posted
Bull. Four other states broke the exact same rule and were given a pass.
If they had punished New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada the same way, I wouldn't complain, but specifically giving them a pass and putting the screws to Florida and Michigan highlights how UTTERLY STUPID the primary process is, and shows that the DNC favors some states over others. So I blame the DNC for setting stupid, unfair rules, and I blame them for selectively enforcing them. And as the head of that organization, I blame Dean.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not technically correct Lyrhawn. The DNC rule had a specific section dealing with those 4 states separately on the grounds that they held their candidate selection procedures outside the given window (First Tuesday in Feb and last Tues in June) in 1984. The rule specifically forbids any state that held its candidate selection procedure inside that window in 1984 from moving outside the window.
I think its unfair that the DNC wrote separate rules for those 4 states, but it is not correct to say those states broke the rule.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
NewHampshire, Iowa, SouthCarolina, and Nevada were granted an exemption during the rule-making process. In fact, Nevada and SouthCarolina were specificly added to balance out NewHampshire's and Iowa's demographics.
Granholm&Gang broke the rules after those rules were set in place. Not merely after those rules were set in place, but they assumed that they could gain greater personal power because other states would follow the rules set in place. Frankly, I've never understood why fans would even want to reward cheaters with their continued support. Especially when the cheating is so blatant, and continuing.
Despite that, Granholm remains the most obvious candidate on the short list for the VicePresidential slot on an Obama ticket. The quid pro quo being, ignore Michigan superdelegates while selecting its governor as the reconciliation VicePresidential Nominee. It ain't as if Bill had national&international experience before his Presidency. So the lack shouldn't be a barrier for Granholm. Because she helped rig Michigan's primary in favor of Hillary, Granholm would only be a further drag on a Clinton ticket.
Can I think of fairer ways to hold the primaries? Yep. And Michigan would still be within the last*group to hold primaries in July. Six from amongst the 1district and 7states with 3Electors** would be in the group to hold the first primaries in February. (Note that NewHampshire, Iowa, SouthCarolina, and Nevada are not included amongst either group.) The remaining states would hold primaries in March, April, May, and June based upon the number of Electors that each state holds, from smallest to largest. And each month's primaries would double or nearly***double the total number of Electors of states which have held primaries.
And yes, I like the fact that all of the Democratic caucuses&primaries matter this year. I'd like all of the primaries to be crucial every year, but most especially PresidentialElection years. The vote of every citizen should matter up through the last primary, including through the last Republican primary.
* If small pluralities in each state were to vote for the same Nominee, California, Texas, NewYork, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, NewJersey, and NorthCarolina combined hold enough Electors to select the President without input from any of the other states. Which makes the combination of those states perfect for the last primaries, ie those held in July. The state populations are so huge that only a miniscule portion of the voters could talk to or even listen to the candidates directly. So appeals to voters would mostly be through EXPENSIVE media campaigns anyway. And only major candidates can raise that kind of money.
** Wyoming, WashingtonDC, Vermont, NorthDakota, Alaska, SouthDakota, Delaware, and Montana. Because those states and DC have small populations, start-up candidates without vast financial backing would be given an opportunity to plea their pitch directly to the voters, allowing the candidates with less money the opportunity to become better known. Such a first group would also make it more likely that their pledged-delegates would be split amongst many candidates. Thus also allowing the candidates with less money the opportunity to become bigger players. And with only 3Electors apiece, the February results would not unduly influence how the rest of the primaries would go. I'd place Montana and SouthDakota amongst the March primary states to better balance the demographics.
*** ie February states (and district) would have 18 Electors Adding March states would bring the total to ~39 Adding April states would bring the total to ~78 Adding May states would bring the total to ~134 Adding June states would bring the total to 267 Adding July states would bring the total to 538
posted
The parties have no constitutional mandate. They're basically private organizations, however much they may have made inroads into the government. They aren't obligated to let anyone vote if they don't want.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One can also assume that Granholm&Gang rigged the primary to favor Clinton, and have been actively opposing all attempts to hold a fair revote, despite the fact that the "election" was illegal. Not merely breaking Democratic rules, but breaking the Law of the Land. ie Michigan cannot hold a similar primary in 2012 because the bill which enabled the 2008 primary has been voided.
I wish you would either back this claim up or stop making it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Michigan and Florida have proven they can hold their primaries any time they want. The DNC has yet to tell us exactly what they're going to do about it. They might not count it, or let them revote, or seat some of their delegates, or maybe something else they haven't decided on yet.
On the other hand, all the states know now that they can vote when they want and get half credit from the GOP. Each state can now decide if they think it's worth it to move their primaries up, too.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the philosophy behind your primary plan aspectre, but it has some major draw backs.
