As I've mentioned before, my "rule" is no more thn 3 term for a representative and one for a senator. Ms. Brown-Waite may be the best rep the 5th district has ever seen, but time"s up. Senator Martinez is "retiring," so his seat us up-for-grabs.

So, while we may have some ideological differences politically, we have more in common as folk concerned with TV issues than we have differences. One very interesting use of this forum can be establishing our baseline "platform" which becomes our criteria for broad-based TV support to the candidate most amenable.

In order to establish the TV Virtual political party, we would have to make personal concessions for the greater good. That should not be difficult if we keep focused on TV issues and not get too far off the beam.

Comments?

Sigh!
 

Reality check Bucco! I hate to tell you this, but every President has had questionable associates. And no, there is no Santa Claus. ;)

All I can say is that I will be here to remind you as this story progresses (NOT this individual story)...electing someone because of his speaking skills was a mistake....the past can not stay buried forever.

My only hope is that he is sincere and will LOUDLY AND QUICKLY rid himself of these people from which he was spawned politically. I dont think he can at this point and we have not had him sworn in yet and his associations are coming back at him.

No sense discussing this...in your mind he is the man of perfection and the golden one....media is late often but most times gets it right and they will eventually over the next few years !

Swell
 

OK Bucco, you do that. Oh, and I suppose this is how you support our new President, as you've touted so often. I rest my case. :ohdear:

What Do Villagers Want From Congress?
 

I agree with Steve. We should develop a virtual platform against which we should judge candidates to represent us in the House and Senate who will run in 2010.

This is going to cause me to really sit down and think about this. The reason is that I have so few complaints about The Villages and living here, particularly any that can be solved by the federal government. So without too much thought, maybe I'll begin with this list...

• If any of the candidates made a complete re-do of campaign finance a plank in their platform, they'd probably get my vote. I'd be for complete government financing of federal elections with a limit on the amount and the length of the campaign periods. But part of the deal would have to be NO permitted contributions from lobbyists. In fact, how about no contact with lobbyists.

• Right up there on top of my list would be the enactment--or re-enactment--of the PayGo rules to eliminate any deficit spending. I know we have to get thru the current economic rough patch, but sooner rather than later we have to get back to not spending more than we take in.

• How about a Villages Post Office? There's plenty of room on CR 466 in a central location and it's my understanding that the developer has offered to foot the bill to construct the building. What's the hold up?

• Don't screw around with the tax rates too much. Yeah, I think that the really wealthy can afford to pay a little more. I'd really be turned on if one of the candidates supported Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax proposal. With unemployment as high as it is, we wouldn't even notice the unemployed tax lawyers and tax preparers.

• I lean towards the tree-hugging side. Do the right thing. Sooner or later--after parts of Manhattan and Miami are under water--we'll realize there really is global warming. Why not sooner?

• Lastly, let's see if we can develop some friendships with countries around the world rather than acting like the neighborhood bully who practices "my way or the highway" diplomacy.

How's that for the start of a list? I'll keep thinking about other stuff I like to see in a candidate. But for sure, I'll be voting for Ginny Brown-Waite's opponent...just on the general principle that she's been there too long and is getting too entrenched in the system.

I acutally thought about posting here again, but i can see not to much has changed since the election. Seems like 2 different threads tied into 1 here. It's all in who or what you personally believe in. I really like what VK and Steve have to say here, they bring up good points with out going at each other. Kudo's to you guys. I have kind of laid back here, i realized I am some what speaking blind on alot of these facts. Dont do no good to paste a link to a web site or a statement. It will get shot down faster that a Sopwith Camel against the Red Barron.
Ill. Governor arrested, so what, alot of politicians have been. Senator from Alaska has seemed to slip the screen now, in a few weeks this will be old news. I think I heard my mom tell me before, dont make a mountian out of a ant hill. GO figure. I kind of like the idea of some one in office for awhile as long as they do a good job. everytime you change that person, that office has to start all over again.

Tip toeing into political with my eyes closed.
 

I haven't read any of the posts above. That is my rule to myself for keeping out of trouble.

