Washington File

To liberal for me. Illegal Immigrant benefits and same sex marriage, I do not think so.

To All

1. People would not be so anti-rich if they did not see their standard of living dropping year after year.
2. Global warming or not, it makes good sense to have alterative, renewable, clean burning fuels for two major reasons, it would be cheaper and it would take power away from the extremist in the middle east, making the world a safer place.
3. Unions are needed for only one reason, to give workers a fighting chance against big business. History has shown that they will not treat average people as people if they are not forced to do so. The standard of living began dropping after the unions were busted in the 80's. At the same time, executive pay skyrocked and continues to do so. In addition, unions are not driving jobs south, unfair trade agreements are to blame. The government is not protecting our jobs from heavily subsided industries in other countries or the dumping of goods in our country. Heck, their not even protecting our food sources.
Another cause is health care cost. Can anyone tell me why health care cost are going up at a rate of 15% a year when the cost of living is going up at 2 or 3% a year? I'll wage it has something to do with GREED.
4. Religion has no place in politics! I do not believe in religion but I have a strong relationship with GOD! I do not need a preacher who is full of hot air telling me what is right and wrong. God tells me. Besides, it seems no one relizes that the bible was written by a 3rd century king and a handful of priest. I wonder how much was left out because it did not serve their goals.

I did join unity08 because I feel that if I vote republican I'm voting for the war with Iraq to go on and on and on and if I vote democrat I'm voting for rewarding illegal immgration. Neither party is taking our security seriously. Yet, who else is there?

Maybe this evolution of political thought that prompted the idea of "Unity '08" isn't really as bizzare as it initially sounds. In some ways-at least in my mind-I see parallels to the very kinds of representation issues our forefathers were addressing when they created a bi-cameral legislature. In so devising the house and senate, they balanced the needs of citizens in the smaller, less populated states with those of the larger prime statehoods. Fast forward to today's scenario and you get the perception that one party represents the more urban, densely populated areas, while the other aligns itself with the sparsely populated states and its' citizens. While that may be a vast generalization, there is more than a thread of truth demographically, and any means to create a collaberative "unity" between the two at the outset might be timely given the right representatives. We'll see.

As a native of the NY area, I am always sympathetic to mayors doing the tough job of running the city. But, that job and president are vastly different in scope and complexity. And, in our complex world made more so by huge Bush blunders, we need broader scope. Let's at least look outside the most visible to find a person who can install the right kind of folks in his/her administration, and deal with the world at large.

No matter how great a mayor of a city is, it is a lot smaller than the great big world.

Maurice,
Alternate forms of energy, new industry, and new technology are all great things. Some would argue the market will naturally drive these issues, and that we don't need the government driving it down our throats with bogus theories and guilt laden excuses. What follows next is the excuse to raise taxes in order to support new departments and beaurocracy. Effectively again, impeding growth and the continued raping of working peoples pockets. To me the rate at which the government is growing should be a major concern to our population because it is not a maybe, or what if. It's a fact.

Dear Chris,
I do not know why global warming is made out to be such a right vs. left issue. That being said, if the alarmists are wrong, at worst we have created alternative forms of energy, and new industries, and technologies that will carry us into the future. If they're right and we do nothing we're screwed. Better safe than sorry, heh mate?

Don,
I will clarify. Global warming may exist but it is due to the natural cycles of the Earth. To think we as humans can alter this cycle is absolutely arrogant. Do you deny the Earth has natural cycles? I respect your concern for the environment but to force the skeptics into this latest obsession is simply intolerant of a difference of opinion.
If two children want to sell lemonade and one sells for .25 cents a glass and the other for $1.00 because he feels his is superior, the market will decide who sells. If the latter finds lemons at a reduced price is that not good business? However assuming of course both children have purchased vendor's permits in order to further fund beaurocracy, they must also be careful because one may be sued for unfair business practices and the other for gouging.
There are plenty of other shoes for sale around $20 is there something wrong with the freedom of choice? After all if it makes someone feel good to be able to afford the $125 pair, why is that a bad thing? Are'nt we all in the new do good, feel good world?
I absolutely agree working people should expect a working wage. Where we disagree is this sense of entitlement people have acquired. Just because someone has been good enough to employ you does'nt mean they should be responsible for you for the rest of your life. If certain incentives are offered at the time of employment great, but to intentionaly damage your own employer in order to force them to forward further compensation is self destruction. Using Union theory, one could say the people that have bought lemonade are now responsible to keep these children financialy comfortable for the rest of their lives, even when they quit making lemonade.
I will take my Union dues and CPP deductions and gladly invest in my own future thanks. Do the math and see how better you would be served. This includes pensions.

