Elections - July 2007

...supporters abanoning ship, or just propaganda? Insane McCain was rumored to have sqaundered 20 million in his first quarter campaign??? That WOULD be consistent with the "tax & spend" mentality he fosters. Is McCain done, as in finished/kaput? Rumored his stand on immigration policy torpeded him hard? I thought representative Ron Paul & his eleven supporters was supposed to be the first to hit the canvas as in counted out? Is this Insane McCain's "journey to da septic tank", or will he run in 2012 on the demo ticket?

2007-07-08 18:02:36 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

republicans don't really even believe what they're saying, do they? they might believe it on a conscience level, but at some level they have to know how stupid they sound-- I mean if they're really that dumb, how do they hold down a job? i figure they must be lying to themselves as much as they lie to everyone else. I'm no psychologist, so... Does anyone know-- what happens to someone's psyche to cause them to vote republican? does it have to do with all the fear and hate? or an ingrained sense of selfishness and entitlement? Maybe there are some actual psychologists out there, who know the answer?

2007-07-08 17:53:59 · 15 answers · asked by C.R. Finn 1

I always vote for the person would good teeth

2007-07-08 16:48:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-08 16:45:28 · 23 answers · asked by Why_so_serious? 5

I think Bill Richardson is the only one who's electable in the general election. This party is far to the left of America.

2007-07-08 16:27:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

three great reasons to back up your answer.

2007-07-08 15:27:19 · 17 answers · asked by Ms. Witaker 3

http://www.mises.org/story/2520
Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights.
Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer.
If you recognize the line of thinking in this set of beliefs, it might be because you have read the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or James Madison, or examined the philosophical origins of the American Revolution. Or perhaps you have read the speeches and books against FDR's New Deal: the same group warned of the devastating consequences of World War II.
Not only does this Paulian view have a precedent in American history; it sums up the very core of what is distinctive about the American contribution to political ideas. The proposition was and is that people are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them. Under conditions of liberty, the result is prosperity and orderly civilization. Under government control, the result is relative poverty and unpredictable chaos. The proof is in the news every day.
He takes the ideas of Washington and Jefferson seriously, just as seriously as he takes the idea of freedom itself, and he does so in times when faith in Leviathan remains the dominant political ideology.
Ideology is such a powerful force that it has propped up policy inconsistency for more than a century. The Left has a massive agenda for the state at home, and yet complains bitterly, with shock and dismay, that the same tools are used to start wars and build imperial structures abroad. The Right claims to want to restrain government at home (at least in some ways) while whooping it up for war and global reconstruction abroad.
It doesn't take a game-theory genius to predict how this conflict works itself out in the long run. The Left and the Right agree to disagree on intellectual grounds but otherwise engage in a dangerous quid pro quo. They turn a blind eye to the government they don't like so long as they get the government they do like.
It's one thing for the Left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for a group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice, and equality at home to do the same for people abroad. In fact, I've never been able to make much sense out of left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the idea of socialism, which itself can be summed up as perpetual war on the liberty and property of the people.
What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that the same government that is incompetent and dangerous domestically — at least in economic and social affairs — has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade.
The freedom to trade internationally is an essential principle. It means that consumers should not be penalized for buying from anyone, or selling to anyone, regardless of their residence. Nor should domestic suppliers be granted anything like a monopoly or subsidized treatment. Nor should trade be used as a weapon in the form of sanctions. Ron Paul has upheld these principles as well, which makes him an old-fashioned liberal in the manner of Cobden and Bright and the American Southern tradition. He has also rejected the mistake of many free traders who believe that a military arm is necessary to back the invisible hand of the marketplace. For Ron Paul, freedom is all of a piece.
Ron Paul's singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. In fact, I'm willing to predict that a hundred years from now and more, when all the current office holders are all but forgotten, Ron Paul's name will be remembered as a bright light in dark times (we are in the right side of history).We can't but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul's prophetic words. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations. May this treatise stand as an example of how to fight for what is right even when everyone else is silent. May it always be regarded as proof that there were men of courage alive in the first decade of the third millennium. May public and intellectual opinion someday rise to its level of intellectual sophistication and moral valor.

2007-07-08 15:19:30 · 13 answers · asked by MIkE ALEGRIA 1

2007-07-08 15:16:29 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why are they gaining power?

2007-07-08 15:07:28 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who agrees that Gov Charlie Christ moved up the primary date to Jan 29 to get Rudy the nomination bid, Florida likes Rudy, (I am not sure why)...what ever happen to the conservative Republican? Who agrees

2007-07-08 14:54:14 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please be as polite as you can: & as constructive as you can.

