Yuku free message boards

CBRetriever wrote:

---

How is someone who's been a member of the Washington establishment for years w/o changing it gonna change it if he becomes president?

It's a good question, CB, but it's a double-edge sword because Washington DC doesn't change for three reasons: 1) No term limits for Congress (twenty years is enough); 2) Lobbyists (the real scourge of the political process); and 3) those that live and work there thrive on the political culture and are disconnected from the real world (yet they think quite highly of themselves).

So, what can a President do? 1) Draft legislation to change the constitution to require 20 year term limit as Senator and Rep., as well as a single six year term for President; 2) Draft legislation to add national referendums/initiatives to the constitution (requires 2/3 vote); 3) Work with congress to be convened in Washington DC for only 6 months per year and work electronically from their home district for the other 6 months.

I doubt either Obama or McCain could succeed at any of these, but they both could set the agenda and get the ball rolling. By the way, a grass roots efforts to set all of this in motion.

Visa Declined wrote:

---

However, after 8 years of Bush, we cant afford someone who agrees with 90% of Bush's policies. We already know where these policies lead.

If this kind of statement (which is repeated in the majority of Democrat interviews) is the defining motto for the Obama campaign, then I probably will vote for McCain because I am definitely not going to support a party that squanders the opportunity to talk issues in favor of just slinging some the same mud over and over.

StarrEise wrote:

---

That IS one of the major issues of this election, the fact that John McCain supports 90 percent of Bush's policies which were failures. That's not slinging mud, that's stating a fact. The Dems have been trying to talk issues for some time now, but now the Repubs are closing ranks, not permitting their own candidates to do interviews, etc. How can you support a party that is running on solely a candidate's personal history but hasn't offered any ideas on how to resolve problems facing the country?

Slinging mud is normal business in politics. All I'm saying, dearest StarrE, is the "90 percent same voting as Bush" statement is OLD NEWS. I would hope the Democrats could show more intelligence that just repeating the same thing. Obama has a large platform, so use it. Ditto for the Republicans.

As for the how can I support a candidate based solely on their personal history: I don't, but I am having a hard time with the Democrat's choice of a candidate that is less experienced than Herbert Hoover, who bombed as a President. I'm of the opinion that G.W. Bush has been a dismal President, and he had more experience than Barack Obama does. So why should I believe that a great orator like Obama is worth taking the risk on? He has only proven that he can get elected and raise millions for his campaign chest. He constantly dodges answering the experience question. I'd love to him explain why his credentials are equal or better than any other President-elect in the last 100 years.