This election reminds me of the 1860 election. The republicans had an enormous advantage over the democrats because of past scandals and the hot-bed slavery issue. While it was clear that the republicans would probably win, they still had to choose the right candidate. They chose Abraham Lincoln, but who will we choose? Lincoln is known as the great uniter, and I believe it is a necessity in this election to choose the right candidate to mend and unite the country, not to push the democratic agenda. We need another Teddy Roosevelt, one that will appeal to both sides, but have success in the issue of the day. For Roosevelt, the issues were monopolies and corruption. Nowadays they are Iraq, the failing image of the U.S., and once again corruption. People thought back in 2000 and 2004 that they were election a man of strong moral values, but he turned out to have none. We need someone this election who will not bend to the pressures of lobbies and other outside forces, but who will be honest (or as honest as a politician can be) to the American People, and most of all one who will Unite and lead all Americans, not just those who voted for him (or her).

What is even more interesting to me, is that the more things change, the more they stay exactly the same.
And THIS has not yet been learned. The specifics we can put in history books and read about,
but this other thing has not yet been added to our awareness.

Read here:

http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php?showtopic=16196


During the Democrats’ 7/23 “You Tube” debate, a young male questioner from Orange County, CA, asked Hillary Clinton if she were a “liberal.” As he finished the question, he smirked, as if he were asking her to confess to some embarrassing predilection, like binge-drinking or compulsive internet shopping. She replied that she thought of herself as a “progressive

Hillary must be reading the WR message boards!!!!!!!!!

Look at the candidates who don't take money from Lobbyists and Special Interest.

I thought this post should be in this thread:

The only ones drinking koolaid are the Elite in Both Parties.

Your comments always make me laugh. I have been called a liberal, left wing, hippie for years. I could never swallow the koolaid the elites were passing out, though. It was obvious they didn't stand for much in their own lives. They would change positions on issues with the political winds. I have never voted for a Dem or Repub in any Presidential Election.

I always complained about Reagan's corruption, Iran/Contra, and Deficit Spending despite being a self proclaimed "small govt" guy. Thought it was the worst move ever to take the Solar Panels off the White House. And always thought he should have been impeached over Iran/Contra.

I laughed at Bush's foibles with "no new taxes".

Clinton did some good things, but always thought it was Perot's push for a balanced budget that got both parties to actually do it by the end of his Presidency (despite knowing that they could only show it on paper because of the theft of our SS money). Always thought the Waco and Elian Gonzales incidents were terrible acts by an overpowerful Central Govt. The Oklahoma Bombing was always just as sketchy as 9/11, IMHO. And Clinton did the same as Bush and took the first steps toward the Patriot Act with his Terrorism and Espionage Act in 1996.

And then Bush II came. I began visiting POAC around the time the war started as I began accumulating ammunition for my discussions with my parents (staunch Party first Repubs since as long as I can remember). Bush's crimes on the war, our rights, and Deficit Spending have dwarfed all previous Presidents. Not to mention both Dem and Repub congresses that have been part and parcel of the deterioration of our Country for 30 years.

We have been moving in the direction of Bigger Govt (Domestic and Military) for years now, with Both Parties at the helm. I have seen the degredation of our Economy, the destruction of our Interventionist Foreign Policies, and the steady Infringement of our Rights at home.

I have been looking for an Honest politician for years now. I have found one that consistently VOTES to protect our rights, reign in our Interventionist Foreign policy, and Balance our out of control budget. If you have another option that is as moderate and common sense as he, I would be willing to research him or her.

And I've been looking for a gorgeous nymphomaniac with a trust fund whose hobby is housework.

Bet I find mine before you find yours.

Honest Politician.

Isn't that a bit like saying you have an old Yugo in good condition?

It would be easy to agree, Sky. But the facts are that I know several honest politicians. The trouble is that most of them labor in a pretty small patch. From city councilmen to county commissioners, state legislators, and even a few on the national level, however, there are some good and competent people out there. And it's the truly good ones, who realize that they have to balance the demands of a totally diverse group of constituents and try to do what's right without pissing everyone, whose work often goes unnoticed.

Anyone who's willing to be a politician has to have a massive ego and the hide of a rhino. He/she's got to be willing to cozy up to pricks and bastards because they have the money to get you elected and re-elected. Yet he's got to find a way to do what he perceives as right even when he knows it's gonna piss off his financial supporters.

Amazingly, a few DO work their way through this maze of disincentives to do the job, and become real mensches. Sadly, we often don't realize the real value of our good politicians until they are long gone. But let me suggest that Congressman Barney Frank of MA may be one of those rarest of creatures, a good politician who's honest.

What I understand of it, is that the further up the ladder ya go, the harder it is to maintain your own personal values. That the one thing that defines "polytician" is to be all things to all people. Of course, the more people you serve, the harder that is to do without dishonesty.