What about That Speech?

[truckboy]

Pundits,

What are your opinions of the speech last night?

I guess I'm actually more interested in what you all think of the latest Bush Admin. comments, etc. regarding Iraq. Things like Rumsfeld's comments about insurgency and Bush's plea for patience.

I was and remain against invading Iraq, but now that those fuckups got us there, I agree that we have to stay and TRY to finish the job. That's exactly why I was against it.

The Daily show had some great Rumsfeld and Cheney clips from 2002 last night. I can't believe that they are that stupid. Things they say now are directly opposite of what they said then, and are what I was saying then. I'm no genius. How infuriating to be lied to, know it, and have the majority around you believe it.

Anyway.... Opinions, jabs, debate......?

[MTBME]

The weakest parts about that speech, and I didn't hear it all, was the references to staying the course to bring Democracry to Iraq. when that was never the reason why we went over there. That part seems to be glossed over by Bush. But love it or hate it, I think were all stuck making this work.

[TrailBate]

It was more of the same. Bush kept making the totally disproven connection between Pre-war Iraq and Al qaida/WMD's.

Then there is the "we invaded Iraq so we can fight the terrorist over there and not over here" logic. Somewhat believable, but why not stay in Afghanistan and fight the terrorists there? You know, the place where OSAMA is?

btw, did he even mention Osama last night?

and this crap about not setting a timeline to withdraw is complete crap. Why? here is why:


In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99: " Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/3/99: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05: “It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

[Slider]

I don't bother to listen to anything he says. It is pretty much all lies, so I ingore the words and watch the deeds.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I didn't bother watching because the substance of his speech was about as predictable as the outcome in the new Star Wars movie. I guess he figures that if he keeps saying the same things over and over, the doubters will eventually believe it?

They, and anyone who buys what they say, are just not living in reality. There will N-E-V-E-R be democracy in Iraq. I am of the totally opposite opinion of truckboy. I was for the invasion, but against staying. There is no face to save. Screw world opinion. Get our men and women home and let them sort out their own ****.

[huff'npuff]

I didn't bother watching because the substance of his speech was about as predictable as the outcome in the new Star Wars movie. I guess he figures that if he keeps saying the same things over and over, the doubters will eventually believe it?

They, and anyone who buys what they say, are just not living in reality. There will N-E-V-E-R be democracy in Iraq. I am of the totally opposite opinion of truckboy. I was for the invasion, but against staying. There is no face to save. Screw world opinion. Get our men and women home and let them sort out their own ****.




To quote Troy Brown of the Patriots :
"BINGO! WE GOT BINGO ! " My sentiments exactly !

[kernel crash]

"There is no face to save. Screw world opinion. Get our men and women home and let them sort out their own ****"

Unfortunately there is plenty of face to save. In recent interviews with some military families that have lost sons in Iraq, they felt that a complete pull out without achieving some semblence of stability, would make their sacrifices a complete waste. They would like to think that their sacrifices had a purpose. The reality is that it is a very very small percentage of the population making all the trouble in Iraq. You don't get that perspective because of the philosophy of the media. If it bleeds, it leads.

[catbbq]

<snip>
They, and anyone who buys what they say, are just not living in reality. There will N-E-V-E-R be democracy in Iraq.
</snip>


Technically, they have an democracy R-I-G-H-T--N-O-W, what with the free elections and all.

Just like all of you, I don't know what the president actually knew or thought when he invaded. Personally I was against it, but it is really easy to be against something without really knowing what's going on. Its like being against dihydrogen oxide (http://www.ndc.edu/sutheimer/dihydrogen%20oxide.htm).

[TrailBate]

"There is no face to save. Screw world opinion. Get our men and women home and let them sort out their own ****"

Unfortunately there is plenty of face to save. In recent interviews with some military families that have lost sons in Iraq, they felt that a complete pull out without achieving some semblence of stability, would make their sacrifices a complete waste. They would like to think that their sacrifices had a purpose. The reality is that it is a very very small percentage of the population making all the trouble in Iraq. You don't get that perspective because of the philosophy of the media. If it bleeds, it leads.




