I'm normally with the elephants....but I think they have screwed the pooch so badly with the Iraq war, that people will go with a Donkey...just for a chance at change.
I am with what the elephants say they are for but not what they do...except their social program. Seems like they are kind of schizo on the minimal government intervention in our lives, except when it comes to Christian themes, abortion, limited science research, what can be taught in schools, rigiht to life, etc). And the stench of corruption and lack of morals has been so bad, I have not voted elephant since the shrubs came into public view.
this is why the republicans should nominate ron paul, who is one of the few republicans that didn't vote for the iraq war resolution. unlike many democratic nominees, including hilary clinton.
I just voted, then realised I made a mistake. There will be a Republican President until January 2009, for sure.
I voted "other" as an indicator of my faith in the unpredictability of the American voter. The only thing remotely predictable about American voters is that, for all their whining, they're afraid to actually do anything about it. I mean, I would think a Democrat will end up with the office come Inauguration Day, but, then again, Bush did win in 2004. For all the American people say they're sick of the politicians they have, they either re-elect the crooks or else send clones to replace them. For all the American people say they're sick of the negative campaign tactics, those are the tactics that work. For all the American people say about how great this country is, they only fulfill international criticism--both rational and radical--by voting for pocketbook and pride. It's not so much that Americans despise villains, but that they want the world to be dominated by American villains. Watch the upcoming election closely, and with an earnest eye and ear. The Democrats are officially screwed. If they send Edwards to the Show, the GOP will come after them for being racist or sexist. If they send Hillary or Barack to the Show, the GOP will go after Hillary's womanhood or Barack's blackness. We see it happening right now with Hillary. Even the Democrats are ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. Some women say, "I'd like to vote for a woman for president, but I don't want that first woman to be Hillary Clinton." Democratic insiders point to Hillary's "divisiveness". What does any of this mean? Quite simply, it means that what Americans consider attractive in a politician is not attractive about a woman. Consider this image from WashingtonPost.com. It says so much about the issue at hand: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Democratic Presidential hopefuls, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, right, talks with Sen. Hillary Rodham-Clinton, D-NY., after a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit in this July 12, 2007 file photo. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, File) The look on Hillary's face is something I've noticed of late. She's trying to put on an air of statesmanship, akin to the frozen mugs on our paper currency. I don't care that it doesn't look good on her "as a woman" (it isn't exactly inspiring on men, either), but part of her political strength is her ability to flash a smile and light up a room. But just like people complained about her "cleavage", their complaints all tacitly refer to her womanhood. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney share certain gifts with Hillary Clinton. Usually referred to as "political savvy", they all know how to work a room, and how to put personal principles in the coatroom when it comes to dancing a political two-step. With Hillary, the accusation is often akin to hypocrisy. Why? It's politics. Is the difference that Rudy and Mitt are men, or that they're Republicans? Either way, the answer has ugly implications about voters, and that's why the question will never be addressed. Even Democrats try to tiptoe around the issue. How, exactly, is Hillary a drag on candidates for state offices? Who cares if she brings out conservatives to vote against her? Aren't we sick of letting narrow minds dictate the rules? If Democrats are afraid of a Hillary candidacy because that much of the country is afraid to admit its own misogyny, then it really doesn't matter who the hell the next president is. Remember Max Cleland. Remember what Rove did to John McCain. Remember that the people already know how crooked the GOP camp is. Remember that they knew the "credibility" issues they held against John Kerry were nothing more than hateful fantasy. And remember that they voted for another heaping helping. They like it. This is what they want. Read the stories circulating right now about Iraqi women reduced to prostituting themselves to feed their children. And remember that this is what the American people wanted. Remember, so that when--or, perhaps, should we hold out some hope, if--the American people reaffirm their lust for hatred and corruption come November, 2008, nobody should be surprised. You'd think the people would vote for a Democrat just to break the current GOP cycle. But they're already showing their true colors. Hillary's a problem because she's a woman. Barack's a problem because he's black and has a name that doesn't sound European. Our soldiers may bleed red in the field, but the American people prefer their presidents to have blue blood running through their very souls. And they'll find any excuse to not have to say it.
