Election Night In Your Town

[Guest Josh]

Tonight is the night that is election night in your town. In Detroit, the major story is Kwame Kilpatrick vs. Freeman Hendrex for mayor of Detroit. As it looks right now, Freeman will be the NEW mayor of Detroit, something I sincerely hope happens. Thoughts and what not on local elections in your town?

[Flybrian]

I clocked out of caring about my city's municipal elections because its well-known Scientoloists run this town and damnit if they haven't been doing a better job than the elected politicians.

[Justin Bimmer]

Hoping that the Democrats win here in California! I voted NO on everthing, our budget didnt have room in it for a special election!

[Croc]

Heh...I'm all for YES on 80 though.

[Satty]

I know one proposal on a ballot around here won 7-0. Yes, seven people voted and they all voted yes. Seriously, not making this up, all the votes were counted. There was also a 26-25 squeaker in another small town. Gotta love living in the middle of nowhere.

[SoCalCTS]

Heh...I'm all for YES on 80 though.

[post="40603"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Me too Croc!

It looks like we are going to beat all of the Arnie initiatives (fingers crossed).

[Croc]

I'm not registered in Cali...so I couldn't vote...but I am an active in the USC Democrats! Now here's what I didn't get...our club determined NO on props 73-78, and YES on 79 and 80......Now I missed most of the debates on them, and I don't get why one would be YES on 79.....then again, I have been seeing the "Prop 79 is the WRONG Rx for CA" ads since August...

[SoCalCTS]

Well prop 79 was prescription rebates for poor people so officially it was supported by Democrats but then again it didn't really make that much sense. Prop 78 was put on the ballot by the drug companies and was just writing into law the drug discount cards.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Meh... Not that I care much, I don't vote. I think only like 15% of the voting population turned out for the primaries here... Sad. But what's even more sad is that many, like me, have realized that our entire political system and it's "elections" is a joke and just don't bother anymore... "On.. through.. the.. never.. WE MUST GO. OUT TO THE edge.. of.. for.. ever.. WE MUST GO. Then never comes." --MetallicA I dunno, that lyric just popped into my head since I'm sure people will be calling me blind and naive for not voting but obviously it's more an issue of apathy.

[NOS2006]

Sorry, Josh. Kwame's got it.

[sciguy_0504]

Hoping that the Democrats win here in California! I voted NO on everthing, our budget didnt have room in it for a special election!

[post="40602"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So teachers shouldn't have merit-based pay? That would save California some money right there!

Edit: spelling (again) Edited November 9, 2005 by sciguy_0504

[SoCalCTS]

So teachers shouldn't have merit-based pay?  That would save California some money right there!

[post="40751"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Merit based pay was not in the initiatives. Prop 74 was about the process in which a Teacher could be fired.

Since Prop. 74 failed, the firing process for teachers will remain the same. The teacher is entitled to a hearing and can appeal the decision in Superior Court and again in a Court of Appeal. Before being fired, a teacher has 90 days to improve.

Prop. 74 would have eliminated the 90-day period and the need to document reasons for dismissal beyond the two evaluations.

This proposition was about punishing teachers since they did not support Arnold stealing $2 Billion in education funds. He said he was borrowing the money but later said that it would NEVER be repaid.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Anyone hear about the bill SanFran voted in favor of pertaining to firearms? 52 to 48: It proclaims that San Francisco OUTLAW firearms within the city limits and has provisions that would make it against the law for military recruiters to set foot on high school or college campuses. Sad day in america.... indeed. Big day for Democrats overall, looks like the media crusade is working.

[Croc]

Yea...there's no way Prop 74 would have won...the second you get that "teacher of the year" who was in all the proposition ads last year saying no, it was doomed to fail. The "YES" ads were pretty weak too..."Hi I'm a teacher AND a Democrat! And I'M voting YES on Prop 74!!" seriously...did anyone buy that load of crap?

[Croc]

Anyone hear about the bill SanFran voted in favor of pertaining to firearms?

52 to 48: It proclaims that San Francisco OUTLAW firearms within the city limits and has provisions that would make it against the law for military recruiters to set foot on high school or college campuses.

