KRC

This should have tipped you off right here. Propaganda from Rummy.

I do not think that is the main reason either, but they are aware of the fact that they will be deployed and may need to fight in a war. Signing up for military service means you are involved in military actions, regardless of where the action is located and how intense that action may be. Granted, there are some who just expected free travel and education and did not actually expect that being in the military actually means doing military-type stuff, but there is no way to avoid that.

If it were a Republican, the Dems would have been running to every media outlet they could find demanding a resignation.

Sorry. I forgot where I was at.

HB, all!!

If it was set in France, would you have watched it? The American public will connect better with the movie shot in an American airport. I do not see it as a political statement, but just marketing.

Rich will no longer be playing on our sandbox. I think that is reminder enough.

Is he involved with the Libertarian Party at all?

The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers. The left automatically assumes that it means that people are against the war and want the troops removed immediately. What is left out is the following: people who disapprove of Bush's handling of the war because he is not aggressive enough. You see it on this board. People want to just carpet-bomb the entire region. People are getting pissed at the PC/lawyerly approach to the war. They want to just go in and kick azz to get this situation finished. The steady, bad news is a problem. Of course, what are the chances of getting the full story of what is actually happening? Couple that with the chances of actual perspective of the situation and its regional/global implications.

I can't say more or less. Nobody can. Both are/were used for political gains. Both are/were shameless acts of politics clouding the real issues. Both are/were disgusting in the way that they used a single person to "champion" the agendas of political organizations/politicians.

Changing these laws is just the first step. You cannot create a fair system quickly. The two-party system has been in power for too long. This is a long-term fight and you have to win small victories along the way. Combine this with effective campaigning, effective press releases on hot topics and providing reasonable (not radical) solutions to problems and you will slowly start winning over the electorate. It will not happen overnight. There is no question that the Democratic Party is the weaker party at this point. They are also not doing much to change that. They are just waiting for the Republican Party to implode and are not doing much else to win people over. They have failed to realize that people are tired of just opposing everything and providing no solutions. As Debbie mentioned, there is still the stereotype to overcome with the Libertarians. The radicals are getting the airtime and the common-sense Libertarians receive no air time. Things are slowly changing but we are fighting perception.

I thought you said at one point that your husband was a Republican? Did he switch to Libertarian?

I disagree. The biggest is Clint Eastwood. Combine that with the fact that he has successfully won an election (Mayor of Carmel, CA), and he is your best shot.

She is just a pawn in this, unfortunately. The main problem is the left-wing machine behind her. That is why the right is working so hard on his. There are key elections next year and the war (and its perception in the public's eye) will be crucial in the campaigning.

Take a number and get in line.

Well said, Mick.

No. I am suppressing the Libertard vote.

When she is covered to the extent that she is covered in the media, yes. How many newspapers/media outlets pick up what Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity says on a daily basis. Compare that to the non-stop coverage Sheehan has received in all media outlets (TV, radio, web, newspapers, magazines, etc). A commanding audience fueled by the left and anti-war organizations. The non-stop coverage of her has made her audience bigger than her opposition.

Since I am a former Presidential Candidate and currently an activist within the Libertarian Party, I thought I would weigh in on this. It can happen, but it will take several things: 1) A big name (celebrity, etc). There are some people within the Libertarian Party who could put up a good fight, but it is just a matter of convincing them to run. 2) "Fuse" party candidates (an R or D can also get on the ballot as a Libertarian/Green/etc). Currently in Pennsylvania, fusion is only allowed if a R or D wants to fuse with a third party. The reverse is not allowed. I wrote legislation to correct this problem and it is close to being introduced in the PA General Assembly. 3) The election laws need to change. Currently, they are skewed in favor of the R's and D's. To give you an example: In Pennsylvania, if an R or D were to run in 2006 they would only need a maximum of 2000 signatures on the nomination petition. The Libertarians need 68,000. Yes, you read that correctly. The Libertarian candidate needs 34 times the number of signatures as an R or D. Now, add the buffer factor for the inevitable challenge to each and every signature (ala Nader) and you need a minimum of 100,000 signatures just to get your name on the ballot. There are several other PA election laws that have been deemed unconstitutional in federal court. This is where I have been the most active within the Libertarian Party. I have been fighting to get the election laws fixed. I wrote legislation to start working on these problems so that we can make the system more equitable. I am close to having sponsors in the PA General Assembly and things look favorable for getting my legislation passed and signed. I have a second bill, which is close to being finished, dealing with write-in candidacies. In PA, a write-in candidate for President has a major hurdle to overcome. The voter needs to not only write-in the name of the Presidential Candidate, but the name of the Vice-Presidential candidate and the 21 Presidential electors into something the size of a postage stamp. My legislation will correct this problem by allowing the candidate to file a declaration of intent to run as a write-in candidate. The candidate will then file his/her name, the name of the vice-presidential candidate and the names of the 21 electors. The voter then just needs to write in the name of the presidential candidate and the vote will count for the vice-presidential candidate and the 21 presidential electors. 4) Third Party candidates need to take a different approach to campaigning. Right now, they focus on whining and complaining about problems, but not providing solutions (sounds like the Democrats of late). They need to focus on practical solutions to the problems. New blood is being infused into the PA Libertarian Party to address this and provide those solutions. I am one of the people on the state-level pushing this into the public eye. We also have other people working with some of the candidates to change their approach to campaigning. The problem is getting quality candidates. You have the radicals who run every year, but they are not helping the party. In essence, before any third party can truly become viable, the system needs to change. I am taking it upon myself to change the system in Pennsylvania. Others like me have been working in other states to fix their election laws. Until this is accomplished, you will need a big name to run.

And the left is not "piling on" with her message? As I said in another post, she has a larger audience than Limabugh, Coulter and Hannity combined. To say that it is an unfair contest is just flat-out wrong. Again, why should she receive a free pass to say anything without allowing dissent to her accusations?

Excellent point. Sheehan has a larger audience then Limbaugh. She can get her message out to more people than Limbaugh, but yet Limbaugh is the bad guy because he dares to criticize someone. While she may be a "nobody," the machine behind her is not. Like Paul said: if you venture into politics on the scale that Sheehan has to blast the administration, you can't then complain that people are criticizing you. That would be the height of hypocrisy.

The poll has been fixed. Let's try this again.

Not that I condone what is said about her (because I do not), but what gives her immunity from criticism? If she is going to protest 24/7, then she is also open to criticism 24/7. People have the right to criticize, regardless of their position in life. If Sheehan is going to blast the administration with the types of things she is saying, then defenders of the administration have the right to fight back.

I am guessing that this is another one of those "Draft <insert name here>" types of thingies. This person(s) wanted him to run and was hoping to draft Walken into running by pre-generating support. It usually fails.

Age and residency qualifies them for office. Other than that, you do not need to be a career politician to be a good politican.