i thought obama's 1/2hr was great!

[wurm]

Sam3 wrote: I'm of the mind that campaigns should be given x amount of public dollars and each campaign needs to determine how best to effectively use the money. That would level the playing field.

I agree. I've been saying the same exact thing for years.

[mikeylikesit]

wurm wrote:
[quote=Sam3]I'm of the mind that campaigns should be given x amount of public dollars and each campaign needs to determine how best to effectively use the money. That would level the playing field.

I agree. I've been saying the same exact thing for years.
Me three.

[graylocks]

mikeylikesit wrote:
[quote=wurm]
[quote=Sam3]I'm of the mind that campaigns should be given x amount of public dollars and each campaign needs to determine how best to effectively use the money. That would level the playing field.

I agree. I've been saying the same exact thing for years.
Me three.
i think this would only work if ALL other outside groups were prohibited from participating in the campaign. McCain may have had only $84 millions (jeesh, only! what a world!) but the RNC was able to augment that total considerably. the DNC didn't have to as much this time since Obama was his own fundraising Juggernaut but they would have been there if necessary. then there are all those other PAC groups. of course, there's all those pesky freedom of speech issues to deal with. the playing field can never really be level. the democrats simply played better this time for a change.

[AlphaDog]

graylocks wrote:
[quote=mikeylikesit]
[quote=wurm]
[quote=Sam3]I'm of the mind that campaigns should be given x amount of public dollars and each campaign needs to determine how best to effectively use the money. That would level the playing field.

I agree. I've been saying the same exact thing for years.
Me three.
i think this would only work if ALL other outside groups were prohibited from participating in the campaign. McCain may have had only $84 millions (jeesh, only! what a world!) but the RNC was able to augment that total considerably. the DNC didn't have to as much this time since Obama was his own fundraising Juggernaut but they would have been there if necessary. then there are all those other PAC groups. of course, there's all those pesky freedom of speech issues to deal with. the playing field can never really be level. the democrats simply played better this time for a change.
I agree, graylocks. It's been proven time and time again that when the stakes are high, the only people who play by the rules are the honest ones. I happen to think the words "honest" and "politics" are for the most part mutually exclusive, so any attempt to establish rules that would level the playing field would simply generate more underhandedness. Now this is NOT to say that I wouldn't welcome it, but I don't think it will ever happen.

[decocritter]

The Dems and the REpubs are just as responsible for the bailout, and I don't care for it. They all put it thru.

How can anyone that reads anything of Congressional Record or watches just a bit of C-Span blame this bailout on one party, still?


How can anyone remain undecided? This election is about the lesser of two evils. I know many people that have not decided.

[Pam]

decocritter wrote:
The Dems and the REpubs are just as responsible for the bailout, and I don't care for it. They all put it thru.

How can anyone that reads anything of Congressional Record or watches just a bit of C-Span blame this bailout on one party, still?


How can anyone remain undecided? This election is about the lesser of two evils. I know many people that have not decided.

The deal breaker for me would be a 72 year old man with Palin as VP. She scares me more than any of them. Even if she never had to step in McCain's place.

[Gutenberg]

My first strike on McCain was his pandering to the extreme right wing. Palin was strike two, strike three, throw him out of the game and hit the showers.