Article 5 convention gaining steam

[the_spaniard]

I see a lot of accusations but no links supporting them......got any?

 

Break it up, you two. Off the top of my head:

 

Rand Paul is NOT anti-EPA? "EPA does more harm than good"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/31/epa-regulations-violate-constitutional-rights/

 

Kentucky's worst air pollution, ranked #1 of the "Toxic 20":

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120809.asp

 

Paul on MTR:

PAUL: I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing I think is that I think coal gets a bad name, because I think a lot of the land apparently is quite desirable once it’s been flattened out. As I came over here from Harlan, you’ve got quite a few hills. I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there.

Watch it here:

 

Please feel free to check out the massive 2005 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (a study conducted because of the people of Appalachia) that outlines the destructive results of MTR here, or just have a look at this image if you don't like reading.

 

Rands fourth largest contributions for the last six years came from the Mining industry, with his largest funding organization being Alliance Coal, who has a pretty little office in downtown Lexington, KY. Source: http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/1497-rand-paul

But what else do you expect from someone that denigrates the scientific study of drug addiction to "monkeys on meth"?

_____________________________________

 

I am well aware Paul is not the cause of what is going on in Kentucky, but (like Beshear) the man has done nothing about the detrimental environmental practices of coal mining in his state (of which he is supposed to be a representative). If he is going to actively fight against regulations on clean air and the environment when his state has been targeted as one of the most polluted here in the US, he is wide open to criticism. When he is going on record and making up facts and statistics to push an anti-environment pro-coal agenda, I feel VERY comfortable calling him a charlatan (like his father). Thank God he has no chance of getting elected. If he had his way, you would never see studies like this being attempted.

As far as my view from the field, I enjoy it quite a bit. Things are a lot clearer here. Many on this forum would do well getting out a bit more.

Edited December 6, 2013 by the_spaniard

[fmccap]

It has the Daily Kooks worried.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1260066/-Alert-Art-V-Convention-Threat-Grows-Dec-7-2013-Assembly

[Langston Hughes]

It has the Daily Kooks worried.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1260066/-Alert-Art-V-Convention-Threat-Grows-Dec-7-2013-Assembly

 

I'm not worried, but anytime you get a bunch of Mark Levine fans together the stupidity level is high enough to to worry most people.

[Imawhosure]

 

I'm not worried, but anytime you get a bunch of Mark Levine fans together the stupidity level is high enough to to worry most people.

Yes, you are worried. Shang-ri-La may be short circuited, and their isn't a thing you progressives can do about it. Go figure!

[cal50]

Obama help change LOTS of seats in the house from D to R, lets see if he does the same for congress.

 

The guy is great for filling position....in the opposite party once his policies are launched.

[grbeck]

 

I don't want states to have complete power. Ever. Were that the case I am thoroughly convinced states such as West Virginia would deny minorities, homosexuals. etc basic rights afforded by the constitution. There would also be no standards or regulations at all for clean air/water or environmental protection of any kind. One only needs to look at the environmental disaster Kentucky has become under Rand Paul. Before anyone jumps on me half of my family is from West VA, and I have spent time in Appalchia with a team examining the human/environmental impacts of various coal-mining practices there. It's a terrible scene.

How would giving states control over social and environmental issues NOT fragment this country even further?

 

I agree. For example, the attempts of Chicago and Illinois to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own a firearm, or receive a concealed carry permit, has clearly been a violation of the Constitution. (There is also the fact that blanket firearms bans have been abject failures in this country, but that's looking at it from the public policy standpoint.)

 

And the ridiculous speech codes enacted at various public universities have to go, too, along with campus-based kangaroo courts for students accused of rape and sexual assault.

 

We can't just protect the Constitutional rights we like. Both sides of the ideological divide have been happy to violate basic constitutional rights when it suits their interests, or when they believe that they "know better." True vigilance requires watching both sides like a hawk...

Edited January 10, 2014 by grbeck

[Imawhosure]

Update for the article 5 meeting---------->

 

1. They agreed to meet again in the 1st quarter of 2014.

 

2. More states have agreed to come to the next meeting.

 

3. Washington elites are not happy (no kidding)

 

While the meeting was held very close to the vest to keep the MSM out of the political aspect of it, the scuttlebutt coming out of this meeting which can neither be confirmed or denied, is that 2 issues came to the forefront that were almost unanimously accepted by the participants--------->1. repeal or removal of the 17th amendment, and 2. Initiating a way by amendment or otherwise to invoke term limits upon both houses of congress.