There is an interesting movement that has received some press called Unity '08 where they will nominate a dem/republican ticket and it is done via on-line convention to be held after both parties conventions.....interesting idea, and possibly a great alternative to either dem. or rep. choice.

The comment of two political parties having a strangle hold on the political system is spot on. It is one of the reasons I am a registered Green in the state which I reside.

As a Green, I am neither a republican nor a democrat, neither a fascist nor a communist, and neither a right-wing nut job or a left-wing flake. I believe in moving the People's agenda forward and respecting the world we live in.

I do care about the local community in which I live as-well-as the state. There should be, as I look northward to Canada for inspiration, more people involved in local politics and more plurality in political parties.

Chris: First prove to me that global warming is NOT a fact and then we can go from there. Every reputable scientist on the planet has confirmed global climate change and global warming: the only so-called "scientists" who disagree are the thoroughly discredited hacks working for those industries which pollute the most. How could I possibly "prove" global warming to you when you absolutely and resolutely refuse to look at the evidence, incontrovertible as it is? Like I said before, you have an extremely closed mind. However, that's your problem isn't it? I could forgive even that if that sort of willful ignorance didn't threaten me directly but unfortunately it does.

You say union demands have driven manufacturing south. Well, given that you can get third world labour to make a running shoe for $1.98, then why do they charge $125.00 and up for them? How much profit is enough Chris? Working people should expect a living wage for the work they do shouldn't they? If you think otherwise you are no friend of the working person, and based on your previous posts brother you are NOT.

Go ahead, bury your head in the sand - more fool you.

As a registered delegate in the Unity08 Convention, I will be supporting an effort to draft Vermont Governor Jim Douglas for president.

Governor Douglas does not have Mayor Bloomberg's money, but he does have a track record of reaching out to work with the other party. For that, Governor Douglas recently received one of ten AARP Impact Awards (along with the likes of Marlo Thomas and Robert De Niro). He got it as a Republican working with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature to sign "groundbreaking legislation that makes affordable health insurance available to everyone in the state."

Douglas's folksy charm, dry wit, and modest demeanor are exactly what we need in this era of partisan bickering and nasty politics.

Would you mind proving to me that global warming is a fact? Guestimating data input on a computer model is not science. The output is only as accurate as the input. Have you seen the weather lately? Not many years ago the big propaganda was that we were going to freeze ourselves to death, now we're going to burn ourselves. How amazing, you environmentalists have so much power you have completely reversed the cycle. Why can you never accept the real fact that the Earth has natural cycles? Other planets in the solar system appear to have warmed up,(using your theories) the funny part is there are no evil humans living there. Maybe in all your brilliance you can explain that one.
I did'nt realize stating facts was considered hate. I guess if I hurt someones feelings in the process we can make the leap.
I'm not against my neighbours or the working class. In fact it would appear the Union and the Left policies have championed that. It's Union demands and choking Leftist policy that has effectively driven manufacturing jobs to the South. Under the disguise of trying to help the working class they have been the maker of our demise. Congrats to the Lefties. When the cost of doing business gets to high, of course they will leave. They can only pay so many Liberals and appease so many Greens, and at the rate the Liberals grew government no wonder corporate has to downsize. I love my neighbours and the working class that's why I spend time countering wasteful spending and bogus policies that have a negative impact on our everyday lives. Creating bogus causes in order to have excuses to raise taxes and grow government is something we should all be wary of. It amazes me how people buy into these feelgood causes.
I'm still waiting for a worthwhile candidate to appear in the race for President. Does anyone know of some candidate waiting in the shadows to magically appear and actually have the courage of his own convictions? What a weak race. Where are the leaders?