Sad day in america.... indeed.

Big day for Democrats overall, looks like the media crusade is working.

[post="40814"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No, don't make it such a black and white issue...

Frankly, within the city limits there is no need for firearms. You don't go hunting in the city, and renting them in the woods is always better and safer.

As for the military recruiters, you should have been able to figure that one out yourself...First of all, I believe it is that they cannot set foot on public HSs or Colleges. Why? Because of the homophobic stance of the military. This is San Francisco for crying out loud...They are just excluding bigots from recruiting on campuses.

Several colleges have had the issue come up, and USC was one of them a few years ago...basically here the agreement reached was that military officials had to BE APPROACHED and not approach students...and the LGBTA could have a silent protest next to them. Any verbalizing of hate speech would be grounds for the military being kicked off, or the LGBT being asked to leave the area and possibly facing diciplinary hearings. I think that is a pretty fair compromise, but I can see why SF would go as far as they did...I mean it is almost like the Klan recruiting at a diverse HS or College......it would NOT be welcome.

[SoCalCTS]

Sad day in america.... indeed.

Big day for Democrats overall, looks like the media crusade is working.

[post="40814"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Interesting choice of words... there is no "crusade" in America. Crusades are for religious purposes. These changes are a normal correction to politics leaning too far in one direction. During the Clinton years things went left and now they are too far to the right. The majority of America is in the middle and this should be viewed as a return towards the center.

[BuickEight]

:) A very good day in America indeed! :) Now we need to win the senate and the house of congress in '06 so we can impeach that bastard. :AH-HA_wink: Want a REAL president? Vote for General Wes Clark in '08. Visit WesPac at www.securingamerica.com.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Frankly, within the city limits there is no need for firearms. You don't go hunting in the city, and renting them in the woods is always better and safer.

I never said I disagreed with that part of it.

As for the military recruiters, you should have been able to figure that one out yourself...First of all, I believe it is that they cannot set foot on public HSs or Colleges. Why? Because of the homophobic stance of the military. This is San Francisco for crying out loud...They are just excluding bigots from recruiting on campuses.

Wow, that's A LOT of stereotyping. Personally I think it's just because of anti-military sentiment. And I've experienced this first hand, since I live in the "east coast san francisco" and was looked at like a baby killer when I put on my JROTC uniform.

Several colleges have had the issue come up, and USC was one of them a few years ago...basically here the agreement reached was that military officials had to BE APPROACHED and not approach students...and the LGBTA could have a silent protest next to them. Any verbalizing of hate speech would be grounds for the military being kicked off, or the LGBT being asked to leave the area and possibly facing diciplinary hearings. I think that is a pretty fair compromise, but I can see why SF would go as far as they did...I mean it is almost like the Klan recruiting at a diverse HS or College......it would NOT be welcome.

Interesting... Haven't heard anything about this, it does shed some light on the subject though.

Interesting choice of words... there is no "crusade" in America. Crusades are for religious purposes. These changes are a normal correction to politics leaning too far in one direction. During the Clinton years things went left and now they are too far to the right. The majority of America is in the middle and this should be viewed as a return towards the center.

www.dictionary.com : Crusade- A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.

I disagree, but I'm not going to start a political debate. Just watch 99% of the news and you'll see what I'm getting at and it's working, of course with OTHER factors, but it is working.

[sciguy_0504]

:) A very good day in America indeed! :) Now we need to win the senate and the house of congress in '06 so we can impeach that bastard. :AH-HA_wink: Want a REAL president?  Vote for General Wes Clark in '08.  Visit WesPac at www.securingamerica.com.

[post="40869"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh, God. Sorry but you lose all credibility when you start name calling. BTW, it's Hillary v. Condi in '08 and my money is on Condi.

[sciguy_0504]

Anyone hear about the bill SanFran voted in favor of pertaining to firearms?

52 to 48: It proclaims that San Francisco OUTLAW firearms within the city limits and has provisions that would make it against the law for military recruiters to set foot on high school or college campuses.

Sad day in america.... indeed.

Big day for Democrats overall, looks like the media crusade is working.