Like Jon Stewart says, "yeah, they never report the cars that DON'T blow up."

There are just as many (ok, I don't know that. But there are quite a few) families of KIA's that are against the war.

[TrailBate]

Just like all of you, I don't know what the president actually knew or thought when he invaded.


no, but we know what he said, and continues to say.

[catbbq]

Just like all of you, I don't know what the president actually knew or thought when he invaded.


no, but we know what he said, and continues to say.


True. Giving him the benefit of the doubt (btw, I voted libertarian), we invaded to take care of the WMDs which were never found. Perhaps invasion could have been avoided if the UN had been given full access to conduct the searches, but that is another discussion.

Once we got in and discovered no WMDs, the country was in ordered chaos (or something like that). Options were to either withdrawl and probably leave total chaos or stick it out. I am glad I am not the president.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Technically, they have an democracy R-I-G-H-T--N-O-W, what with the free elections and all.



Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.

I am sorry to break it to you, man, but there is no tooth fairy.

[kernel crash]

They are somewhere between the brutal dictatorship style of government they had and the not so smooth transition to a democratic style of government that some would like to see. How many want to see it happen will determine the eventual outcome.

[TrailBate]

From the Iraqi blogs I've read, most suspect the elections were a tad bit fraudulent.

[kernel crash]

Why because the minority sunni's didn't get a clear majority ::)

[ArmOnFire]

From the Iraqi blogs I've read, most suspect the elections were a tad bit fraudulent.


Wow, the side that lost claims that the elections were a bit fraudulent.

Now that is something that never happens in a democracy.

[/sarcasm]

[truckboy]

I am of the totally opposite opinion of truckboy. I was for the invasion, but against staying. There is no face to save. Screw world opinion. Get our men and women home and let them sort out their own ****.


OK, we disagree. You are as entitled as I.

Whether or not you think we belonged there in the first place is irrelevant at this point. However, we are there, we made a freakin mess of things and we need to stick around for a long long time to keep things together, for our own safety. It's about quality of life for the guy on the street. If he has hope, he's not going to blow himself up and he's going to be grateful for a better life. If we duck and run after destroying their cities and social structure, they won't have a chance to rebuild and feudal warlords and fundamentalists will fight it out for control. Both are a breeding ground for the misguided fools who flew planes into our buildings.

That idea that we could run in, blow a few things up, get Saddam, set up a govt. and get out clean was just so naive that it seemed designed by a high school boy. We need to finish the job we started.

[TrailBate]

From the Iraqi blogs I've read, most suspect the elections were a tad bit fraudulent.


Wow, the side that lost claims that the elections were a bit fraudulent.

Now that is something that never happens in a democracy.

[/sarcasm]


Huh? Lost? What? I said "Iraqis" not "democrats". How have you concluded "the side that lost"?

[slapheadmofo]

Why because the minority sunni's didn't get a clear majority ::)



:) Nothing like boycotting the election then bitching about not being represented.
Brilliant!

[ArmOnFire]

From the Iraqi blogs I've read, most suspect the elections were a tad bit fraudulent.


See above

Wow, the side that lost claims that the elections were a bit fraudulent.

Now that is something that never happens in a democracy.

[/sarcasm]


Huh? Lost? What? I said "Iraqis" not "democrats". How have you concluded "the side that lost"?

[TrailBate]

OK, we disagree. You are as entitled as I.

Whether or not you think we belonged there in the first place is irrelevant at this point. However, we are there, we made a freakin mess of things and we need to stick around for a long long time to keep things together, for our own safety. It's about quality of life for the guy on the street. If he has hope, he's not going to blow himself up and he's going to be grateful for a better life. If we duck and run after destroying their cities and social structure, they won't have a chance to rebuild and feudal warlords and fundamentalists will fight it out for control. Both are a breeding ground for the misguided fools who flew planes into our buildings.

That idea that we could run in, blow a few things up, get Saddam, set up a govt. and get out clean was just so naive that it seemed designed by a high school boy. We need to finish the job we started.



God forbid we leave. If we did that, terrorists might start killing people, and foreign fighters will start pouring across the borders. Can't have that.


