romney is probably too much of a sissy for the right to vote for him but i think he has a good shot now given his strength. i wish bloomberg would switch parties or go third party.
It's sad but there hasn't been a truly great choice since Reagan. It's usually the lesser of two evils or aligned by party. Even if we find a good candidate (either party) in 2012, they'll still have to deal with Congress. If that doesn't change significantly will it really matter who the Chief is? Term limits can keep the Pelosi-types from destroying the country. Where do you start? Governors: Many are about to be replaced so the talent pool is thin. Senate: The majority should be replaced so that leaves few to choose from. House: Much larger numbers but few have qualifications. Political notables: Most are career politicians so it would be status quo. Reverends: HELL NO! Rich/Famous: Crap shoot - Probably focus on 1-2 issues and forget everything else. Unknowns: Largest pool but don't have a prayer without funding and exposure. Tiger Forums: 1/2 would be great...the other 1/2 not so good :grin:
i am not saying term limits are a bad thing, but here is the flip side of that coin.... with term limits, lawmakers will be rushing even more to get what they can, while they can. and imo, that means the lobbyists will have an even greater influence than they do now. for two reasons. one, is the obvious greater rush to sell influence. the second is, with term limits, those with the most knowledge of past failures and successes will be the lobbyists and will be the ones that are turned to for their "experience" (for lack of a better word). what is the answer? i have no idea. but imo, term limits are gonna come with their own problems.
should i delve into drug laws also? for example why it's a longer jail sentence to be caught with 1 crack rock than it is to be caught with an ounce of powder cocaine? here is another article. http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/04/11/reagans-revolution-stoking-white-racism/
