So who's everyone supporting for 2008?

denver has. time will tell.

Right, but don't they have major hoops to jump through, such as medical prescription? California and Oregon also passed medical marijuana, but I think the Feds will not allow the doctors to prescribe in California, or else, they lose their medical license. The FEDs will remove the $$$ from the states who chose to do certain things. Look no further than the way the FED controls the legal drinking age in each state, by limiting or opening the coffers for highways, depending on each State's drinking age.

The Dems are going to pick another urban candidate with little appeal in the heartland.

Groan!! Unfortunately I think you are right!

Urrrmm... new here, but my I humbly suggest a look at www.richardsonforpresident.com

Bill Richardson.

He is currently running in about 4th place (behind John Edwards) - strangely, that's where a young man named Bill Clinton was running about this time in 1991...

If you look at his background, his experience, what he's done as the Governor of New Mexico, what his done as a diplomat recently for our nation, you may be impressed. Unfortunately, he's the Democratic Party's best kept secret.

And yes, Senor Hoover. The Electoral College should be abolished. I thought it was a forgone conclusion after the Bush-Gore debacle but it seems the only thing that will rouse the masses to revolution is if American Idol gets cancelled or even pre-empted...

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3548_0_2_0_C/ Nice skeleton in Senor Richardson's Clintonian closet.

Is the opposite better? Now they ignore the most populated states because they are not in play. If our country is becoming increasingly urbanized, shouldn't the urban centers have an increasingly greater role in electing a president? Why would anyone really vote in NY and CA when they know the Dems will carry? The popular vote in 2000 would have been even more Gore if they felt like their vote was going to count. We live in a democracy, lets have a popular vote. There is enough of federalism in Congress.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Presidents ignore New York? And Florida? And California? Do you have anything, absolutely anything to quantify your premise that "the popular vote in 2000 would have been even more Gore if they felt like their vote was going to count"? Anything. And here, I'll make it easy for you.

hoover_rc

Should we just do away with states all together?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

hoover_rc

Messrs. Highton and Wolfinger are here to prove you wrong. Go ahead and discount their study as Rovian, since they are from the conservative bastion of Berkley.

http://igs.berkeley.edu/publications/workingpapers/99-5.pdf

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HIGHER TURNOUT

Benjamin Highton & Raymond E. Wolfinger

Rich Americans, far more likely to vote than their poorer fellow citizens, also differ in how they vote and what policies they favor. These undisputed facts lead to the widespread belief "that if everybody in this country voted, the Democrats would be in for the next 100 years" (Galbraith 1986). The gist of this conclusion, which seems to follow ineluctably from our opening sentence, is accepted by almost everyone except a few empirical political scientists. Their analyses of survey data show that no objectively achieved increase in turnout--including compulsory voting--would be a boon to progressive causes or Democratic candidates. Simply put, voters differ minimally from all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted.

...

Would election outcomes and the substance of public policy in the United States dramatically change if more people voted? Contrary to the expectations of many others, we have found that universal turnout would bring modest changes... Taken as a whole, nonvoters appear well represented by those who vote.

Getting back to the original question, I strongly feel any presidential candidate should have military service on their resume. I feel that if you are going to be Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces you need to have at least some military experience.

I also believe a candidate should have experience in the Private sector. Hopefully, they would have some success stories in their business ventures that one could point to and get the feeling they know what they are talking about and how their actions will impact the economy.

I think this base criteria would eliminate half of the clowns now running who have been career politicians...

Getting back to the original question, I strongly feel any presidential candidate should have military service on their resume. I feel that if you are going to be Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces you need to have at least some military experience.

I also believe a candidate should have experience in the Private sector. Hopefully, they would have some success stories in their business ventures that one could point to and get the feeling they know what they are talking about and how their actions will impact the economy.

I think this base criteria would eliminate half of the clowns now running who have been career politicians...

good point!

Getting back to the original question, I strongly feel any presidential candidate should have military service on their resume. I feel that if you are going to be Commender in Chief of the Armed Forces you need to have at least some military experience.

I also believe a candidate should have experience in the Private sector. Hopefully, they would have some success stories in their business ventures that one could point to and get the feeling they know what they are talking about and how their actions will impact the economy.

I think this base criteria would eliminate half of the clowns now running who have been career politicians...

Like it or not, W meets both these criteria...technically;-)

Like it or not, W meets both these criteria...technically;-)

but hopefully, he won't be running again.

Like it or not, W meets both these criteria...technically;-)

Excepting that his reserve buddies don't ever remember him completing his reserve duty. ;-) Oh, thats right, his records were lost. ;-) ;-)

Excepting that his reserve buddies don't ever remember him completing his reserve duty. ;-) Oh, thats right, his records were lost. ;-) ;-)

No, Dan Rather has them

hoover_rc

Should we just do away with states all together?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

No, but the Senate does a fine job representing the states equally.

And that study is Rovian..

Resurrect the campaign-finance reform movement, abolish the Electorate, overhaul the primary process, and provide greater 3rd party incentives.

"The electoral college is about balance of power. Balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches is the sheer genius of our form of government."

The electoral college is not about balance of power between the three branches of government. It is entirely a function of the executive branch. But I agree whole-heartedly in your assessment of the genius of our form of govt. Too bad neither the Leg or the Jud have managed to assert their balance in the last 7 years...

No, but the Senate does a fine job representing the states equally.

And that study is Rovian..

Resurrect the campaign-finance reform movement, abolish the Electorate, overhaul the primary process, and provide greater 3rd party incentives.

OK. Scientific facts aren't worth looking at. Thanks for making your position clear on that. You know the "campaign finance reform" movement is unconstitutional, right? Or should we just throw out the first amendment as well while we are making your changes?

