Try a sentence or two. Otherwise yawn!

Dem be a lotta amendments alrighty

It ain't gonna work dude,,, It's just blowing smoke

@ Jim: We recognize the difficulty in getting amendments passed - we are not blind or naive to the fact that this is a difficult goal to accomplish. However, if we take no action there is a guaranteed result: nothing will ever change! With that said, one cannot take a defeatist attitude by saying "this will be difficult and the chances of succeeding are small, so I'm not going to even try." It is that type of defeatist attitude that is allowing these types of governmental problems to persist. As American citizens we have the right and the ability to try to change our system for the better, and we need to exercise that right. That is why I am encouraging people to support this Act, despite the fact that it will difficult. What do people have to lose? If it does not work, you have lost nothing, but if it does work, the whole country gains big! So please check out the Act at www.americanoverhaulact.org and, if you agree with the proposals, support them and share them with your friends and family so that we may gain the support, momentum, and force that we need to get these changes adopted!

@ Jim: The other important point to bring up is that the feedback we have received has been overwhelmingly supportive - it appears that most Americans agree that these changes are needed! So, if that is the case, then if you believe in our democratic system, you should believe that we can accomplish these goals. And, if you believe that we cannot accomplish this despite the fact that the American citizens want these changes, then you essentially are saying that our democracy is dead already. I, for one, am not ready to believe that yet.

You may want term limits, but why are you suggesting 4 year terms for the House and the Senate? The writers of the Constitution had very good reasons that the House term be 2 years, the Senate term be 6 years (with one-third being elected every 2 years and both Senators from one state not being elected in the same election) and the Presidential term be 4 years. One of the main advantages is the stability that come from avoiding the wild policy fluctuations that could occur if everyone was elected at the same time every 4 years.

With regard to Congressional compensation, I would suggest that it be reduced by 5% for each 1% by which the national unemployment rate exceeds 5%. That would get some action on job creation!

A ballanced budget would never pass, simply because the federal budget cannot be balanced from quarter to quarter.... Far too many variables, even the Ryan Plan would be unconstitutional.

Forget about campaign reform,,, Conservatives have now made the Corporation the "People", It's now the law of the land. We've tried it & all that happens is they figure out new ways to launder money into campaigns through SuperPacs etc

Most have term limits already from 2 years to 4 years....

It's all just blowing smoke dude

Overhaul,,,,, They don't need months & years of filibusters & more delays in Congress to divide the country with that idea

All it would take & they can do it now (if they are actually serious about it) is rewrite the rules of the Senate & House... That they can do right now!

But try to get them interested in something other than grandstanding on an idea that wouldn't work like you suggested just ain't gonna happen

It's just more theatrical drama from your beloved politicians & we don't need it!

@ Jaybee: I agree that there is an advantage to not having every seat up for reelection in the same year, but that could be done with everyone having 4 year terms as well. You could have half up for reelection every 2 years. As for the reasons behind moving everyone to 4 year terms, 2 year terms cause representatives to be on the campaign trail for nearly half of their term, which is incredibly inefficient and was clearly a problem not envisioned by our founding fathers. That is why 2 year terms are now simply too short. As for the 6 year terms of Senators, if you allow 2 terms of 6 years plus another term in the House, that is 16 years, which is basically a career politician, which is what we are trying to remove with term limits. That is why 6 years seems to be simply too long. And again, the issue of having career politicians was not a problem that our founding fathers envisioned. They envisioned members of Congress taking a break from their job to serve their country for a few years, and then returning to their "real job." Plus, the term of the President has shown that 4 years is plenty of time to get in office, get a handle on the issues that are facing the country, and try to fix those issues. So it seems that 4 years simply strikes the right balance when attempting to put term limits in place.

Overhaul,,,, Why don't you just scrap the US Constitution & start all over? ---- It doesn't look like you've read it

Just a thought, who profits from the interst paid on the national debt and what would the motivation be to remove those interst payments?

