Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/domenici.senate08/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/10/04/domenici.senate08/index.html</a> 2008 is going to be a very interesting year. Pete Domenici from New Mexico just joined the list of Republican senators who will not seek re-election. Domenici joins Chuck Hagel in Nebraska, John Warner in Virginia, and Wayne Allard in Colorado. These are all states where Democrats have made gains and could definitely win the seats. In addition, of the 34 Senate seats up for grabs next year, 22 are held by Republicans, and 4 of those will be hotly contested.
Originally Posted By jonvn Better to quit than be beaten. But if the dems do nothing anyway, what difference will it make?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Better to quit than be beaten.>> I'm not so sure they would have been beaten. A lot of people who voted for democrats in 2006 will be back to voting for republicans in 2008. Democratic control of congress has been no better than republican control of congress was. There are a lot of middle of the road folks who will think the democrats sold them nothing but smoke and mirrors and not be very happy about it. Personally I’m looking forward to seeing President Hillary Clinton do battle with a republican congress!!
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Better to quit than be beaten.<< It would probably be better for the Republicans to have Domenici running again than to have an open seat. CNN says Domenici is retiring due to a progressive, degenerative brain disease called FTLD. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/04/senate.newmexico/index.html#cnnSTCText" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/10/04/senate.newmexico/index.html#cnnSTCText</a> Cue the standard jokes about politicians and brain disease...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There are a lot of middle of the road folks who will think the democrats sold them nothing but smoke and mirrors and not be very happy about it.<< Hello!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <President Hillary Clinton... don't you just LOVE the way that sounds?? < I like the sound of ex-president Bill Clinton better
Originally Posted By jonvn I really don't know why people like her that much. What on earth has she done, except be the ex-first lady? Her and Obama. This is all the dems can produce? The republicans are no better. Anyone with any talent has been systematically removed from the running.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I have to agree -- when I am investing time trying to dig thru information on a Huckabee because no one else does a thing for me -- the candidate pool is indeed very shallow
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I went to Rasmussen and answered my own question. He's a distant fourth behind Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Too bad.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 they do every day by which ones get the most news coverage -- it's more subliminal as there are candidates you see multiple times a day and others you want to put out an apb on because we never see them
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It feeds on itself. The media justifies this by saying "well, all the polls show that these are the frontrunners." Or the "serious candidates." And of course, it becomes a vicious circle, a self-fulfilling prophecy, whatever you want to call it. If you're not polling well now you can't get enough media coverage, and if you can't get enough media coverage you'll probably never poll well. Things seem to have changed in a fairly short amount of time. Bill Clinton early in 1991 was pretty much a nobody outside Arkansas but managed to do the grunt work in Iowa and NH necessary to climb the polls. This time people were talking about the 2008 election BEFORE the 2006 elections, and the numbers for the "lower tier" candidates have been stagnant pretty much all this time. I'd almost rather go back to smoke filled rooms.
Originally Posted By DAR Sometimes I really don't think it matters who's in the White House. My life will pretty much be the same.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Ya think? Are you below the age of 42, i.e. the age limit for the draft? <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/cn/comingdraft10jan07.shtml" target="_blank">http://educate-yourself.org/cn /comingdraft10jan07.shtml</a> From the link and a disclaimer: I'm not endorsing any viewpoint espoused here or the linked site. It just contained the draft pertinent draft info. "I posted a new addition to www.educate-yourself.org in February of 2004 titled the Military Draft and stated in the very first sentence of my commentary that a renewed military draft was coming soon and that the age of compulsory service would be extended from its former limit of 26 years, up to 42 years of age (initially decided to be 44 years, but then changed to 42 years), and will include BOTH men and women." "I will post in another article the entire draft bill that was put forward by House of Rockefeller representative Congressman Charles Rangle (D-NY) , a proud member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission since 1990, but in the paragraph below, note that the Rangle/ (House of Rockefeller) bill states in plain English that the new draft will "require all persons" between the age of 18 and 42 years to perform "national service" in either the uniformed military or civilian service sector. That means that all American women will now be drafted right along with men, irrespective of whether they are mothers, housewives, office workers, burger flippers, college students, or recent high school graduates. Never in the 231 year history of the United States of America has the government ever attempted to require compulsory military service of women, yet this new draft bill does precisely that."
Originally Posted By friendofdd It is a very sad thing that he is resigning because of that health problem. I'm a generation (or more) older than you fellas, so I may be more aware of these kind of things, seeing the deterioration of some of my long time friends. Imagine knowing that you may eventually get to a place where you don't know what you used to. God bless Sen Domenici. I pray he will do well.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Ya think? Are you below the age of 42, i.e. the age limit for the draft? < I've been searching forever, and finally I find a positive to being 52 years old.