Either these terrorists really do hate democracy and the new Iraqi government, in which case these bombings will go on forever, a la Columbia and Israel.

Or, the terrorists are just trying to kill Americans, in which case they will stop once we leave.


I say for every new Iraqi Security guy we put on the street, we bring one of our guys home. Let the Iraqi's fight for their own damn country now.

[truckboy]

If we do that the "government" that eventually comes to power will be either Fundamentalist Muslim Anti-American or Fuedal Warlord Anti-American and we won't have access to cheap oil. No, in this I am in agreement with our president. Never thought I'd say that about GW. We have to finish the job or it just gets worse. I am all for Iraqis taking care of themselves, but leaving now is a bigger mistake than going in in the first place. This is what I was afraid would happen. That's why I was against it in the first place. All the tchnology in the world doesn't win the war against geurilla fighters, and it's never over quickly. They don't fight "fair" and there's always someone ready to step up and take the last guy's place.

[FriedRys]

Then there is the "we invaded Iraq so we can fight the terrorist over there and not over here" logic. Somewhat believable, but why not stay in Afghanistan and fight the terrorists there? You know, the place where OSAMA is?

btw, did he even mention Osama last night?





Uh, we are still in Afghanistan.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99: " Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/3/99: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05: “It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”


That's such a bread-n-butter ad that MoveOn could do. I swear, the moveon folks should read this forum, maybe their ads wouldn't be so useless then

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Just like all of you, I don't know what the president actually knew or thought when he invaded. Personally I was against it, but it is really easy to be against something without really knowing what's going on. Its like being against dihydrogen oxide (http://www.ndc.edu/sutheimer/dihydrogen%20oxide.htm).


Think the Downing Street Memos pretty much told us what was up before Iraq. Or the pre-emptive attacks in Iraq before the the pre-emptive war that bush was doing, trying to get Sadam to retailiate, using that as a reason to go to War. And Bush stating he wanted to invade Iraq back in 1999. Bush never gave a **** about 9/11, it's just something him and his GOP scum buddies use to get political points anytime they can (remember the GOP convention anyone?!?!)

also, www.dhmo.org is a better one :)

[Slider]

Think the Downing Street Memos pretty much told us what was up


Good point. What we'll never know is the details of the money trail to Halliburton and their ilk. I'd bet they ended up with lot of that unnaccounted cash we were handing out like candy.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

We're starting to get an idea on that. I am surprised this story has not taken more prominence in the headlines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1401946.htm

[TrailBate]

Then there is the "we invaded Iraq so we can fight the terrorist over there and not over here" logic. Somewhat believable, but why not stay in Afghanistan and fight the terrorists there? You know, the place where OSAMA is?

btw, did he even mention Osama last night?





Uh, we are still in Afghanistan.


Exactly!!!

[Slider]

We're starting to get an idea on that. I am surprised this story has not taken more prominence in the headlines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1401946.htm


That is the stuff on the books, so once Bush and the plunderers get out of office, there's some chance we can reconcile those handouts. There are many $billions more that was Iraq's own cash, in boxes, that we controlled and distributed with no accounting whatsoever. Tell me Halliburton wasn't stuffing their pockets with that cash too. >:(

Slider

[TrailBate]

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/archive.html

[felixatvtc]

All the tchnology in the world doesn't win the war against geurilla fighters, and it's never over quickly. They don't fight "fair" and there's always someone ready to step up and take the last guy's place.


Personally, i could give a crap what happens in Iraq and here in the US. It's all so corrupt i'd rather see them both all wiped out. As long as the war doesn't go so long that they bring back the draft.

As for fighting a "fair" war. I think that's idiotic. Fighting fair is BS. If someone comes up to you and picks a fight guess what. Do you be gentlemenly and let him hit you first? F that, you kick him in the nuts, knee him in the face, and then smash his head with a rock. Screw fighting fair. It's a war, fight it or get the f out.
Remember a couple of hundred years ago when Americans were the "gorillas" or i guess they were called minute men back then. We didn't like the government that the brits were pushing on us....

The fall of the Romans.... They tried to spread out around the world. Their government was corrupt beyond belief and they fell from within.

