Chredon

He's running a George Bush campaign, supporting George Bush policies, using veterans of George Bush's re-election. So how can his approval be any higher than George Bush's?

To all Clinton supporters who have vowed to vote for McCain in the general election, I pose this question. Is your decision worth a human life? Because if McCain is the President, you can count on thousands more US soldiers and Marines dying in Iraq. Maybe you're supporting McCain because you don't like the way Clinton has been treated. Maybe you don't like the media attention he's gotten. Maybe you don't like the people he hangs out with. Maybe you've bought into the GOP attacks that try to paint him as a racist, or a Muslim, or un-American (all of which are untrue).

But are those beliefs worth even ONE human life? When the Iraq death toll reaches 5000, 8000, or 10,000, will you be able to sleep at night knowing that you could have brought those people home, but chose to continue the war another four years?

Or are you not concerned about the price, in blood, of your decision as long as it's not YOUR blood?

I understand that Clinton's supporters are disappointed with the election, but I cannot imagine why they would vote for McCain in protest. Do you understand what's at stake?

1) The next President will appoint enough Supreme Court justices to either overturn Roe v Wade or protect it for another 25 years.

2) McCain's plan for the economy is to extend the Bush tax cuts, make even more cuts for the wealthy, and drive us deeper into debt.

3) McCain's plan for health care is to give more control to the insurance companies.

4) McCain's plan for Iraq is to stay there until we achieve victory...whatever that is.

5) McCain's energy policy will be written by the same oil barons that wrote Bush/Cheney's.

6) McCain's plan for restoring US prestiege abroad includes throwing Russia out of the G8, requiring secular governments, and to "Bomb Bomb Iran."

McCain paints himself as a maverick, but his views are 90% the same as the rest of the GOP. How can any Democrat vote for him?

While the moderators at the ABC debate spent lots of time asking about Reverend Wright, lapel pins, sniper fire, and the bitter white man, why didn't they bother to ask TRIVIAL questions, like these:

1) Since your last debate, the Federal Reserve bailed out Bear Sterns. Would you have done the same? If not, what WOULD you have done?

2) Since your last debate, oil prices have topped $110 a barrel and gas is $3.50 a gallon. Do you think government should do something to provide relief for the consumer, and if so, what would you do?

3) Since your last debate, Gen. Petraeus has delivered a new report on progress in Iraq. What do you think was the key information in that report, and has it changed you mind in any way?

4) Since your last debate, the dollar has fallen to an all-time low against the Euro. What would you do to help keep our currency strong?

People say that we already know their policies. But a lot has happened in six weeks.

What questions would YOU ask?

Hillary keeps saying that Obama hasn't been 'vetted' because he's so new to the game, and that she has been 'vetted' because of her long experience.

But one critical bit of information we don't have is about Hillary's (and Bill's) finances. How can we make her the nominee when we don't know where her money is coming from? How many people does she owe favors to, for how much money, and from whom? OK, Obama took a few thousand from Tony Rezko (and gave it away). How much have Bill and Hillary taken from the Saudi Royal Family? How much from other foreign heads of state?

Maybe none, but the point is, we don't KNOW.

Show us your taxes, Hillary. All it takes is a call to your accountant.

And haven't we had enough of a President who uses the position to send millions of dollars to his buddies?

If Hillary winds up as the nominee, are we going to regret electing her when we find out she's got financial backers that make her totally un-electable in November?

All you Clinton supporters, please step away from your personal opinions and give this serious consideration.

Obama is ahead in the popular vote and in pledged delegate counts. Nothing is going to change that. The only chance Clinton has is to win the superdelegates, if they go against the will of the voters.

While this primary continues, Clinton and Obama deplete their funds fighting each other while McCain saves up for the General Election.

While this primary continues, Clinton and Obama feed McCain ammunition he can use against them in the fall.

While the primary continues, the Democratic party is ripping itself apart.

Clinton will not withdraw as long as she has a possibility of winning through superdelegates.

For the good of the party, and to improve chances in November, if all the Supers declared for Obama TODAY, it would be over and we could start working on defeating McCain.

Wouldn't that be better for the party?

All the talk about the problems in Florida and Michigan seems to center on one thing: nobody wants to pick up the tab for a re-vote. But without a re-vote, there will always be a question about the legitimacy of the Democratic candidate.

Howard Dean: don't you think it would be worth a few million DNC bucks to make sure you have a solid candidate with full national backing? What's the point of saving your money for the general election if you're going to start that off with a lame-duck candidate?

Isn't it more important to put that money into making sure there are no questions about the legitimacy of the convention outcome? It may stink, but I think it's time to hold your nose, and swallow the cost.

Who agrees with me?

In 2004, the Republicans came up with a Primary schedule that I thought was really great. They didn't implement it, but I wish they had. What do you think of it, given the mess we have now.

1) Divide the 50 states up into 10 groups, starting with the 5 smallest states (by population) and ending with the 5 largest.

2) The five smallest states hold their primary on the first Tuesday in March.

3) Every week thereafter, the next largest group votes.

4) The last group, with the 5 largest states, votes in mid-May.

5) D.C and the territories can vote on any day.

The advantages of this system are:

1) The small states set the tone with early voting.

2) The election isn't over until the large states have voted.

3) Candidates would have to campaign everywhere, and would have time to do it.

4) Candidates with no chance to win would be weeded out early and at little cost.

5) The general election season doesn't start until June.

What do you think?

Never underestimate the Clinton belief that they can have their cake and eat it, too.

If Clinton raises questions about Obama's land deal with Rezko, that's a legitimate look into the Senator's background and his political allies. If Obama asks Clinton to release her tax returns, that's dirty-trick muck-raking worth of Ken Starr.

