Cheney would be the worst decision and he might as well hand over the Presidency to Obama or Hillary if she makes a comeback.

If McCain picks Dick Cheney as his VP running mate I would assume he is incapable of making any rational decisions as President and he would thus lose my confidence and my vote.

he should not even have your vote in the first place

election process sux in USA, money elects presidents not people, all 3 of them are basicaly identical, whats the god damn difference who wins if all of them get money from same companies and corporations who therefore will be able to pressure them to do whatever they please...... people have no say

__________________

I already know that story. When she accused cops in DC guarding the capital that they were racist for asking for her credentials and went on a media blitz, you ran to her defense.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When the people 'have their say' they come out in mass, like wow 40% to actually vote, meaning 60% stayed home. People would rather b___h then actually do something. There are very few things similar between Obama and McCain...very few things, actually...I can't think of one. The problem is, and will always be, Congress. When people can get elected over and over for 3 decades, that is a problem IMO. Congressman become complacent to any lobbyist because they would like to be congressman for a long time. If you had term limits, this wouldn't be the case.

While I'm on my US Congress rant, they shouldn't be allowed to raise their salary, that should be done by a vote of their constituents. There should be a set raise amount for all of congress and then each congressman's constituents decide if they get it or not. Congressman should be limited to 4 terms in office, whether consecutive or not. Congressman should be required to spend at least 2080 hours in session, actually in DC. Take a look at how ofter congressman are "off talking to constituents", you'll find they have far more time away from work then the average citizen paying their salary. Each congressman's voting record, as well as attendance for votes, should have to be prominently displayed on the front page of their 'website', with links to what each vote was about.

Now more, not just congress. Line item veto...granted. No kickbacks or any kind to any state unless it is written up an voted on by the floor. And finally, no appointments to any position can be made by the President while congress is not present.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Add to that Just one more thing that make me question the validity of the entire voting process. I mean a person gets elected based on his or her so called good ideas and when they get in elected office all they get are all these other people just standing in the wings waiting to sabotage any effort towards progress. What's the use in that?

The same is true when people decide they want a certain thing put into law. Along come a judge and decides.......Oh no you can't do that and repeals the law on some technicality. Seems like a waste to me.........

__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….

Well, in one way or another it seems that we are dissatisfied with all three branches of our Government.

I agree with Wagner on the term limit issue. I wrote a paper in college on term limits in one of my Political Science classes. If my recollection serves me correct, this subject was broached by our Founding Fathers and rather quickly disagreed upon. It seems the Federalists didn't want them and the Anti-Federalists did. We all know who won out.

Our Congressional system, i.e. committee selection, rewards those who have won multiple terms. Thus, it also punishes the less senior members. Those who argue against term limits cite the complexity of issues that they have to deal with. I guess it takes multiple terms to finally figure out how to be a Congressman or Senator. What does that say for their intelligence level?

It is really just an example of the elitist form of Government that was created by our Founding Fathers. Their idea was that the elite would do whatever they could to maintain status quo. For example, until the early 20th century, Senators were elected by their respective State Legislatures. The two-party system perpetuates this form of elitism.

I think what sickens me most is how much influence special interests have on our Government. Their influence is deriven mostly from their financial support. It costs so much money to win an election today. I just read that Senator McCain has already spent 50 million dollars and we haven't even started the general election.

Having said all that, I still believe that we have the best Government in the World. It's tough to say that the people of this great Republic have completely lost their voice when over half of them don't even bother to vote.

McCain has my vote, pretty much no matter who he picks as VP. Governments should not be involved in the health care game for its citizens, as this is not an essential function. Give-away programs funded by my hard earned money should be reduced, not increased. And we shouldn't turn tail and run out of Iraq like cowards. Dependence upon our government for goods and services should be reduced-- not increased.

This pretty much precludes me from even remotely considering Obama or Hillary, from what I've seen of their platforms. And that's before a debate on the comparative governing abilities and experience of the likely part nomination winners are brought into it (both Obama and Hillary are lightweights in the experience category, compared to McCain).

Now if the Democrats would wise up and change some of their positions so that they were not advocates for socialism and supporters of reactionary foreign policy making strategies, then perhaps Obama or Hillary would be in a position to help middle class Americans. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Thinking out loud: Hmm, I wonder how things would change if the states were responsible for social programs such as: health care, medicade/care, social security, etc.....

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of eliminating or streamlining most of these programs.

- Governments should not be involved in health care at all. This should be left to private companies. Any time the government gets involved with something like this, all they do is screw it up, provide less services, and make it cost more. I don't need some bureaucrat telling me how many times a year he thinks I need to see a doctor, chiropractor, etc.

- Medicare and Social Security, while necessary for those who have paid into it all their lives and are retiring, should not exist in its current form for generations who are working now or will soon be working (Gen X/Y). I'd love to have the ability to take the money I'm wasting on Social Security now and invest it on my own instead. Programs like Social Security create a planned dependence on government for income. As freedom loving, independent Americans, dependence on governments-- foreign or domestic-- is something that we should be working to reduce and eliminate, not something that we should be planning for and advocating.

- As for welfare and Medicaid... Well, we will always need some type of safety net in place for unforeseen situations. But this needs to be treated as something that is used by people as a last resort, rock bottom and nowhere else to go except starve in the streets option. Currently welfare/public support is a lifestyle for some... that needs to change. Those who truly need help should always have a place to turn, but those who just don't want to work shouldn't be able to get by on the backs of others' efforts. Currently, we do not have a system that has adequate capabilities in place to differentiate between these two categories. (BTW, aren't welfare programs currently administered by the state? I thought that the states received block grants from the federal government for administering some kind of public assistance programs?)