Poll question: Did We Really Need A 2 Years Presidential Campaign????
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 11:09 AM by rsmith6621
My God.....Did We Really Need A 2 Years Presidential Campaign????......For crying out loud we have been focused on the 2008 election since the day after last Novembers election with as much energy as if it was June of 08 itself.....I hate to say it but if we want campaigns to last this long then we better be prepared to have the very element we want out of the process involved...CORPORATIONS..
3. Probably not TWO YEARS, but I think I've changed my mind about
going with the Brits who do campaigns of about 6 months. I have to admit, I think the long time has certainly helped Hillary, and most likely Obama as well. Hill has been able to show people who had an already formed opinion of her that they may want to take another look. Obama really was quite an unknown to the majority of American voters.
7. c. 300 A.D. the Church was working through questions like this
They ruled out 4 yr terms for popes on the grounds that there would be continual election cycles. Not that I'm advocating for LIFE terms. But it should be something like what Mexico does: One yr term. Plus a total lock-down on campaigning, like, before 3 months of the election. With some kind of recall or parliamentary vote of confidence.
I'm working hard to keep it all tuned out until next summer. I think it's a plot to suppress voter turnout, that and to keep the money flowing to the media. What the hell ever happened to campaign finance reform?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.