[post="40814"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

1) It's San Fransisco
2) It's Calfornia

No offense to anyone. It's just the area's very utopian, socialist and naive political beliefs.

[Cory Wolfe]

Wait... it was Election night? :blink: :P

[Satty]

Oh, God.  Sorry but you lose all credibility when you start name calling.  BTW, it's Hillary v. Condi in '08 and my money is on Condi.

[post="40921"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Nope, if it looks ike the Dems are going to nominate Hilary, the Reps will do anything they can to get a nominee with a penis, same goes for the Dems is the Reps nominate Condi. Americans are, as a whole, afraid of change. Electing a woman, for now and the forseeable future, is going to be hard, if not impossible, because we feel too safe with white men running the country. Racist? Yes. Sexist? Yes. But Americans are stupid, racist and sexist. 2008 will be rich white guy vs. rich white guy again.

[SoCalCTS]

I never said I disagreed with that part of it.
Wow, that's A LOT of stereotyping. Personally I think it's just because of anti-military sentiment. And I've experienced this first hand, since I live in the "east coast san francisco" and was looked at like a baby killer when I put on my JROTC uniform.
Interesting... Haven't heard anything about this, it does shed some light on the subject though.
www.dictionary.com : Crusade- A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.

I disagree, but I'm not going to start a political debate. Just watch 99% of the news and you'll see what I'm getting at and it's working, of course with OTHER factors, but it is working.

[post="40887"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Crusade from Webster's
1 capitalized : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims
2 : a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm

As for the recruitment on campus... who cares? I'm sure the government will be calling every high school kid since you still have to register with the selective service.

And there is definitely a Right Wing bias to the news in San Diego, CA. Or better yet watch Fox News, CNN and MSNBC and just try and tell me that any of those are liberal biased! At best MSNBC is moderate and CNN is turning into a mini-Fox news.

[chris]

viciously anti-gay texas proposition 2 passed with flying colors. geddit?

[BuickEight]

Oh, God.  Sorry but you lose all credibility when you start name calling.  BTW, it's Hillary v. Condi in '08 and my money is on Condi.

[post="40921"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh, God. Sorry but you lost credibility when you voted for that evil, moronic jerk called George W Bush. And Hilary vs Condi?----PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! What you Bushies don't realize is that the Dems don't want Hilary....but that's not what the right-wing media will have you believing.

[Croc]

Wow, that's A LOT of stereotyping. Personally I think it's just because of anti-military sentiment. And I've experienced this first hand, since I live in the "east coast san francisco" and was looked at like a baby killer when I put on my JROTC uniform.

[post="40887"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Any and all "anti-military" sentiment can be boiled down to two root causes:

1) People who think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is discriminatory

2) People who have a problem with the torture that went on in the POW camps, and a problem with the War in Iraq (though this second part more has to do with Bush and top-ranked Army officials than it does with the military as a whole)

or a combination of the two.


Frankly, I think ANY discrimination is appalling in this day and age. I think women should be in the military (and therefore drafted if a draft is instituted), and I think gays and lesbians should be allowed as well. Sexual orientation has little to do with defending one's country. A more uniform requirement that would be fair in my eyes would be the discharge of soldiers who sexually harass other soldiers, or who engage in inappropriate conduct whether it is heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

As for number 2, I have a problem with it as well. FOG, I am glad SF passed the bill that they did because it sends a message that recruiting for a flawed and discriminatory institution is not welcome in a public HS or college campus. I think it's high time that the military shapes up and reforms, but that all said, I will support the individual troups as long as they are over in Iraq. As long as they do not engage in despicable conduct on their own, I might add.

[Croc]

Oh, God.  Sorry but you lost credibility when you voted for that evil, moronic jerk called George W Bush.  And Hilary vs Condi?----PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What you Bushies don't realize is that the Dems don't want Hilary....but that's not what the right-wing media will have you believing.

[post="41023"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Have to agree. I know very few Democrats who want Hilary.