First you will note that your earliest primary states are heavily biased toward rural populations. Washington DC is the only one with a major metropolitan city. You will also note that there are no southern states in the list and no states that border mexico. There is no representation of the west coast. I think you'd find that as you went through the list of the smallest states to the biggest, you'd find consistent trend with rural white voters voting earliest.
What that means is that this process is going to disadvantage some whole groups like blacks and hispanics who won't have a voice until very late in the process when many candidates have been eliminated. It will also cause candidates early in the process to focus on rural issues. Those candidates whose strengths are in issues that primarily concern urban americans, are unlikely to survive until the big city dwellers get to vote.
There is really no way to make the process fair as long as we continue to operate under the electoral college system.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Michigan and Florida have proven they can hold their primaries any time they want. The DNC has yet to tell us exactly what they're going to do about it.
Not true. The DNC has decided they aren't going to seat the delegates. That decision has been so unpopular that many are pressuring them to change the decision. That isn't the same as saying they haven't decided. The fact that they could change the decision they've made is irrelevant.
The GOP could also change their decision and decide to seat all the delegates from Michigan and Florida or none of the delegates from either. No one is pressuring them to do it so that seems like an unlikely possibility, but it is within the realm of imaginable possibility. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the issue raised as the GOP convention approaches. The argument could be made that since McCain will be effectively uncontested for the nomination, the primary votes in Michigan and Florida were really irrelevant. If the convention is going to be about confirming and rallying around the nominee and selecting a party platform, wouldn't seem unfair not to give Michigan and Florida full representation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno. The Dems aren't sounding real convincing to me. They made a bad rule and now they're not sure they can go through with enforcing it. It wouldn't go over well if a parent did it; I don't think it's effective for a national political party, either.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That's not technically correct Lyrhawn. The DNC rule had a specific section dealing with those 4 states separately on the grounds that they held their candidate selection procedures outside the given window (First Tuesday in Feb and last Tues in June) in 1984. The rule specifically forbids any state that held its candidate selection procedure inside that window in 1984 from moving outside the window.
I think its unfair that the DNC wrote separate rules for those 4 states, but it is not correct to say those states broke the rule.
That's not true either. Off the top of my head, Nevada is a new addition to the early voting thing, so, at the very least that's wrong, but let's look at the ACTUAL rules from the DNC shall we?
quote:11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
It has that bit in it about 1984, but, you left out the part where they SPECIFICALLY say when those states must hold their elections. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina violated those rules by holding their elections before the dates specified for them. I guess you got me a little big, Nevada didn't violate the rule.
And the punishment?
quote:Rule 20.C.1.a: Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
In other words, they should lose half their pledged and all their superdelegates. Instead? South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa were given a special leave that absolved them of punishment for breaking the rules. Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. give the Rules and Bylaws Committee the power to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And apparently they chose to give three rule breakers a break, and to issue Byzantine punishments to two of the biggest states in the country.
quote:Despite that, Granholm remains the most obvious candidate on the short list for the VicePresidential slot on an Obama ticket. The quid pro quo being, ignore Michigan superdelegates while selecting its governor as the reconciliation VicePresidential Nominee. It ain't as if Bill had national&international experience before his Presidency. So the lack shouldn't be a barrier for Granholm. Because she helped rig Michigan's primary in favor of Hillary, Granholm would only be a further drag on a Clinton ticket.
Granholm has more international experience than Obama does. She's spent the last six years going overseas to meet with foreign leaders and business heads to bring jobs back to Michigan. I'd gladly vote for her on an Obama ticket, but she was born in Canada, can she even run?
The whole thing is crap, and I'd love to see more states more up and break the rules. Maybe in 2012 we'll reach a point where so many states break the rules that the DNC can't possible strip them all of delegates without even more voter backlash. But when it comes down to it, Democrats can't win without Michigan and Florida, they CAN win without Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa, which makes the decision even dumber. If there's serious backlash in the two big states it's going to make the DNC look incredibly stupid.
For my own part, I'll vote for the Democrat, but I will never, ever, EVER consider supporting the Democratic party for a long time to come, nor will I donate money to the Democratic party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, Lyrhawn, I forgot about Granholm being born in Canada. Even forgetting, shoulda caught my error cuz she wasn't being constantly mentioned alongside Sebelius and Rice as plausible women candidates for the positions of VicePresidential Nominee.
Frankly I agree about the DNC, and suspect most Democrat-leaning political donors agree. Not only is the DNC collecting a vastly smaller sum for the GeneralElection campaign (for all national offices) than the RNC, I think it's collecting less money than new outfits such as MoveOn. And while your direct reason is different from mine*, I suspect that most of those boycotting donations to DNC are extremely irritated by the arrogance which produces the direct reasons.
