Only 1,162 days til the election
 

Time magazine has a decent piece on the apparent two front runners for '08 and the obstacles they have ahead of them.

I'm still holding out for Bill Gates and Regis Philbin ticket.

Time

Please speak of this no more.

soooo, who ya gonna vote for mr griff?

Lessee. C-L-I-N-damn.

M-C-C-A-I-N. Ooo. that's good. J-O-H-N. damn.

It IS in there. Just gimme a couple days.

Govnah George Pataki

I'm not votin for this dope I'm just sayin...

MrNoodle, you should check this out: When Time Shall Be No More. It's a really interesting book that pretty much chronicles every major so-and-so-is-the-Antichrist movement in the last 2000 years. Apparently Ronald Reagan had a particularly strong correlation to the prophesies. :)

From the Democrat side, all the high profile folks supported the Iraq fiasco so they are right out. Expect to see Feingold, Obama, and and Gary Hart.

Ron Paul will get my support on the Rep side. As you can see, my choices are not relevent. I'll prolly vote for Paul Ireland in the general election.

Paul.

Oh.

For a second there I thought you were saying you were voting for radar.

Th walrus is Paul.

I'm writing in Angus O'Mann.

How about the guy with razor blades glued to his thumbnails? He'd kick ass.

Nah, that would be a big mistake.

:thumb: :lol2:

I'm actually considering putting my name on the ballot next year against Maxine Waters.

1161 days now

Don't give your vote or your money to the Democrats. They thought the first Clinton was a good idea. This other Clinton is at bottom a Socialist. Neither is good for the Republic.

I'll take the worst Clinton over the best Bush.

I'll take who ever isn't beholden to greed or power. In other words to the guillotine with 'em all! Err, probably 3rd party again.

Amen.

I don't know. At least McCain coauthored the McCain-Feingold Act on campaign reform. You can also tell he's an honest man by the fact the he lost to Bush by refusing to suck up to special interests and fight dirty. Even if Karl wanted to work for him now that his current meal ticket is leaving thanks to term limits (which is fast becoming my favorite amendment), I think McCain might prefer putting his foot up Karl's ass.

I would like to see the networks cover more than two candidates. I think anyone who gets registered in all 50 states should be given equal time.

Bush would not have survived a three way debate with Kerry and McCain. Two genuine blooded veterans against a stuffed uniform. Since Bush was technically in the service, I will not call him a chicken hawk, but there is no way anyone who has not actually been on the line can appreciate war the way someone who has been can.

That's the funny thing about debates, though. Take, for example, the first debate between Kerry and Bush. Everyone I know, on both political sides, agrees that Bush lost that debate hardcore. Yet somehow he won. Intellectuals want debates to mean a lot more than they do, because they feel that if a person is demonstrably shown to be a moron, then any thinking voter surely would not vote for that man.

But the debates mean little-to-nothing, ultimately, and the only good they'll ever really do is giving coverage to otherwise-unknown third party candidates, which I really wish would happen--except it won't, because the debates are agreed upon by the candidates, and no Rep or Dem candidate would ever want to admit there were other options out there.

The McCain-Feingold Act is a nightmare. It makes it virtually impossible for third parties to grow, and to raise money. It has destroyed the reform party, and caused such major re-structuring in the LP, I doubt we'll ever recover.

True enough. I understand that it did virtually nothing as far as the campaign finance parts, but what is the sense of restricting issue-oriented (as opposed to candidate oriented) advertising prior to an election?

I don't know about you guys, but I make voting choices based on issues, not based on the personality of a candidate.

Actually, I think the debates were the reason the election was a close as it was. IMO, the Swift Boat Vets' role was not only to smear Kerry, but to distract from Bush's dismal performance in the debates.

Also, noone can say that they didn't get a good look at the candidates. For all of the rehearsal, Bush came across as a pure social conservative. Looking at that debate, everyone knew what his position on stem cells would be.

If %30 of the Republican party wasn't made up of single-issue social conservatives who will basically be willing to stifle any reservations and vote, then Bush would have lost the election.

Essentially, since the single minded people are making it a point to vote, it is the responsibility of people who do actually watch and decide to also vote, in the primaries and the election.

I figure either Jeb Bush or a member of the Saudi royal family. Decisions, decisions.. :3_eyes:

I think it's a goddamn shame you had to say that. I mean that's a given, it should be foremost in any citizens mind.
Unfortunately it has to be said over and over.........and over. :(

What can you expect though? Many people work two jobs to make ends meet. They come home tired and want to relax before working again. Following debates and reading newspapers is fine if you have the time. The remaining listen to the nightly news or listen to those around them neither of which are really subjective.

An informed group of voters is necessary in a democracy. What we have now is neither informed or democratic.

