That's about it alright.

But you can't deny we need change in politics, right?

Really? From what to what? And don't say "anything is better than what we have." Be specific about what in the office of the President we need to change from and to? How specifically will the change help us?

From a Republican president who has locked us into a war that Americans don't want to be in, from rampant spending and devaluing of the dollar, I could go on and on.

I thought so. You think the president unilaterally ordered the war, without cause, and in spite of the Democrat controlled congress begging him not to? I see. And you think it is the president who votes to spend the money in the federal budget? Right.And you think that by voting a Democrat into the presidency, thereby removing any veto of Congress' wild spending (of the 30% or so of the budget that isn't already locked as "entitlements") is just the kind of "change" we need? I get it. So grab your sign and start marching for "change".

Cat got your tongue, Larry? I don't mean to chase you off. I really want to pursue the discussion. Sorry if I seem intimidating; that is the problem with political discussions sometimes.

OK guys, it isn't a pissing contest. Everybody has a point to make. Here is mine:

I think a change in position is needed on illegal immigration. Every survey has proven that the majority, by a huge margin, want illegal immigration to be halted, and we want a few things that have been proposed to be enacted in order to stop it. A bill was passed by both houses and signed by the president to build a fence to help achieve this. Yet a few of our elected officials refuse to write the check. The needed change here is to replace ANY elected official that opposes halting illegal immigration by all means necessary including the fence and no amnesty.

Secondly, we need to WIN the war in order to end it. That could easily be done and quickly by using the weapons we have but refuse to use. Any elected official, including our CIC, who doen't make that happen needs replaced.

I think most Americans will agree that these are the two main issues we should confront in choosing ALL elected officials for the foreseeable future. A third would be to reduce the size of government and the huge cost of maintaining it. Recognize that those in power don't want that because it would threaten their individual power cells. But it needs done.

Am I right or am I right?

I agree fully with Jasmine. It really isn't any more complicated that that. Elected officials that don't do the things we most need shouldn't be elected or re-elected. Your post was very well said!

Ending the war by surrendering, quitting, dropping our weapons and walking away, whatever you call it, is NOT what most Americans want. We don't want having to fight with one hand tied behind our backs and not being allowed to use our weapons to WIN QUICKLY. We DO want to be allowed to win quickly and THEN come home.

And we are tired of officials telling us that the best way to deal with illegal immigration is to call it something else and create a greater incentive for illegals to come by giving them free social programs not even all Americans are entitled to.

Those issues need to be addressed at the ballot box. Does the candidate promise to push the fixes we want? If not, don't elect him and DEFINITELY don't re-elect him.

Here are a couple of quotations I like that may add a little to the discussion:

Alice Meynell wrote, “Our fathers valued change for the sake of its results; we value it in the act.” I think that illustrates the difference in thinking between our older and younger generations. Everyone presumes change - even change for the sake of change - always yields positive results. But change for change's sake is like tossing pick-up-sticks in the air and hoping they land in a better, more organized way. It seldom results in any improvement at all. Changing specific attributes that one knows will lead to positive results is a different matter.

Here's another personal favorite:

"We trained hard but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210BC

When considering a new President, let's all re-examine which specific things we know the candidate wants - and has the power - to change for the betterment of the country. If a candidate is vague on those issues or chooses to avoid committing to a definitive position by talking in vague generalities, don't give them your vote. And that goes for all our elected officials.

Doug

I really didn't mean to chase Larry off. I enjoy the discourse. Maybe he was out of ammunition.

Come on back, Larry. I promise not to bite.

henry

I will be writing in my brother-in-law. He may be a jerk but he would do at least as well as the rest of our choices.

(Hope he doesn't read this)

Point well taken. Change for changes sake if without merit or value. It proves Petronius Arbiter's point.

Personally, I am against anyone who tries to jerk me around. If I see it or feel it (or even sense it) they are off my radar. I am still researching the candidates. The links on your sidebar are helpful. And I listen to the candidates. I will accept some self promotion but no dishonesty.

I see a great need for change throughout Washington. And not just for change's sake.