I couldn't care less who the Rs nominate, but for the Democrats my money is on any combination of Warner, Robertson, and Bayh. That would be a very liveable and agreeable ballot. Plus, Bayh's a great guy! Edited November 10, 2005 by Croc

[Cory Wolfe]

What you Bushies don't realize is that the Dems don't want Hilary....but that's not what the right-wing media will have you believing.

Does anybody want Hilary??? :P I think I'd rather have a convict than that bitch. :lol: :D

(sorry... just had to)

[sciguy_0504]

Oh, God.  Sorry but you lost credibility when you voted for that evil, moronic jerk called George W Bush.  And Hilary vs Condi?----PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What you Bushies don't realize is that the Dems don't want Hilary....but that's not what the right-wing media will have you believing.

[post="41023"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:rolleyes:

I missed the election because of age by a month. I wouldn't vote for anyone who threw their medals away, in the heat of the moment or not.

[sciguy_0504]

What's worse: Forcing someone to wear panties on their head or shooting people, burning them and hanging their bodies from a bridge? Few Iraqi/terrorist POWs went through actual torture. Embarrassment, yes. Torture, no. Worse things happen at college campuses across the country every night and no one's up in arms about it. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, I think, is right. It does not state that homosexuals cannot serve their country. It states homosexuals, and everyone else, should keep their sexual orientation private because it is a private matter. Now, it's probably not enforced the way it was meant to be (and it should be), but it's still a good policy. Forcing military recuiters off of college/high school campuses is very hypocritical. "Yes you can protect me but I don't want to see you here." Of course, it's a college campus so what else can you expect? Full of hate and discrimination for anyone that does not hold the majority communist/socialist/anarchist, "world peace" naive view. I've seen some of the videos and pictures of what these very narrow minded "intellectuals" do to the men and women in the military and it's not pretty. In fact, Oprah without makeup even looks better.

[capriceman]

Doesnt this violate the third rule of the lounge? but I heard kilpatrick won O GOD HELP DETROIT!

[SingleStylish]

Proposition 2 in the state of Texas passed and it is with no great surprise. Marriage has been saved here for those who chose to practice it. (Read: Men and women) I hope I speak for the majority of level-headed conservatives in this country, I really don't care what you do so long as it doesn't prevent me from not caring. Too many of the folks across this country want to grind an axe. Many conservatives like myself don't. There are radicals on all sides of issues but, for some reason it has become popular to pick-on, berate, and even humiliate anyone who stands up as a conservative. Any gay person who chooses to say that they "lost" something in this election is missing the point. Marriage has ALWAYS been about a man and a woman, without the gay "movement" none of these elections would be held. Go live your life, just don't tell me about it and quit having homosexual days, parades, and magazines. Just as you don't want specifically heterosexual days, parades, and magazines... there are bigger social divisions/issues in this country to worry about than trying to create another!

[SingleStylish]

Furthermore, why hasn't Barack Obama been metioned for '08?

Barack's Official Site

A Democratic friend of mind seems to think he will be a great leader for the "new" Democrats and a great presidential candidate. Edited November 10, 2005 by SingleStylish

[Croc]

Obama doesn't really have much of a shot at the presidency. The country wants a moderate...and Obama is still a bit left. Look for liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats as the next president or two...

[chris]

Proposition 2 in the state of Texas passed and it is with no great surprise.  Marriage has been saved here for those who chose to practice it.  (Read:  Men and women)  I hope I speak for the majority of level-headed conservatives in this country, I really don't care what you do so long as it doesn't prevent me from not caring.

Too many of the folks across this country want to grind an axe.  Many conservatives like myself don't.  There are radicals on all sides of issues but, for some reason it has become popular to pick-on, berate, and even humiliate anyone who stands up as a conservative.

Any gay person who chooses to say that they "lost" something in this election is missing the point.  Marriage has ALWAYS been about a man and a woman, without the gay "movement" none of these elections would be held.  Go live your life, just don't tell me about it and quit having homosexual days, parades, and magazines.  Just as you don't want specifically heterosexual days, parades, and magazines... there are bigger social divisions/issues in this country to worry about than trying to create another!