I agree with much of what you said, Tiassa, particularly the first part. However, we part company when you start talking about Hillary. You berate people for not caring about integrity and honesty in their public servants, but when Hillary decided to leave her "personal principles in the coatroom when it comes to dancing a political two-step", you refer to it as political saavy, because others say that about the very men you rail against for being hypocrites and greasy politicians? How is what you are doing any different? I am sick of the GOP - I have been sick of them since Reagan. There hasn't been a true Republican in the oval office since probably Ike. I would refer to myself as a Republican before I referred to myself as a Democrat, but I generally vote for Democrats, just because voting for the cabal that the Republican party has become pretty much since Goldwater is an unthinkable option in my mind and on my conscience. That said, I'd vote for just about anyone before I voted for Hillry, and that has NOTHING at all to do with her being a woman. I'd welcome a woman president, just not THAT woman. I don't trust her. I don't like the fact that she supports and lives some of the main things I stand against - like big-money campaigns, for instance. She is inconsistent, and slimy. She has never come out firmly against the so-called war (or the Patriot Act or any other associated actions). She never comes out strongly against anything, unless it is a sure bet. As you said, she is a politician - she's not a public servant, she serves no one but Hillary. Trying to guilt people into voting for Hillary by implying that they must necessarily be misogynists if they do not, is just the type of slimy bullshit that I wouldn't put past Hillary. Maybe that's why you like her? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would, as I said, love to see a woman president, but I would never vote for someone simply BECAUSE she is a woman - to me that's no different than NOT voting for someone simply because she is a woman. If Hillary is on the ticket this year, I will most certainly not be voting Democrat. I may vote Republican - but I seriously doubt that. Maybe I'll write Bernie Sanders' name in. He's probably the only true public servant in the Senate - and I'd feel better voting independent than either of the bullshit parties in power.
I put the phrase in quotes instead of italicizing it or leaving it without any accent at all in part because I dislike the idea of political savvy. However, the only route to public service requires a certain amount of political savvy, or, if we prefer (and it seems we do), apathy toward principle. And this is something I hold against the American voters. It's like the dirty campaign ads: people always say they don't like it, but they follow up and support a candidate more often than not based on what the dirt says. My thing against Hillary Clinton may not come out until the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November, 2008. I have no intention of feeding the fire so directly. If she doesn't make the ticket, I'll spill it then. I think a female president is as fine an idea as a male or hermaphrodite president. And I'll happily support Hillary Clinton if she's the chosen candidate. In the meantime, though, she's not doing much to impress me compared to my chosen candidate. Many people pretend to hold against her the fact that she is a Clinton. Hell, that's fine with me. I liked Bill. And Hillary has survived and triumphed despite marrying one of the biggest redneck bubbas in history. If she can manage that, she can handle damn near anything. But even the Democrats who fear her place on the ticket for the damage it will cause the party on a local level are afraid to say it. It's about her womanhood: that, more than anything, is her polarizing attribute. Remember, the primary buzz pushing a Hillary Clinton presidential run was generated and sustained originally by Republicans and pundits on FOX News, MSNBC's Scarborough Country, and right-wing talk radio. That buzz has been built on negative exposure, which explains in part why her negatives are polling so strongly right now. I think any candidate who endures the thrashing conservatives have attempted to lay on her and survives to take the presidency should be commended. We'll see what history brings.