I will say this about the Governor of Illinois. I don't like the way he looks. If he came home with one of my kids I would be seriously worried. What is with that hair? He has a pompadour and I haven't seen one of those in decades! He looks like a cartoon character, and another thing, his mother dresses him funny. He is too slick, polished and slimy looking. He has beady eyes, and not like OUR BEADY here on TOTV either. He is not the kind of person I would invite into my home. I think he hangs out with friends who carry guns and he has four cousin Vinnie's.

You didn't ask. And I know you are not interested. And people from both partys don't like him and I didn't look at the posts above, but I know you are all arguing.

NOW. I am outa here!

Currently The Highest Probability Next Step
 

What's next? Blago resigns? He's declared unfit by the Illinois Supreme Court? He's impeached?

None of those things appear to be likely. The most likely next step is for the Illinois General Assembly to pass legislation taking the authority to appoint a new Senator away from the Governor in favor of a special election.

Background: The idea is to take away Blagojevich's sole authority to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama. Lawmakers would pass legislation next week that is backed by Illinois House Speaker and Senate President.

How it would work: A statewide primary election followed quickly by a general election is the likely option.

What's new: The plan is expected to be approved by Tuesday. "We're still moving forward," said a spokeswoman for the Senate President. "We're going to come in and get this bill passed."

Lingering questions: Blagojevich still would have the power to decide the bill's fate. He could veto it and lawmakers could try to override. He could sign it. Or, if he ignores it for 60 days, it would become law. Also, would it stand up in court? If someone sues, the Senate seat could be left in doubt for months while the litigation of the legality of the new law is decided. During that time, Illinois would only be represented by one Senator. It's likely that the defined "majority" in Senate votes would be 50 votes, but that would require a modification of Senate rules. That situation vitually eliminates any role for the Vice President in breaking tie votes in the Senate.

Robert Grant, FBI special agent in charge of the Chicago office, characterized Illinois' place in the pantheon of political corruption.

"If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Grant said. "Even the most cynical agents in our office were shocked."

Well you still have Louisiana in the running.

I think he resigns ALTHOUGH he may make it tough on everybody. I found the information linked below which is from January of this year.....


"The governor’s strange behavior has been fertile ground for local armchair psychologists. Last summer, the downstate newspaper the Peoria Journal Star declared that the governor was “going bonkers.” Privately, a few people who know the governor describe him as a “sociopath,” and they insist they’re not using hyperbole. State representative Joe Lyons, a fellow Democrat from Chicago, told reporters that Blagojevich was a “madman” and “insane.” “He shows absolutely no remorse,” says Jack Franks, the Democratic state representative. “I don’t think he gives a damn about anybody else’s feelings. He tries to demonize people who disagree with him; he’s got delusions of grandeur.”

Miller points out that people shouldn’t blame Blagojevich’s lousy governing skills on his personality alone: “You can be insane—totally whacked out psychologically—and be a good governor or a good president.”

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/01...f-blagojevich/

Not True!
 

USA Today came out with a list of the most corrupt states and the top three are:

1. North Dakota
2. Louisiana
3. Alaska (You betcha!)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...?se=yahoorefer

Illinois is 18th, even got beat out by PA. hmmmm..... Imagine that!

I believe Florida was about 5th or 6th

(remember the chads!)

.

The article only dealt with "number of convictions of public officials" in ratio to the state's total population. It did not go into: 1) the dollar value of the corruption; 2) the effect on the public in the way of reduction in safety or degradation of services; or 3) the number of private persons/companies entwined in the corruption and related convictions of them.

In short, you can make a stand-alone statistic for anything, and it often doesn't say more than it says.

So?
 

:a20: And your point? No one said it did! The things you mentioned were not the focus of the article. :loco:

That's right. The focus of the article was a great example of poor conclusions based on limited data points. I would have hoped that Journalism 101 would have taught the author that an article which provides a "rating scheme" to denote sociological patterns or tendencies based on only two data points is valueless. Apparently, the author never took any courses in Statistics.

The only "point" to the article is that people will believe whatever they want to believe, and if they are exceptionally selective on the data from which they base conclusions, they can never be "wrong." What's sad is when this is practiced in justifying political choices.

It has rained on both Thursdays of December this year in the DC area, but no rain fell on Atlanta. With "rain" and "Thursdays" being the only data points, if I follow the author's deductive logic, then you just can't be in DC on Thursdays in December without an umbrella, but you can go hat-less in Atlanta. That's deductive logic based on two data points.