[post="41123"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

what a load, who cares about marriage, prop 2 makes it unconstitutional for the state or any level of government below the state to draw up any alternative to marriage for gay couples, such as CIVIL UNIONS.

it's not up to the government to meddle in the affairs of religion anyway. let the church deal in marriages. the government's ONLY concern should be civil unions, be that of a man and a woman, or of a man and a man, only for the purposes of death and taxes.

[Lance Truthhammer]

Actually, Barack Obama is more center-left than a lot of the more prominant liberals. But, what it is about him that makes him the future of the Democratic party is the hope he exudes in his vision for America. The audacity of hope! He is uniquely able to unite people on both sides, he geniunely believes in the capacity of the American people to think deeply about the issues, and he honestly speaks of the common hopes of all Americans as our highest priorities. No wonder he doesn't seem like a politician, no wonder what he says and the way he says it seems fresh and inspiring - it's been a long time since we've seen a true statesman. Now, he wouldn't win the Presidency by such a large gap as he did in his Senate race, but the fact that he fared so well with even the most conservative of voters in Illinois, having outstanding success across all demographics, shows something peculiar at work - something I think one should acknowledge before writing off his chances. He appeals to our better angels, and we will only be better off as a result. -E.S. Mail

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Nope, if it looks ike the Dems are going to nominate Hilary, the Reps will do anything they can to get a nominee with a penis, same goes for the Dems is the Reps nominate Condi.  Americans are, as a whole, afraid of change.  Electing a woman, for now and the forseeable future, is going to be hard, if not impossible, because we feel too safe with white men running the country.  Racist?  Yes.  Sexist?  Yes.  But Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.  2008 will be rich white guy vs. rich white guy again.

[post="40928"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I would probably vote for Hilary... Not because of her political affiliation (They're all the same to me) but because 1) I think she's intelligent enough to be a good leader and 2) It would be a nice breath of fresh air.

Forcing military recuiters off of college/high school campuses is very hypocritical. "Yes you can protect me but I don't want to see you here." Of course, it's a college campus so what else can you expect? Full of hate and discrimination for anyone that does not hold the majority communist/socialist/anarchist, "world peace" naive view. I've seen some of the videos and pictures of what these very narrow minded "intellectuals" do to the men and women in the military and it's not pretty. In fact, Oprah without makeup even looks better.

CLASSIC!!! I agree 100%

Too many of the folks across this country want to grind an axe. Many conservatives like myself don't. There are radicals on all sides of issues but, for some reason it has become popular to pick-on, berate, and even humiliate anyone who stands up as a conservative.

I agree and I think it's because of the media and it's opinions/CONSTANT criticisms of Bush. Bush is president and they can't/won't accept that so they whine and gripe about it EVERY day and now they've begun to sway people. If you're told something enough then you'll begin to agree with it. I'm not trying to start a war as I'm neither liberal nor conservative; I'm apathetic thanks to the constant bickering between the two.

[Croc]

Don't get me wrong, Obama is a good Dem...but I really think it will be Bayh, Robertson, or Warner, especially after the VA election results...

[Satty]

McCain would have been a lot better than Bush. Not that it would be hard to do a better job than Bush. Just throwing that out there for discussion. Obama in '08 would be nice, we'll see.

[Croc]

Agreed. Had McCain run in 2004, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry.

[regfootball]

Nope, if it looks ike the Dems are going to nominate Hilary, the Reps will do anything they can to get a nominee with a penis, same goes for the Dems is the Reps nominate Condi.  Americans are, as a whole, afraid of change.  Electing a woman, for now and the forseeable future, is going to be hard, if not impossible, because we feel too safe with white men running the country.  Racist?  Yes.  Sexist?  Yes.  But Americans are stupid, racist and sexist.  2008 will be rich white guy vs. rich white guy again.

[post="40928"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i think women soccer mom voters will put Hillary in office and she will have funding support like no other. Personally, I think Hill in office is worse than GWB (and that's already a bad deal), which means sad choices for us all......but Hillary already has 8 years experience running the country so I guess this time we're just making her earn it by getting voted in.

When I think of all the choices we've had for presidential elections in the last 15 years or so, I cringe. And its only getting worse. I was never a big Clinton fan, but lately i am thinking maybe he did an ok job. Edited November 10, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

McCain would have been a lot better than Bush.  Not that it would be hard to do a better job than Bush.  Just throwing that out there for discussion.