OK. Scientific facts aren't worth looking at. Thanks for making your position clear on that. You know the "campaign finance reform" movement is unconstitutional, right? Or should we just throw out the first amendment as well while we are making your changes?

Funny how the right-winger is a science guy all of a sudden. You give me a desired conclusion, and I'll design a study or a poll that will get you there. That's not science.

Yes, let's throw out the 1st amendment. What?! I'm saying the opposite. Let's amend the constitution again. There is no way the Founders could have comprehended the level of influence special interests would have on presidential campaigns. The current system has bred corruption so let's fix it.

Allowing a woman to vote was once unconstitutional too.

First, where have I been against scientific evidence? Second, you are the one that made the claim that if more would have voted, Gore would have a larger percentage of the popular vote. I simply refuted it with scientific evidence. I'm open to you finding a reputable and researched study or poll to do the opposite, but I know you cannot do so.

You are advocating limiting individuals' rights to address their government. That's throwing out the first amendment. The fact that you don't understand or recognize that doesn't change anything. I did it before for someone else who didn't understand it, so I'll do the same for you. Here is the first amendment. I even bolded the important part so you don't have to read the rest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First, where have I been against scientific evidence? Second, you are the one that made the claim that if more would have voted, Gore would have a larger percentage of the popular vote. I simply refuted it with scientific evidence. I'm open to you finding a reputable and researched study or poll to do the opposite, but I know you cannot do so.

You are advocating limiting individuals' rights to address their government. That's throwing out the first amendment. The fact that you don't understand or recognize that doesn't change anything. I did it before for someone else who didn't understand it, so I'll do the same for you. Here is the first amendment. I even bolded the important part so you don't have to read the rest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, I know what it says. Strict constructionism is to rigid for my taste. Let's be a little more flexible and adapt...

?It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.?



I'm done here. off to the lounge..

Yes, I know what it says. Strict constructionism is to rigid for my taste. Let's be a little more flexible and adapt...

?It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.?



I'm done here. off to the lounge..

Oh. Living Constitution. But you just told Bob "I agree whole-heartedly in your assessment of the genius of our form of govt." Did you change your mind? Regardless, I think you'll be better suited in The Lounge. TWCTITWA (That Whole Constitution Thingy Is Too Wordy Anyway). Maybe you can offer insight as to why L Squared got another DUI. Or who wins Dancing With the Starts. omg lol bff

John Edwards is the Eddie Haskel of American politics.

John Edwards is the Eddie Haskel of American politics.

And the worst on women's issues contrary to what you might have heard:roll:

And the worst on women's issues contrary to what you might have heard:roll:

I'm hoping for an Edwards/Obama! ticket. According to some friends who have their finger on the DC pulse, HRC isn't dumb enough to put Obama! on the ticket, but Edwards is. I would really, really enjoy watching the debates if those two empty suits were on stage, although it will still be a letdown from watching Cheney gut, stuff and mount Edwards live on national television.

VOTE CLINTON 2008. Please send money HERE>>> HillaryClinton.com - Welcome

Well she is now on a roll now...Obama is smart and will be a factor, but not in 2008. She is at the head of the pack.

The republicans are all too busy trying to look, talk, act (yea), and comb their hair like President Reagan (who, as a middle of the road Democrat, I really now appreciate now historically--especially compared to the last 7 years of disaster, if you get my drift!). also,....

"Mittens" Romney can't keep his stories straight yet.... McCain's fire is gone...Fred Thompson--who? President "Fred?" ...and then there Juliani-he will be the most formidable republican againts Clinton, but if Juliani is the candidate, the most conservative republicans will stay home and not vote at all since he is a social liberal...which won't help things for them...so Hill wins, and she can send Bill out world wide to patch up the U.S's negative image abroad. The US can be admired again, ie respected, i.e., then therefor SUPPORTED in their endeavors world wide.

If Hillary is elected, I may . I don't agree that Hillary being elected, will cause the US to be admired, nor respected by the rest of the world.

VOTE CLINTON 2008. Please send money HERE>>> HillaryClinton.com - Welcome

Well she is now on a roll now...Obama is smart and will be a factor, but not in 2008. She is at the head of the pack.

The republicans are all too busy trying to look, talk, act (yea), and comb their hair like President Reagan (who, as a middle of the road Democrat, I really now appreciate now historically--especially compared to the last 7 years of disaster, if you get my drift!). also,....

"Mittens" Romney can't keep his stories straight yet.... McCain's fire is gone...Fred Thompson--who? President "Fred?" ...and then there Juliani-he will be the most formidable republican againts Clinton, but if Juliani is the candidate, the most conservative republicans will stay home and not vote at all since he is a social liberal...which won't help things for them...so Hill wins, and she can send Bill out world wide to patch up the U.S's negative image abroad. The US can be admired again, ie respected, i.e., then therefor SUPPORTED in their endeavors world wide.

When the reality of HRC being one of the two choices crystallizes, I wouldn't count on a bunch of social conservatives staying home. And correct me if I am wrong, but the UN security council voted today to increase their involvement in Iraq, and as far as I know, WJC had no involvement.

When the reality of HRC being one of the two choices crystallizes, I wouldn't count on a bunch of social conservatives staying home. And correct me if I am wrong, but the UN security council voted today to increase their involvement in Iraq, and as far as I know, WJC had no involvement.

If the Republican nominee is Juliani, then the conservative right will stay home and not vote. Juliani's strong record on abortion rights in NYC, his favoring of gay civil unions, etc., will all come out.

If it is Mittens or Fred is the Republican nominee, yea, the conservative base will come out "in droves" because abortion, gay marriage, stem cell use, etc. will then be made into the Repub's big issues in upcoming TV campaign ads--but, strategically this will backfire because there are deemed much bigger problems in the country right now by most voters.