Tired of Debates?

[TotallyOz]

Watching the debate tonight, I was actually disgusted at my party. I hate the bickering back and forth. It does not become the 2 candidates that engaged in it and it does nothing to help their party win an election.

[OneFinger]

I'm sick of the whole political process and we still have 10 more months until the election!

IMHO the debates and the campaigning start all too early and cost much more than is necessary.

If I ran things, I'd:

• Prohibit campaigning more than 6 months prior to the conventions.
  
• Place a limit on the amount of money spent on ads, travel, polls, etc.
  
• Modify the ballot to include the option "None of the Above". If a majority of the people vote for "None of the Above", the election would have to run over with NEW (not retread) candidates.
  

Got to agree that things are sinking to a new low in the debates. It's all about sound bites, short answers, and no substance.

[Guest Conway]

It has been years since the debates have been anything more than soundbites as it relates to either party. The political process has been overtaken by screaming cheerleader types in this country. Thoughtfulness and policy have been completely removed from the process.

The end result of what this means for our country truly scares me.

[caeron]

I don't think debates really demonstrate much of use.

One hopes the president will have thoughtful considered policies, and deal with important questions after reflection.

Does a candidate's skill with rhetorical flourishes show any of that thought? Not to me.

[Guest BewareofNick]

Watching the debate tonight, I was actually disgusted at my party. I hate the bickering back and forth. It does not become the 2 candidates that engaged in it and it does nothing to help their party win an election.

The Republicans are all trying to be Ronald Reagan and none of them are even in his league.

The Democrats are seeming to forget who the real enemy is and it's not each other.

The debates are pretty well worthless.

I've known for the past few years who I am going to vote for and none of this changes my mind any.

Hillary '08!

[Guest Conway]

The Republicans are all trying to be Ronald Reagan and none of them are even in his league.

The Democrats are seeming to forget who the real enemy is and it's not each other.

The debates are pretty well worthless.

I've known for the past few years who I am going to vote for and none of this changes my mind any.

Hillary '08!

As a Republican, I see the problem with my own party candidates is that none of them are trying to be Reagan. Too many are trying to move away from his legacy. The libertarian ideals of Reagan have been supplanted by the jack boot fascist ideals of Giuliani.

That scares me.

[TotallyOz]

As a Republican, I see the problem with my own party candidates is that none of them are trying to be Reagan. Too many are trying to move away from his legacy. The libertarian ideals of Reagan have been supplanted by the jack boot fascist ideals of Giuliani.

That scares me.

Conway, not trying to debate you on your politics as I think everyone should make up their own mind on which party to support. Personally, I am a very liberal democrat. But, I do like McCain. I liked him much more when he was independent thinking. But, my question is: What do you think of Ron Paul?

Is he the Kucinich of the Republican party?

My choices are obvious.

1. Dennis

2. Hillary

3. McCain

4. Edwards

[Guest epigonos]

I am one of those bizarre people who absolutely love American politics in all its sordidness. If people think this campaign is now or is going to get bad they should read a new book just out by Edward J. Larson, a Pulitzer Prize winner. The title is “A Magnificent Catastrophe†and tells the story of the tumultuous election of 1800. The book is extremely enlightening in that MANY American mistakenly believe that presidential elections in the past were based on honest discussions of real issues. There weren’t and never have been.

One problem that has developed in recent years is the primary nonsense into which we have descended. Primary elections encourage and reward the candidate who has the best sound bite writers. I had been hoping that no single candidate from either party would win sufficient primaries to go to the conventions to be crowned. Currently that doesn’t seem likely. In the past superior candidates emerged from the smoked filled back rooms of convention halls. God forbid it looks like we may have to make a choice between Clinton and McCain. They are both old whores who have sold out to so many segments of their parties that god only knows what they stand for or will do as president. I just may have to sit this one out.

The one thing that I, personally, find distrubing about this and recent elections is that we seem to be stuck in a rut with two families - the Bushes and the Clintons. Good god is this country so devoid of other leaders that we must continue with these retreads.

Come and get me guys!!!!!!

[Guest EurythmicThrust]

SOme great response in this thread- I do like Epi's response as it hit several nails on the head- also another poster on here suggested this primary nonsense should be shaved doen to 6 months- i agree on this as it seems there is a lot of BS and posturing leading up tto the 6 month mark.

The thing that DOESs excite me is that we seem to have an interesting mix of candidates in both parties whether we like them or not, things DO get discussed, but can also bog down into petty squabbling.

Can u only imagine al the stuffthe public DOESN't see behind the scenes of these candidates? Now THAT is where the true politicking rears up in my opinion!

[TotallyOz]

If I ran things, I'd:

• Prohibit campaigning more than 6 months prior to the conventions.
  
• Place a limit on the amount of money spent on ads, travel, polls, etc.
  
• Modify the ballot to include the option "None of the Above". If a majority of the people vote for "None of the Above", the election would have to run over with NEW (not retread) candidates.
  

I agree with all the above. Ready to campaign to do this?

[TotallyOz]

They are both old whores who have sold out to so many segments of their parties that god only knows what they stand for or will do as president.

LOL. I guess I have always loved whores; new and old.

[Guest epigonos]

Hell Oz I can't argue with you on that one. However, at least we get some physical pleasure from the whores with whom we consort. All we get is grief and bills from most of the political whores with whom we don't consort in Washington and Sacramento.

[Guest BewareofNick]

As a Republican, I see the problem with my own party candidates is that none of them are trying to be Reagan. Too many are trying to move away from his legacy. The libertarian ideals of Reagan have been supplanted by the jack boot fascist ideals of Giuliani.

That scares me.

Perhaps I should have rephrased that. Many of them are trying to cloak themselves in Reagan's mantle and as you so correctly point out, none of them are succeeding.

I really don't think that Rudy has a shot at this.

[Guest Conway]

Conway, not trying to debate you on your politics as I think everyone should make up their own mind on which party to support. Personally, I am a very liberal democrat. But, I do like McCain. I liked him much more when he was independent thinking. But, my question is: What do you think of Ron Paul?

Is he the Kucinich of the Republican party?

My choices are obvious.

1. Dennis

2. Hillary

3. McCain

4. Edwards

Ron Paul probably comes closest to representing my libertarian way of thinking of any of the Republican candidates. I'm all for the concept that the private sector is infinitely more capable of delivering goods and services in a responsible manner than government is and that less government is better than more government.

That said, I believe that, like Kucinich, Ron Paul is completely unelectable due to some of his historical positions on race and race related issues. Paul appeals to Republican pragmatists the same way that Kucinich appeals to Democrat ideologues.

I agree with Epoginos, that McCain has sold his independent soul to make himself a viable candidate for the White House. The same can be said of Hillary Clinton. I'm always a bit amazed of the support that Hillary gets from those who describe themselves as you do politically due to the triangulation that dominated the of the Presidency of her husband. She's a far more polarizing figure than Bill was. I would think that she'll have to moderate more to the right to create a supportable base among moderate legislative Democrats and the few conservative southern Democrats who haven't yet switched parties.

To me, Obama is the most interesting of the Democrats. he possesses the same charisma that Reagan did. Like Reagan, he has a documented track record of supporting particular agendas throughout his legislative career. In Reagan's case it was fiscal conservatism. In Obama's case it is social justice.

If it wasn't for some of his foreign policy statements, I would probably be able to lend my support to him. However, given the last eight years of cowboy foreign policy, I think that we need someone with a real measured approach with regard to foreign policy in the White House.