(Part II) As well, Greens tend to be populist and anti-elitist when it comes to their approach to improving democracy and accountability. As additional comment on Greens, there is some proof they are not all lefties. For example: in BC, the strongly left-unionist government under Glen Clark was practically at war with the environmentalists. Another example is that around the world Green movements have started to attract various nationalistic people - they are people who have a concern for the environment of their homelands, can't stomach either the corporate right or unionist / marxist left. Yet another example is that a few somewhat religious people join the Greens or environmental movement, because they don't find the linkage between unbridled materialism and religion to be very credible. So overall, saying "Green = left" is just not accurate. Some are, no doubt - but many aren't and this is why they're carving out a separate existence from various "left" parties.

The only reason Greens are considered "left" (wrongly) is because in the west during the Cold War, Environmentalism was pushed into the same camp as anti-poverty, anti-war, anti-racism etc, and also because in the Anglo-protestant world, politics gets oversimplified as only left or right. By strict interpretation, the traditional Left (marxists, unioists, socialists...) don't go well with Greens / environmentalism. Their doctrines are based on materialist/ economic concerns, just as with capitalism. Laizzez-faire capitalism and marxism are both "economic determinist", meaning for them economics is the most important, determining everything else in life. Green doctrines can be called non-materialist (also post-materialist or anti-materialist), because they value something higher than economics (nature in this case). Other ideals such as spirituality, nationalism, etc. also non-materialist, because economics / materialism is not the most imprtant thing to them either. So environmentalists can be "left", but as a rule that's an old stereotype. In fact you can be a Green supporter and be in favour of many so-called "right wing" stances on things.

Regarding the post by Ken Kernaghan.
PART 5 OF 5

John Reid Edwards has the charm and good looks of the Kennedy’s. (I included this because of the comments about looks.) He is confident and expresses himself well. Smooth politician or not he comes across convincingly as being honest and authentic. I also like what I hear him saying.

I think any of these candidates would make great presidents. The only other candidate that I would consider would be Ralph Nader. He has spent his whole life setting boundaries with the addicted wealthy who would indiscriminately run over, exploit, abuse the poor if someone with good moral character and high consciousness did not have enough power and influence to stand up to them and set healthy boundaries that protect the poor.

I voted my conscious and voted for Ralph Nader when “King” Bush pulled the mafia take over of the elections. I and others like me will once again throw our vote to the Democrats because the “elite who Bush calls his base*” will continue their abuse and exploitation of the common people if we don’t get him and his goons out of office.

* Micheal Moores movie, “Fahrenheit 911” showed Bush giving a speech to his elite base and saying just that.

THE END

Regarding the post by Ken Kernaghan.
PART 4 OF 5

Now that I have had my say about wealth let me talk about the political candidates. First of all what if we could wave a magic wand, have sexism be one of those horrible, abusive behaviors that we have done in the past but have grown beyond. Isn’t it about time to have a woman president? Can Hillary Rodham Clinton handle it? Minus the sexism, of course she could. Not that she is perfect. Too many deep pockets are pulling her strings from behind the scenes. I believe that she owes too many favors because of it. Still her little fiasco with trying to create a good health system for all Americans tells me that in her heart she would like to do good for all Americans, not just the monied few. She got her hands slapped so soundly on that one that she has been very careful to mind her Ps and Qs ever since. Still one would hope that if she made it to the White House that she would feel powerful enough to rise above her monied backers influence and actually do some good for the people.

Barack H. Obama, again isn’t it time to quit JUSTIFYING our own bad behavior? Isn’t it time to get over our bigotry? Will we give a partially black man from the melting pot of the world, the presidency before we give the presidency to a woman? Just like we did with voting rights? I REALLY LIKE WHAT I HAVE HEARD HIM SAYING!

A comedian on David Letterman said that he would like to see Hillary as President and Obama as Vice President because that would guarantee there would be no assassination! The comedian told the truth but said it in a way that would make people laugh! I did not catch the comedians name so I can’t give him credit for his brilliance.
Continued in PART 5

Regarding the post by Ken Kernaghan.
PART 3 OF 5

What if people woke up tomorrow blessed with the moral courage to dare to do no harm to another living soul? We would immediately have peace on earth because no government or religion would be able to influence a person to kill or abuse someone else. And there have been shining examples of people who have found this kind of courage. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are two of the more famous examples.

All that said I don’t believe that just because you are wealthy that you are addicted. There are a few rich folks who have a strong enough spiritual influence in their lives to maintain a healthy, balanced outlook on life. Oprah Winfrey comes to mind.

