Ruffini is way too pro-Republican/anti-Democrat. I tried to get into his site for the info, but it was blatantly slanted to the conservative viewpoint/candidates.

He's a Republican consultant so, yeah, his blog is going to be conservative.

But the Presidential Wire seems to be non-partisan in the sense that it covers 2008-related news. For example, the top "hot" story is about Hillary Clinton's large campaign contributions matching her high poll numbers.

Dude, it's only 2005. Go watch a movie, or read a book. I'll be having political burnout from the last election at least until 2006. :)

I'm here to obsess so that you don't have to, Mat!

And besides, it's already time to gear up for the '06 elections, man.

The new tradition in my household that sprung up during the '04 primaries: waffles and politics.

I can't imagine what 2008 - or 2006 for that matter - is going to be like. People are still crowing and/or festering from last year...and the Media! Cripes! I don't think I can take the endless blathering of the Media....

isn't jeb gonna run and win?

can't we just switch to a monarchy and avoid the ugly campaign stuff?

please?

A Jeb v. Hillary campaign would be slightly creepy, wouldn't it?

Anyway, I know everyone's political biorhythms are low at the moment... but just give it a little time. All of y'all will be back to spitting piss and vinegar in no time.

We have GOT to get some kind of alternative parties going besides D & R. We need a Ross Perot who doesn't cop out due to his daughter's wedding. Interesting that here in the US of A we don't have a strong communist or socialist party, like in Europe. Guess Joe McCarthy took care of that. I still think we need to have the ballots amended to include "Neither of the above", which would kick in an automatic re-match. AND we need to pass a law so that the Media can't report which candidate has won, before the western-most polls have closed.

Socialists and communists, Nancy? The Dems are having a hard enough time as it is.

I think a strong third candidate would be fun and would certainly shake things up. I'm not sure if it will materialize for '08 as it will be another Epic Struggle / Most Important Election etc. etc. kind of affair.

I'm with you Nancy. We need alternative parties. The problem is that success in American politics is measured by the amount of money a candidate can raise.

I think we need an overhaul of the national election system beginning with Congress. Members of the House should be elected every 4 years, on a staggered basis. Half in one cycle, the other in the next. Congresspeople should be limited to two consecutive terms or a total of 10 years.

The system in place for the Senate could remain with the exception of term limits. Senators should be limited to two consecutive terms or a total of 15 years service.

And finally the office of the President. Everything should stay the same except for the electoral process itself. The campaign season should be no more than 6 weeks. Campaign advertising should be strictly monitored and regulated so that it is fair and balanced (thanks, Fox News). The Electoral College system should remain except that electors in each state are allocated by the ratio of votes received.

Unfortunately, I think most of your proposals are unrealistic.

I think term limits are a terrible idea (with the possible exception of the presidency). Don't we want qualified and experienced people doing the nation's business. The problem remains with campaign finances -- they need a great deal of further reform... equal access time on television (LOTS of it) is my proposal there, for starters.

I like the idea of percentages of states being allocated for electoral college votes.

Fairness doctrine.

If someone proposes it that I can vote for (IE president or state office) I'm voting for them.

Also anyone who can get through legislation tat simply says companies cannot donate political money. Period. Companies don't have rights like people. There is no freedom of speech inherent in their existence.

Those are my two top issues. Everything else either party will do about the same things - until those two issues of campaign finance are addressed.

I'm a pol. junkie as well, but it is much too early for me to think too deeply about the next race. I'm exhausted from the last sling-shit fest.

I think term limits are a terrible idea (with the possible exception of the presidency). Don't we want qualified and experienced people doing the nation's business. The problem remains with campaign finances -- they need a great deal of further reform... equal access time on television (LOTS of it) is my proposal there, for starters.

Good points, Eric. But look at the "experience" we have frolicking through the hallowed halls of Congress. We need qualified people doing the nation's business, I totally agree. Unfortunately, under the current system we're not getting the cream of the crop. There's been a leadership vaccuum in Washington for over a generation with no improvement in sight.

Perhaps, but I don't see term limits as the way to usher in a new era of better leadership.

In the end, it's up to citizens to stand up to demand better and more accountable government.

Hard to do when the "citzens" with deeper pockets - lobbying groups, etc. get there first and more often. And they have money.

See my suggestions above.

Yes, that's why I think major and substantive campaign finance reform alongside some rules reform would be much more constructive than installing term limits.

Oh, I'm not for term limits. The idea is swell but in practice you kick out a lot of good guys along with the "icky scum" at the top.

I fail to understand how a woman a tolerated for years her husband's fornicating is seen to be a candidate for the office of the Presidet of the US of A. I know for sure my mom would've slapped the divorce notice on my dad had he strayed even once. And she is just an ordinary hardworking simple woman who has never been to college.

I know its high time we had a woman as our President ..but certainly not Hillary !! America deserves better.

So you're basically faulting a politician for not getting a divorce? She dealt with her personal/marital issues in her own way and appears to be the stronger for it.

I don't see this as a reason to discount her qualifications to hold public office in any way.

Eric...Lets put it this way.Suppose it was the other way aroud. Suppose Clinton was running for the job of President and his wife was famous as a serial adulterer , sleeping around with full knowledge of her husband. Do you think you would want a cuckolded fool as your President ?

I want a woman or a black man to be America's next President , but hopefully that person will be one with strong character , mental fortitude and values.

The word I was looking for is 'SELF-RESPECT'. If Mrs.Clinton had the slightest self-respect in her , she would have sent her philandering hubby packing long time back. But no...the perks of being the 'First Lady' were too attractive to give up. Do we really want a selfish woman with no self-respect to be our President ?