One of the problems I have with their proposals is that they do NOT define HOW that federal campaign fund is going to be funded. I still feel that the Election/Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits constitutional amendments that were proposed in July 2009 and that I have been promoting here on Newsvine ever since I helped finance the creation of the very minimal cost of the website is a much better defined direction for us to go. Join the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampaignreform.us, download the petitions, sign them and circulate them among family, friends, and neighbors. Help form local, county, regional, and state-wide grassroots groups to help push these petitions through to your Secretary of State.

For those of you too lazy to go to the site, here are the two amendments for you to read at least. Note Sections 4, 5, and 6 and the definitive methods of campaign financing

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

@ Jim: I ensure you we are both knowledgeable about the Constitution and we have the utmost respect for it. However, the Constitution was designed to be a living document that would be updated over time as the world around it changed. And that is precisely what this Act proposes to do: to make updates to our governmental systems to combat problems and issues that did not exit 200 years ago and were not envisioned by our founding fathers. These are precisely the types of changes that our founding fathers intended when they provided for procedures to amend the Constitution. I encourage everyone to check out the American Overhaul Act at www.americanoverhaulact.org and, if you agree with the proposals, show you support and share the Act and the website with your friends, family, and state and federal elected representatives.

Jaybee

The 2 year term was intended to allow business and farmers to serve in government for one term and then return to the business or farm. Being the House is the originator of all spending bills, they would be more sensitive in keeping spending down, because they have to pay taxes too.

The 6 year Senate term was intended to be a check on the rapid, turn over of the House. Originally, the Senators were selected by the state legislatures. They were to be the voice of the state governments, expected to be more experienced in government, and better educated than members in the House

The 4 year term for presidents. 2 or three years is not long enough for an excutive, 6 years is too long. 4 years matches up better with the terms of the house and senate.

Making term limits causes a decrease in effectiveness of any pollitician. The second they are re-elected for the last term, they are already a lame duck. We don't need that. Notice in congress that the sitting members wait as long as possible to announce retirement. They have to permit enough time for the party to find someone else to run for the seat they are surrendering at the end of the term.

Overhaul,

You left out the most important one, eliminate lobbyists. That is the heart of the problem. Any system that institutionalizes legalized bribery is doomed to corruption. Start with that one and you might have a chance to make a difference and get something passed.

assure not ensure

@ DB Akron

Making term limits causes a decrease in effectiveness of any pollitician. The second they are re-elected for the last term, they are already a lame duck.

This issue was a problem that was strongly considered and debated during the formulation of the American Overhaul Act. Some of the reasons as to why we eventually determined that this was not a sufficient problem to overcome the benefits of term limits are:

1. First, the real issue with a lame duck does not arise until after a Congress member's successor has already been elected, and that will still be only the very last months of the member's term. So, the addition of term limits will really have only a negligible effect on the largest part of the lame duck problem.

2. One major argument as to why a lame duck Congress member loses effectiveness is that, once his retirement is announced, the member has lost all his vote-trading power with other Congress members, and therefore has lost power within the Congress to push through his own legislation. However, that problem is somewhatunique to the situation we are in today where many members of Congress stay beyond two terms and the turnover rate is very low. This would not really be an issue if 1/2 of the members were in that situation every two years as 1/2 the Congress would have similarly lost this power. Thus, this issue will truly be minimal under the term limit amendment proposed by the American Overhaul Act.

3. The other major concern that people have with a lame duck elected representative is that the member does not face the consequences of his or her actions with the constituents because the member no longer has to worry about reelection. However, this argument is really a red herring for a few reasons. First, we have had term limits on our president for many years, and we do not see presidents going crazy in their second term and making ridiculous decisions and votes. Further, this argument is based on the thought that the people we elect cannot be trusted and must be kept in control by constant reelection. We should not be electing people with that thought in mind, however. If the candidate cannot be trusted, he should never be elected in the first place. Moreover, with the other amendments in the American Overhaul Act in place, elected representatives should be more focused on the needs and desires of the American people as opposed to the desires of the party and the few large contributors to that party, so this concern would be minimized anyway. Plus, the other amendments would allow for more candidates to run in an election, so there would be more chances at finding a trustworthy candidates in an election. Lastly, to some extent it would be good for a Congress member to not have to worry about reelection all the time since that might allow the member to more freely make those hard choices that are good for the country but would still be unpopular with constituents. An example of this would be voting for an annual budget that is balanced: that would clearly be good for the country, since we cannot continue on the current path we are on of borrowing to overspend, but any budget that is balanced will no doubt be "painful" for many Americans, and therefore unpopular, because it will involve some amount of spending cuts and/or tax increases. For all these reasons, the issue of Congress members not facing consequences for their votes in their lame duck term is not really an issue.

