Yuku free message boards

I'm with you on term limits. I'm against term limits for Presidents, and would just as soon see a repeal of the 22nd Amendment. I doubt I'll convince anyone. Even if a President were not limited to 2 terms, the immensity of the job, I am sure, would limit most to two terms, and if that wasn't enough, the public's unrest at seeing anyone go longer than 2 terms would force most 2nd term Presidents to call it quits. But if the 22nd amendment WERE repealed, at least the President could have the possibility of going longer than two terms, and that could strengthen the Presidency in the last half of the 2nd term. Lame Duck would only apply to a President after s/he's lost the election, and not before.

Term limits for Congressmen and Senators are troublesome beasts and make for unsavory results. The unintended consequence of congressional term limits is that yet another group of unelected persons will increase in power at the expense of the elected representatives. If Presidential term limits have worked to empower the bureaucracy, Congressional term limits would empower the legislative staff. The bureacracy is bad enough. Regardless of what you make of the specifics of the case, the State Department and CIA have rebelled against the current administration with bad results. It's made the Congress more partisan and the Bush Administration more cynical. Do we really want to have another group of unelected governmental officials calling the shots in Washington? What happens when the staff, who are not term limited, don't agree with specific proposals of the elected representatives and leak unsavory details? We'd have a sham of a government that could no longer be called a true democratic republic.

There's no mistake about it. If we want to limit the terms of our congressmen and senators, we simply have to vote them out of office. To do so we have to quit accepting the lolipops of pork barrell spending and increased entitlements that are bankrupting our nation. A more educated and demanding public is what is needed.

I agree somewhat on your take on McCain. The first McCain run for president offered a fresh take on Republican Politics. But the last 8 years have spoiled McCain to both politics and the Republican party. He's like Brett Favre with the Packers. Over the last 8 years, it was McCain who actively courted John Kerry as to the potential of being Kerry's runningmate against Bush in 2004 (like Favre wanted to be traded to the Vikings). But for whatever reason, he stuck around. He's worn his "maverick" image thin. He still publically disagrees with Bush (they all do on the Republican side), his proposals have a slightly more liberal/progressive tone about them, but on major policies (most notably, the war effort) it is really hard to distinguish his position from that of Bush's.

But I have to disagree that we'll get anything substantially different in policy with an Obama Administration. He has said essentially that with regard to the war in Iraq and Afganastan, he will likewise listen to the generals. He has given himself outs in public so that if he takes office, he has not painted himself in a corner. Although ostensibly campaining as an "anti-war" candidate, he has warily kept all of his options open with regard to the war in Iraq. This is what upsets me about Obama and the Democrat Party. They would like to have it both ways on the war in Iraq, and have not lead on the issue. They would like to see the U.S. lose the war as long as they can blame it on Bush. But if they have to take responsibility, they won't do a thing to counter the President's policies. Congress, if it wanted, could have defunded the war effort. But they were beholden, they thought, to the bully pulpet of public opinion in that they did not want to take the blame for losing. So they continued to fund the war while complaining about it to keep themselves in good standing with the anti-war croud. Obama is practically indistinguishable from that point of view. I have to admit I had a better opinion of Hilary Clinton on that point. Although voicing her disagreement with specific war policies, she never campaigned as if she were going to "pull the troops home" in the first 120 days of her administration.

It's precisely Obama's lack of experience in everything that makes me wary of him. Like him or not, George W. Bush controled and controls his Administration. He set the course. He was the one in charge. He's the chief executive. (I personally think the first Bush term with the differing voices (like Powell and Ashkroft) gave the President a better outlook and ability to see all sides of an issue. For that I fault the chief of staff for the second Administration, and the President, for selecting only "Bushmen" for the second term. But still, it's the President who sets the policy of his administration. I personally disagree with much of that administration, especially the desire to set aside or mitigate laws he doesn't like with "signing statements", and his pushing for laws that take away civil liberties. But he's in charge. He's the one to credit (or blame).) Obama will be beholden to his staff. Essentially, if we vote for Obama, we'll get Axelrod as the power behind the throne. What do we know about this man? Seems like a stooge of George Soros to me. Do we want a President who relies so heavily on staff that he doesn't know what he thinks until his staff tells him? We've seen on the campaign trail that take the teleprompter away, Mr. Obama is most unremarkable. Feed him the lines and he reads like Daniel Webster. People fault George W. Bush for mangling words. Well, I'd rather have my President know what he thinks and mangle words than read words well and be mangled of thought.

But this is no campaign add for McCain. McCain is just not a whole lot to be excited about. He doesn't really offer much (other than a humourous ad) to distinguish himself from Obama. All his politics seem to be "Obama is a remarkable guy" rather than truly attacking Obama's positions. When he does "attack" its nothing to get excited about. The McCain campaign seems only to be running scared of being labled racist rather than leading on any issues. I AM encouraged at the McCain call for more nuclear power (something Jim Doyle, the Democrat Governor of Wisconsin has said he'd support.) But other than that, I just can't get behind the McCain ticket.

I too fear what the job will do to John McCain. Elect John McCain, and I fear we elect the 44th and 45th Presidents of the United States. Until I know who McCain will bring on as VP, I cannot even contemplate supporting his ticket. I somewhat expect McCain will choose Romney, and for all the wrong reasons. Romney has looks, he has a bull-dog attitude, he has bucks, and he can guarantee big Mormon bucks in campaign contributions. What's more he can possibly deliver Michigan to the Republican fold. But if there ever was a postage stamp for cynical politics, it has Romney's picture on it. And what's more, it seems Romney's favored by the Bush's (especially the elder Bush). That whole cabal of the Republican Party frightens me. The CIA/Skull and Bones crowd. Someone turn the lights on in there!

If McCain picks Romney for his runningmate, I may have to consider support to Obama depending on who Obama may pick for Veep. But my best choice would still be to choose neither and encourage as many people as possible to do so. It seems we have cynical politics controling the process in our so-called two party system. We're divided by hot-button issues that we could easily bring resolution to if we could simply come together on the topics. We really don't need the Republicrats anymore. No more should we be content with the lessor of two weavils. Let's break free and vote out all these bums and get down to business. Even if we don't vote for them, let's at least encourage the networks in whatever way possible to seat Green Nadar and Libertarian Barr at the debates. If we can't hear what these candidates are saying, how are we going to make informed decisions as to whether or not we can support them?

Egads, but I've waxed long enough! Someone else can have the soap box now.