Doesn't anyone see any of the connections? History DOES repeat itself.

You guys talk/argue/discuss back and forth on this stupid forum about politics. Ok fine, but what are you people doing about it? Anything? Beuler? And no, voting doesn't count, 'cause frankly, voting doesn't mean squat anymore in this country.
You need a place to vent. That's great, from the facts/arguements you guys/gals type on this board i would think you would be able to get a section of a news paper. Spread your words to the dopey masses and see if you can actually stir up something. Maybe light a fire under the sheeple and things MIGHT actually change before we lose all of our freedoms

[fvh420]

I disagreed with the war from the start. I voted for Bush in the first election and quickly realized I was lied to about his agenda. I voted for a candidate that was branded a moderate, was for smaller governments and fiscal responsibility. I was also voting against Al Gore. (I voted against Bush in 04) What we got was a puppet of the Necons and religious right, one of the dumbest presidents in history. I could go on and on about the lies, deception, etc that have been used to bolster the support for the war but that is not the point.

As a country, we need to clean up the mess we started. We put the Iraqi people in this mess and we can't abandoned them in the chaos that is left in our wake. We need to find a solution that leaves the place better than we found it, not worse.

The next right thing to do is to vote out the party/players that got us into this mess by being sheep behind the Bush administration. Karl Rove and co. need to be sent packing. We are stuck with Bush for 3 1/2 more years, but in a little over a year we can take away his power by taking the House and/or the Senate away from him.

That is how a true democracy should work. We cannot just cut and run, we are the largest and most powerful country in the world, if we want to be a true leader we need to do what is right, even if it hurts in the short term.


rant over, going back to thinking about my Lynn ride tonight...

[Mr_Cheeze]

Spread your words to the dopey masses and see if you can actually stir up something.


You responded, correct? So I guess it's already working.

[slapheadmofo]

Personally, i could give a crap what happens in Iraq and here in the US. It's all so corrupt i'd rather see them both all wiped out. As long as the war doesn't go so long that they bring back the draft.



So wiping out the entire US is fine, but a having a draft is a big deal? That's wacky.

[MTBME]

"i would think you would be able to get a section of a news paper. Spread your words to the dopey masses and see if you can actually stir up something."

You mean something like this? I had this guy as an instructor in college. I believe he was teaching Sociology at the time. Just might have been the most liberal guy I ever met. We had some spirited debates. Think there's any merit to his idea?

http://www.lowellsun.com/letters/ci_2831080

[TrailBate]

I love it. Felix gives his opinion on politics, then insults everyone that debates politics. ::)

[sizlinseagulsoup]

You guys talk/argue/discuss back and forth on this stupid forum about politics. Ok fine, but what are you people doing about it? Anything? Beuler? And no, voting doesn't count, 'cause frankly, voting doesn't mean squat anymore in this country.
You need a place to vent. That's great, from the facts/arguements you guys/gals type on this board i would think you would be able to get a section of a news paper. Spread your words to the dopey masses and see if you can actually stir up something. Maybe light a fire under the sheeple and things MIGHT actually change before we lose all of our freedoms


I'm pretty sure you don't know my political experience...

[felixatvtc]

I love it. Felix gives his opinion on politics, then insults everyone that debates politics. ::)




I'm not sure where exactly i gave my opinion on politics. I find our government corrupt 10 fold yes. I guess if that's my opinion on the whole thing. I am in the wrong.

I never insulted anyone upon re-reading my post. I find if kind of amusing that it seems like at least 75% of the posts/responces on a BIKE forum are political.

When i say "to the dopey masses" i speak of the 40-50% of people in this country that don't even bother to vote/educate themselves/evolve (that number might be low, i know TB will correct me if i'm wrong). The people that piss and moan about how crappy the government is and how much they are being screwed. Yet just sit back and accept it. Yep, i said voting is pretty much all hacked of some sorts so i AM contradicting myself, but i feel that if the MAJORITY of people actually took it upon themselves to be a part of the process it might actually work.