In addition to determining that the downsides are minimal, the American Overhaul Act organization also made a determination that there are numerous benefits to having term limits, which benefits greatly outweigh the small downsides discussed above. The full PDF of the Act, which includes all of the support and analysis for this term limits amendment, can be found at www.americanoverhaulact.org. However, a brief excerpt of the rationale behind this amendment is set forth below:

"Over the past century, elected officials have become career politicians rather than short term public servants, as they were in the time of our forefathers, which is problematic for a numerous reasons. Two major issues that arise with career politicians relate to the constant needto campaign for reelection. First, this causes our elected officials to waste much time and energy that should be spent solving the problems facing America on the campaign trail or worrying about their reelection campaign. This lack of focus on the task for which they were elected is clearly a major detriment to the effectiveness of our government, and therefore a huge downside to having career politicians. Secondly, the career politician's constant need to generate campaign funds tends to produce politicians that have become beholden to some organization or group thatwill only continue to fund reelection campaigns if that politician focuses on the issues that are important to that organization, or, even worse, if the politician acts, speaks, and votes in a manner that is favorable to that organization. This causes these politicians to focus too much on the interests of that one organization to the detriment of every other constituent that is not providing them with the massive campaign funding that they need to get reelected."

With all of that said, the advantages that term limits provide definitely outweigh any downsides of the amendment, and therefore we sincerely believe that this amendment, and the American Overhaul Act in general, would greatly benefit our country. Again, I encourage every American to check out the Act at www.americanoverhaulact.org.

@ Tex2c2: The lobbyist issue is actually fully dealt with in our campaign finance reform amendment. That amendment disallows any company or organization to contribute to a candidate's campaign, which would include lobbyists. Without the ability to contribute to campaigns, lobbyists will have lost all their "legal bribery" power (if they try to give money not through campaign donations, this is just traditional bribery, which is already illegal).

@ LAS-3509990: Good catch! I realized that typo right after the correction period for my comment ended. That is what happens when you make posts late at night, I guess.

Will all you (----) please shut up about term limits? Some of us have very good congressmen and senators and want to keep them.

As somebody else wrote, "We do have term limits.They're called elections."

If your representative is good and working for you, work to reelect him/her. If he/she is not good, work to get rid of him/her. If you can't tell whether your representative is good, please stay away from the polling place.

Goodness! I thought this was supposed to be a comment board, not for posting the first draft of War and Peace!

I didn't have time to write a 100 word post so I wrote a 1,000 word post and said the same thing, a little less elegantly though.

Newt is pig in oh so many ways. He's a pig with your money (big government spending), he's a pig with bling(think tiffany's), he's a pig with women (cast-off wives, philandering), he's a pig with your votes (unreliable on important issues).

Why do you like him again?? oh yeah, he's good at debatin........YEESH!!!

One thing that most Americans don't know and the powers that be keep quiet about is that, in the constitution, there are two ways an amendment can be made to the constitution.

1 Congress can propose one, and once approved, it takes three quarters of the states to ratify.

2 If two-thirds of the states demand one.

It is the second that is of importance to the people. Just as you can get a proposition in any state to change that states constitution, it can be done on the federal level also.

While it would be a little to aggressive in my opinion, I will use it as an example.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment(the governments right to tax)

1 Get a prop on all state ballots demanding immediate repeal of the 16th

2 Convince the public that it is right for America

3 If 2/3 of the props pass, it forces the US Congress to address the Repeal

4 If 3/4 of the props pass, it becomes an Amendment.

While cutting all purse strings may be too harsh, there are many things that can be addressed by the vote of the people on props. Such as: Balanced Budget, Abortion, Death Penalty, Gay Marriage, Making Lobbying Illegal

I'll be happier when one candidate has the courage to take into consideration the values of the non-ultra-conservatives among us who also vote; those who do not believe that we need to populate the Earth as much as possible with humans so that we finally perish for lack of resources.

