It is ever so sad to hear comments like "fight of our lifetime".
Really. The rhetoric, the drama, the crying wolf has risen to such levels that
I am surprised anyone takes any of this seriously. From one side we get that
individual statements from the opposition will lead to the enslave (or
shackling) of Americans again. From the other, this is the fight to keep the US
from going communist. This is the year of making absolutely absurd claims.The idea that the fate of the country rest on Utah having a completely
unbalanced representation, a representation that disenfranchises a large group
of citizens from Utah, that we should be striving to squash the balance of
power, and instead put all power into the hands of a single party, that this is
what the fate of this union rests on, is just a scary principle.Rather than running on sound ideas, fear of the future is the only thing that
is being offered, at that really is a shame.
Why doesn't that tool Boehner let The Legal Workforce Act get a vote? He
could help his party and the country , but maybe that's not his top goal.
It's a quaint notion for Matheson to promote the idea that he is not
beholden to either party (but, psssst.. he's a Democrat). So can someone
explain how you can run and be registered as a Democrat on the ballot, and then
support Pelosi for Speaker, but actually say, with a straight face, that you are
not "beholden" to the Democrats?I'm not saying
it's a bad thing. Just own up to it. And quit perpetuating this quaint
"Mr. Smith goes to Washington" (great movie by the way) notion that a
single, rugged individual can go to D.C. in Congress and totally on their own
fix stuff. I guess it's the same mindset that keeps Americans
paying $20 to go see re-re-reruns of Batman, Spiderman, Avengers, and misc.
superhero movies. (So sick of those, by the way). There's
nothing wrong with a robust 2-party system. You have 2 teams on the ballfield.
It's just naturally that way. Unless you want to go to the confused,
inefficient European model of coalition governments?
Gr8Dane said: "So can someone explain how you can run and be registered as a
Democrat on the ballot, and then support Pelosi for Speaker, but actually say,
with a straight face, that you are not "beholden" to the
Democrats?"Yes, it's called diplomacy. If you look at
matheson's record it's quite clear he votes independently of his
party. Unlike the current republican party, who, if they dare cross the isle,
they might as well turn in their resignation.
Happy Valley HereticAnd I suppose you also beleive that the cow
jumped over the moon and the cat ran away with the spoon.
Speaker Bohner critisizes the president for not ever working in the private
sector. I would like him to explain why that is bad for Obama, but if the VP on
his party's ticket has never worked in the private sector that is ok.
When I go to the polls, I like going knowing what the issues are and who
believes in what, not just whether they are Republican or Democrat. To me the
internet is the technology that could pull us out of the "dark ages"
wherein we are in the dark about what the candidates think are important issues
and how they would like to respond to them. Why continue to live in the days of
campaign buttons, negative campaigning, and meaningless rhetoric? True, I have
no clue as to the expense of obtaining and maintaining a website with the real
issues, but I also suspect that politicians are too afraid of having voters know
what they think because they won't all agree and there might be votes lost
because of it.
Noodlekaboodle,The difference is that the Vice President does not
make policy but advises, the President does make policyt and Mr. Obama had and
still does have any private sector experience. Keep them coming, I
am sure you are confused about alot more as well and we will try to explain
because knowledge is power. Coming out of the dark is, well, enlighting.
Veracity - problem is, we are voting for the President of a Country, not a
business. The job of President of the United States is to administer the needs
of the government. The Congress formulates the rules and legislation, and the
Supreme court ensures they do so without stepping on anyones rights as defined
by the constitution.The President isn't the chief economist.
The President doesn't have unilateral control of spending like in a
corporation. The President doesn't pass laws. The President doesn't
create the budget. It is an administrative job enforcing the laws of the land.
Being President has absolutely nothing to do with running a company,
and is nothing like it. Romney will not be able to set the budget. He will not
be allowed to unilaterally set budget limits. He will not be able to set
"policy" for the country. The Presidency is nothing like being the
president of a venture capital fund. It is about enforcing policy set by
others. Trust me, Romney was not executing policy of others when he ran
Bain.It is a different skill set... completely.
UtahBlueDevil,The government needs to be run as a business, a
business whose bottom line of the debit column matches the bottom line of the
credit column. If you believe the President does not set a budget, why did Mr.
Obama’s budget not receive a vote by either side…is it because he
did not provide one?...oops, nope he did…I guess he does present a
budget.Providing a short summary of the three branches of government
was good, but the agenda for the direction of programs also comes by the
Presidents cabinet and administrators who administer the needs of the government
under the direction of the President. I suppose you feel running the
government requires only someone who has a few years as a community organizer
and has never balanced a budget. Someone who never introduced a bill in the
Illinois Senate or the United States Senate. Someone who feels America should
use Europe as a governmental model and socialism is the new hope and change.
Someone who divides rather than unites.I am voting for a
president…you can go ahead and vote for a personality.