Just in case your enthusiasm ...

[wetibbe]

Tell ya what. I'll challenge you Californians to arm wrestling to determine which state, New York or California, has the worst candidates !!

Historically Governor Eliot Spitzer was a rough cob that called himself a "fxxxxxx steam roller". He was prosecuting everyone is sight. Then the Feds caught him cavorting with prostitutes and he resigned. Then the Lieutenant Governor David A.Paterson, who is a legally blind liberal negro, took office to finish out Spitzers term.

The Democratic candidate is Andrew Cuomo, son of Marion Cuomo formed Governor of NY, a flaming liberal. The Republican is Carl Paladino, a multi-millionaire businessman from Buffalo who looks and sounds like a Mafia Godfather. He has NO background in office, never held a position in Government. We don't know anything about him except that he talks tough.

So I'll hold my nose and vote for Paladino and keep my fingers crossed.

Most of you will do the same thing and vote for Meg Whitman. If she follows true to form as soon as she takes office she will renege on campaign promises and flip flop over to the right side. *( Don't they all ? ).

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y14...idPaterson.jpg



David Paterson *( Holding up a sign { upside down } !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by wetibbe

....

Most of you will do the same thing and vote for Meg Whitman. If she follows true to form as soon as she takes office she will renege on campaign promises and flip flop over to the right side. *( Don't they all ? ).

....

As long as people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, then that is all they are going to get, the lesser of two evils. Until people stand up for the right to reject both candidates, then they are only going to get the product of the "two party system" which is always going to be bad or worse. And it doesn't matter where you find yourself in the bogus "liberal" versus "conservative" debate. All you have to chose from is tweedledum and tweedledee.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Twoller

As long as people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, then that is all they are going to get, the lesser of two evils. Until people stand up for the right to reject both candidates, then they are only going to get the product of the "two party system" which is always going to be bad or worse. And it doesn't matter where you find yourself in the bogus "liberal" versus "conservative" debate. All you have to chose from is tweedledum and tweedledee.

This is absolutely correct.

Harry Reid of Nevada, with the "none of the above box" option on the ballot, could still be reelected Senator even if "none of the above" votes outnumber "Harry Reid" votes.

It would be much better to have a rejection box which, if receiving the majority vote, would trigger a mandate for a new election with all the previous candidates disqualified and incumbents for a particular office on the ballot immediately removed from office. No lame duck poisoning of the well.