@ john-737278: That is an excellent point, and that is our preferred method of getting these amendments passed, since Congress most certainly will not be willing to pass them themselves.

@Overhaul,
The problem with messing with our constitution is that your conservative values are not the only ideas that exist in this country. If you are allowed to add more amendments then you have to realize so can the left. This is why I wouldn't support any tampering with the constitution of any kind. There will come a day when both the extreme right and the extreme left will exhibit power in this country, and I don't want either extremes messing with the constitution.

Dem in Texas-2291575

That would be the beauty of using props to force changes. It would be the people of America on both sides deciding the issues, and would take politics and politicians out of the loop. For too long politicians have used the issues I have stated to divide, rather than bring together.

If you think this unnecessary mud slinging ... rather than stating their plans to get us out of this mess ... is ugly ... wait until it's time for the barrage of really UGLY stuff they will throw at Obama ....

Sick Politics ..............

It's sad when "Showing That You Are Willing To Work With The Other Side" is a Negative!!!!!

And this is the main problem we have "Today"!!!!!!!

Another episode of Short Attention Span Theater. This one is called Time Machine Politics-Back to the 19th Century. Starring the republican presidential field featuring Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, with Newt Gingrich covered in Rick Santorum.

Geez,

And they talk about the OWS needing jobs. My excuse is that I'm retired, but where do you people find the time to type all this?. Like our friend in Texas, I am very reluctant to tamper with the constitution for any reason. That's all we need is a red amendment today, a blue one tomorrow, pretty soon we have a Constitution that looks like it was written by Rick Perry, the guy who before he wanted to run this country, wanted to secede from it.

It seems to me that all of this, save for one very important thing is all totally superfluous. If we had election reform, specifically, if the candidates needed to talk to US instead of corporate and special interest money, everything else would fall into place. We wouldn't need the rest of it. If the politicians are answerable to their constituents and have to depend on serving the people they represent to get elected instead of pandering to some super-pac halfway around the country, it would solve all the problems you present.

We already have term limits! They are called elections. If the politicians are answerable to the people instead of being wired into the money stream when they get elected then we can oust them at will. The biggest problem I see with term limits is that it eliminates 'Statesmen'. I know in these days of 8% approval ratings, it's hard to remember that there used to be Statesmen but eventually term limits make it so that not only does no one know what they are doing, but there's no one to ask.

Why do you want to micro manage the congress when the only real thing that needs to happen is for the congress to become answerable to the people again. Do that, and the congress will get rid of the electoral college and everything else you want.

You seem to want to completely overhaul the washing machine before you simply try changing detergents. Get special interest money out of elections and you'll find out if your ideas are what 'the people' really want. If we have politicians who's jobs honestly depend on their ability to connect with and represent the people of their district, all your other problems will magically disappear without messing with the constitution.

Why give yourself an uphill battle of trying to convince people to support six different principles? Maybe some of us don't agree with every one of them. If our Representatives really represented us, then the ideas you present would gain popularity and become law or not according to the will of the people.

You are proposing major surgery and a program of therapy for a problem that simply needs a band-aid. A very big and hard to attach band-aid, I admit. But it is ultimately easier to do and more germane to apply the band-aid.

All they have to do is run this ad:

• Charged with 85 counts of ethics violation.
• In return for his resignation, 84 of those were dropped.
• Fined $300,000 for the one not dropped.
• He left Congress in disgrace.

Who in their right mind is gonna nominate somebody like this to be the President of the United States?????????

And I predict Newt will get almost no woman's vote based on the fact that he has acted like a complete pig and looks like a complete pig.
If you knutbaggers pick Knut Gingrich, Obama's re-election is assured. How you gonna win without the woman vote, geniuses???