I'll go back to not reading/responding to the political threads again :P

[sizlinseagulsoup]

well, 75% of the bike posts on NEMBA should be political. NEMBA is a special-interest group, and yes, while we spend money on trail work, we do spend a lot of time lobbying elected officials/park rangers/towns peoples etc to allow us to pedal. Naturally, we're a more politically active group in comparison to BustedSpoke, who doesn't do any of that.

[slapheadmofo]

Bustedspoke is a website, not a group.

[huff'npuff]

" Yep, i said voting is pretty much all hacked of some sorts so i AM contradicting myself, but i feel that if the MAJORITY of people actually took it upon themselves to be a part of the process it might actually work. "


.....and if the majority vote meant something,instead of the electoral college, the process might actually work.
Government may be corrupt,but it's still better than any other government in the world.

[truckboy]

All the tchnology in the world doesn't win the war against geurilla fighters, and it's never over quickly. They don't fight "fair" and there's always someone ready to step up and take the last guy's place.


Personally, i could give a crap what happens in Iraq and here in the US. It's all so corrupt i'd rather see them both all wiped out. As long as the war doesn't go so long that they bring back the draft.

As for fighting a "fair" war. I think that's idiotic. Fighting fair is BS. If someone comes up to you and picks a fight guess what. Do you be gentlemenly and let him hit you first? F that, you kick him in the nuts, knee him in the face, and then smash his head with a rock. Screw fighting fair. It's a war, fight it or get the f out.
Remember a couple of hundred years ago when Americans were the "gorillas" or i guess they were called minute men back then. We didn't like the government that the brits were pushing on us....

The fall of the Romans.... They tried to spread out around the world. Their government was corrupt beyond belief and they fell from within.

Doesn't anyone see any of the connections? History DOES repeat itself.

You guys talk/argue/discuss back and forth on this stupid forum about politics. Ok fine, but what are you people doing about it? Anything? Beuler? And no, voting doesn't count, 'cause frankly, voting doesn't mean squat anymore in this country.
You need a place to vent. That's great, from the facts/arguements you guys/gals type on this board i would think you would be able to get a section of a news paper. Spread your words to the dopey masses and see if you can actually stir up something. Maybe light a fire under the sheeple and things MIGHT actually change before we lose all of our freedoms


Your angry reply to my post is actually mostly an agreement with it. Except for your rant about everybody else ranting and not doing anything you reiterate my points. I'm sorry I was too subtle.

He does have a point though, gentlemen. I don't get into this as often as others, like Trailbait and Mr. Cheeze, but I bet there are many more political conversations like this going on in non-political forums. How could we harness or organize something like that? Any ideas? Most of us are obviously pissed at the current state of American Politics, not matter which way we lean, but unable to really do anything effective besides vote and rant at eachother. That's why we're so pissed I guess. Grassroots orgs just seem so ineffective.

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's what felix doesn't get. This medium is the new age activism. This is the new ground for the grass to root. Why go out and hold a stupid sign at a rally in 90 degree heat or freezing rain when you can actually state your opinion and read others as well as find lots of info, good or bad, and form a more thought out and reasoned consensus. The way I see it, some people who less frequently contribute probably wouldn't find a way to contribute at all if they couldn't just plop down and take in a debate like this online. The part that many have yet to come to grips with is that it is GOOD to disagree. It is good to argue and debate. Thoseof you who take offense so easily need to understand that this type of discourse is so healthy. Unlike other political forums, we are pretty much respectful of each other. You don't see petty namecalling and personal insults here. If somebody pisses me off, I send a private message.

So whether the debate is here or somewhere else, it doesn't matter. We all learn from it and that's a very good thing.

[truckboy]

Yeah, but how do we let the politicos know what we're happy about and unhappy about? There's so much untapped power here. For instance, even right leaning posters are unhappy about many aspects of Bush's leadership. Yet all we do is argue about it while he continues to act on his agenda. And Lefties aren't happy about the lack of direction of the Dems, but we're not DOing anything. It's like it's keeping us busy and occupied while the real deals are being made in the executive washroom.

I dunno, maybe it's a regional thing. Maybe there are lots of forums where people are praising the glory of our leadership. Maybe NE is the only region where a mtb forum has such a political debate presence. It just seems that there is a lot of impotent talk going on. But what would we do... have a march, a RIDE? Sign some online pettitions?

