In case you weren't paying attention, the Dept of Homeland Security was created as a consequence of the 911 attacks and the failures of our FBI and CIA. It's a firmly entrenched bureaucracy now and like all the others, it's here to stay. When was the last time you saw a govt agency dismantled - especially one this size? It ain't gonna happen. We can't even get rid of the Dept of Energy or the Dept of Education.
Did it solve the problem?
No, we have more problems internal, too much of a big system to deal with and leaks all over the place and on top of that the arrogance of organizations to be the one to do the job has increased.
I know it is here and will be for a bit but I also think we can get rid of some of it, the TSA is one part that really isn't needed for airports or ports. The airlines can take over the security and the port authorities can handle the ports.
BUT then we can't get rid of the education department even though the great leader Reagan promised to get rid of it and he didn't.
That's NOT "how it works". How it works is that state primaries have become an integral part of our political system. You can wander off into the theoretical tall grass all you want, but that thought exercise is futile and irrelevant. State primaries are here to stay, and that's not going to change.
Tell that to the FEC and those who have told me otherwise. They said what I posted, there are no laws that the party has to follow or requirements that say a vote has to take place in order to present a candidate for an election. They are the ones who regulate elections not me, even though it is a traditional practice, it is not something that every party practices. The party can choose anyone they want and I understand that they are here to stay but when we have an important election with a number of idiots and fools trying to get the nomination and a number of advisers on both side of the isle repeating the same thing, the primaries can be forsaken and the party can choose a candidate.
By the way, ever think that this is the problem with a two party system?
You ever think that this propagate the dumbing down of our voters by telling them the process is part of our "democratic society" while the fact is not many vote in primaries because they have no party affiliation?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but by the nature of their evolution, state primaries are part of the political process. Integrated with the primaries are the development of grass roots organizations, FUND RAISING, and the use of modern media for candidates to get their message out and develop national name recognition. Nobody is trying to "fool the people", and most everyone - except for perhaps some fairly recent graduates of the public school system and certain illegal Mexicans - realizes they aren't voting directly for the candidates. It sounds to me like you want to repeal the 12th Amendment and go back to the days of Jefferson & Adams.
Well I see you may be making my point about the present problems facing the republicans.
The primaries for the republicans may cloud the field and cause the problems for the voters because right now it is all confusing to those who are trying to pick out who is who and what they stand for, another reason why there is this sense of the republican party needs to pick someone and stand behind them now. Name recognition by the time the primaries are over will be the issue, Obama has his name out there for a time while the other candidate for the republican party will not and the dems have already ramped up their effort to trash the other guys without too much trouble.
I think a majority of voters actually think they do not understand how the president is picked or that the president is not king.
Nope not trying to repeal the 12th amendment but it does seem to reflect the idea that we can vote for the president and vp separately because those are two distinct votes in congress.
I've read the above run-on sentence several times now, and it just doesn't make any sense. I'll say again, the GOP selection process is in the beginning stages and they will not have a clear and concise platform until the nominee is chosen. However, even at this early stage the Gallup Poll has Obama LOSING to a generic Republican 47% to 39%. Romney is already in a dead heat with Obama according to the Real Clear Politics Average, and he hasn't hardly even begun to campaign. Obama is well on his way to developing the worst record ever - worse than Carter - in every aspect of a presidency be it domestic, foreign or economic. Unemployment is in the mid-teens and his oppressive policies and regulations will make sure it stays there until Nov of 2012. People know who the president is, and he's the one they're going to blame. What would make you think that anyone (besides the blacks or the hardcore left) would vote FOR Obama just because they recognize his name??? If anything, that would be the primary reason to vote AGAINST him.
Sorry for the grammar, BUT to clarify, they will do the same thing they did with McCain and the others who were in the field. people will get tired by the time the primaries are over with and have made up their minds.
it's been a loooong time since we've had a split ticket in the White House, and for good reason. First of all, we don't need "balance" between the President and his VP. They should complement each other and work as a team, but they dam sure don't need to have differing political philosophies and allegiances. Having it your way could have resulted in a George Bush/John Edwards team in the W/H - how well would that have worked out?? That's why we have checks and balances between the three branches of govt for "balance".
Well I think I can put this a better way, we should have a choice among the candidates within the party - not between two parties. Example Biden or Hillary for VP.
That's the way conservatives are portrayed and labeled by the liberal Democrats - bible thumping hicks that "turn to their religion and guns" because they're too stupid to comprehend the brilliance of Barack Hussein Obama and the "fairness" of his socialist ideals.
Well not exactly, this is way way beyond Obama and liberal dems. It goes to the heart of the people who insist on meeting with religious leaders while trying to speak to all "conservatives" at the same time.
The MSM and the entertainment industry have been promoting this stereotype for years, and it sounds like you've consumed the koolaid.
Well that's partially true, I don't know what the hell is the MSM but the media (all inclusive - meaning including Fox) has been promoting the same thing for years telling people what to think and how to think.
