DUBYA'S COMMENTS

**CoeburnCane** · January 25th, 2006, 09:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then the people of that district need to take control and elect a congressional candidate who will not be swayed by such factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Democracy can be absolutely corrupted by monetary means not only on the national level but local levels as well. I've heard some people say they wish they had voted for another guy, but couldn't for fear of the guy who's going to win anyways and have all the power (read: all the money) won't help them out after getting into office. Some people are self-preservists...most are actually...and lots of times this instinct doesn't take into consideration long-term change--it asks who can help me the quickest? Most of the time it's a case of corruption in our more politically active people around here that causes the constituents' hands to be tied for fear of alienation by the established leadership.

It exists, and I've seen it happen already at the age of 24.

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 25th, 2006, 12:20 PM

So if democracy doesn't work for you then what kind of government do you propose?

**CoeburnCane** · January 25th, 2006, 12:22 PM

Democracy is the best policy. I'm not worried about that--I'm worried about the corruption. I think that's where you've gone wrong in your questioning here BGJ...Democracy is great...LOVE IT. But the corruption that bastardizes it? I oppose that.

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 25th, 2006, 12:27 PM

The dems are in a situation coming up in '08 where it is almost critical that they nominate a candidate from a "red state." That candidate will have a better opportunity to win if he has been a governor rather than a senator...U.S. Senator's don't tend to do as well as state governor's in presidential elections. Warner makes for an ideal candidate for the dems and they should be on him like flies on a gut wagon to run in '08. I sincerely think he gives the party the only real shot they have to win the election. Just like in '92 Bill Clinton was probably the only democrat in the entire country who could've beaten Bush I. It's no coincidence that he was a Governor from a "red state." The democrats have to give some creedence to strategy here...it is unlikely that another liberal senator from a blue state would stand much of a chance if the Republicans nominate a half way decent candidate themselves.

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 25th, 2006, 12:28 PM

Every government has the potential for an element of corruption to exist...how am i going wrong with my questioning? At least in a democracy the people have some control when corruption does exist...am I right or wrong?

**CoeburnCane** · January 25th, 2006, 12:42 PM

I'm not questioning whether or not the people have some measure of control BGJ--I'm saying that corruption has become so absolutely corruptive in our democracy today that that measure of control is almost nil.

It's kind of like the Oxygen Sensor on your engine. It's there to make sure the engine gets the right mix of air to allow your engine to run. Let's say the device is compromised, due to trauma or just flat gives up the ghost. Do you say, "well, the engine has the power to run on its' own, it'll just fix itself", or do you replace the sensor? I think we should replace the sensor. But the problem lies here-in...

What if you couldn't replace the sensor? THAT is the type of problem that the US has run into. The people no longer have the voting power that they used to that effects change on the government by their will due to factors that have compromised the power of their vote.

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 25th, 2006, 12:50 PM

Throughout history that is a common plight of the party who is not in power. Its cyclicle to a degree that the populous likes checks and balances and one party will almost never stay in power over a long duration of time. Granted it is rare that one party control all 3 branches of gov't and I can't remember the last time that has happened but rest assured it won't last forever.

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 25th, 2006, 12:55 PM

"*note* the election was close!!!"

Not saying it was a blowout by any means but there have been more than a dozen presidential elections that were closer(Bush held the advantage in the popular vote by almost 4 million)...so I wouldn't call it an extraordinarily close election based on the popular vote even though the electoral vote(which is all that matters) was pretty close because NY and California gave so many pts to Kerry.

**LPDBlueDevils** · January 25th, 2006, 12:58 PM

I lived in CA at the time of the last election, and what was so funny they had gave Kerry CA with only 40% of the votes counted. I know it was a no brainer that Kerry would have won CA, but I thought they would've at least waited until half the votes were counted.

**CoeburnCane** · January 25th, 2006, 01:00 PM

And why has this one-party control came about? A lot of it is due to no real punishments for political/corporate corruption in today's government. Slap on the wrist, when you're indicted for insider trading or corporate fraud--take away your severance package that costs 5 million bucks when you're already worth 5 billion, 2 year stints in Club Med minimum security federal prison, wars that only help the corporations by lack of competition on federal contracts in return for corporate funding for someone's election campaign. It happens whether you or anyone else wants to acknowledge it or not.

So in other words, we've got leaders preaching morality when they're placed into power by corruption. That is something I cannot get past.