She uses her wealth to do a lot of good in the world. Still, I managed to catch several episodes of her “Road Trip” and being a truck driver I could not help but chuckle at her “poor little rich girls” reaction to driving across the USA! She is a very “well behaved” little rich girl but she obviously has gotten accustomed to all the pampering that money can buy! I’m not saying that is bad, it seems to be human nature.

And in spite of all the lavish good things that she does … those things that bring her great publicity … I can’t help but wonder; how many minimum wage workers she has hired in her organization? How much more good would Oprah be doing by raising her minimum wage employees up to a “living wage.” It would not bring the publicity that her other good deeds have but how much more creditable such an act would be!

Which brings me to the old “trickle down theory” or as Ken referred to it “A rising tide raises all boats.” My analogy for the trickle down theory is that it reminds me of the human digestive system. The head gets the banquet and the tail gets the $#!%! I could say that like a truck driver but I will be nice, you get the picture.
Continued in PART 4

Regarding the post by Ken Kernaghan.
PART 2 OF 5

What can you expect from a nation that used the “Bible” to justify killing off the savages that this land actually belonged to so that we could steal their homeland? Again we used the “Bible” to brainwash people into believing that black people did not have souls and it was okay to own them and work them as we would a farm animal.

People’s religious views were used in Germany to justify the attempt to exterminate the Jews. People’s religious brainwashing has been used to justify the oppression, abuse and discrimination of homosexuals for hundreds of years.

Don’t ever think that because someone has God on their lips and the Bible in their hands that that gives them the perfect justification to act out in a satanic fashion! Indeed, I worry the most about people who have God on their lips and the Bible in their hands because history has shown over and over again just how horrible people can behave if they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing that their own personal horrendous behavior is “JUSTIFIED!” The crucifixion, the crusades, the witch hunts, and it is not all ancient history as these things are happening today in many areas of the world including Iraq.

I am not saying that all religion is bad. It is very much like people. It is the brightest of the bright and can be and has been the darkest of the dark. We could have peace on earth right now if everyone would just stop rationalizing and justifying their own bad behavior. There is no justification for my bad behavior, there is no justification for your bad behavior, and there is no justification for our bad behavior. What if people quit allowing their governments, religions, friends and families to lead them around like sheep?
Continued in PART 3

Regarding the post by Ken Kernaghan.
PART 1 OF 5

I believe that people who are so concerned about accumulating wealth that they conduct their affairs at the expense of ethical, fair, moral treatment of other people, have gone beyond being selfish and have become addicted. If we witnessed this behavior in an alcoholic or drug user it would be easy to understand that their behavior is the result of their addiction. Think about that and look at the way that many wealthy people treat those who do their grunt work, while they reap the profits of that work and see that it is an addiction.

I speak from the perspective of my personal experience. I drove an eighteen wheeler for 35 years. What the profit mongers have done to the trucking industry in the last twenty years is shameful! I drove a truck long enough to get over the idea that I was being paid to be a tourist. I understand clearly that driving is a job and I am one of those rare truck drivers with enough intelligence to understand that my “work” day should have a definite starting time and a definite ending time and that as a FREE Citizen in a FREE country that I am entitled to OWN enough of my LIFE and TIME to take a shower EVERY DAY! I am not saying that my day should start at the same time and end at the same time every day so don’t misinterpret my meaning. I am saying that I should not be forced to work 24 hours a day! When a boss can push you to the point that you cannot stop long enough to take care of your personal hygiene and you must carry your kitchen with you because you not only do not have the time to stop for a hot meal but you are not being paid enough to afford it, there is something very wrong here!
Continued in PART 2

Wow Chris, you are one angry hombre. I wonder why? Up until recently the Republicans had both houses of congress as well as the presidency, and even during the Clinton years they managed to maintain control of congress. Now you can add the supreme court to that although, to be fair, the GOP have only recently lost control of congress. The liberal party of Canada resembled the PC party while in government more so than the traditional centre left, so, given the preponderance of right leaning political leadership in North America of late one wonders where all the hate comes from. Perhaps it's because right wing economic policies have been such a dismal failure. Perhaps it's because manufacturing jobs are moving south in ever greater numbers leaving behind poorly paid service industry jobs. Things have been getting progressively worse for working families - something more politicians should be focusing on. I have to wonder, in the anti-union / anti - left tirades of your previous posts, just what you seem to have against working people, or at least your friends and neighbours who are are in the same boat. Why not be an environmentalist in this day and age, when ground water is in danger, global warming is a fact, and millions if not billions of people are directly affected by the potential for catastrophic flooding? As for the rest, well you seem to be a very close-minded individual, sad to say.As for the Green party, I suspect their recent upsurge in popularity has more to do with people of differing political persuasions finding their platform to their liking than the failing policies of the more traditional parties, the NDP included.

