Former U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry (background L) watches on as incoming U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (C)(D-NV) walks alongside his party colleagues on Capitol Hill November 14, 2006. Reid, a moderate Nevada Democrat, was elected by colleagues on Tuesday as U.S. Senate majority leader for the 110th Congress that will convene in January. The other top positions are (2ndL-R) Vice Chair of the Conference Charles Schumer (D-NY), Secretary of the Conference Patty Murray (D-WA) and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL).

Hee hee hee!!! Kinda speaks volumes for his chances at running for the Dem's nomination in '08.

Yep, he's the odd man out in that picture (maybe elsewhere). I don't imagine the opportunities for running again, for those that lose a national election, are ever very good. I think the Dems would do well to look for someone with more centrist views if they really plan to have a shot at he White House.

Originally Posted by DTop

Yep, he's the odd man out in that picture (maybe elsewhere). I don't imagine the opportunities for running again, for those that lose a national election, are ever very good. I think the Dems would do well to look for someone with more centrist views if they really plan to have a shot at he White House.

I agree, but the same is true of the Republicans. Already we are seeing moderate people like Guiliani, and Romney exploring bids. I think its important that BOTH parties drift toward the middle because moderates are willing to compromise, the best legislation has been through negociation. The extremists on both sides refuse to even the acknowledgement of the other party and they create nothing but endless misery.

As for Kerry, stick a fork in him, he's done. In addition to losing an election he should have easily won, his refusal to apologize for his verbal gaffe desplayed a certain level of New England arrogence that really didnt go over well, even with his own party. I seriously doubt he'll be given a second chance. Tom Vilsack of Iowa is in, Al Gore I think will run. Hillary I'd say is iffy, if Gore runs she won't and visa versa.

I disagree that we need to "vanilla-ize" the government. All this compromise means that in fact nothing gets done. In point of fact I think there needs to be a radical re-organisation of the government.

For security purposes while in transition we declare martial law and the Joint Chiefs are in charge while the following take place.

The IRS is levelled.

All house and senate staff (30,000+) are fired. Future staff are to be limited to ONE employee per elected official.

All elected officials are made to stand election wherein there is no media advertising or coverage allowed. No staffers to coach and no polls. The candidate must stump it in front of the people with only what they know.

All welfare is ended, domestic and international, corporate and private.

Healthcare is nationalized following the DoD model absorbing VA's into the system as well.

A complete review of laws is made in strict interpretation of the Constitution from the federal to local level.

All PACs are made illegal and campaign laws are passed to bar any form of advertising short of speeches and town hall meetings.

All elected positions in the federal government are non-gratis.

The right to vote is subject to a litmus test to include but not limited to intelligence and demonstrated responsibility in keeping with the wishes of the founding fathers.

12 months later we re-emerge a healthier stronger nation able to actually get the job done whatever it may be.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

For security purposes while in transition we declare martial law and the Joint Chiefs are in charge while the following take place.

Im not sure that a martial takeover of the country, even in a temporary manner is what the founding fathers had in mind for our country. Letting anyone, at anytime have that much power is inadvisable at best.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

All elected officials are made to stand election wherein there is no media advertising or coverage allowed. No staffers to coach and no polls. The candidate must stump it in front of the people with only what they know.

As much as negative campaigns and ads are bad for the country, I disagree that there should be NO coverage. The candidates should have a chance to state what they believe, and what they plan to do. If they can not do that, then there can be no educated election. As for staffers, If they want to get the message about their beliefs out to the voters, they will need some sort of staff to get the word out. Also the election manner of senate and house candidates is a state decision and that is clearly stated in Article I Section 4 of the constitution. There should be no government-level oversight of these elections.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

All welfare is ended, domestic and international, corporate and private.

My issue with this is that welfare itself is a very general term. Scholarships to help kids go to college is a kind of welfare, to enable kids who grew up in a econimcally poor situation become productive members of society. Welfare to people who were injured on the job and are now unable to work is another kind of welfare, and it helps keep buisnesses accountable for the physical well-being of their workers. To say what you said, you should specify the type of welfare you are talking about.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

A complete review of laws is made in strict interpretation of the Constitution from the federal to local level.

Well I personally tend to be more in favor of a loose interpretation of the Constitution, so I will disagree with the above statement.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

The right to vote is subject to a litmus test to include but not limited to intelligence and demonstrated responsibility in keeping with the wishes of the founding fathers.

The American way of life is based off of equality, off of the chance of every single member of the country to guide its future, and to help make decisions that will help America. What you would have if you followed this is exactly what we rebelled against: "Taxation without Representation".

EDIT: These are only the things I disagree with from your post.

And now I laugh at the people of my state who voted Daschle out of office in 2004, he would be Senate Majority Leader, but hey, who cares, now we have a junior level Republican who keeps telling the people here at home that he has the President's ear and the papers continue to call him the front runner for the Republican candidate for President in 2008 or McCain's running mate, those being the South Dakota papers and none other though.