 

Now, these 2 changes alone would return a lot of power to the states, and in fact totally rebalance the senate.

 

And for those of you not aware since I did not see a thread, let me be the first to inform you of this------------->http://weaselzippers.us/john-mccain-censured-by-arizona-republicans-in-landslide-vote-for-long-and-terrible-record-of-legislating-like-democrat/ In my humble opinion, Flake is next, along with a host of others. This is why the meeting; if the underground reports are to be believed, so extensively concerned themselves with repeal of the 17th amendment.

 

While many of us will work towards a conservative/libertarian President and congress, please be mindful to open the second political front in case plan A does not come to fruition. If Washington is getting nervous, then you know it is a logical course to bring them back in line, and the best part is--------->they can not do a damn thing about it.

[the_spaniard]

Update for the article 5 meeting---------->

 

1. They agreed to meet again in the 1st quarter of 2014.

 

2. More states have agreed to come to the next meeting.

 

3. Washington elites are not happy (no kidding)

 

While the meeting was held very close to the vest to keep the MSM out of the political aspect of it, the scuttlebutt coming out of this meeting which can neither be confirmed or denied, is that 2 issues came to the forefront that were almost unanimously accepted by the participants--------->1. repeal or removal of the 17th amendment, and 2. Initiating a way by amendment or otherwise to invoke term limits upon both houses of congress.

 

Now, these 2 changes alone would return a lot of power to the states, and in fact totally rebalance the senate.

 

And for those of you not aware since I did not see a thread, let me be the first to inform you of this------------->http://weaselzippers.us/john-mccain-censured-by-arizona-republicans-in-landslide-vote-for-long-and-terrible-record-of-legislating-like-democrat/ In my humble opinion, Flake is next, along with a host of others. This is why the meeting; if the underground reports are to be believed, so extensively concerned themselves with repeal of the 17th amendment.

 

While many of us will work towards a conservative/libertarian President and congress, please be mindful to open the second political front in case plan A does not come to fruition. If Washington is getting nervous, then you know it is a logical course to bring them back in line, and the best part is--------->they can not do a damn thing about it.

 

So how many democrats were represented, so this doesn't appear to be yet another round of conservative sour grapes? That's all it will appear to be until they get democrats on board.

 

EDIT> Just read that Mark Levine is a Tea Party darling. I take back the above. With TP backing, Article 5 is going nowhere. You can't expect the most extreme members of a group to produce any widespread change that will be accepted.

 

While I agree term limits would be good, demonizing party members of your own party for <GASP!> compromising with the other side will get us nowhere as a country. Compromise is not a dirty word. Shame the extremist children on both side of the fence dont get that. The idiots that coin phrases like RINO are the problem.

 

Again, giving the states all the power would destroy this country. There has to be a balance.

Edited January 18, 2014 by the_spaniard

[fmccap]

Update for the article 5 meeting---------->

 

1. They agreed to meet again in the 1st quarter of 2014.

 

2. More states have agreed to come to the next meeting.

 

3. Washington elites are not happy (no kidding)

 

While the meeting was held very close to the vest to keep the MSM out of the political aspect of it, the scuttlebutt coming out of this meeting which can neither be confirmed or denied, is that 2 issues came to the forefront that were almost unanimously accepted by the participants--------->1. repeal or removal of the 17th amendment, and 2. Initiating a way by amendment or otherwise to invoke term limits upon both houses of congress.

 

Now, these 2 changes alone would return a lot of power to the states, and in fact totally rebalance the senate.

 

And for those of you not aware since I did not see a thread, let me be the first to inform you of this------------->http://weaselzippers.us/john-mccain-censured-by-arizona-republicans-in-landslide-vote-for-long-and-terrible-record-of-legislating-like-democrat/ In my humble opinion, Flake is next, along with a host of others. This is why the meeting; if the underground reports are to be believed, so extensively concerned themselves with repeal of the 17th amendment.

