Yeah, and Shayle and Xenthos were completely separate people as well

Past Presidents are put on political missions all the time. As is the First spouse. When you combine those two, you basically have an extra person who has the foreign political power of the President of the United States, just asking to be put into a situation which abuse their powers. Bush's presidency should show how -easy- it is for such things to happen.



I don't, which is why I mentioned it was the source.



And thus why it is important that the people realize all the ramifications of who they are voting for. The First Spouse has often had a huge impact on American politics, but never have the people taken them into account when running for Office the first term.

Heh, I want to see what the neo-nazis and white supremacists will do if Obama wins. (No, this does not invoke Godwin's Law, ers.)

Hopefully flee to sweden.

You need to get off Firefox and go back to real browsers. IE7 so wins for stability and flexibility.

Cough, sputter, choke.

The simple fact that I knew Firefox was your problem should tell you something.

I just love the fact that people think electing the first woman or african american is automatically progress. It makes no sense. No, it isn't wrong to have a woman or a black president, but electing one PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF ELECTING ONE, makes no sense. And that seems to be a reaction i've seen. ZOMG THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT, VOTE FOR PROGRESS! Okay....what are her ideas? What is her experience? If that checks out then...sure, i'm not opposed to them. Personally, i think Hillary is a lying, manipulative and would sooner shoot myself in the crotch than vote for her. Obama, well, i just don't like his plans. I'm a war supporter, i'm against nationalized health care, etc.

I'm voting for Romney on this one. People label him as a flip flopper. I don't think he is. He changed his mind on abortion one time, and stuck with that decision. Does that mean he's a flip flopper? No. Does it mean he is receptive to new ideas and willing to admit that he had had the wrong idea? Very likely. Remember, you guys blast Bush for not being willing to move or 'admit he's wrong.' Then when a republican admits they are wrong and changes position, said republican gets blasted for that. WTF?

Out of all the Republicans, he scores in my book because not only is he cool, calm, collected(as opposed to some Democrats and Mike Hukabee who are constantly screaming and whining), I agree with him on all the major issues, and his record is pretty good. He cut taxes as Gov of Massechussets, cut spending, and managed to make the economy there grow. That's a good thing, allthough it seems some of these Democrats love high taxes for some reason. Every time he's launched a so called 'negative' add against Huckabee, it has been pointing out facts in Huck's record. Let's look at Huckabee. He has blasted Romney for being LDS(Come on, it's low to be a about somebody's religious persuasion in an election). The night before the Iowa Caucuses, Huckabee also got on the news saying he had made a pretty vicious attack add against romney, but decided he wouldn't run it, because that would be negative. The add hit the news about half an hour later. That's the honest man Iowan's picked for a candidate. Huckabee's record is also something that i do not really like either. As Governor, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens, he raised the tax burden of Arkansas by $500 million dollars(Not via tax cut induced economic growth either, like Romney), and gave out sentence commutations and pardons like candy at Halloween. He let murderer's walk free........

I highly recomend you change your vote.

Romney is just as manipulative as Clinton is. He tells different peope different things. He is't a flip flopper, he is much worse, a used cars salesman.

I was all for Romney untill I saw him in a debate, and he just looked like the bad guy from most movies. His positions to run for govenor of Massechusets was liberal, because thats who he needed to convince to vote for him. When the media talked about the lack of "real conservatves" in the Republican race, he suddenly became "a real conservative."

He's a manipulative prick, just like Clinton. (Oooh I "found my voice", it just happened to be the day before the election, on a question unrelated to what I answerd. And now, instead of having my staff standing behind me, I'll suround myself with Children, because in Iowa I lost the Woman vote)

It's my internet, as it doesn't work in IE or Opera, either. Nice try, but IE still smokes pole.



Next stop: sending homeless people to fight in Iran, amirite?

Change that to Iraq, and its not such a bad idea! Better than dieing to hunger.

Not biting.

I really wish Edwards stood a chance. Oh well. I'm just hoping they'll push him to be VP for either Obama or Hillary. That would make me happy.

And I added a point to Romney because I know there's no way he can win the general election, and anything that lessens the Republican's chances to win gets my support.

As a Massachusetts resident, I have to say that Romney didn't do anything good here for anyone. We all know it was just another political stepping stone for his career. He'll never have my vote.

Did I make good sweeping generalizations about him after seeing him in just one debate for the first and only time?

Romney has always seemed really annoying and smug to me in the debates I've seen with him.

It's not the fact that he's a "flip flopper", I really don't care if a politician changes their mind occasionally. It's the fact that he doesn't really have any ideas, and he constantly contradicts himself. He tries to be on everyone's good side.

I really do not think abortion is an important issue when it comes to choosing a president, but since you mentioned it, this is from his website:



He basically says nothing, but tries to appeal to both sides. Everything he says is like that.

Hearing that makes me happy. At work, debates over politics - and the more frequent ones concerning president becoming more heated - focus always seems to fall on gay rights and abortion. While it becomes personal and a big deal to folk, in the grand scheme, over the course of a presidency it shouldn't be the focus nor the deciding factor. I've begun avoiding politics more, because it gets drawn down to those two topics and the larger things get lost. I'm not saying they aren't important. They just aren't the -most- important.

You may not be aware of this, but that is the official party line of the Republican party.

To translate what that paragraph says in Media soundbite form it reads : " I would like to overturn Woe V. Wade, and don't approve of activist judges." He isn't saying anything different than any other Republican canidate ever said.

That's pretty close to the exact thing I say, and I mean it word for word.

Pleh. The american voting process is bad joke.

I'd just put in a blank vote.