NationStates Jolt Archive

And the rest of you as well--there'll be a poll.

Who do you vote for if the nominees are McCain and Feingold?

In case you're having trouble deciding, have a gander (ttp://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040606/news2.html).
House Republican leaders have struck a deal with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to eliminate restrictions on coordination between national parties and federal candidates, a change in the law that would be of great benefit to the winner of the 2008 GOP presidential primary, according to congressional sources.

Republican and Democratic campaign-finance experts alike believe the change would be a boon to McCain’s campaign, if he wins his party’s nomination in three years, an outcome that political handicappers are beginning to view as a real possibility.
Say what you will about not liking the campaign finance reform bill--at least Feingold isn't looking to change the law to benefit himself in 2008.

John McCain--He's Hacktackular!

Take the poll.

You are aware that there are more than just two parties in the US, right? I suppose its possible that with your obssessive attacks against "scummy republicans" you can't conceive of a world that extends beyond Republicrat politics, but I'd hope other wise.
The point of the above statement, is that I would vote Libertarian, and encourage as many others as possible to join me in doing so.

You are aware that there are more than just two parties in the US, right? I suppose its possible that with your obssessive attacks against "scummy republicans" you can't conceive of a world that extends beyond Republicrat politics, but I'd hope other wise.
The point of the above statement, is that I would vote Libertarian, and encourage as many others as possible to join me in doing so.Yes and that may move the Libertarian share of the final vote from 1% to 1.01% as a result. And you're talking to someone who voted Libertarian in his very first Presidential election back in 1996. Minority parties won't make a dent in this system--the one thing the two major parties have agreed on for the last 150 years is that power need only be shared between them, and none other shall ever encroach.

McCain. He's got a better voting record on economic issues, in particular trade and corporate policies; we need someone committed to the globalization process to lead this country in the coming years, and I just don't see Feingold as committed to that process.

Resisting the inevitable will cost us in the future, and I fear Feingold will cater to unions and reverse the gains made in order to protect failed and uncompetitive industries.

Yes and that may move the Libertarian share of the final vote from 1% to 1.01% as a result. And you're talking to someone who voted Libertarian in his very first Presidential election back in 1996. Minority parties won't make a dent in this system--the one thing the two major parties have agreed on for the last 150 years is that power need only be shared between them, and none other shall ever encroach.
When a woman is getting raped, she screams "No", even though the rapist really doesn't care what she thinks. Same thing here, I'd rather make a meaningless token gesture than sit there and take it or (worse yet) facilitate my attackers.

bah-dump

The link isn't working for me. Is it possible that it is a good change that just benefits McCain coincedentally?

I'm willing to give to McCain the benefit of the doubt until I see what actual reforms are being made.

The link isn't working for me. Is it possible that it is a good change that just benefits McCain coincedentally?

I'm willing to give to McCain the benefit of the doubt until I see what actual reforms are being made.
Try this one (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040606/news2.html). The way the article frames it, it looks like the Republican leadership is in cahoots with McCain on this, but it only benefits McCain personally if he's the nominee. In other words, it benefits whoever the nominee is because it puts soft money back into play, and the Republicans are stronger in that area than Democrats are, but McCain is the early leader for the gold ring in 2008.

Try this one (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040606/news2.html). The way the article frames it, it looks like the Republican leadership is in cahoots with McCain on this, but it only benefits McCain personally if he's the nominee. In other words, it benefits whoever the nominee is because it puts soft money back into play, and the Republicans are stronger in that area than Democrats are, but McCain is the early leader for the gold ring in 2008.

While I do think that soft money is the major problem in campaign financing, and I don't know whether repealing limits on federal hard money spending is bad or not, this does seem pretty shady.

But what can you say? Politics as usual.