NOPE didn't drink the koolaide, just grown really tired of not having substance in these forums or in the media about what really is going on. A lot of BS is being spread about and no one seems to be talking the truth, it is either defending or ripping down Obama/congress while not saying anything useful or with substance.
I'll bet a lot of these "independents" are far more conservative than people realize, and they demonstrated that at the polls in 2010.
Absolutely not true, independents seem to be a lot like me, classic liberal/libertarian in our thoughts. Meaning that we want to see little government, be left alone to do what we want and none of this BS about a marriage amendment or any of the same "do as I tell you, not as I do" type of partisan politics. One reason why Ron Paul seems to be doing well in the republican party is simply because he is speaking to the independents and the conservatives who are actually classic liberals/libertarians.
We've had almost three years of liberalism, with the first two being governed by the most liberal congress and president in history. Having experienced that, anyone who can't tell the difference between conservatism and liberalism is either beyond hope or not paying attention.
Well we had more that 70 years of liberalism in our government, actually more than 110 years but who's counting.
The problem is that for the first time in a very long time we have had a liberal congress with accompanying liberal republicans who didn't pass everything the president wanted to pass and it wasn't because the republicans in congress but because the dems didn't follow suit to what the president wanted. I have to ask why should we even worry about this while in the previous congress, we had the same situation and the dems got a lot of things passed without any problems?
BUT going back to the issue, there seems to be no difference among many independents simply because liberal/conservatives look like they want to do the same exact thing - control people through government.
One example is the marriage amendment, as much as I feel marriage is between a man and a women, I do not want the federal/state government intervening into my life telling me a definition of marriage - it is not their place. Conservatives keep talking about small government and all that but when they bring up issues of a personal nature and talk about laws - they are acting just like liberals.
The same goes for the stink everyone makes about the liberals attacking Christianity, while at the same time many religious conservatives want to see Islam to be restricted like it is in other countries just because Muslims restrict Christians in their countries - all stupid reasoning which leads to pretty much a state religion through legislation. As much as this may sound liberal, it is not and I have yet heard many conservatives say this and stand by is - we all have the absolute right to practice our religion, PERIOD.
We had all better care about the incompetence of the administration if we want this country to continue to provide the way of life that made it great.
I think we are a bit too late on that. THIS happened to start under Bush and Bush could have done more to strengthen the country but failed to do so.
My comment isn't a bash Bush one but reality, see it was under his watch with a republican congress that we saw the formulation of the the recession we are in with the trigger of the housing bubble, no one else can say otherwise. Under a republican president, we saw no one concerned over the accountability of those either in the administration or in congress (frank/dodd are just two) because as no one wants to admit to them breaking the laws, it is the same old gang that protects themselves, perpetuated by the same republican party who is trying to convince the country into thinking they can save us from Obama. SO yep the incompetence of the present administration is apparent to those who want to see it but the incompetence of the past administration seems to be either forgotten or defended while for people like me it is the same as it is now.
And sorry, the "blame Bush" excuse doesn't work any more. The Democrats had control of both houses of congress the last two years of Bush's term, and they had a SUPER MAJORITY in Congress plus the presidency up to 2010 when they lost majority in the House. They had two years to fix anything or enact everything they desired. Our current mess is an Obama/Democrat mess, and there's no getting around that fact.
See my above comments. BUT I will add, our current mess is NOT an Obama/Democrat mess, it is an equal blame all around - republican/democrat liberal/conservative.
Our current mess is an Obama/Democrat mess
It's pretty easy to itemize Obama's failures, in spite of the fact that he refuses to take responsibility for any of them. He isn't going to be able to run on his record, so he'll blame his problems on anything and everything else and promise the country there's more Hope and Change on the way - just give him more time. But there's no reason his opponents shouldn't hold him accountable - they have every right to do that, and every past president has been held to that same standard.
I understand you all seem to keep bringing up his record but really it won't matter.
Why?
Because he already did the shrewdest thing could be done - blamed congress.
Did Bush take responsibility for the housing bubble?
Our current mess is an Obama/Democrat mess
The current list of GOP candidates are outlining a vision for the future, and several of them have very good records as executives in business and leaders in politics. It's too bad the selection process takes so long as it does, but that's just the real world of American politics. It's a far better process than going back to having a few RNC bigwigs meet in a smoke-filled room to simply declare a candidate. The American public would never stand for that in this day and age.
OK outlining a vision means ****, we have had sooo many visions that it is sickening. BUT no one seems to think having a plan and sticking to is with reasoning behind the key points is what is needed. With those members of congress where have they introduce legislation to form that vision or plan?
Why do people keep equating with running a business with leadership that is needed to run a country?
Maybe this time the process will again fail and it will need going back to having a "few RNC bigwigs meet in a smoke-filled room to simply declare a candidate". I would like to see one person come to the table with strong leadership, ****** around with their visions or pandering to one or another group on the opposite side of the spectrum and just run. And it seems we actually need that this time around and a lot of people want it to happen.