2007-07-08 14:42:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-08 14:36:31 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-08 14:32:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-08 14:29:19 · 12 answers · asked by BELINDA B 4

president bush took a stand against terrorism , the democrats couldnt produce a president with enough backbone to stand up against terrorism . they are too busy being politically correct . the same crowd that complains about the war , would be complaining if we had done nothing about the 911 attacks !

2007-07-08 14:15:11 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

so why all the hype ?
she is unelectable.
maybe she could run for dog catcher ?
are we ready for the scandals of the 90s to be brought back ?
wasnt her husband impeached ? didnt he lie to the country ?
so why even consider her ? out of the question !

2007-07-08 14:09:52 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

Enough Already!

Even in Iowa -- or maybe especially in Iowa -- American voters are saying it.

Enough with the candidates, the money, the television commercials, the talk of the campaign on the newspapers in the nightly news, Monday's NEW YORK TIMES will report.

According to newsroom sources, many Iowans tell the paper's Adam Nagourney how all of this is just too much, too soon, and a little overwhelming.

MORE

"I'd like a two-week moratorium on this," Scott Roberts said in Clear Lake as he observed what normally is modest if energetic Independence Day parade crammed with observers, reporters and Secret Service agents as first Bill and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney came through.

Several said they were worried that people would lose interest by the time the campaign actually started. In Pennsylvania, voters are braced for much the same thing in the coming weeks and months

2007-07-08 13:59:20 · 10 answers · asked by Dina W 6

Please help!!

2007-07-08 13:53:01 · 11 answers · asked by l_sweatt 1

Before an election, instead of two years before an election.

Really, the election cycles are getting longer, and longer. As soon as one ends, another begins.

2007-07-08 13:28:49 · 11 answers · asked by Dina W 6

I think i would if i was old enough but shes seems to have a lot of good people on her side to help... so i belive i would .

2007-07-08 12:21:28 · 30 answers · asked by ? 1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_el_ho/cindy_sheehan_pelosi

2007-07-08 12:02:58 · 13 answers · asked by Homeless in Phoenix 6

The voter's choice candidate has been predicted beyond
all odds to lose the race to one of the major parties
candidate. Should the voter cast their vote with the
candidate they have sided with based on their judgement
of competency or should the voter vote for one of the other
candidates, the lesser of the evils so to speak, because
their candidate appears not to have a chance for winning
the election?
For example, Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C
are all running for office and a voter has evaluated
Candidate A to be the most competent, but the majority
of the population has been forecasted to vote for
Candidate B and Candidate C. Considering that
Candidate A appears to be unable to win the race
should the voter vote for one of the less competent
candidates instead?

If the voter should always vote for only the "potential"
winning candidates then what implications does that
have on the opportunity for any new parties to enter
the election race?

2007-07-08 12:01:14 · 3 answers · asked by active open programming 6

Can the candidate for the US Presidency be 34 up until the day of the election, or does he/she have to be 35 when he decides to enter in the running?

2007-07-08 10:41:42 · 14 answers · asked by chriscornelluv@sbcglobal.net 2

Hello, I have placed this question because I wanted to find out what the American Public wants to see in the next president. Please give what you would like to see in the next president and why. Your also welcome to pitch your opinion if you are not a US Citizen. Also, My Next question does America want a President based off there political party, or is this country ready for an Independent? Does America want a women in office (referring to Hillary in this case)? You tell me. I would like to see the outcome of this debate.

2007-07-08 09:34:43 · 15 answers · asked by USA 2

2007-07-08 07:47:19 · 6 answers · asked by QUESTIONBOX 2

It is so obvious. Why not nominate a ticket that can win in November? Why not put forth a Cheney/ Gonzales ticket. They are tough but fair. If congress does not let them have their way they could put them all in Guantanamo bay for a little R&R and perhaps some good natured water boarding. Isn't this the right combination for America? Tough minded but fair in their own inimitable just way.

2007-07-08 07:25:01 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-08 07:19:43 · 16 answers · asked by binoy 1

Even though I am ashamed to admit it I have not bothered voting in the past two general elections. The reason why is that I live in an area where even in the landslide election of 1997 the Conservative MP was re-elected with a huge majority.

In other words I think that my vote is just a complete waste of time as the tories will always win in my constituency.

However, if proportional representation was introduced within the UK electoral system then I would vote in general elections as my vote would actually make a difference.

Would you agree with me that the introduction of proportional representation within the UK would actually increase the number of people who bother to vote for the reasons I have highlighted above?

2007-07-08 06:51:45 · 16 answers · asked by pagreen1966 3

2007-07-08 06:39:50 · 7 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6

Lou Dobbs is anti-immigration, pro business, and strongly against the congressional lobbists. For those that know about where he stands on the issue, would you support him running for President?

2007-07-08 06:17:47 · 7 answers · asked by Steve C 7