quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

So in actuality whomever has the most money is 'more equal' than the others [:D].

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Reply ~

 
You know - here's the problem I have with any of these type posts. Is your candidate - whoever it is, so lacking in credibility and reason to support that the only solace you have in voting for him/her is to say they are not as bad as the opposition?

My good friend Owner59 pointed out how thus far both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have, so far, not reduced the campaign to mud slinging. Pity that the supporters of either of these two don't follow the same path. Not that either of them represent an 'ideal' candidate; but there must be a reason to vote FOR them - other than they are not the other.

You want equal opportunity idiocy - how's this...

-- Last May, Obama claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.
 
-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
 
-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."
 
-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

If any of those made you fall in love and support Senator McCain, I feel sorry for you; as I do if the OP put you on Senator Obama's bandwagon. I plan on doing the same thing in reverse should there be any type of "idiot" reference to the other side of the aisle. Trust me - there is more than enough to post something new every day about either of these two men. The problem with this campaign is (Senator Clinton's status considered) one of these men will be my next President. I'll respect him as holder of that office regardless of my deep belief that he isn't qualified. And that reference holds true for both of the likely candidates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

In Britain, no-one has to stand and applaud when the lying war-monger who currently runs the show enters the room.  The fact that your press corps does so - especially with a large population who may never see this person in the flesh and so rely on the media - is fundamentally flawed.

quote:

I'd echo kittinSol's questioning the wisdom of letting all voters have a say in who leads each party

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

So in actuality whomever has the most money is 'more equal' than the others [:D].

Exactly - similar to the Affirmative Action policies making some people 'more equal' when it comes to college entrance criteria and hiring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

So in actuality whomever has the most money is 'more equal' than the others [:D].

Exactly - similar to the Affirmative Action policies making some people 'more equal' when it comes to college entrance criteria and hiring.

That was a bit blatant, wasn't it [:D] ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The primary quirk definitely ensures more circus and less time and space given to real issues, as most of the time is devoted to ridiculous high school style elections politicking. It's in someone's interest, but whose?

quote:

In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as "safe" by Congressional Quarterly. [4] In all of these 359, there was no uncertainty as to who would win. The results a week later confirmed that very few House races were competitive. The 2000 House election resulted in a net change of only four seats (+1 for the Democrats, -2 for the Republicans and the electing of an additional independent). In total, 98% of all incumbents were re-elected.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States 

quote:

One of the main reasons incumbents seem to have such a complete advantage over challengers is because of their significantly better financed campaigns. In the 1990s the typical incumbent in a contested election had somewhere between 83 to 93 percent of what was spent by all the candidates in the district, and these incumbents typically captured about 64 to 67 percent of the vote. [9]
The figures should be used with discretion, however, as half the incumbents dominated spending in their area to an even greater extent. If anything, this analysis may even understate how great the incumbency campaign finance advantage predetermines the election outcome, as the analysis examines only contested elections. For instance, in the 2000 election cycle, 64 incumbents ran for reelection unchallenged because the opposition party did not even mount a nominal challenge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

Irish, context is everything.  Your views on AA are noted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne

Asher,  Susan Baker co-founded the PMRC with Gore in 1985. 23 years ago...
As far as family values, the republican party uses that as their platform, not Clinton. You know, the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, stripping of civil liberties, all in the name of "keeping us safe".    Kind of sounds like "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. "

Who actually believes that? Jeesh..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne

Asher,  Susan Baker co-founded the PMRC with Gore in 1985. 23 years ago...
As far as family values, the republican party uses that as their platform, not Clinton. You know, the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, stripping of civil liberties, all in the name of "keeping us safe".    Kind of sounds like "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. "

Who actually believes that? Jeesh..

Quite clearly Hillary...  Why are all of those things OK if done by the right people?

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/10/hillary-clinton-joins-joe-lieberman-to-resurrect-the-culture-wars/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Your "campaign reform" would make us more like the one-party "democracies" that you complain of by limiting free speech. What you're calling 'spending limits' are in fact free speech limits. Limiting advertising dollars for campaigns is limiting speech,  and that's not only unconstitutional it's also a very dangerous path to begin going down.

You are proposing speech limits and giving the government  ultimate control of who may or may not run for office.

Not a good idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Imo, we will always have only a choice between the lesser of two evils under the current electoral process. Nothing will change until we have fundamental campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections with contributions and spending limits. Untill that time comes, if it ever does, the candidates will be beholding to special interest that fund their campaigns and to the back room corrupt party poobahs who call the shots. We, in the U.S. are just slightly better off than those "democracies" that field only one party candidate and have the "choice" to vote only "yes" or "no".