At this point, my decision on who I vote for will be decided by who the VP is on either ticket. Obama pics someone I like, he'll get my vote. McCain picks someone I like, he'll get my vote. I'd like to see Rice, or Huck on the Republican side and Lieberman, or Gore on the Democrat side. After all, whomever is the VP, generally sets themselves up to run later on down the road.
What would you say that? This was in response to Pizzamans basement office comment which disappeared upon my initial posting of my quoted response to him.
But isn't the point of this election that we need more ] bi-partisanship and working together, not separation?
i agree that we need more bi-partisanship. i support bloomberg for vp for obama. but liberman is going to the basment office next to the boiler room.
no because he have a one track mind. bloomberg on the other hand is more independent, probably very good about economy and a lot more repect all around among democrats and independents. how can you compare the two.
One track mind? Ah, isn't that what we want? Someone who is decisive and does not waffle? And Lieberman IS an independent, Bloomberg is not.
no i want a well rounded individual that is dynamic. bloomberg is an independent also. he left the republicans party a few months back. to me he is a lot more capable in particular about business and economy. the country faces a lot of challenges like social security and health care and things like that and bloomberg is more solid on these issues. in New york he is one of the most popular mayors and has the support of almost all segment of population. Even shrapton. he has also done a lot of good here regarding the economy of the city, crime. Schools and more.
No, this is not what we want. We have had this for the last 8 years, and it is abominably the wrong way to think and govern.
Why would you want more bi-partisanship? It seems that Obama and Clinton have no problem voting for the wars as long as McCain votes for welfare. I'd say we have a lot of bipartisanship in the last 2 years as the Dems have for the most part, rolled over for whatever Bush has wanted, and likewise. What we really need are some non-partisan politicians. Statesmen who actually represent their constituents and the Constitution. Not people whose first loyalty is to their lobbyists and party leadership.
This much is completely true. Regardless of a democratic congress, Bush has still managed to get what he wants. When I spoke of bi-partisan, I was not referring to doing what lobbyists wants, but finding real compromise on real issues. Compromising not by accepting a bill you don't want in exchange for being able to pork it up with other crap and earmarks. I'm talking about both sides taking an issue and taking the good points from each of their plans and making one plan based on those parts.
i agree with most of what you say here, i hope we have enough democrats that make republicans irrelevant. i also hope that the neocons get exposed for the incompetent fools that they are
I agree that they have been too timid. I hope a wave of dem winning will get them to be more assertive there is no guarantee but i do not want any of the neocons in the WH not even as tourists. I will get that
Mia, Ok. Just so long as we're not kidding ourselves. I find it hard to believe, that anyone here believes, that this government actually operates in our best interest, or is out to do right by us (the little guy).
I never said that. What I am saying is that Bush, regardless of a democratic house and senate has still gotten all he wanted, and continues to do so, meanwhile those that gave it to him blame him for getting it?