[Greg Quinn]

I voted for GWB twice. Not embarrassed nor do I regret it. Funny how time makes memories selective. When Reagan was in people complained constantly - now look - people want a resurrected Reagan. I never did vote for RR - I voted Democrat that time and have regretted that!

No matter who is running and what promises are made - people forget there is a Congress to contend with. You want to complain about the War in Iraq? Why were the funds allocated then? Did your Congressman have the backbone to vote no?

----------------------------------------------------------

Ronald Reagan was a terrible President. I think it was Carter before him who put solar panels up on the white house. Regan came in and had them taken off, I believe George Bush SR was vice president at the time. Imagine how things would be if Carters ideals were not dismissed for oil revenue. President ford also took the initiative and made it so cars were to be built more fuel efficient, I believe Carter came to office and continued to enforce that law. Some where in Reagan's years it all went under the carpet. Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago

[Chery]

Chery, I am always eager to hear your point of you and you are always full of good advice and compassion. With that being said, I respectfully disagree with your point about no politician has the ability to change global warming, on a few different levels. First, I think bringing awareness to any issue creates an opportunity for change, for any subject. Not one single leader can be the master of all change or destruction, but they do have a responsibility to do THEIR PART.. I would never make an assumption that Bush or anyone else alone, could prevent war or stop global warming, pollution or hunger. HOWEVER, the leaders that we elect do have to recognize their accountability in paying attention to these issues and creating world alliances to reinforce the changes or policies to create a different and better future for all. I don't think that has been a priority of this administration, which is why our allies have decreased dramatically in numbers. Third world countries have made drastic changes to using alternative types of energy. IT is possible. Although I do happen to think some of global warming may have to do with evolution, but it isn't the sole reason. We as a nation are the most wasteful country on earth, of fossil fuels and every other source of energy that we use. WE have the ability to send people to outer space, so why can't we change policies and everyday habits to help clean our air and protect our ozone layer? That doesn't seem too far fetched for any leader, or citizen for that matter.

YEs, it does come to down to electing leaders that have our best interests at heart. This is why a Constitution was created, to enforce the people's will. The rights of people in this country have been limited in several ways due to the policies and changes put in place by our current administration and with the APPROVAL of President Bush.

Moreover, war has been going on since the beginning of time and probably will always exist, this doesn't mean that the rules of engagement should be based on lies and half truths. I think every leader is somewhat of an ego maniac and many of them are corrupt and self serving. THis doesn't mean that we shouldn't still hold them up to the standard of honesty and true public service. Just because we haven't cured diseases, whether mental or physical, doesn't mean we stop fighting the fight. One person cannot achieve that goal, but in numbers, more things are possible. This is how grass movements begin.

Al Gore wasn't the best candidate but he was the one at the time that I thought had my interests at heart. I would have voted for someone else if there had been more options to choose from. This isn't a matter of being to the left or to the right, it has to do with believing in what our country stands for and that the rights of the people are being preserved and protected. This is so that there isn't a usurp of powers between the branches of government. I didn't feel that happened during the past eight years and I never trusted his interests.

It starts with each individual, caring and being interested in what is going on. Starting with mothers, who since biblical times have rallied together to fight and defend for what they believe in. They have changed many things along the way in history. Before Women's rights, or rights for minorities, or desegregation, people came together to create change. Maybe we should start putting the power back in the people's hands and stop waiting for the next ego maniac to change the world.
By the way, I am thankful for every moment you are on this earth Chery. You have always been kind and loving and a very dear friend. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and everyone else listening. Peace be with you.. my friend.

Couldn't rate you again love, but I know what you mean. You still believe in the basic right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all. Throughout history people have been lured with this, given a little of that 'lollipop' but then the mongers have always found a reason to justify taking it away again bit by bit - or choosing who 'deserves' these rights. In my opinion, we are all rallied with lillipops during voting time - then the promises deminish until we are needed again - and not the other way around. That sounds greedy to me. IMO, those greedy with power can be currupted at any time and I don't trust any of them - that's why I generally stay out of politcal issues.
I have followed debates and have had my hopes raised a few times at several decades, but something always happens to fall apart in the end.
Yes, my dear friend, people do make a difference and I sincerely hope that they will get the chance to do so before it is too late to repair the damage worldwide.

