has anyone asked Obama, Clinton, Edwards, etc.. the BIG question?

[Syrinx]

"If President Bush or Vice President Cheney, or any officials in the current administration, were shown to have committed serious crimes in the discharge of their duties, would you support your hypothetical Justice Department prosecuting them in federal court. And would you instruct your Attorney General to pursue such charges? If not, why not? Please be specific."

That question could probably be worded better, but I think I make my point. Someone needs to get them all on the record on this question. Fundamentally, I think it is the most important question we can ask at this particular time. If we don't put a stop to lawlessness at the highest levels of government, then we are sunk as a nation.

[lvx35]

1. Its not politically expedient to ask that.

The sick, retarded reality is that they are dealing with an insane moran who won't hesitate to stage a terrorist attack if he feels threatened enough. Expect them to walk carefully around this issue, and work to dam the rivers of asininity that let GWB get in power in the first place...

[nachoproblem]

4. Yes, and even if GWB and Darth Cheney aren't anything to worry about

there's the packs of their drooling attack dogs and legions of half-lobotomized zombie groupies (which in the last election were known as "swing voters"). So going on record like that would not be a viable tactic for anybody running in the election.

[cyclezealot]

2. Hell.

Hillary would probably give Dubya the Freedom Medal. Even if her staff were to take the W symbol key off of the telephones. Dont' forget, Bill is now a welcome guest in Papa Bush's Houston home. Even Babs' now likes Bill.

[lvx35]

3. You know, Kucinich supporters really should be attacking Edwards and Obama IMHO

There are two pure, idealistic candidates in this race: Hillary and Kucinich. If you ask the question: Should you compromise your ideals to acheive your goals? Its really a yes or no question. Kucinich answers "No", and always sticks by his ideals. Hillary answers "yes", and is a master of diplomacy and compromise. Everybody else actually compromises on the issue of compromise itself, and thus presents a dangerous muddy distraction to this fundamental question of whether the ends justify the means.

Being a kucinich supporter ranting against Hillary is basically throwing Kucinich's support to the "anti-hillary" candidates, who are themselves only half assed compromisers. I say be extreme.

[Lasher]

5. Very good question.

If I knew how each candidate would answer that one it would sure help me narrow down my choices.

[lvx35]

8. If you could get an honest answer, it would be incredible.

The thing is the machievillian ones would just say whatever they thought would be popular at the moment.... :)

[Lasher]

11. True that, in most cases.

I'd like to know how each candidate feels about the national debt, and what they would do about it, if anything. But lotsa luck on that one too. On the Republican side they like to warn against tax-and-spend Democrats, while pretending they could continue the same borrow-and-spend-more policies that have bankrupted the treasury.

[cyclezealot]

6. and if

you so compromise your goals, they are so compromised, they are not achieved. There is no compromise with insurance companies. It's rule or ruin. To have healthcare that ends the cost cutting practices that jeopardizes our health, as demonstrated in "Sicko" ; you'd so neuter the insurance companies, they'd refuse to play . Edwards plan is little better. Last I heard, he supports the Mitt Romney Massachusetts plan as a route to a national healthcare plan. No Thanks.
No one said Edwards is not to be criticized . As to O'Bama. I would not doubt he'd have tea and cookies with Dubya. After all , did not O ' Bama say we need end the generational wars and play nice with the Repukes. Think they are listening?
Chumps born everyday.

[lvx35]

7. Its the truth. Kucinich is the only one I've heard that stands up completely.

I am SO pissed he's been booted from the debates.

[cyclezealot]

9. two important links

for our concerns. The media will neuter us if we let them. The first named, Independent Primary, Com.
$$.

This week the Des Moines Register decided to exclude Congressman Dennis Kucinich from the Iowa debate -- despite the fact that he met all of their published criteria.

Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Ron Paul have also faced debate exclusions as well.

Petition For Democracy
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2489/t/5103/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=752


http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o...tition_KEY=752

$ AND.

2nd Tier Presidential Candidates, by Ralph Nader.
$$

Gail Collins, the columnist for the New York Times, has a problem. While regularly writing in a satirical or sometimes trivial way about the foibles of the two major Parties’ front-running presidential candidates, she can scarcely hide her disdain for the small starters, the underdogs.

In a recent column about what she saw as the repetitiveness and small-mindedness of Hillary Clinton (and her spokesman), Barack Obama and John Edwards, she took this unexplained swipe at former Senator Mike Gravel’s presence in a debate sponsored by National Public Radio:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/13/5798/

[lvx35]

12. Already signed the petitions, but good links.

I will be writing LTTEs as well. The thing they can't hide is that the only people who had the chance and voted against this extremely unpopular war are being excluded from the debates. That's an important thing to point out.

[cyclezealot]

10. The thing is IVX.

The party hacks play nice with us trouble makers, we will be good party little boys and girls. They try to neuter us by shutting us up, we should consider bolting. Play fair and we can then roll over and play dead. Play dirty, and defeat us by silencing us, its time for retribution.

[lvx35]

13. Bolt to where is the question?

Its actually Obama and Edwards who perceive the most gain in silencing Kucinich, because Hillary is viewed as such a centrist they assume Kucinich supporters will fall into their arms if he is silenced. That's almost enough to drive me to Hillary support, but without strong evidence that Obama or Edwards influenced it its a hard call to make.

But I think ultimately we have to move away from all of it. I think at this point in time, Kucinich needs to look at a real model for 21st century leadership, Al Gore, instead of the stagnant politics as usual mess. Al Gore has gone to be an incredible leader, and refuses to sink in the morass of public office. What I'm saying is that Kucinich should just lead, and not worry about the office and titles. He should start a movement that ignores politics like Al Gore. Then, finally, I will be able to finally give up any hope of real change coming from Washington and get out there and start creating beauty in the world. And sure, I'll vote for the best candidate in 2008, Dem or whatever, but my time and energy will be spent on a movement that creates real change.

[cyclezealot]

14. From the reviews of last nights debate,

I did NOT watch. The discussion of healtcare will be Pitiful. Without the influence of Kucinich expect more of the same. I better not watch actually, or I am sure I will bolt. If I stay dumb, I might better tolerate Edwards and Obama following Hillary's lead towards DLC positions. Then I will be a good little roll over dem. Still, we know at least Cynthia McKinney might offer some leaverage to the nomination of Hillary. Maybe even Nader, who might keep hillary in check.

[cyclezealot]

15. If they don't play fair with us

then bolt is my solution. Play fair. It's up to them. They want us silenced, the only place where we can go to get a voice is with McKinney or possibly Nader. Unless, Edwards sounds better with healthcare, our big issue; he won't have us for supporters. Big insurance dictating our coverages. Is Not acceptable.

[Syrinx]

16. anyone care to comment? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

17. They would answer no, it's pretty much a catch 22

No matter what the crimes, you won't see a new President put serious energy into investigating the crimes of an old administration. The new President wants the media focused as much as possible on his/her legislative agenda to increase the chances of it getting passed. Putting a past President/VP or even his high profile cronies on trial sucks up all of the media attention. That's why Ford pardoned Nixon. He couldn't get anything done.

Politicians go with whatever way the wind blows and if you leave these decisions up to politicians, they won't make the right ones unless there is an overwhelming majority demanding that Bush be put on trial.

As horrid as Ken Starr was, we need to restore the Independent Counsel Act or something in a similar form, so that these types of investigations can be conducted independently of the politics of the White House.