First, I want it clearly known that I hold cleavage against now one! Personally, I am a big fan of cleavage, always have been and can think of few better things in life. In my book there is no such thing as too much cleavage!!! But getting to the politics, I agree with much of what One Raven said. However, but I would vote for her out of hope. I see no hope on the GOP side. And that is what the American voter is left with under our “Two Party” plurality system of voting. The American people do not get to choose who runs for public office. Those who control the party get to choose who runs for office (e.g. McCain in 2000). Those who control the party, also have access to the money and in the case of the Republicans, the dirty tricks masters. Our rulers like to keep us in debt and afraid. We are more controllable that way. Both parties of this Gig down well, but especially the Republicans. That is why most people don’t think their ballots count. And given the antics of the Republican dominated Supreme Court in 2000, I can understand why. I think there is little doubt in every quarter that Bush lost that election. Clearly the did not even with the majority of American votes, that is a matter of public record. In the election of 2004, junior’s election is still questionable because of issues with the voting machines in Ohio and other places as well but especially Ohio. And not surprisingly those issues will be with us again next year. Bottom line and a matter of public record not everyone in Democratic parts of Ohio was allowed to vote last time around. We need to change our government. We need to change the way we elect federal officials. Amendment to Eliminate Graft & Corruption Revision of Election Rules: All elections for federal office will use the Borda Count method to tabulate election winners. Each voter ranks all of the candidates from top to bottom. If there are, say, five candidates, then a voter's top-ranked candidate gets 5 points, his second-ranked candidate gets 4, and so on. Finally, the points from all the voters are added up to determine the winner. This method allows electors to come to a concensus in selection of the best cannidate for office. Campaign Finance: In order to qualify for any federal election, a canidate must submit a nonimination petition to the Treasury Secretary with the signatures of at least ten percent of the citizens to be represented by the petitioner if elected. Petitioners, signatories, must be citizens of the United States and a citizen can only sign one petition for a specific canidate per office per election. All elections for Federal Office will be fully financed by the Federal government. Each election, congress shall fund each canidate for the Senate and House of Representataives at rate of ten dollars per person represented by the position. Congress shall fund each presidential canidate 20 million dollars per election. These amounts may be inflation adusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index with a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Any unused campaign funds will be returned to the treasury after conclusion of the election. Network News Organizations are required to provide at least 10 hours of free debate/exposure time to all registered canidates for office each federal election cycle. Debate questions must be selected from citizen input and represent the issues at hand. Questions must be kept secret from the canidates prior to debates, and canidates nor their representatives will have no hand in determining the debate formats or the questions to be asked of them. Sixty days prior to each election, the federal government will distribute campaign packages to the electors. These packages will consist of information about each canidate, provided by each canidate for public office. Each canidate for public office will be given two pages to represent their positions and credidentials to the electors. Swift Boat Provision/Fear Mongering/Dirty Tricks Provision: Any funds spent to degrade a canidate for public office with false or misleading information will be taxed at fifty percent to the party making such donations.. Any such organizations or individuals receiving such funds will need to fully disclose their funding sources 360 days prior to running any mass communications. It is important to fully disclosed sources and amounts of these funds before and each time these communications are presented to voters, funding sources, names and amounts, must also be disclosed to the voters and included in each communication to the voters. And the voters must have reasonable time to read and understand the disclosure. In addition, organizations or individuals collecting funds for this purpose must pay a tax on donated funds received equilivant to seventy five percent of the amount donated. Laundering these donations through other parties or organization is expressly forbidden and is punishable by imprisoment of not less than 100 years. An agency or individual will be found to degrade a canidate for public office with false or misleading information when the advertisments paid for or sponsored by the individual or organization invoke fear of a candiate or an issue as measured by a statistically valid random sampling of voters and by failing to disclose all relevant facts or by including facts in their arguments which are not true and can be proven as untrue or cannot be proven to be truthful in a trial by jury of 11 unbiased citizens. Examples of Dirty Tricks Advertising: • Swift Boat Veterans for Truth • Medicare Prescription Drug Program by Pharma Exceutive Privilage: Congress shall have all rights to investigate the executive and judical branches of government. No branch of government shall have the right of privilage, including executive privilage, that shall prevent or block such branch or agency from disclosing material requested by the Congress or a committee therof. Pardons: The president cannot pardon a member of his/her staff or administration. Neither can a president commute a legally imposed sentence for a member of his staff or administration. Pardons for offencences arising out of service in the executive branch of government can only be pardoned with a 2/3 affirmative vote of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 afirmative vote of the Senate. Gifts: No member of congress, president, or member of the judicial system may accept anything of value from any special interest group under any circumstance. Under no circumstances will any federal employee be permitted to accept compensation for travel, education, or any funding or anything of value from a party advocating for legislation. Neither can a member of congress, president, Judge of the Supreme Court accept travel on private conveyances and pay commercial rates. If private coveyances are used, elected officials must pay full cost of their for their travel and for the travel of any family members. If a private conveyance is used the government employee or canidate for office must pay the prorated cost of the conveyance…that part of the expense that can be reasonably attributed to the usage by the federal employee or canidate. Further, family members (spouses, brothers, sisters, children and parents) and members of congress, president or members of the Supreme Court and there direct staffs are NOT allowed to work and receive compensation as an advocate (Lobbist) for special interests having business before the congress nor shall they receve compensation for services rendered to any corporation or organization having business before congress or with the United States of America for a period of ten years following the last day said member served as a member of Congress, president, or Supreme Court Judge.