Amen, brother! Americans have become intellectually lazy. They think that keeping America free is about sending someone else's son or daughter off to die in a foreign desert somewhere. It doesn't occur to them that the key to a democracy is the active participation of its members in the democratic process. Yeah, its boring to go attend a local city council meeting when you've been working all day and just want to kick back with a few brews. Yeah, its a real pain to actually read the newspaper or a magazine or the candidate's website on the Internet.

People expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. They may admit that you have to work for your dollar, but they figure that all responsibility ends there. Wrong. If you want your kids to grow up right, you have to come home from work and help them with their school work. If you want your SO to be there for you, you have to do something besides come home and open up a cold one and zone out in front of the Simpson's. If you don't want your house to fall apart, you have to work 40 hours a week and spend a weekend now and then painting the exterior of your house or mowing the lawn. If you want to remain a member of a democracy, you have to vote and make sure your vote is a well informed one.

Right now, we have a government of slaves who come home and zone out on the tube or beer. Why the complaints? You got what you put into it, America.

As an aside, has anyone seen the story from Kentucky? If there's ever been a case of the coverup being worse than the crime...

The crime: patronage - giving jobs to campaign contributers.
The coverup: The Governor issues blanket pardons to anyone who might have been involved except himself, requests that the investigation therefore be dropped, and then pleads the fifth.

Of course, it is hard to say what the actual effect will be, since legally speaking a pardon must be accepted to take effect, and such acceptance is an admission of guilt (again, legally speaking).

Obama is the reincarnate of JFK. Obama is what Democrats used to be. He sounds like the Rock. He speaks with authority. He is honest. He has a very bright future ahead of him. As far as the rest of the party, I'm not a big fan. Obama is the man, though.

if you pledge your allegiance to a party - any party - you're fooked. they'll hold no allegiance to you after the election. vote for people, not parties.

The LP is different from any other party. Only the Libertarian Party requires each and every single member to sign a pledge that they agree to a certain set of principles. Nobody else does this. It's not so much that I have allegiance to the party. There are many people inside the party that I'd never vote for. But as a general rule of thumb, libertarians are far better people, far more intelligent, far more ethical, and have a greater understanding of what it takes to fix the damage caused by the major parties.

So while I won't vote for everyone inside the LP, I won't consider anyone outside it. Any vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for larger, more expensive, more intrusive government that violates the limitations on its powers, steals more of our money, starts more unconstitutional wars (kills more people), attacks more of our civil rights, and tries to control more of our daily lives.

I hear NatCom violated the party platform several times in its proposal to depart Iraq.

Time out a second here...

Far better than who, exactly? The LP must be a very different party indeed if by signing a paper I become more, no, far more intelligent and ethical and understanding; a far better person. Hah! Better at what? Suspension of disbelief? You must be if you're entertaining the illusion that the presence or absence of a signature gives you *any* indication as to how intelligence, ethical or understanding a person is. Having not signed such a pledge myself, are you in a position to stand in judgement claiming to be a far better person than I am?

If there was even any hesitation in your vigorous denial of my proposition, then I think I may have some insights for you as to the difficulty your party has as to membership. It could be your towering superiority complex. You might want to have that checked out by a professional.

I will withold further comment, pending your reply.

The hubris of demanding "you shall all believe like we" ... I've heard that somewhere ... Catholic Church, Amway, Assorted Dictatorial Regimes* ...

(* I am not implying that the Libertarian Party is representative of a dictatorial regime, nor do I mean to malign dictatorial regimes, but the danger is there. Pass out the silver lame' jumpsuits, all hail the great leader.)

No. I'm just saying those who fit the description I made are typically the ones who are attracted to the LP.

I don't think it is a "superiority complex". Feel free to sit down with 5 random republicans or democrats from all walks of life and all income levels. Talk to them about the problems in America, what their solutions would be, and how those solutions further the cause of freedom in America. Ask specifics and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

In general the LP has a lot of logical thinkers. A lot of computer programmers, accountants, business owners, lawyers, etc. and they can all tell you about the U.S. Constitution, all tell you about the non-aggression principle, all tell you about how to fix things, why our solution is best, and how it will provide the most freedom at the least cost and inconvenience.

Thank you for your reply.

You haven't said anything that excludes the D or R party members. I reckon anybody politically motivated enough to go to the effort of signing onto the party's charter, could do the things you describe. I bet you interact with a bunch of smart people, people who know their stuff and walk and talk a lot of politics.

But that part about "why our solution is best", that's practically everybody. I applaud your efforts to engage people of other political persuasions. That's a good idea too. And I will freely acknowledge that many many people who say they're a Democrat or a Republican prefer the company of their own kind. That doesn't lead to growth, even for LPers.

I think most folks that bother to vote aren't members of a given party. I vote, I consider myself an informed voter, and I'm haven't signed up for membership in a given party. Compared to the general population, you and I are more informed, by a wide margin. But there are smart people on all sides of the political spectrum. Denying that is a mistake. Seeking to learn about and from your "opponents" makes good sense.