"Forget all about Mr. Bloomberg: elect Dennis Kucinich instead. His bill HR1234 "The Plan to End the Iraq War" is a must read for anyone of voting age. It can be easily found on his website.

To Joy from Southside; very well said. You're absolutely bang on."

That clown is now out of the race. The Only "draft" he's connected to are the ones he orders at his favorite Cincinatti watering hole.

to Chris from London ON,

I take issue with a couple of your points:
1) The American presidency & government are portrayed the way they are - arrogant, self-absorbed, unable to problem solve, and partisan. American people are wonderful, but their governments are not. Iraq being one of them, but on multiple issues Canadian interest has been hurt. As a capitalist that does business with US, I am absolutely flabbergasted with the amount of ground Canadians have been ceding to Americans on trade. You would almost have to be unCanadian to not feel some sort of anger to see working families and industries suffering through this.

2) The Prosector's record of prosecuting 60 Republicans and 2 Dems might just be that - facts. As a person with avid interest in US politics, I cannot but notice that Republicans have been beating Democrats pretty good in the last, oh, 10 years? (including federal and state legistlature). Maybe this record of prosecution is just what it is - Republican corruption.

3) Greens - If you had bothered to read any of the Greens policies, you will note that they are very fiscally minded, verging on being Conservatives. Tax reduction, green taxes, industry incentives, its all well-accepted economic policies. Who said a conservative cannot be green, or a green cannot be conservative?

From these three points, I just find your post leaves much to be desired in terms of real substance.

Forget all about Mr. Bloomberg: elect Dennis Kucinich instead. His bill HR1234 "The Plan to End the Iraq War" is a must read for anyone of voting age. It can be easily found on his website.

To Joy from Southside; very well said. You're absolutely bang on.

bigbear,
I know plenty of Americans and they are all wonderful people. The way Americans are portrayed here in Canada is sickening. About the New York Times I would say I have viewed it as a Left Wing propaganda rag.
Reed,
That would be London,ON. On the Conrad Black question I would remind you that he has not been convicted of anything. If he is, so be it. If he is not, it will go down as one of the most abusive acts of the legal system. To destroy a man because of his political influence and power is shameful. An interesting note is the prosecuter has prosecuted over 60 Republicans and only 2 Dems during his tenure. One would say this might be called a witch hunt, but we'll see.
If you can't tell, I clearly would tend to agree more with his political ideas than that of your liking.
I find your example of change interesting in that you state you are voting Green this time. It seems to me your NDP party is changing and you do not wish to change with them. Is the Green party not just a faction of the fringe lefties? It seems the Green party is a haven for the far lefties who do not want to change. With the exception of a non scientific issue called global warming.
Bloomberg is wasting his time. In fact I would go as far to say the present candidates are wasting the American peoples time. There has yet to be a qualified candidate to take the stage. I would hope one comes forward soon. I've yet to be impressed.

To Chris from London, After reading your comments, I came to the conclusion that it is too bad that you don't know any Americans. The words from the New York Times are not a very good biography of an American. However, being from London is probably a good thing for you, since you won't be involved in our races.

DraftMichael.com

How is this related to us? It isn't. Our system's gone through a lot of fairly radical shifts in party structure and how people vote. The US seems much more fixed into a "left vs right" paradigm only, and while they may get the occasional strong movement for a unity / centrist party, that's still on the same L/R axis (and also always fails). I still say Bloomberg won;t get anywhere because there's already a NYC republican with basically the same idological turf, and also a NYC democrat - so without any personal turf to stake out, all he's got is the fact he can spend his own billions to run. Ross Perot did that, but he was quite populist and radical. Steve Forbes tried but ultimately he had to only people like himself supporting him. So to get somewhere I think Bloomberg would have to bring something new to the table. But I don't see him being so "not like the others" (unlike, let's say, a Pat Buchanan) that he'll get enough support.