 

While many of us will work towards a conservative/libertarian President and congress, please be mindful to open the second political front in case plan A does not come to fruition. If Washington is getting nervous, then you know it is a logical course to bring them back in line, and the best part is--------->they can not do a damn thing about it.

Another one.

 

http://benswann.com/graham-support-crumbles-pickens-county-is-the-7th-republican-party-to-censure-lindsey-graham-interviews/

 

Last night, Pickens County GOP publicly rebuked Senator Lindsey Graham by passing a 30-point censure resolution. This makes Pickens County GOP the 7^th Republican group that has passed similar resolutions so far in South Carolina.

Edited January 18, 2014 by fmccap

[Imawhosure]

 

So how many democrats were represented, so this doesn't appear to be yet another round of conservative sour grapes? That's all it will appear to be until they get democrats on board.

 

EDIT> Just read that Mark Levine is a Tea Party darling. I take back the above. With TP backing, Article 5 is going nowhere. You can't expect the most extreme members of a group to produce any widespread change that will be accepted.

 

While I agree term limits would be good, demonizing party members of your own party for <GASP!> compromising with the other side will get us nowhere as a country. Compromise is not a dirty word. Shame the extremist children on both side of the fence dont get that. The idiots that coin phrases like RINO are the problem.

 

Again, giving the states all the power would destroy this country. There has to be a balance.

 

1. 34 states attended, the next 5 coming are sending 1 republican, and 1 democrat.

 

2. If you do not live in AZ, then you have no idea what Mcain did. He ran totally right, then voted left.

 

3. Yes, compromise is good, capitulation is not.

 

As far as your assertion the article 5 meetings aren't going anywhere, it appears even blue states want the federal government off their back with a few of them wanting to attend, just in case a conservative does get elected. And what is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. Returning power to the states is how this constitution was originally set up.

 

 

[Imawhosure]

And so I seen FMccap. It is not time for a 3rd party, but rather to throw out the rinos from the republican party since they are closet progressives anyway.

[the_spaniard]

Some power returned to the states may be a good thing. In the past, the States have also shown they need the federal government to step in from time to time.

 

Why this has fail written all over it (at this point):

 

- Currently jam packed with conservatives, including the ultra-conservative radical faction (Tea Party).
- Currently reads like more sour-grapes: Tons of conservatives anti-ANYTHING Obama

 

If they don't get a lot of democrats on their side this thing is dead. Including democrats means moderate thinking (which rules out the TP). So what are they doing to court democrats?

 

Getting rid of any association with the Tea Party would go a long way to bring democrats, independents and other conservatives into the fold. Anything associated with the TP is political poison.

Edited January 19, 2014 by the_spaniard

[fmccap]

And so I seen FMccap. It is not time for a 3rd party, but rather to throw out the rinos from the republican party since they are closet progressives anyway.

No I think a 3rd would be good. We know people are disgusted with the 2 main ones and even though some of the talking heads were saying it was the end of the tea/libertarian parties little shake up. Well they are still getting elected and are still putting up good early numbers for future elections.

 

The biggest thing I see is we are living in the mess that 2 parties end up as. Some say nothing would ever get done with a third but when you really think about it, wouldn't that be good? Considering giving power back to the states we wouldn't need them to do as much anyway.

[Imawhosure]

Some power returned to the states may be a good thing. In the past, the States have also shown they need the federal government to step in from time to time.

 

Why this has fail written all over it (at this point):

 

- Currently jam packed with conservatives, including the ultra-conservative radical faction (Tea Party).

- Currently reads like more sour-grapes: Tons of conservatives anti-ANYTHING Obama

 

If they don't get a lot of democrats on their side this thing is dead. Including democrats means moderate thinking (which rules out the TP). So what are they doing to court democrats?

 

Getting rid of any association with the Tea Party would go a long way to bring democrats, independents and other conservatives into the fold. Anything associated with the TP is political poison.

Spaniard, you only need 2/3 of the states to call a convention. By my count, that is 33, or 34. To pass what is offered, you only need 75% to agree. That is less than 40. The meeting had 34 I believe, with 5 more committing to come already to the next one, which makes it 39. I would also like to re-iterate, that quite a few blue states want the feds out of their proverbial hair too. I do not think the scope of the changes would be that broad, because it takes so many states to ratify. But removal of the 17th amendment, and term limits put upon congress; that is something I believe almost all state legislatures, both red and blue, could agree upon.

