What are the odds?

[Jeff Boettcher]

Political campaigning has degenerated into sound bites & insinuations. Supposedly this approach evolved from apathy & the voters' lack of an attention span to dig into the issues. Have you tried to "pin down" your state or federal representatives for their position on an issue important to you?

What are the odds of turning the tables a bit? Suppose we try to create a demand for candidate position statements/papers on the issues. I'm sure our local newspapers would welcome the opportunity to publish such statements. Could we get folks to vote for a candidate, instead of the most suggestive ads? Why don't we try?

Hey Abraham, ready for a challenge?? As for the rest of you. "Challenge the status quo." What difference has the candidate you voted for made in any significant legislation??

<small>[ September 04, 2007, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Boettcher ]</small>

[TenaciousT]

I've always been a big supporter of Russ Feingold. He gave the only NO to the Patriot Act at a time when it was obviously not fashionable to do so.

[Old Scout]

Feingold is an idiot that would vote against anything that the Republican party supported even if the rest of the Democrats supported it, just so he could grab some head lines. He doesn't care what is best for the country, it is what is best for Feingold and his chances of getting his name on the news.

[TenaciousT]

I'm sure when the U.S. was going nuts and ready to get blood on their hands, Feingold was contemplating ways to get in the paper. Instead of taking the Republican path of making bad decisions in airport bathrooms, he decided to stand up for civil liberties that our country was based on. If you want to argue that, read the Patriot Act in all its glory, then read the Constitution and count the contradictions. For further reading, look into Watergate, and the Federal Carnivore/Omnivore projects. Modern Republicans give the party a bad name. What happened to Republicans like Abraham Lincoln or either of the Roosevelts?

[Old Scout]

T, It is obvious you have not spent a lot of time getting any facts before you made this post. If you had you would have known that FDR was a Democrat, not a Republican. Perhaps you need to do some checking on some of the other political BS you believe to be correct.

If Feingold had his way we would be handing the keys to the airliners to the terrorists and helping them build bombs, because they have a right to protest in their own way. How many more people would have to be killed before he was willing to do something to protect our country. Rights are important, but not at the expense of people dying so yours aren't interfered with.

<small>[ September 10, 2007, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Old Scout ]</small>

[TenaciousT]

My bad. I was just going off the top of my head with that one. I thought both the Roosevelts were Rep.'s. Either way, Teddy was a good man. Way to use one mistake to disregard the rest of the points. As for Feingold, I think you're going a little overboard in your assumptions. I don't think he wanted to protect the rights of the terrorists as much as he was looking out for guys like you and me.

Furthermore, as a veteran, you should respect the fact that so many people HAVE died so that our rights weren't interfered with.

<small>[ September 10, 2007, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: TenaciousT ]</small>

[kingrdlk]

Fiengold also voted not to approve the "Anti Flag Desecration" amendment to the Constitution.

[Jeff Boettcher]

Hey gang,
The purpose of this post was to get you to challenge ALL of the candidates for any elected position to state their positions on the issues staring us in the face. Political, social, environmental.

Use e-mails to their web sites, letters to the editor of the local news (TV & Printed), campaign stops by the candidates, "Q & A" sessions by their staffers touted for them to communicate with the voters. Pin these folks down for how they truly think. Get them to publish Position Papers. Sound bite ads from political action groups or candidates don't tell us a thing.

If you want to trash talk Democrat vs. Republican or any particular rep, then start your own message board string. My deal is it's time for the majority to vote after having the chance to truly know what their candidate will attempt to do if they reach office.

<small>[ September 10, 2007, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Boettcher ]</small>

[TenaciousT]

sorry about that, Jeff. I saw political stuff and got all antsy-in-my-pantsy.

[Jeff Boettcher]

It's good to get wound up about the folks who want to represent us. I just want to make sure that the debate is about what they stand for, not what they say their opponents don't. Get insulted. Demand position papers.

[MedicDVG]

As strange as it sounds, I for one support the idea of a "None of the above" vote on election days.

I am tired of watered down candidates and choosing between the "lessor of two evils." If this is truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we should have a way upfront to show a vote of no confidence in the candidacy.

This would force the parties to present candidates on substance instead of sound bites. Take the emphasis off of how much money you can raise, and put it on more what you have to offer the country.

It saddens me that the days of this country when "Anyone can grow up to be president" are long, long gone.

It saddens me that people trust used car salesmen more then they do their elected officials.

It saddens me that "politics" is a dirty word synonymous with lies, corruption, and pandering.

It saddens me that an "informed public" is one that may have read People Magazine's "What the candidates are wearing" column..

It is interesting to be in a country where when given the opportunity to vote, 80% of the population did so, and with pride. I always thought the USA was supposed to be the great democracy -- 5 - 10% voter turnout is considered 'Astounding'. That is just sad.

[TenaciousT]

I just contacted a certain senator that I admire about the issues you raised, Jeff. I'm interested to see what he has to say about the current campaign issues.

I'd like to raise a question that's spawned from the whole "sound clip" idea. Maybe it should be its own thread, I'm not sure. How do you feel about candidates taking their campaigns to internet media such as YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook? Will the number of "Friends" in their "Network" be the next electoral college? Could Obama become president based on how many "Dig It"s his videos got? Personally, I don't like the idea of my next president being able to go on places notorious for being able to post "anything about anything." Then again, If Hillary was on the leader message board...

[Jeff Boettcher]

Good deal T.T. Now do the same for his opponents the next time he's up for election.

To me political action committees are the bane of our existance during the campaign season. I'm not current or the least bit experienced with you tube, face book, instant messaging, etc.

I will make this statement out of ignorance about the "on-line" media: If the page is put out there by the candidate AND the site states his/her positions on the issues facing us, then I'd be supportive.