I, for one, no longer have the strength to fight a losing battle. Maybe the next generation will be wiser and stronger - I sure hope so.

[tomder55]

I did not vote for President Bush in 2000 but I was proud to do so in 2004. Don't let public opinion fool you . Harry Truman left office with a lower approval rating than President Bush will . But history now regards his Presidency with high regard.

I see a lot of comparisons between the two as I have stated elsewhere on this site. Like Truman he has had to face a new threat .And like Truman he has set the template on how to deal with the threat in the future. Oh;sure the Bush Doctrine will evolve like the Truman Doctrine did ;but those who follow him will have pretty much follow his blue print.

[George_1950]

'“The [Obama] campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause—other than an amorphous desire for change—the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”' tomder55


Interesting quote on your signature, tomder; reminds me of the Ross Perot campaign which begot Clinton (both elections in 1992 & 1996); perhaps this rehash of personality won't be as devastating.

[tomder55]

If you like that you'll love this Opinion Journal editorial

Wonder Land - WSJ.com

But I think Victor Davis Hanson (as he so often does ) nailed it when he compares Obama to the fictional candidate that Robert Redford played in the movie "The Candidate" !

'The candidate' - starring Barack Obama

[purplewings]

Plenty of people did vote for Bush, apparently. However, many did so simply because they didn't want Gore or Kerry in office. It seems to me we have been getting worse candidates on the ballot for each election, which means we vote 'against' someone rather than 'for' the other. If someone not in the status quo attempts a run to get in the ring, other politicians and the press push him right out so no one knows he's even there, let alone what he stands for. The politicians already in office direct who will be appropriate & lucky voters get to choose between those few.

[Dana2007]

Purplewings
It appears that you are the most level headed thinker here.

I came to this forum to get answers as to why a black man and a woman are being allowed to vote.

"Allowed" was my big question. Apparently, the media and other politicians do actually control who gets to be president and not actually the voters as we think.


Thank you for the best answer yet

[purplewings]

Purplewings
It appears that you are the most level headed thinker here.

I came to this forum to get answers as to why a black man and a woman are being allowed to vote.

"Allowed" was my big question. Apparently, the media and other politicians do actually control who gets to be president and not actually the voters as we think.


Thank you for the best answer yet

And thank you for being so kind.

[Dana2007]

Purplewings
It's not out of kindess that I speak but from truth.

I had excellent teachers in the 70s who made excellent predictions.

One of my high school teachers Mr. T predicted that someday we were going to have a black president during a time when there are a lot of problems so that those problems can be blamed on him or to get him stuck with the problems something to that affect.

He also made it very clear to us that we don't pick the president like we think.

GLAD I STUCK AROUND HERE LONG ENOUGH TO HEAR YOUR OPINION. THANKS AGAIN.

[George_1950]

Black and female presidents. Dana2007 writes: "my high school teachers Mr. T predicted that someday we were going to have a black president". It could be Condaleeza Rice, or someone else. My own thought has been, it will not be a liberal/fascist. Margaret Thatcher was first in GB, and I believe it will take that kind of person to be first in the US. I have never believed Hillary would be elected, and I don't believe Obama will either, but that is just me.

[Greg Quinn]

I think Chuck Norris should be your president. Chuck Norrisisms

[Dana2007]

Greg
Now you know who you can talk to about your choice--the media and the politicians

[Greg Quinn]

Black and female presidents. Dana2007 writes: "my high school teachers Mr. T predicted that someday we were going to have a black president". It could be Condaleeza Rice, or someone else. My own thought has been, it will not be a liberal/fascist. Margaret Thatcher was first in GB, and I believe it will take that kind of person to be first in the US. I have never believed Hillary would be elected, and I don't believe Obama will either, but that is just me.

-----------------------------
It seems it will be one or the other.

[purplewings]

When the super delegates make their choices, since they have already held office, it would seem Bill Clinton & pals would make Hillary's chances much greater.