No I think a 3rd would be good. We know people are disgusted with the 2 main ones and even though some of the talking heads were saying it was the end of the tea/libertarian parties little shake up. Well they are still getting elected and are still putting up good early numbers for future elections.

 

The biggest thing I see is we are living in the mess that 2 parties end up as. Some say nothing would ever get done with a third but when you really think about it, wouldn't that be good? Considering giving power back to the states we wouldn't need them to do as much anyway.

Yes, but only one of the two partys for the forseeable future is going to get the White House. That is exactly why going to a 3rd party cements the democrats to holding it almost forever. You can't govern like that because there will be no consensus if they are confident they can veto everytime, and there is no way congress can over ride.

 

15 or 20yrs ago, I would have said yes, hell yes. But with the window closing so fast on restoring the republic as it gets further and further out of hand, I have to say no; at least in Presidential elections. For congress or state offices, absolutely yes though.

[fmccap]

15 or 20yrs ago, I would have said yes, hell yes. But with the window closing so fast on restoring the republic as it gets further and further out of hand, I have to say no; at least in Presidential elections. For congress or state offices, absolutely yes though.

I think that's where it would have to start first anyway. I can't find the article but I read that many state legislatures have been getting more of these "3rd party" people in, some Repub and Dems in name only also that there respected parties don't even like. It's going to take time. I remember in 08 when Paul ran and started endorsing these "tea party" candidates everybody brushed it aside and laughed giving then 0 chance. Well that is where they broke thru that barrier.

[Imawhosure]

I think that's where it would have to start first anyway. I can't find the article but I read that many state legislatures have been getting more of these "3rd party" people in, some Repub and Dems in name only also that there respected parties don't even like. It's going to take time. I remember in 08 when Paul ran and started endorsing these "tea party" candidates everybody brushed it aside and laughed giving then 0 chance. Well that is where they broke thru that barrier.

Then we are in agreement Mr Cap.

 

I learned a very sad lesson in 2012. I was involved in extreme failure by words that nobody but the candidate had any control over. That candidate took victory, and turned it to utter defeat; even as he was way ahead in the pols until his words turned him into a goat.

 

I have come to the sad conclusion that in big elections, we have to support real politicians. People with vision won't make it, because saying what is true, might be true, or what you believe to be true, if you don't carefully choose your words while explaining it; you can not get elected.

 

Do you know that 30% of a national candidates costs are for handlers to tell them how to answer questions? All questions, lol! If that persons handlers didn't PREDICT that question and tell them how to answer it if asked by the media; doesn't make a difference if they answered it any different than someone else running, they just didn't answer it right, or correct. Out of 500 questions, 499 can be answered vanilla, but get 1 wrong or answer it off the cuff, and that is the only thing voters are going to hear about.

 

We both know that Obama was/is a creation of his handlers and the media. Progressives are brilliant at this; with help of a willing MSM of course. All I can tell you through my experiences is--------->choose someone who can win, that can reflect as much of your beliefs as possible, with money for handlers, because the very best sometimes is missing some of the main ingredients to get there.

 

It is a very sad admission indeed for me to agree with progressives------------->For many of these races, it takes big, big, BIG money indeed to get them elected. Much of that money will be funneled to places you probably aren't even aware of. But if you do not funnel the money there, you will probably lose for sure; not because you have an inferior candidate, but rather because the candidate is asked questions, for which they have no answers that were supplied for them in their briefs.

 

Good luck Mr Cap. You and your friends, please, carry on! Eventually we will merge if there is still time left. At that time, we will work together.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Imawhosure

[Langston Hughes]

We both know that Obama was/is a creation of his handlers and the media. Progressives are brilliant at this; with help of a willing MSM of course.

 

 

Sorry to interrupt you Kumbaya moment but you really think that? Look you guys picked one of the dumb sons of George Bush who had to have all of daddy's helpers run the store so I don't think you know what is what.

