that the so-called Conservative Radio commenators have repeatedly invited Obama on their shows, but you don’t see Air America or MSNBC (PMSNBC) or CNN or NPR inviting McCain.
You are starting to believe your own drivel. :roll:
You don’t seem to listen to much conservative talk radio, do you. Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Medved and Dennis Praiger have had many interviews with liberal politicians, and have treated them with great courtesy. Medved, especially, usually only takes calls from people who disgaree with him and he is always rational, graceful and respectful.
As to the so-called fairness doctrine.
It used to be that TV and Radio, at least the main stations, never used to have any kind of meaningful political dialog. Because of the doctrine, they thought it was too difficult to have both sides properly represented so as to meet the government standards.
Today, you have all sorts of political discussion, and not just two sides, but a wide spectrum. From total right wing wack jobs like Buchannan, to traditional conservatives, like Rush and Medved and Hume, to moderates, like Russert was, to thoughtful liberals like Colms to total wacko leftists like Oberman and most of Air America. Everyone is free to choose to listen to what they want and no one is left out. Even though the lion’s share of air time is slanted left (ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc) and only one TV station has a right slant (FOX NEWS) and most radio is conservative, to a greater or lesser degree. The problem with liberal talk radio is that it can’t get any ratings. The people choose with their pocketbooks.
Now, with the fairness doctrine back in place, and with it being administered by liberals, government regulators get to decide what is fair and balanced rather than the people. They get to decide who is a liberal and who is a conservative. For example, Nixon and Bush (the current one) are NOT conservative, they are moderate. Their actions and ploicies show this. Did you know that Nixon was the one who started affirmative action? Did you know that the No Child Left Behind act, long slammed and blamed on Bush, was actually written by Ted Kennedy?
And how many people call the New York Times moderate. You gotta be kidding me.
In short, if the fairness doctrine comes back, government will be deciding what political speech is OK, who will represent each side and what political affiliation each speaker represents. I would call that control.
Also, with regards to FOX NEWS.
check out FOXes Sunday morning show as oppsed to ABCs.
ABC, in the roundtable discussion at the end, has one conservative (George Will) and 3 liberals (two of which liberals think of as moderates, but they are to the left) and a former Clinton communications director as the moderator.
Fox, on the other hand, has two conservatives (usually, Hume and Kristol, both solid, traditional conservatives) and two liberals (usually, both NPR commentators, who are traditional liberals). The moderator is a moderate (Chris Wallace, Mike Wallace’s son) and the questions are fair and everyone gets to talk. They usually give the liberal, Juan Williams the last word.
Check it for yourself and see who is fair.
Would you really trust the government to decide?
The latest polling out seems to suggest people are starting to pay attention and getting to know Obama better. After Obama got his Saddleback kicked over the weekend, a hard hitting best seller book out “Obama Nation”, people coming back to politics after the summer (paying a little more attention), and the slowly but surely press starting to be seen for what they are, its not surprising is it?
One point about that book. It really slams Obama. But, it ws not written by a conservative (the clown is a 9-11 truther) and it is full of distortions, misrepresentations and out and out lies.
I DO NOT want Obama to lose because of lies. I believe that the American people can make a good decision based upon Obama’s public statements and policy proposals alone. Anyone who values truth above political slant would agree.
Just to be clear.
I guess when you get the questions in advance it might help a little. 
This will be the one to Read. Facts, not Lies.
US journalist Bob Woodward’s fourth book on President George Bush is titled The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008 and will be released on September 8,