* Shoving DemocraticNationalCommittee members as superdelegates into the DemocraticNationalConvention. The bureaucracy should not have the deciding vote in making the laws. The maximum number of superdelegates should include only those Democrats currently holding office as USRepresentatives, USSenators, Governors, the President, exPresidents, exPresidentialNominees, plus one superdelegate for each house of the state legislature controlled by Democrats... ...and maybe as many as one extra superdelegate slot (subtracted from that individual state's total number of regular delegates) for each of those current officeholders to balance out gender inequality. (Hafta think about the exact mechanism a bit more.) All other ethnic/religious/etc balancing should be done within the selection process for the extra superdelegates. If a mayor, party leader, or other muckety muck wants to be a superdelegate, let her/him compete for those extra slots.
posted
I have to admit that it's strange to hear someone claim the DNC is acting on behalf of Democratic voters.
I mean, they're acting a helluva lot more on behalf of the early-primary states than they are of other, later-primary states, such as Pennsylvania for example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like Colombia wasn't particularly thrilled with Penn's calling his meeting with their ambasador an "error in judgment." They've fired the firm that he was working for.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like the kind of thing that might be worth quitting over, as opposed to the previous stuff, mostly because it involves a foreign goverment, by my gut.
And in the sidebar, Clinton to stop telling hospital story. I think in this case she never meant to pass along an untrue story. But someone was able to debunk it, so her staff should have been able to if they'd tried.
posted
I realize that map doesn't bother with in-country trips, but in the fall of '96 she visited my wife's highschool and after a speech was interviewed by my wife (as a junior) and her mother and grandmother. We have some keepsake photos from the White House.
Not that that could possibly influence my vote, but it makes for a good story. Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, when Clinton tells the story, her motorcade will have rushed in going 90 miles an hour, and she'll have run at top speed into the gym from her limo to avoid sniper fire coming from the football field.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My grandmother sent the Clintons a Christmas card one year (it was a print of a painting Grandma had done). Their secretary sent her a nice thank you. I think she put it in her family history book. My grandma was a major democrat.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Penn has always (well, ever since I first saw a picture of him, anyway) looked to me like an extra from The Shaodow Over Innsmouth.
I wonder how long the first sentence in his wikipedia entry will last before it gets edited.
[Edit--not very long, apparently. When I went to the page it started with "Mark Penn (born September 10, 1954) is a big fat man who likes to eat children."]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...American Research Group's latest poll results show Obama and Clinton in a dead heat in PA.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I passed a black guy asking for change a couple of days after I read that article originally. It was hard not to smile, but alas, I did not have any change.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The three most recent polls have Obama in the 40's. The most recent one has him leading by 3. That's really something. I'm sure the PPP poll is an outlier.
Okay, so maybe not such an outlier. Well, this is getting mighty interesting.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In many ways, the way Obama has run his campaign has made me think that he will be a good president. He has not been changing staff frequently, but from my limited knowledge, he didn't hire staff based on friendship or loyalty. He hired the best he could. He planned for the long haul, and went about creating an efficient and well organized network. He says he isn't good at the details, but his campaign seems to be run well anyway.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
also worth noting is that Obama has said that he not only wants his ground level teams to stay together through the general election, but if he becomes president to stay together through his entire presidency. To always keep the communication running and really embrace the bottom up approach to enacting change. Something I thought was pretty cool.
scholarette, I'm not sure where Obama said he isn't good at the details, but I do know that while we are given specific goals and things that need to get done, for the most part the details are left in the local volunteers hands in terms of how we want to do things.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many, many months ago, in a debate, him, Edwards and Hillary were asked their greatest weakness. Obama said he has trouble being really organized- like if someone hands him a paper, ten minutes later, it will be lost. Hillary attacked him over it pretty heavily. (Edwards and Hillary both gave typical job interview answers- I care too much about poor people). I have a boss who micromanages (and forgets about the big picture) and so I have come to believe pretty strongly that micromanaging is evil. A good leader should be able to turn a project over to his/her subordinates and trust that it will get done.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In many ways, the way Obama has run his campaign has made me think that he will be a good president. He has not been changing staff frequently, but from my limited knowledge, he didn't hire staff based on friendship or loyalty. He hired the best he could. He planned for the long haul, and went about creating an efficient and well organized network. He says he isn't good at the details, but his campaign seems to be run well anyway.
I think that characterizes the main difference between the operation of their campaigns. Clinton's campaign is staffed with 20 or 30 years of loyalists, people who've been with them for years and years.
