Replies

"Where did I attempt to do any such thing?"

but the bottom line for voters is going to be whether or not their elected officials keep their word, deliver on their promises made during the campaign, and whether or not they live up to the principles and standards they claim to stand for. And I believe that voters are going to put all those factors together next year, judge each candidate,

The above statement is related to local repetitive elections. A presidential election candidate is not judged by his political promises because he has not had a chance to fulfill them.

This comment was what drew my comment.

Secondly, House members and senate members have indeed made promises, and a lot of public statements that they cannot take back. This is one primary reason they rarely are elected to the presidency in modern times. Too much past, not enough present. You sell the sizzle, and not the steak.

This is the first totally open election that we have had in a very long time. The fact we hold the presidency now, is actually not a positive, and the electorate will be looking for some proved qualities or at least perceived ones.

This election is going to be about the sizzle and not the steak.

National security, unless we get hit again, will not be the most important issue. It will only be one of many.

Where did I attempt to do any such thing?"
but the bottom line for voters is going to be whether or not their elected officials keep their word, deliver on their promises made during the campaign, and whether or not they live up to the principles and standards they claim to stand for. And I believe that voters are going to put all those factors together next year, judge each candidate

The above statement is related to local repetitive elections. A presidential election candidate is not judged by his political promises because he has not had a chance to fulfill them.

You don't say. Get a clue here pal, by the end of any elected president's first term, the voters are going to be judging whether or not his performance (i.e. 'keeping promises') warrants being RE-elected, ok?

This comment was what drew my comment.

You should have more carefully considered your comment.

Secondly, House members and senate members have indeed made promises, and a lot of public statements that they cannot take back. This is one primary reason they rarely are elected to the presidency in modern times. Too much past, not enough present. You sell the sizzle, and not the steak.

Perhaps you've forgotten how there was almost enough 'Rat-steak sizzling in 2004, and were it not for the Great State of Ohio, we would now be debating whether or not President John F. Kerry (gag-choke-spew) would be rewarded with a second term next year?

This is the first totally open election that we have had in a very long time. The fact we hold the presidency now, is actually not a positive, and the electorate will be looking for some proved qualities or at least perceived ones.

If this is a totally open election as you say, then you ought to be willing to concede that Congressmen and Senators have just as good a shot at the presidency as any other candidate.

And they do.

This election is going to be about the sizzle and not the steak.

Sez you. If it's all about sizzle, then some empty suit will end up being elected, with little or no actual experience, perhaps some one-termer like Barack Obama, a one-and-a-half termer like Mrs. Bill Clinton, or maybe even a one-term former Governor from Massachusetts, eh?

National security, unless we get hit again, will not be the most important issue. It will only be one of many.

That is classic September 10th thinking.

Try again.