I bet the GOP is salivating at the idea of Hillary getting the Democratic nomination...

This whole " I want a woman or a black for our next president", Isn't that kind of degrading to the woman or black running for office. No matter your qualifications just stand up there and smile and wave... I was having a political discussion with a female co-worker and she stated that she wants Hilary to win. She went on to say she really doesn't like her but women have been held under glass ceilings for so long that it would just be right. I agreed that women have not goten thier fair shake in the workforce and other aspects of life but questioned the logic of wanting someone in office you don't neccasarily like because of gender or race... I told her that is a dangerous mentality. One other thing I don't really think much of Hilary but if shes elected it wont be by my vote but she will still be my president who will receive respect from me and not the horrible namecalling and bashing that the left and liberals gave and still are giving Bush.. Do they realize the word is laughing at us..

Make that the world is laughing not the word... HeHe...

I'm all for a new party, but it's not going to be on the extreme left, the Democrats have that territory fully covered now that moveon.org is in charge.

The 'gang of 14' as they're called might become the nucleus of a nice, moderate third party if they get persecuted enough and have to take a moderate stand over and over.

If that doens't happen, then the best hope is for the Republican party to split in two, with the moderates dumping the Neocons who form their own extreme right party. This is most likely to happen if the Republican convention comes up with a candidate who's totally unacceptable to one of the two factions. For example, there's no way that the Neocons could stay on board if Giuliani got the nomination.

Dave

Here's the problem. Of course the GOP salivates at the thought of a Hillary candidacy. It would totally take away from the real problems confronting this country. Face it, the GOP, bolstered by the fundie war machine, succeeds through a cobination of smoke and mirrors tactics and the failure of the opposition to offer a viable alternative. HOWEVER, that does not void all of the positive things they have tried to do. I believe that the fundamental GOP libertarian philosophy toward government is right on the money. What's happened is that those with deep pockets are dictating the remainder of the GOP platform and that's where the trouble begins.

I am beginning to agree with Former Labor Secretary Reich (sp?) in his assertion that the Democrat Party is on the verge of total collapse. Howard Dean came in too late. The last two election cycles were a disaster. The Democrat leadership cower in the presence of the GOP. It's not that the GOP wins elections, it's that the Democrats have nothing to offer and the GOP money machine can spend the money to prove it.

Eric...Lets put it this way.Suppose it was the other way aroud. Suppose Clinton was running for the job of President and his wife was famous as a serial adulterer , sleeping around with full knowledge of her husband. Do you think you would want a cuckolded fool as your President ?

My position still stands either way. Clinton wasn't the first politician to stray from a marriage, and won't be the last. But the couple worked it out in their own way. If anything, Hillary Clinton is a strong woman for holding her head high and weathering the whithering media storm that she's lived in for the past 13 or so years.

I bet the GOP is salivating at the idea of Hillary getting the Democratic nomination...

I doubt that's the case with anyone who really knows the game. Hillary Clinton will be a formidable presidential candidate. No one should take her (and her supporting cast) lightly.

>>I am beginning to agree with Former Labor Secretary Reich (sp?) in his assertion that the Democrat Party is on the verge of total collapse.<<

I'm with you, Silas. Reich is a pretty smart guy. Clinton had a lot of very sharp people working with him which gave him the ability to overcome the limits of the Democratic party and be successful. Reich and Dick Morris are good examples. They're very sharp political operatives - less ideological versions of Carl Rove.

The problem is that if the Democratic part collapses, what comes out of it? All it can do is reform itself into something similar. There's no point to it collapsing unless there's somewhere for moderate/sensible democrats to go. There aren't enough of them to be a viable party on their own, so they ought to be praying for a breakdown in the Republican party at the same time, because they need to moderate Republicans to join them if they want to form a politically viable new party.

Dave

I love Reich and think he's brilliant. He's also fairly liberal.

The Democratic Party isn't going anywhere. Politics is cyclical. From 1990-1992 the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Now it's the opposite.

We'll see what happens in '06 -- I think the country is primed to tilt the direction of our leadership back to the center (if not to the left). I believe Bill Clinton whole heartedly in that it's not new policies that the Democrats need, just a clearer and more persuasive message.

Enter: Hillary '08

I'm really starting to believe that she can be the next (and first female) President.

Clinton / Clark '08

Not bad, eh?

Clinton vs. Rice in 2008. Though I think Condi's too intelligent to let anyone talk her into running for president.

Zaphod Beeblebrox proves it -- anyone who actually WANTS to be President is automatically not qualified for the job.

I think both parties are going to end up fragmenting in the near future. The moveon faction of the Democrats are going to leave, and the far right Repubs are going to leave. Then we'll have two ideological parties, and a "centrist" party that governs by popular opinion and compromise.

Third parties would be viable options now if all the people who said "I'd support them BUT they can't be elected" would just go ahead and support them. Problem is, I know a LOT of people who would end up voting Constitutionalist, and that frightens me more than you all can possibly imagine.

I disagree on Rice running and the breakup of the two-party system.

Personally, I think Rice would get ripped to shreds by the rigors of presidential politics. She's never had to speak out in blatantly political terms before, and I don't think she could excel at it in the way that one must in order to win the presidency.

And as I stated above, I don't see any major change to the two-party system for the foreseeable future.

Vote my mommy for President in 2008 on the white
trash platform. Hell, she might be 62, but she is
5'11", 125 pounds, 44 DD's, and looks good in her Daisy Duke shorts and her halter top barefooted out in the yard with a grand-baby on her hip. She'd probably be the best to choose from.