Obama on the other hand, has no loyalists, no party favorites, and no leftovers from his wife's previous administrations, and thus is free to pick the best and the brightest, and that is what he has done.
The result? Clinton's campaign is riddled with turf wars and a lack of communication through the ranks. She is very literally not in charge of her own campaign. Obama on the other hand has an efficient campaign full of professionals who are largely free of infighting.
If for no other reason alone, this shows what kind of Administration they might put together after they get elected. Clinton's will be full of old hats arguing with each other and battling over turf. Obama's will be much better run. Some might think that doesn't matter, but I think the last seven years are a testament to how a badly run Administration can effect policy. I think Clinton's would almost be worse in some ways.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If for no other reason alone, this shows what kind of Administration they might put together after they get elected. Clinton's will be full of old hats arguing with each other and battling over turf. Obama's will be much better run. Some might think that doesn't matter, but I think the last seven years are a testament to how a badly run Administration can effect policy. I think Clinton's would almost be worse in some ways.
Hmmm... This is actually a really good point. One that I don't see discussed all that much. While we're (the American people) deciding who to elect as our President, that choice is more than just that individual. It's also all about who they bring along with them.
Is there any place that has a breakdown of the remaining candidate's current staffs and their resumes?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, in case anyone cares, I'm significantly more afraid of Obama now than I was a year or more ago the first time I mentioned that the man petrifies me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*cricket noises*
Gut feelings have no bearing on a rational discussion on which candidate would make the best possible president.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know... I think gut feelings can have a large bearing on any given rational discussion. You get "gut" feelings through your perception of a person, situation, etc. And even if one can't rational explain those feelings, they're there for some reason. Including them in the discussion can be enlightening as long as all parties can remain civil.
My gut feelings about Obama have so far kept me from fully endorsing him. I'm not going as far as Lisa, but there's something there that I can't put my finger on that wants to see something...more...from him before I make my final decision.
Given all the rational (and irrational) discussion I've heard/read, I'm still giving my gut some weight...
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well I geuss I wouldn't be a true Colbert fan if I didn't grant you the right to listen to your gut, as we know the gut has more nerve endings then the brain. *nods*
I grant you, "gut" may be another one of those words American politics has ruined for everyone. How about I say, I'm still giving my instincts some weight?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are people in my family who have said things along the lines of "there's just something about Obama I don't trust...I don't know what it is". When pressed for specifics, they can't give any.
Translation: I'm a racist, but since I don't want to admit it to myself or others, I'll just say there is some indeterminant quality about him that rubs me the wrong way.
I don't know if it's Russian racism coming out or some sort of Jewish fear that he's secretly a Muslim terrorist, but regardless, there is no basis for it and it's infuriating.
note: this is not to say anyone's reasons on this forum for disliking Obama are racist, just relaying an anecdote.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the last year I've heard far more people saying worse things about Clinton with nothing to back it up other than a gut feeling about her.
Personally, I used to like her and now I really, really don't, but I have a litany of reasons why. And I've got some complaints about Obama too, but I'm certainly not afraid of him in any way. I mean have you seen the way he bowls? Doesn't exactly inspire fear.
But the thing is, those gut feelings ARE important. Because for all the voters out there who have pro and con lists and make these decisions academically, there are probably just as many that sit down and say "I just dont LIKE this person," and vote that way. And you can't ignore that voter, because they swing elections, so they most certainly are important.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think gut feelings have validity, because, in the end, it's just not possible to account for all the factors. I have spent far more time analyzing the democratic candidates' stances and histories than most people I know, and on any given day, I run across considerations I never thought of. I also found that you can't really objectively decide a question like this when there is any nuance at all. (I mean, I can pretty objectively conclude that Bush II was a disaster and the worst president by far of my lifetime, but not all calls are as easy to make. ) So I looked at all of their stances on all of the things that were important to me, and scored them, but then what? Are all those things weighted equally? Okay, no, so I weighted the issues based on how important I thought they were. But at what point does a number of lesser disagreements outweigh a more fudamental agreement? And even that's not enough. Where do I factor in the likelihood that a candidate will say one thing while campaigning and do another in office? (Remember how Bush was going to be the Environmental President? Or was that the Education President?) How strongly do I weigh a candidate's agreement with me when he or she previously espoused a contradictory stance? And what about electability? What about ability to get stuff done in office? What about the ability to inspire the nation? What about known ethical concerns? What about propensity to scandal? What if someone you disagree with appears to approach the fundamental questions more democratically and reasonably, and maybe at this moment in time democracy is more important than any single issue?