In Chris' long litany of "hateful" things that us "lefties" do, I can't find a single one that isn't worth the effort.

I don't drive a smart car, either. I take the bus. It makes me feel good.

You're right about one thing, Chris - we do have a lot of work ahead of us. Fortunately, history shows that social justice always wins in the long run.

If Giuliani wins the Republican ticket, it would be a three-person horse race for the presidency.

While Bloomberg might, in general, be a better candidate than Giuliani, it all evens out thanks to Giuliani being the 'real' republican.

Meanwhile, any edge for Hillary due to the momentum of the democrats would be wiped out. Because Bloomberg comes across as your middle-of-the-road candidate.

If McCain wins the republican ticket, however, that's a completely different kettle of fish. I don't think Bloomberg would run, because in this race he wouldn't have a chance. Here, as the other commenters have pointed out, Bloomberg cannot hope to gain many votes from supporters of either major party.

McCain vs Hillary on their own would be a close match, with the edge depending on how well the democrats handle themselves in the next year and a half.

Goodness gracious,I really struck a nerve,didn't I Chris? Are you from London Ontario,or London England? However that is irrelevant.

Just want to ask you if Lord Black
ever regains his Canadian citizenship and runs
for prime minister would you vote for him?
Assuming he is found not guilty that is.

With the exception of a few posters on here (that are to be considered lucky they even get posted) the rest of you bright minds of our society, you self appointed keepers of our planet, all you leftist elitists, ok I could go on forever with appropriate titles of the sort but you should really consider forming your own party. I mean it only makes sense. Since you all know how to take care of everybody, solve all the worlds problems, and by some miracle have figured out how to change the natural cycle of Earth. How could you not? One more thing is you're always trying to say and do things to make yourself feel good about something or other. Look what I'm doing, I'm going to save the planet, I'm going to feed all the poor, I'm going to house all the "less fortunate", I'm going to treat everybody equall, I'm going to be nice to everybody and they will be nice back to me. Boy I really feel good! What would I do if I did'nt have some sort of cause to rid myself of boredom and guilt for being the superior being on this planet.
Wow, I almost made myself sick just writing like you think.(I don't live in Fantasy Land)
What can we call your party? The Hater's? No even though it's the truth it's too abrasive and might hurt someone's feelings. The Communist Party is already taken. The Green Party is already taken, Socialist Party, no.
I know, the Harmony Party would be perfect. You can then change the House of Commons to the Harmony House and everyone will be happy,the skies will be blue, the birds will sing we can all drive smart(stupid)cars, and monitor everyone's bank account to be sure nobody ever has too much money, because we would'nt want to make anyone feel unequal, you can also pass a law that forbids any sport to keep score and have a winner. We don't want dissapointment do we? You guys have alot of work ahead of you I better let you go. Good luck!

To Desmond from Toronto.Yes you do raise a valid point.And let me tell you that I have a lot of immediate family that are American citizens.But let me also tell you that I am not afraid of change,for after voting NDP all my life,I will be voting GREEN in the next federal election.

I just joined Unit08, thinking it was independent in the nominating process. I did not suspect it was to nominate a pre-selected candidate who is independent of either major party. I feel I've been had, and resent Bloomberg for it. No way will he get my support in any form.

I love "Cilantro's" admission of what the first "Shrub" is doing in the Oval Office anyhow. Yes, he is a felon and Gore did win the presidency, but the Supreme Court got in the way of democracy.

Flaws or no flaws, what the heck does that have to do with running for President. Look at the flawed thing in the White House now and he is very short. Canada can say the same about "Harpsicord" (same tune, different party).

Unfortunately, the U.S. is not set up to run with several different parties and Canadians can't see past their own nose to make the necessary changes when it is given to them on a ballot. At least we get a paper ballot in Canada !!

"In my almost 57 years on this planet,and being a neighbour to the good old U.S.of A.,
I've found that the American people are very
reluctant to change, eg, universal health care,
capital punishment,gay marriage,etc.So why would they elect an independent for president
now? Ross Perot did make a good stab at it in
92,and it provided for great entertainment on
Saturday Night Live with I think Dana Carvy!
In other words,the U.S.will always elect...
you guessed it, Republican or Democrat!"

