| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| U.S. senator Craig seeks to undo guilty plea |
| 2007-09-12 |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #14 but that first choice was eliminated in the primaries. Then, and I'm really being sincere, join that party and work to see that your kind of candidate gets nominated and elected. One of the reasons both parties put up such weak candidates is that the nomination process in controlled and dominated by the wingnuts of the party. Regular people need to get involved again and I urge you to do so. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-12 17:57 |
| #13 NS: thanks, but i stand by my statement of the best person for the position, the party affiliation is secondary. and yes in the general i do vote for the best, IMHO, person, but perhaps that wasn't my first choice, but that first choice was eliminated in the primaries. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-12 17:49 |
| #12 USN, gotta disagree with one thing. If you want to vote in a party primary, join the primary. Parties aren't public utilities, they're private associations. If you won't support them, why should you have a say in whom they place on the ballot? Non-members should stay out. Vote for whomever you wish in the general. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-12 17:24 |
| #11 jds: i can't vote murtha out either, but until his constituents do, there isn't a lot we can do about it. see wht NS says in post #10. ed: re gerrymandering: term limits won't fix that; that is the perogative of whichever party is in the majority whenever there is a need to redraw boundaries. i would rather see some sort of citizen panel do that than term limits; but i am not holding my breath. right here in WA state bot the dems and the trunks dis enfranchised many of the electorate with their successful lawsuit regarding primaries; in order to vote, you have to declare your party affiliation and then can only vote for your party's candidates. all us independents that look for the best candidate rather than party affiliation are out in the cold. this was all based on a similiarly successful suit in Californistan several years back. but the WA grange is still working on another tack to repeal that. not holding my breath on this working out either. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-12 17:17 |
| #10 Term Limits would only give you the same idiots with new names under the control of a permanent unelected gang of lobbyists. Look at the Caliphornia legislature for an example of the havoc term limits can wreak. The solution is for the people to vote the idiots out. When asked as the Constitutional Conventions ended what kind of government they had given us, Franklin is reputed to have answered, "A Republic. If you can keep it." The problem is that our founders gave us a carefully balanced government, not a monarchy, not an oligarchy and most certainly not a democracy. It was unbalanced by the Civil War, further destabilized by the progressive amendments and fully destroyed by the New Deal. Reconstructing it will be a long shot. Reagan started the process, but I fear that too many now suck at the teat of the government. The tyranny of the majority is upon us and it will not be sated until its jealousy has destroyed the few who feed it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-12 16:03 |
| #9 USN, the problem is that I can't vote that dipshit murtha out of office since he's from another state - same with kennedy. The jackasses in their districts/states are happy with being bribed with pork (or they're idiots) and I can't undo that. (excpet with a .38 recall (and that's illegal for now)) So I WANT TERM LIMITS NOW. |
| Posted by: jds 2007-09-12 15:34 |
| #8 It might be interesting to see the reactions the next time this guy walks into an airport bathroom. Or any bathroom... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-12 15:00 |
| #7 Given the origin of the term, I'd say about every post revolutionary soldier, sailor and Marine. It's an imperfect system whose only redeeming quality is that it is less imperfect than all the others. Keep working to improve it by at least voting in every election. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-12 14:58 |
| #6 Gerrymandering safe districts, USN. Who fought and died for that? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-12 14:45 |
| #5 disagree on term limits: that simply substitutes for 'getting off your ass and vote.' if you don't like the incumbent, vote for the other guy. if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch. and if you don't want to wait, start a recall. too many people died to ensure we have the priveledge to vote and "mandatory apathy" (aka term limits) is not a fix. /thank you. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-12 14:42 |
| #4 Term limits. We need to throw all of these corrupt princes out before they succeed in turning us into peasants through taxes and regulations controlling every aspect of our lives. What did I miss? I thought we had already arrived! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-09-12 13:31 |
| #3 E-Larson, you are correct. He's done as far as the people of Idaho are concerned. They are just waiting, expecting the system to make this man go away. If the system doesn't do it, they will. But what does it say about our Senate and Congress that he even THINKS he has a chance? Term limits. We need to throw all of these corrupt princes out before they succeed in turning us into peasants through taxes and regulations controlling every aspect of our lives. |
| Posted by: Unutle McGurque8861 2007-09-12 13:29 |
| #2 From what I understand, the people of Idaho were more than happy to dump his butt at the next election thanks to his stance on amnesty. I can't imagine this helping him in any way, shape or form. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-09-12 09:05 |
| #1 Turning up the dial on the toaster from 10 to 11, eh, Craig? As a lawmaker you should know better. If I were a judge I'd be looking forward to you being in my courtroom. Hey, anybody else out there plead guilty while still feeling a bit traumatized by events? Why don't you all come back and we can talk it over. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-09-12 04:19 |