At the end of the day, you do as much research as you can, and try to make the best decision you can, but at the end of the day, everyone's judging by their gut. If you say you're not, I don't believe you. Not between these three, and certainly not between these two.
Of course, we have a responsibility to be educated, so that hopefully there's more involved in that gut instinct than racism or sexism or anti-intellectualism. But there's no rubric for objective comparisons.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well sure. Knowing Lisa, though, while I'm sure I would totally dispute her reading of her evidence, I don't doubt that she has actually looked into Obama's background and stances.
posted
Lisa finds Obama scary because she is an extreme libertarian who does not recognize the legitimacy of the social contract and sees all those who ever value community over individuality as equivalent to Hitler or Stalin.
I find her very scary!
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find Obama scary to the degree that I don't know why I'm so attracted to him, but it only bothers me because I'm not on his side. It didn't bother me so much with Reagan or early Clinton.
If Ron Paul weren't so thoroughly marginalized, I'd find him scary, but I could explain why I find him creepy at length - there's nothing ineffable about it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the record, in case anyone cares, I'm significantly more afraid of Obama now than I was a year or more ago the first time I mentioned that the man petrifies me.
Well, he's much more likely to be president now than he was a year ago. So if a President Obama scares you, for whatever reason, it's no surprise you'd be more scared now than before.
quote:I don't know if it's Russian racism coming out or some sort of Jewish fear that he's secretly a Muslim terrorist, but regardless, there is no basis for it and it's infuriating.
That fear of Obama being an evil Muslim seems to be quite widespread. My mother, a German Catholic, has it, as does my stepdad who is a Midwestern protestant.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You find Obama scary because you KNOW you FEEL down t the very being of your soul that among us today, among us the people there is the ONE the ONE who can truly not LEAD America but UNITE America in common purpose. Can help forge a new America, the only one your instinctally feel in your gut as the only one who can clean up Washington's act, can make the government more open, more clean, more honest with themselves, and the American people.
America needs change, this isn't just a matter of "indicators" oh how the current administration has abused that term it is a matter of truth, self evident truth. It is as simple as that, that the United States requires a reality check its needs to change its act. America has an ever increasing debt it cannot hope to pay back without budget cuts, it has another Vietnam that it cannot hope to win, and an economy that has stagnated at 2% a year, China is growing at 15% a year, Russia which suffered a catastrophic economic collapse and "shock therapy" is easily reaching 10% growth. Mathematically China only needs 3 to 4 years before they equal and then surpass the United States in PPP.
The facts are incontrovertible the United States faces a very and all too real possibility of economic decline relative to the world this coming century, it is perhaps inevitable, the United States in the 50's and 60's took on commitments back when its GDP was that of over half the world combined now it has shrunk to far less then that and faces a balancing act that England's policy makers would have never in their worst nightmares imagined. And with another Vietnam this balancing act is nolonger freeflowing but now it is constrained and handicapped by the obligation to keep a quarter million men and equipment and billions of dollars a year maintaining a war that can never be won, and losing a war that could have been won without this needless vietnam, I am referring to Afghanistan, right now Canada is on the frontlines trying to help rebuild a shattered country with less men then their are police officers then there are on the island of manhatten on any given day, just recently Europe announced that they would send more men there for fear we, Canadians would be forced to pull out without additional support.
But 700 French soldiers is not going to win Afghanistan, 7000 NATO troops is not going to help, 70,000 NATO troops may not help, 150,000 United Nations peacekeepers and nation builders is what will help.
The entire international community should have been involved, the USA has frivolously spent the support and the goodwill of the world and now it is time to earn it back, now is the time to change it all, now is the time to take back the government into the hands of the people, to build a government that will listen to the people, that will listen and work with Congress, and not extend the powers of the Imperial Presidency.
Now is the time to change and we can do it with 3 words... YES! WE! CAN! Vote! Obama 2008'!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) So I looked at all of their stances on all of the things that were important to me, and scored them, but then what? Are all those things weighted equally? Okay, no, so I weighted the issues based on how important I thought they were. But at what point does a number of lesser disagreements outweigh a more fudamental agreement? And even that's not enough. Where do I factor in the likelihood that a candidate will say one thing while campaigning and do another in office? (Remember how Bush was going to be the Environmental President? Or was that the Education President?) How strongly do I weigh a candidate's agreement with me when he or she previously espoused a contradictory stance? And what about electability? What about ability to get stuff done in office? What about the ability to inspire the nation? What about known ethical concerns? What about propensity to scandal? What if someone you disagree with appears to approach the fundamental questions more democratically and reasonably, and maybe at this moment in time democracy is more important than any single issue?
