Who would you like to see in the Oval Office in 2012?  

Yes, it would require a change in the laws.

I don't know that he could ever win though, many in his own party have serious reservations about his ability to successfully govern.

Far as I can see, being able to run the country isn't one of the requirements for getting the job. Just be popular enough.

If the Republican leaders hadn't been looking for a throwaway candidate the last election, I think he would have ended up with the nomination. It would have been a much different election.

I think many of our politicians start off with good intentions. But like you said, they get to DC where there are lobbyists throwing money at them and they are removed from their constituents, and they forget what they were elected to do.

ALL our politicians are HIGHLY overpaid, like the Senators and Congress who essentially work PART-TIME, for example. I say make them get paid what the rest of us schmucks have to make in our crappy jobs. Give them ten bucks an hour and only give it to them when they are ON THE CLOCK WORKING. No expense accounts either. Maybe then you get people who actually give a crap about the American people instead of just getting an over paid cushy job with lots of perks if you do what the people with deep pockets want you to do. Put severe limitations on what the lobbyists are allowed to give them too.

I agree- for the work they do, they are outrageously compensated. While I think expense accounts are a necessary evil, I do not think that they need to be anything like what they are now. I would prefer a system where they are reimbursed for expenses that are deemed valid and necessary. This would NOT include dinners with other senators, lobbyists, or constituents. It would not include travel expenses to anywhere but to their home state and back to DC. The job they have been elected to do only requires that they visit those two locations- anything else is a distraction.

Don't even get me started on lobbyists.

Awesome, we found something in politics that we can agree on!

LMAO- I did see a flying pig this morning...

Tom Coburn from Oklahoma...he's not the typical politician and he's got some common sense. Makes 'em all mad up in DC; Dems and Reps.

I'd also REALLY love to see a non-politician in any of the major offices, not a billionaire business person but someone like you said, a blue-collar worker or maybe an average nurse or doctor (not one whose family owns a multi-billion dollar hospital chain!), someone like that. I DO have to say though that to pay members of Congress a very low wage with no expense accounts at all would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? I mean, they'd have to either have a place to stay in D.C. or commute everyday - which is only possible for those from a very few states - that they're needed there and no average working person could afford to do that. Lobbyists should be BANNED totally and forever, though and lawmakers' pay could certainly be cut considerably!
Annie

Thanks. I am not overly familiar with Pawlenty, why would you pick him?

Are you SERIOUS - Sarah Palin as Secretary of State??? This is NOT an attack against Sarah, by the way; there are very few people I'd consider to be truly qualified for that very important job and I can't for the life of me figure out how you could really consider her to be one of them. I doubt that even SHE would delude herself to think that.
Annie

Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota. I think he is a true conservative and MN is one of the few states that is budgetarily sound. I think he has much to offer the presidency. Sarah Palin is charismatic and engaging, two qualities that go well with the office of S of S. I also think she is policitally qualified for such an important position, in spite of what the MSM and other liberal detractors would have us to believe.

As soon as I posted, I wanted to smack myself on the head for not including the other parties.

I think as it stands now, a candidate from one of the smaller parties has to get 1% of the popular vote to be eligible for public campaign financing for the next election. That is something I would like to see changed. I agree there should be limits, but garnering 1% of the vote without the resources public funding provides is a daunting task, to say the least. People don't want to donate because they feel it is a lost cause, media doesn't even talk about or to the candidates because they have such a small chance of winning. I would like to see the restrictions be much lower for third party candidates, say a certain number of voters, or .5% of the popular vote. I think if people knew that their votes would have a direct impact on a third party having a valid shot, people would be more inclined to vote for them.

So are you going to abstain from voting in cases where only the two parties are represented?

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

I agree that the two parties philosophies of governing are pretty similar anymore. It seems the only difference is what "cause" they would like to see get the money.

You are right, the main difference does seem to be on social issues, that really do not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

I never heard of debates between the candidates from the smaller parties, but I have to say I didn't seek them out, either.

I think unless he royally screws this first term, he is a shoo in for the 2012 nomination.

Wait, you mean it isn't a euphemism? Well then why do they want it so bad???

Don't worry Scoop, we will do all that we can stateside to make sure your marbles are fully gone by then...

Speaks his mind without BS? Sadly, you are right, he probably will not get a chance.

LOL- I would say nearly any Republican woman BUT Palin, because she is too "hard right" for me. I would have to wait and see with Rice.

You're not asking for much, are ya?!

NO.I want it all and I want it now!LOL!