That's since 1860. Canada's been electing ... you guessed it Conservatives or Liberals since 1867. You see anybody else out there on the horizon who will/can beat either the Grits under Dion or the Tories under Harper? If you do say so 'cause I sure can't. Sure they don't change in many ways but then neither do we. We are both equally static countries, however there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We don't want an Italian parliament nor the economic instability that goes along with unbridled change for change's sake.

An important point raised is that the wealthy have significantly more political opportunity and influence in our society due to the marketing they can afford. I’m OK with a person fortunate enough to acquire significant wealth having more material things. But, in a democracy they should not have significantly more political opportunity or influence than any other voter.

As long as the wealthy have significantly more political influence, I prefer Bloomberg’s type of wealth to be in power rather than the selfish wealthy. The selfish wealthy believe they fully deserve the wealth they are able to acquire. Luck or good fortune has nothing to do with their fortunate circumstance. Harm done to others as they acquire their wealth is just part of the game. They resent the thought of “their” wealth being taxed to assist the less fortunate, the losers. They believe that those less fortunate deserve their fate.

The selfish wealthy demand that government policy and programs benefit them directly in an amount commensurate with the taxes they pay. If they must pay taxes they want a personal benefit today.

The selfish wealthy like the claim “A rising tide raises all boats”. However, having a boat becomes a basic need in a prospering economy and the free market does not produce opportunities for all to afford a boat, or even a raft. Since there’s little profit in rafts the free market mainly makes yachts and pleasure craft and tears apart raft filled bays to build marinas. The selfish wealthy would prefer a policy that gives everyone a comfy deck chair cushion and would claim the program will help those struggling to stay afloat.

Mr. Bloomberg sounds like a person who recognizes the need for government programs that use taxes collected from all according to their means to provide targeted assistance to those in need. I hope his type of wealthy can succeed in limiting the influence of the selfish wealthy.

The embarrassment for Ross Perot came not from his 19% voting outcome, but from his odd statements about government conspiracies and other peculiarities. If Michael Bloomberg is seriously considering running, then the calculations have to involve the question of what happens if he doesn't win. Does a Bloomberg candidacy draw votes from the Democrats who don't want to support Senator Clinton or who can't bring themselves to vote for a certain black senator from Illinois, thereby helping the Republican candidate to become president? Or, does a Bloomberg candidacy draw votes from the Republicans who don't want to support Mr. Giuiliani and his multiple divorces, attachment to September 11, and liberal value or who don't want to perpetuate the Iraq war by voting for Senator McCain? In short, if Mr. Bloomberg wants to run, then he has to win. Otherwise, his ego has the potential to leave the country with a second-choice president.

In my almost 57 years on this planet,and being a neighbour to the good old U.S.of A.,
I've found that the American people are very
reluctant to change,eg, universal health care,
capital punishment,gay marriage,etc.So why would they elect an independent for president
now? Ross Perot did make a good stab at it in
92,and it provided for great entertainment on
Saturday Night Live with I think Dana Carvy!
In other words,the U.S.will always elect...
you guessed it, Republican or Democrat!

I write this comment as someone who is interested in the Unity08 bipartisan campaign for President. Although I am what the political buzzword calls an Evangelical voter, I would personally, seriously think about voting for Joe Libermann for President if he were at the top of the Unity08 ticket.

I am not sure I would vote for Michael Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani has said that he would nominate people to the Supreme Court like Roberts and Alito. I take him at his word and I am satisfied with that.
However, he has some other baggage, in terms of his handling of his marriages that are a concern. They give evidence of an abrasive, shoot from the hip mentality that might not work for the Presidency.

I don't know anything about Bloomberg in that respect, but my concern with him is different. He supports New York social conventions because he is a New York mayor. That is pretty obvious. When he becomes President, would he support majority social conventions, or would he try to impose New York conventions on the rest of the country.
That is one question I would like to see Michael Bloomberg answer before he would get my vote in the Unity08 national primary.