[the_spaniard]

Spaniard, you only need 2/3 of the states to call a convention. By my count, that is 33, or 34. To pass what is offered, you only need 75% to agree. That is less than 40. The meeting had 34 I believe, with 5 more committing to come already to the next one, which makes it 39. I would also like to re-iterate, that quite a few blue states want the feds out of their proverbial hair too. I do not think the scope of the changes would be that broad, because it takes so many states to ratify. But removal of the 17th amendment, and term limits put upon congress; that is something I believe almost all state legislatures, both red and blue, could agree upon.

 

 

Imma, I guess I don't understand here. While I agree with term limits, eliminating the 17th Amendment would be a very long shot. That is a far-right issue, period. I certainly don't agree with giving even more power to corporations at the expense of the people. For over 120 years people of this country fought FOR the 17th Amendment. I doubt it is going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Do staunch conservatives believe that they will be able to implement anything they want using Article 5? Article 5 has never been used to amend the constitution before, has no precedent, and is very, very vague and that is plenty of ammo for the current government to put a kabosh on it. It's a massive and fundamental change that has never been done before. Does that make it wrong? No, but it does make it potentially very dangerous.

 

How is the entire movement not seen as a right-wing push for implementation of their views over the will of the people? I just don't buy this is anywhere near as close to coming to fruition as you say. I see an extreme long-shot of anything happening going nowhere without serious partisan backing.

 

And please list for me the democrats involved in this and the percentage of democrats to republicans, because I all see is an overwhelmingly republican (TP conservative extremists) push at that, and those views certainly don't represent a majority.

 

Attending a meeting about Article 5 is not supporting it. If it were really as close (or remotely as close) as you say, don't you think the media would have picked up on that? (I understand meetings are closed to the media, but there are always leaks)

Edited January 21, 2014 by the_spaniard

[phil1336]

This entire Article 5 "malarky" is being given weak momentum from the same Crowd that don`t believe in Science, Biology, Evolution, Gravity, Global Warming, and the Earth is Flat Society. Perhaps they will entertain the attendee`s with a few Snake Handlers from the Bible Belt too!

[Imawhosure]

 

Imma, I guess I don't understand here. While I agree with term limits, eliminating the 17th Amendment would be a very long shot. That is a far-right issue, period. I certainly don't agree with giving even more power to corporations at the expense of the people. For over 120 years people of this country fought FOR the 17th Amendment. I doubt it is going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Do staunch conservatives believe that they will be able to implement anything they want using Article 5? Article 5 has never been used to amend the constitution before, has no precedent, and is very, very vague and that is plenty of ammo for the current government to put a kabosh on it. It's a massive and fundamental change that has never been done before. Does that make it wrong? No, but it does make it potentially very dangerous.

 

How is the entire movement not seen as a right-wing push for implementation of their views over the will of the people? I just don't buy this is anywhere near as close to coming to fruition as you say. I see an extreme long-shot of anything happening going nowhere without serious partisan backing.

 

And please list for me the democrats involved in this and the percentage of democrats to republicans, because I all see is an overwhelmingly republican (TP conservative extremists) push at that, and those views certainly don't represent a majority.

 

Attending a meeting about Article 5 is not supporting it. If it were really as close (or remotely as close) as you say, don't you think the media would have picked up on that? (I understand meetings are closed to the media, but there are always leaks)

Spaniard, let me see if I can explain; not that I am sure you will agree with it, but I will try and give you the best reasoning I know of------>

 

1. Repeal of the 17th amendment...................... The reason for this is self explanatory; in the constitution, the House was set up to be the "peoples house." The representatives were closest to the people, were elected by small areas of the people, and so were most in tune with the people, as far as what they wanted in each specific area. The Presidency was set up for all to vote for. The leader all of the districts in the house collectively thought would be best to "guide" us forward. But the senate......ah the senate was different. You see, the amount of people you had in your state determined how many congressional districts you had. (in the house) This meant that very populated states could impose their will upon less populated states, because they had more members in the house. So, to protect each state and its rights, the senate was born, where each state; no matter how big it was or how populated it was, each got 2 members. The senators job was to protect the rights of their individual states, period.

 

These senators were chosen by the state legislators, and were controlled by the states. If the state was a farming state, you better believe that the senators were all about farming; if a ranching state, they were for ranching; oil, they were all about oil, etc. If they did not do the states bidding as far as what YOUR state legislators agreed upon, they would not be re-installed. If larger more populated states tried to impose their will on the rest, the smaller states senators would band together to quash the whole thing. To get anything done, there had to be more consensus and horse trading where everyone got something, for senators to capitulate.