If Obama takes $20K from Tony Rezko, that's a serious breach of ethics and proof that Obama doesn't live up to his words on campaign finance reform. If Clinton takes $850K from Norman Hsu, that's an understandable error that happened because she can't take the time to thoroughly research every donor.

If we don't accept the delegations from Michigan and Florida EXACTLY AS THEY VOTED, we're denying the will of the people. If the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates and the popular vote, they're just fulfilling the worthy role for which they were selected.

And the scary thing is, a lot of people don't see a problem with this.

Do you?

It looks like everyone has already made their decisions even before the report comes out.

From today's NY Times:

"The official line from the White House is that Mr. Bush will decide about the future of the troop buildup after hearing from General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker. But people familiar with the thinking of the administration say Mr. Bush is all but certain to press for the strategy that relies on heightened troop levels in Iraq to continue through spring, as initially planned."

And also:

'Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader [said] “We’ve got a series of hearings and reports due that will provide a much-needed dose of reality to the spin coming out of the White House. Republicans may be breathing a sigh of relief, but the fact is, they’re headed with the president over a cliff.”'

If everyone already knows what their answer is going to be, why are we waiting for the report?

Under the US Constitution, the public was never to vote for President. It was SUPPOSED to go like this:

(A) The people in each congressional district would select a person whose opinion they trusted to act as a Presidential Elector for their district.

(B) The government of each state would choose two people whose opinion they trusted to act as Presidential Electors for the state.

(C) All the Electors would get together and choose someone whom they thought was wise, dedicated, and honest to act as President, and the person who got the second-highest number of votes in the E.C. would be the Vice-President.

The advantages of this system are:

1) LESS corruption, since the candidates don't even know who the electors will be until a month before the vote.

2) More Local Control, since people would be voting for someone they know locally, not some stranger.

3) No presidential campaigns. Since people don't vote for President, no reason to campaign.

Would this be better?

In one of the more interesting ironies, next year's GOP National Convention will be in St. Paul - Minneapolis...which means that people attending the convention will be stopping in the same men's room where GOP Sentor Craig got arrested for soliciting an undercover cop for sex.

How many of them do you suppose will avoid the men's room?

So, here's another anti-gay Republican Senator trying to pick up a quickie in the men's room.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070828/ap_on_go_co/cr...

I don't care if the guy is gay or not, but really, speaking out against gay rights when you're soliciting men in airport bathrooms...how hypocritical can you get?

With the flap in Florida about moving their primary date up to Jan 29th, and with all the states front-loading their primaries so that the winner will be known by mid-February, I have an idea for a better primary system. What's your opinion?

Rank the states by how many delegates they have, from lowest to highest. Then divide them into 10 groups, 5 states each.

The five states with the lowest number of delegates votes on the first Tuesday in March. Then, in order, every week another group of 5 votes. This ends with the five most populous states voting in early May.

Reasons I think this is better:

1) It allows smaller states to get their voices heard before they are overshadowed by the big states.

2) The winner will still be in doubt right up to the last vote.

3) Candidates will have more time to campaign in larger states.

4) Elections don't start until March.

5) The national campaign won't start until May.

Your thoughts?

Can people not do math? Can they not count the massive deficits? Look at the facts in this table:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Inflation-adjusted revenue was less than 2000 numbers all the way until 2006. And if you consider that, with no tax changes, revenues tend to go up 2-3% per year, today's revenues are 12-15% lower than they would have been with no tax cuts.

The Laffer Curve is just that: Laughable.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/...

... then shouldn't the Democrats give them someone else?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-rove19a...

The GOP knows that nothing will excite conservative voters like a Clinton to run against. They WANT Hillary. So why should the Democrats give them what they want?

It took us 70 years to dig the hole that is our current Social Security system. It'll take a while to climb out. Here's a plan, and I'd like to hear comments on it.

People 50 and older keep paying fully into the plan and get full benefits.

People who are currently 40-49 pay only 75% of their money into SS, and 25% into private investments. Their SS benefits will be cut to 75%.

People who are currently 30-39 pay only 50% into SS, 50% into private investments, and get only 50% SS benefits.

People who are currently 20-29 pay only 25% into SS, 75% into private investments, and get only 25% SS benefits.

People entering the work force pay no SS and get no benefits, but put that money into private accounts. Social Security is dead, replaced with mandatory private investments.

Money going into the system goes down, as does money coming out. Increased investment spurs economic growth that gives the gov't revenues to make up the difference.

Your thoughts?

The United States is the strongest nation on Earth, politically, militarily, and ideologically. So why are we all so scared? We fear Al Quaida, China, India, Global Warming, Economic Disparity, illegal immigrants, drugs, terrorism, and a dozen other things. Where is our national pride?

Has political fear-mongering made us insecure? Do we fear because we have no faith in our leaders? Or are we right to fear these things?

I don't think any sort of impeachment proceedings would be completed in time to do any good, and I don't think the Senate would approve it anyway.

But if Congress remains silent on the ways the Bush administration has misused it powers and trampled the Constitution, they aren't they complicitly saying that it was OK for him to do so?

Do you think we need an impeachment proceeding, if for no other reason than to make it clear that the Bush/Cheney attack on the Consitutional balance of powers will not be accepted or tolerated? Even if politically, you can't win?

The fall of a bridge in Minnesota. The destruction of the levees in New Orleans. The northeast blackout. NYC steam pipes. 27% of the nation's bridges judged structurally unsound. Cracks appearing in 1930s hydroelectric dams.

And nobody talking about it. Tony Snow says that these are 'isloated incidents,' but are these just the ripple that precedes the tidal wave?

Fixing bridges and dams isn't as interesting as national health care and the war in Iraq, but shouldn't it be a top priority of the next administration, and a top issue in the 2008 elections?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...