[Mr_Cheeze]

It's simple. You vote. And you suggest to your friends and family that they should become more involved with learning about government. Too many people... FAR too many people are just so apathetic when it comes to politics. I cite my own mother who always says the same thing, "Oh they're all just a bunch of *******s." And yet she votes democrat because she's in a union and that's what they do.

Well, maybe they are all just a bunch of *******s. But there are people out there, good people, who get ignored because most everybody believes that it has to be either a Democrat or a Republican. Can't vote for the third party else the guy you really hate might win. This is the kind of skewed logic that has permeated the collective thoghts of most voters. Those third parties don't stand a chance so why bother. Well maybe if people bothered, they would stand a chance. Maybe one time they show a surprising 12% of the vote. And then people notice and seriously consider a third party next time out.

These two major parties. They are entrenched. They are all beholden to special interests and big money donors. Insurance and health care and foreign oil and pharmaceuticals and tort law continue to make it more difficult to make a living if you make less than 60K a year. And here we have this valuable asset called the internet where the word can be spread. The message that it's ok to go outside the mainstream. We'll survive! Perhaps maybe we'll be even better off. Maybe not. But the status quo isn't doing the trick from where I'm sitting.

[sizlinseagulsoup]

Well, maybe they are all just a bunch of *******s. But there are people out there, good people, who get ignored because most everybody believes that it has to be either a Democrat or a Republican. Can't vote for the third party else the guy you really hate might win. This is the kind of skewed logic that has permeated the collective thoghts of most voters. Those third parties don't stand a chance so why bother. Well maybe if people bothered, they would stand a chance. Maybe one time they show a surprising 12% of the vote. And then people notice and seriously consider a third party next time out.


What about Ross Perot? He got wayyyyy more than 12%.

The problem is money. Perot had money, Nader doesn't. Neither are any less qualified (that's debatable but, I suspect you understand). No one sees third parties as valid because they don't have money. Think about the American myth of social Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest." If you're rich, you're sucessful. It's also in NE religious stories... the Protestant work ethic. Those who are sucessful are graced by God. The two parties are rich, therefore they are "legitimate." The Greens and libertarians are poor, therefore, they are not.

I think people might take third parties seriously, but only on a local level were you know the candidate personally. Jill Stein's state rep campaign is a perfect example. While she didn't win, she did a damn good job, and almost won her hometown.

[truckboy]

I "traded" my vote on some online list in 2000. I voted for Nader because I knew Gore would win MA (more to the point that Bush would lose) so that some Green supporter in Wisconsin could vote for Gore. The idea was to get to a certain level for the Greens (5%?) nationally so that they could get some kind of funding. I'm obviously a little sketchy on the details. Point is I voted for Nader in 2000, but was too scared to do so in 2004 - making mr_cheeze's point. Maybe the current stretching to the right and inability of the Democratic party to grow some balls will get people looking at third party candidates. I say bring 'em on. The more the merrier. I'd like to see someone win with a mere 30% of the popular vote - unless they were far right of course.

[slapheadmofo]

I vote third party nationally; basically I consider it a vote against the two party system. Locally, I base my decision on specific issues.

[TrailBate]

I "traded" my vote on some online list in 2000. I voted for Nader because I knew Gore would win MA (more to the point that Bush would lose) so that some Green supporter in Wisconsin could vote for Gore. The idea was to get to a certain level for the Greens (5%?) nationally so that they could get some kind of funding. I'm obviously a little sketchy on the details. Point is I voted for Nader in 2000, but was too scared to do so in 2004 - making mr_cheeze's point. Maybe the current stretching to the right and inability of the Democratic party to grow some balls will get people looking at third party candidates. I say bring 'em on. The more the merrier. I'd like to see someone win with a mere 30% of the popular vote - unless they were far right of course.


Somehow the word has to get out to regular people that there ARE 3rd parties. Unfortunately, many of them are wacko, or have no prior experience as an elected official.

[slapheadmofo]

Unfortunately, many of them are wacko, or have no prior experience as an elected official.


Is that the parties or the people? :)