It's like an idiot contest.
The Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and the Democrats have to grab the gun and shoot themselves in the foot... twice.
Both parties are outdated and useless. It's virtually impossible to tell them apart on major issues.
And anyone who roots for one party over the other is a moron.
Unfortunately, politics has become a team sport, with people pushing for their party to win, rather than a particular candidate. I think that's changing, though. I think we're on the cusp of a post-partisan world, where we'll see more and more registered independents. (We'd see a lot more in New York if they'd let Indies vote in primaries!)
I'd love to see the party system done away with entirely, but because there's big money involved, that will never happen.
The Founding Fathers warned against the influence of political parties but didn't have the foresight to ban them.
Of course, setting up a legislative branch with single-member districts and winner-take-all elections guaranteed there'd be just two (maybe three) competitive parties.
But, to be fair, legislative branch duties were never meant to be full-time occupations either. The professional politician class we have now would have befuddled (and revolted) the founders.
There's a lot now that would have revolted the Founders. Pretty much everything, I'm tempted to say.
The recent Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to confiscate private property for development would have had them grabbing their muskets and marching on Washington.
Let's just say as a registered Repub in Florida, I am feeling quite sticky for all the tongue-bathing all the candidates are bestowing willy-nilly down here.
I got a phone call to invite me to a Rudy rally, Romney wants to be my bestest bud, Huckabee wants me to help put the country back on the right moral track, and McCain... well, he just shows up randomly.
I can't wait to see what Ron Paul does, because I'm probably going to vote for him out of spite. Maybe a fruit basket?
Do you think Rudy's got a chance down there?
Personally? Not a chance.
He may surprise me but I see a Romney/McCain slugfest.
With a surprisingly high percentage for Paul.
We've got lots of problems down here that the candidates on either side are not addressing. Our economy went bottoms up a year ago compared to the rest of the country. Katrina is still pretty fresh in our minds as a reminder of what could happen to us.
None of the candidates are speaking to our concerns at all, instead trying to play the same chords to their special interest groups. Our state isn't red or blue, it's purple and we have a lot of overlap on issues between the parties.
I think he's got a chance, but I think ultimately we'll see McCain carry your state on the Republican side, Clinton on the Democratic side. Which is too bad, because I don't like Hillary Clinton.
Let's just say that I don't "like" any of them.
But I know I have to vote for whoever the Democrat will be because we have to keep the Supreme Court appointments in mind.
If it's Hillary, so be it. She's the lesser of the two evils, and while I loathe voting that way, I really have no choice.
If someone like Obama or Edwards got the Democratic nomination, then I could vote for someone I actually like, as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils. That would be a nice change.
In every Presidential election I've ever voted in (and this will make seven), I've found myself not voting for the lesser of two evils but against the evil of two lessers.
Nah, we don't like him here either.
...who dislikes Reagan more. Seriously, they think that will turn voters on?
Well, it turns me on, I'm sick of the "Saint Ronnie" bullshit. But I'm voter, singular.
Plus, it's no stupider than the Republicans viciously ripping into Carter and Clinton for everything that's gone wrong in the world in the past 30 years.
If common sense is politically illegal, at least gimme equal time.
I'd rather hear the candidates discuss issues, not spout party platitudes. Arguing in a debate over who dislikes Reagan more gives the voters nothing.
At this point, I'm disappointed whenever a Republican drops out. The more crowded the field, the more likely a brokered convention.
Besides, it's not as if Huckles, Mittens, Rudy, McCain or Paul are any better than Thompson was.
I've got my fingers crossed for a brokered convention too!
Thompson was an amazing mixture of arrogance and laziness. The others at least are working hard to get elected. Well, maybe not Rudy...
Yabbut given these candidates and what they have to do to stay in the race, it seems to me not wanting the job as much as the others is a plus, not a minus.
I mean, if I was in Fred's shoes, and they announced yet another horseshit-eating contest in advance of the East Wizzlebee Primary, and I looked at the other Republicans ready to stab their grandmothers to get at all that yummy horseshit, I'd be like, "Fuck it, you guys have fun eating horseshit, I'm going home and have sex with my trophy wife instead." And I figure I'd be better qualified for President than the ones who continue to line up to eat their horseshit. Why am I wrong?
(Mind you, I didn't like Fred either. Maybe I just wish he'd been forced to stay and eat horseshit like he deserves)
Oh, Fred wanted it. He wanted it bad. He thought he was "called" to it. Remember when he first announced? He said something along the lines of not ever having considered running before but sometimes you have to do what you have to do for the sake of the country. He was eating his own load of horse shit. I have no respect for him.
Wanting the job of President of the United States should immediately disqualify you from having it.