Are we far enough removed from the election

I wish this was original (I'm not this smart) and I'm sorry if you've all already received it in your email but I thought it was great (you KNOW I'm a republican--you may not know that I love Condoleeza Rice and would have taken to the streets to support her in a bid for the presidency).

It has been suggested that if we really wanted to tick-off the dems, the party should get GWB to step down, now, as president, leaving Chaney as president. Chaney could then could ask for Condoleeza Rice to serve as his vice president (certainly not out of the question, given her position). Then CHeny could step down, thus producing the first Black Female president---and she'd be a republican!!!!

What a stitch!

• Are we far enough removed from the election - for some humor?
  • I LOVE IT!!!! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!! nm - Zville MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Bush Proves How Far Removed He Is 

Rep George Miller

Just when you thought it couldn�t get any worse, President Bush proved once again just how far removed he and his Administration are from the life experiences of most Americans. The President issued an executive order on Thursday that makes it possible for federal contractors to pay extremely low wages to workers hired for the Gulf Coast rebuilding. Bush accomplished this by suspending the 1931 Davis-Bacon law, which says that federal contractors must pay their workers a �prevailing wage� on construction projects.

The guy acted like a real jerk.

I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.

we will be provided the usual substandard party-approved (both parties) candidates to choose from - if it is an actual contested election.  How often does a rogue candidate even get past the primaries in this country?  And how effective could this hypothetical nonpartisan candidate be if elected, when the other kids in the House and Senate won't let him play? 

Most candidates don't stand much chance against any incumbent.  Seems that we vote based on 'name recognition' and don't much care in what context we recognize the name.  Has to be the explanation for how some of these guys (and gals) stay in office term after term despite the fact that we despise them.  Nobody can unseat them without party approval.  And if you spend enough advertising bucks in the several weeks before election we'd vote for Genghis Khan.

Same theory as they use in product advertising.  Say the name and slogan enough times on TV and when we get to the stores we'll recognize it on the shelf and figure it must be okay.  See?  All the hard decision-making has been done for us!

Obama was anointed by the democrats; McCain was anointed by the republicans, and I did not see a whole lot of difference between them.  Both promised to take us in the same direction at slightly different speeds.  So I voted for the lesser of two evils (lot of good it did me).  And when you do that, it's easy to forget you still voted for evil.   

Sad to say, we seem to get the candidates and products we deserve.  We vote for whoever the party runs, buy the products that spend most on advertising, and that's pretty much that. 

I am at a complete loss as to how to change any of this because it all seems to be one big interconnected system.  Throwing the bums out is a great idea, but replace them with what?  More party clones?  I don't think a true populist candidate stands much chance against the two party machines we have. 

Here's a clue, no one really listens to hatred.  You need to cozy it up a bit, put a little whipped cream on it, disguise it a little.  All the personal attacks and name-calling, while typical of you libbies, isn't very palatable.  KnowwhatImeanVern?

President Bush delivers his speech after being sworn into office for a second term, as Sen. John Kerry looks on, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 22, 2005. (AP)

(CBS) If last year�s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn�t vote at all.




IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

John Kerry
41%
George W. Bush
36%
Someone else
13%
Not vote
6%

In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn�t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won�t say for whom they voted.

If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn�t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

In 2004, voted for: Kerry
John Kerry
81%
George W. Bush
-
Someone else
13%
Not vote
4%

In 2004, voted for: Bush
John Kerry
3%
George W. Bush
84%
Someone else
7%
Not vote
3%

In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote
John Kerry
34%
George W. Bush
11%
Someone else
23%
Not vote
16%



For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.

to migrate to alaska.  Ms. Palin will be returning there in Nov permanently.  They have been expecting a massive Rapture-induced influx of people, so they probably won't shoot you unless you are wearing a fur coat. You might as well go, coz you are gonna be totally miserable for the next 4 years as Barack begins the long journey of righting the sinking ship called U.S.

Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year?  Voter registrations are waaaay up this year.  (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.) 

It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s.  There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.

I know there's been a massive push to register young voters.  Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate.  My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights.  But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?

And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote.  I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals? 

What do you all think about it?

that the majority of us do not bother to educate ourselves on a candidate or an issue.  We just grab at something shiny:  Ooh, ooh!  That one speaks well and looks good!  

In any election, if there are candidates or issues I don't know enough about to vote on (judgeships, etc.) I actually leave that item blank rather than just put just anybody's name in there!  Candidates actually fight to have their name placed at the top, because they know that some voters will just select the first one they see.  Or they go for name recogition, and vote for the one who'se spent the most on advertising. Horrifying to think this is how some candidates get elected. 

In the election before that I was aghast when a friend that I thought was intelligent said of Bush/Kerry.  ''We've tried it one way for four years.  Time to try give somebody else a chance.''  When asked,  she could not name any area in which Kerry was better; he was just ''different.''  Oh, well, if it's somebody else's turn.......

And that's the main problem with our political system.  We seldom get a candidate that really inspires us and too often we just end up voting for the one we hate least, or the one whose name is listed first.  Or we get bamboozled by flashy packaging with absolutely nothing inside. 

So I have no idea how we make people pay attention and vote responsibly in order to change all this.