Obama in '08 would be nice, we'll see.

[post="41261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Obama, not Osama...right?

[bobo]

I'm glad Arnold got spanked on all his initiatives. It was a collosal waste of time, money, and energy, and we had to be assaulted by those inane commercials. Some $200+ million was spent on this election for no good reason. As for Proposition H in San Francisco banning firearms within city limits, this law was largely symbolic and will surely be found to be unconstitutional. The NRA has already filed a lawsuit.

[Croc]

Agree with Bobo... But symbols are powerful in America.

[Flybrian]

The problem I see are recruiters taking advantage of poorer-income, slightly ignorant-to-the-facts young people who see themselves with little to no future after high school beyond working at McDonalds. They hype the military to be the save-all of their lives, that they'll be able to get thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, play sports, jetski on the weekends, visit beautiful places around the world, and take college classes when deployed. Half of that is pure crap and they all know it and right now, recruiters (especially Army and Marine) are so desperate to get their numbers up, they'll do/say anything to the naiive.

I'm not against the military...far from it. All I'd like to see is a little more realism and a little more honesty in depiciting what you're going to actually do, especially in frontline services like the Army and Marine Corps where a hot combat deployment is far more likely than some ancillary support role. I've seen too many of my friends and someone I love hurt by the cold, hard reality of the truth because of the shadiness of some recruiters locally.

The military is not for everyone, yet their PR engine makes it out to be. The truth is you're going to be sent to 12-13 weeks of training during which you're going to be broken down, conditioned, and taught to kill people and then sent to some decrepit waste of a country where people you don't even know try to kill you without following the rules of war you were just taught. Its a necessary job, and if you want to do it, God bless you. But its not for everyone.

I'm just tired of seeing the military paint itself as some social works project intent on uplifting disadvantaged youth and the like. IMO, it undermines the true purpose of national defense and attracts alot of reluctant people who are simply unsuited for combat but dazzled by the $$$$$$ figures thrown around. As a tax-paying citizen, I want our ranks filled by those who really want to fight and sacrifice, not those who want to do their four years and cut bait.

[BuickEight]

I'm begging you guys to look into General Wes Clark at www.securingamerica.com. This guy is a freakin' genius....seriously. He has been serving our country his ENTIRE life because that's what he believes in. He was first in his class at West Point and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. He is a Democrat, but he did vote for Reagan and Bush Sr.....so he's not a far lefty. And what I really like is that he did not grow up in a wealthy family. I feel that's so important since most politicians are so freakin' rich they never have known what it's like to be in our shoes. His father was also into politics, but he died when Wes was only four...his father nominated FDR at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1932! I very, very strongly feel that Clark could clean up this mess overseas...he certainly has the experience. And, please no more senators for president...it hasn't worked since JFK.

[Croc]

It didn't work for JFK either...he was an awful president; he just had the charisma to carry him. He singlehandledly caused the Cuban Missile Crisis and thankfully averted it...but barely.

[BuickEight]

McCain would have been a lot better than Bush.  Not that it would be hard to do a better job than Bush.  Just throwing that out there for discussion.

Obama in '08 would be nice, we'll see.

[post="41261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Agreed. But, if you remember when McCain ran in '00, the republican smear machine horribly smeared him. That's the only way the republicans can ever win, and they'll do it to their own. They wanted Bush in there no matter what the cost. They've been planning the Iraq invasion for a long, long, time....Bush was a piece of the puzzle.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

McCain would have been a lot better than Bush.  Not that it would be hard to do a better job than Bush.  Just throwing that out there for discussion.

Obama in '08 would be nice, we'll see.

[post="41261"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I had originally planned on voting for McCain as well.

When I think of all the choices we've had for presidential elections in the last 15 years or so, I cringe. And its only getting worse. I was never a big Clinton fan, but lately i am thinking maybe he did an ok job.

Agree 100%

[Croc]

Yea I wasn't big on Clinton during his office, but damn I think he did one hell of a job in hindsight.