 

Because of the 17th amendment, we no longer have senators who represent the states wishes, but rather political partys wishes. (and that includes republicans too) Instead of doing what is best for their states; under the control of the state legislators, they do as they wish and represent their own ideas, or the ideas of their political party. There is no doubt, that there are red and blue states that would certainly band together for many things in both their states interest, but instead it is split by politics of party, which is really not representative of states wishes.

 

And finally............we the voter who hopefully work everyday, really have no idea what it is our state legislatures have decided for our states on many issues; at least no where near the idea that full time legislators do from our states. Both the republican and democratic partys give vast amounts of money to these senators to get re-elected, if they have been good soldiers for party politics; which has nothing or very little to do with their states will.

 

As of this point in time, nobody represents your state in Washington; nobody. Your house member represents you in your district, but your state is SOL. That is not supposed to be how it works, it was not set up that way, and this is how Washington can dictate on high from their perch in the nations capitol.

 

Let me put it to you this way-------------> I don't know if you are a republican, a democrat, or an independent, but I will just say you are party A.

 

Suppose your state is totally a party A. state. 65% of your state votes party A, and you are happy with it. Theoretically, you have a representative.......which is good........more than 1/2 of your representatives are party A. and that is good, and the way it is supposed to be since you have control of the state, you have 2 party A. senators.

 

Now then, one of your party A. senators does something not so hot, but the Washington elite of his/her party dumps loads of cash into his/her campaign fund, and he/she wins party As. primary. When the general election arrives, some people from party A. can't really stand what the senator did, so vote for the candidate in party B. and that person gets elected because the people in party B vote them too.

 

Now the person for party B who just got elected, goes to Washington and votes with his/her party, against the wishes of his/her state legislators who are all/mostly partyA. If the senators were put in place the way they were supposed to be, your state legislators would surely have thrown out this senator, and if not, he/she would have to do the bidding of your state legislators, increasing YOUR PERSONAL power in Washington for your state. Instead, you got the shaft.

 

Your personal power by voting for state legislators that will put in someone who reflects your states will, far exceeds the power your representative holds. Your 2 senators are 2 of 100. And, as far as purple states that are split, the state legislatures would undoubtedly name 1 of each party, A and B. But the kicker is........neither could go off the reservation going against what is best for your particular state as agreed upon by your state legislators in conference, or they would lose their jobs!

 

The point is not what they agree to do nationally, but when they decide by themselves to go against the will of the state they represent. That is what that body was created for, and without the state legislators controlling them, they are free agents to do whatever, their, little, heart, desires. That is not how the system was set up, and is exactly why the system was set up the way it was in the first place.

[NickF1011]

This entire Article 5 "malarky" is being given weak momentum from the same Crowd that don`t believe in Science, Biology, Evolution, Gravity, Global Warming, and the Earth is Flat Society. Perhaps they will entertain the attendee`s with a few Snake Handlers from the Bible Belt too!

 

Hmmm. I believe in science, biology, evolution, gravity, global warming (err...climate change), and a round earth. I also think an Article 5 convention is likely the only way in which term limits (which I am for) will ever be instituted. The 17th amendment portion is silliness though.

 

The majority of both parties is for term limits in congress. The only majority against it are sitting congressmen, which is why they will never enact it themselves.

Edited January 22, 2014 by NickF1011

[the_spaniard]

Spaniard, let me see if I can explain; not that I am sure you will agree with it, but I will try and give you the best reasoning I know of------>

 

 

Thanks for taking time to break down your view with courtesy, IMMA. I don't agree with the argument, but I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, and I get the frustration.

 

The big worry for me is HOW you appoint representatives if they are not elected?

Edited January 22, 2014 by the_spaniard

[fmccap]

[FiredMotorCompany]

Every time we get one out of office, we have another chance things MAY be better.

 

Hope springs eternal. And some lessons are hard to learn from, for most voters.

[Langston Hughes]

Every time we get one out of office, we have another chance things MAY be better.

 

Hope springs eternal. And some lessons are hard to learn from, for most voters.

 

It's better since Bush got out of office, that's for sure.