I think by enumerating his "qualities" (height, ethnicity, etc.), he is merely listing the qualities that would make various segments of voters wary of him. Being 5'7" would not necessarily give him the image of a physically robust or athletic leader (as opposed to if he was 6'4"). My observation of the past 20 years or so seems to indicate that people like to see their leaders as strong & athletic, or at least physically fit. Just a thought. Being divorced will make some of the religious voters wary; being a billionaire will alienate those feel "the rich" are the source of a nation's woes & how could he possibly identify with the "average person"; being Jewish will alienate those who want a "Christian" leader or who harbour some form of anti-Semitism; being an "independent" will scare those who value party loyalty on either side; being from New York will alienate those who think a NYC (or any "big city" candidate) can't identify with "small town America"... on and on it could go. Bloomberg would definitely have the odds stacked against him, but who knows? With enough cash to get his message out there, when & if he starts to articulate his platform (foreign policy, vision for the nation, etc.), if he does it well, he could surprise. His track record will certainly be dissected but if he is in the thick of the race, that is to be expected. Personally, I think a genuine 3-way race for president would be a real breath of fresh air in US politics.

Since he has the money; he is eligible to the highest office in the land. What ever his view of the foreign policy, environment, Iraq etc..; no problem he could learn in the future. Another Iraq, no problem. Increasing the National debt or the deficit, no problem. He is not less than Bush. When Bush did not recognise the name of Canada’s prime minister Mr. Chretien at the time, he later recognised the name of Steve! No problem.
The American Constitution fundamentals are the ruling of the rich peoples. It is normal. Let it be.

"Americans like their politicians tall. Unless I'm mistaken, there has never been a president under 6 feet tall."

Doug, the current occupant of the Whitehouse is 5F11, Jimmy Carter was 5F9 as was Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman before him. Richard Nixon was 5F10. 6 Feet is not necessarily a requirement. The divorce part didn't hurt Ronald Reagan at all, but the Jewsih part just might hurt Mayor Bloomberg.

Al Gore just might be president today and might have carried one or two more southern states in 2000, including his own home state of Tennessee if he had John Edwards as his running mate as opposed to Joseph Lieberman. When one looks at religious, racial and gender diversity in presidential candidates it has often been said that it is the Republicans who can afford to break the mould whereas the Democrats who are liberal enough need to stick to white males preferably from the south. Reference Johnson, Carter and Clinton, their last three successful presidential candidates and that's going back over 40 years now!

His accomplishments in business and NYC notwithstanding, his views on environmental and (as Stu said) foreign policy would be useful. What is his vision for the US, North America and the world? He abandoned the Democrats and his beliefs don't follow the Republican agenda. What does that say about his ability to work with a group of people and collective policies?

I remember an SNL skit during the G.H.W.Bush vs. Dukakis race which actually played on that, showcasing various tall presidents such as Lincoln, and ending with 'Vote Bush: he's taller.'

Outside of NYC he is hated, he is particularly hated for his abuse of power and attacks on 2nd Amendment protections, he is a very definition of a RINO and that is the reason he would have to run as an independent. He abandoned the Democrats and he thumbs his nose at the conservative base he doesn’t stand a snowball's chance in hell.

In fact, 5'7" is very important (as are divorced and Jewish): Americans like their politicians tall. Unless I'm mistaken, there has never been a president under 6 feet tall.

"On another note, I have to wonder, what does his being a 'five-foot-seven' guy have to do with anything? Some very pointless information if you ask me."

You can't have two shrubs in a row in the oval office, especially if the first shrub is already an illegal two-termer felon.

As for the possibility of three NYC nominees running for prez, keep in mind that Clinton and Giuliani are both terribly flawed candidates, so I don't see how Bloomberg would necessarily run third in that race. I do agree that hollus bollus, the Bloomberg option seems to be a bit of a long shot.

As pointless as his being Jewish or divorced, BS. The comment, made by Bloomberg, seems merely an attempt to vocalise his potentially perceived shortcomings. Sadly, it's true that the electorate often vote according to what the candidates look like, where they hail from, and what religion they practice (or don't practice). And Bloomberg recognizes that.

Ah, but what are his ideas? Where does he stand on foreign policy?

With both a Republican and Democrat "NYC" representative already running, I don't think his chances would be very good. He may be a billionaire, but that alone won't do it. On another note, I have to wonder, what does his being a "five-foot-seven" guy have to do with anything? Some very pointless information if you ask me.