I wonder if she wouldn't also be the easiest to be defeated by McCain. I think McCain might feel more secure anyway.

[Greg Quinn]

purplewings]
---------------------------------------
I was wondering what it was/is about Gore that made you not want to vote for him?

[tomder55]

Al Sharpton has already threatened a march on the DNC if Hillary wins the nomination ;especially if the rules for Fla. And Michigan delegates are changed .

I for one hope the Democrat nomination comes down to a floor fight at the convention. How much fun would that be?!

The Democrats would be torn apart . I can just hear the pressure on the white guy super delegates now... Do you want to be the white guy who denies the first viable black candidate the nomination ?

Already some prominent Super delegates are saying they would quit the party if their vote was decisive. Both the idea of the super delegate and the proportional assigning of the delegation are ridiculous rules that the Democrats need to seriously reconsider .

[tomder55]

I don't know about anyone else but Al Gore's ties to illegal campaign fund raising by the Clintonistas ;soliciting campaign funds from the PRC (China-gate ) and the possible quid pro quo associated with it was enough to raise my antenna about the Goracle.

[JBeaucaire]

-----------------------------
I have never believed Hillary would be elected, and I don't believe Obama will either, but that is just me.

-----------------------------
It seems it will be one or the other.

I think you meant to say that one or the other will get the Democratic Party's nomination.

[shatteredsoul]

I guess it all comes down to the same issues with every candidate. They are all self serving in some way and in one way or another show that they have less than perfect records of honesty in politics. At the end of the day, what matters is the way the country is leaning. Eight years ago we were in a very different place, economically, and otherwise. However, whatever interests that we relate to morally, ethically or financially, usually determines who we vote for. We hope that the candidate that represents our interests will be honest and forthright in defending and supporting our interests. The sad fact is, greed and power does something to people. It affects their thinking and decision making. NO matter who is elected, it is a flawed human being with the power to lead our country.
We should be united in our hopes to elect someone who is honest, has character and truly cares about making America are more safe, prosperous and healthy place to be.
Each person may have made mistakes, or shared in business practices that seemed inappropriate or maybe just doesn't have the experience that you or I may think is needed to lead a country.
I personally didn't think Kerry or Gore were the perfect candidates and I don't know that Clinton or Obama are either. But I can tell you that based on job performance, and the issues surrounding why we invaded Iraq, or the reasons we were given, were questionable and dishonest enough for me to know I couldn't vote for Bush.
I am tired of our country being a bully to other countries. I am frustrated that we impose our religion, beliefs and way of life on other cultures and societies. I don't think this is the way to create unity, it just increases hatred of us. Not that I don't love democracy because I do. I just don't think every other country has to live the way we do, to live in peace. To me, Bush has illustrated the concept of being the big bully in the school yard and I am tired of this being our mantra. Do I believe we should attack terrorism ABSOLUTELY.. but we should attack it where its actually a present danger, not in a country that just happens to occupy tons of oil fields and is vulnerable to an attack.
At this point, I think McCain has just as much of a chance as either Democratic nominee, it just depends on how much support he can rally from all Republicans. Whether the candidate has made mistakes in the past isn't the issue, its how they rectify the problems put in front of them now. EVERY president in office has had some sort of scandal, a realization of some dishonest decision making, whether with fund raising or in appointing people to their administration.
So the real issue is, how do we put the power back in the hands of the people? It isn't just what I believe, that is what this country was founded on.. this is why people sat down and drafted a Constitution.
The way elections are run, held and how fundraising works, are all questionable. These are real issues that must be addressed if we want to ensure having candidates who really represent the people, can also run for office.
In other words, it isn't just about the candidates but also the laws put into affect that are used to their benefit while running for president. How we do Electoral votes, how we run polling stations, redistricting and fund raising all effect this nation and the candidates who are part of this election process.

[xphelper]

Yes; however, I do regret some of his undertakings that have added a few trillion dollars to the Federal debt. However, given the same choice again (eg, Bush or Gore), I would still (hesitantly) vote for Bush. What a choice!