Newt the "Crook" What happen to the "CODE of HONOR" with your insider deals $1.6 million you took from freddie mac. ( That was Tax payers money )

To not stay distracted by the writings here and try to get back on topic for this article, May I state my uncompromising support for Newt Gingrich as the Republican candidate. I am 100% behind him.

Of course, I should point out that the only reason I am an independant instead of a Democrat is because the Democrats are too far to the right.

People who support Newt, no matter what your politics, either are very young or have really awful memories. This is the many who said "Play my way or I'll take my bat and ball and go home." and then shut down the government to prove it. He and the Republicans took years to recover from that one. I'd love to see Obama able to go up against someone who could be defeated if he ran unopposed. His voting record? HIs personality? His loyalty to his spouses? His business dealings? Snidley Whiplash could run against him as a reformer.

I can't think of anything better for the country than unelectable Newt stealing the Republican nomination. I can't think of anyone who more embodies the true spirit of the TeaBaggers. Be careful what you wish for. Even Faux news can't spin Newt.

- Congressional Term Limits:

There are several problems with term limits. It means too many legislators with little or no experience, relying on career bureaucrats and aides, who would end up the real power brokers. With no re-elections, it reduces the political risk of passing unpopular legislation benefiting themselves. There is no guarantee the replacements will be any better, it increases the risk of running out of good candidates, leaving us with less desirable candidates. But worst of all, if we got someone who did an excellent job we couldn't keep them! A much better solution would be to inform the voters on how long each incumbent has been in office, and their record, and let the voters decide if they've been in office too long, or not long enough.

- Federal Campaign Finance Reform:

Great, except for one problem - we're already running huge deficits, the last thing we need is to add yet another demand on government funds, one that isn't really necessary.

- Congressional Size Limits: House of Representatives will be permanently fixed at 300 members.

Cannot work mathematically and maintain fair proportional representation. The worst idea of the lot.

- Congressional Compensation:
- Eliminate Party Favoritism:

Great, but you'd never get either one of those past Congress, or even the state legislators, and that's what it would take to get such an amendment passed.

- Federal Budget-Deficit Reform:

There was a reason why the original writers of the Constitution specifically allowed Congress to borrow monies - it helps in dealing with emergencies, and it allows the Government to invest in big potentially profitable things like bridges and canals and dams. The only real problem is when Government borrows money for things that are not emergencies and are not potentially profitable, that happens far too often. For those things, the Government should either raise taxes or limit spending to whatever tax revenue is available.

Lets see Congress actually balance any budget before putting such a restrictive amendment in place.

Gingrich bombarded by negative mailers in Iowa

Oh yeah, and all those brain children from Iowa concern me - not.

@ CM-6969: The reasons that these arguments are not persuasive or are greatly outweighed by the advantages afforded by these amendments are fully set forth in the full PDF of the Act, which you can download from "The Act" page of the American Overhaul Act website at www.americanovergaulact.org. I will not go into them all here because of the amount of space it would take. But, as an example, to make a fully-funded federal election campaign wold cost less than $30 per taxpaying household per year, which I think most people would gladly pay in order to remove the corruption from our election system and to refocus our elected representatives' efforts and energies on the American people as opposed to the desires of the parties with which they affiliate and the few large organizations that support those parties.

doem, nope, it's a tea bagging circle jerk. This is funny as all get out. And I see where Mitt told another wopper. He said when he lived in Paris, he lived in some places where there were no refrigerators, etc, etc. Must be hell mittens, when you can't tell the truth about the palace where you really stayed.

The truly sad thing is the conservative voters. Like lemmings, they follow the ass-end of the fool just in front of them, and never stop to think about the cliff they are about to go over. Out in front of the herd is a propaganda piece from Ailes (FOX) or Armey (Tea Party manipulator).

Republicans/Tea Baggers are intellectually bankrupt. They are morally bankrupt. And they are prepared to bankrupt the country with their foolishness. They demanded and received a tax cut to pay for an unnecessary war. They demanded and received tax benefits for their fraudulent theory that "job creators" need tax breaks or they will hold jobs hostage. Now they'll do anything necessary to avoid the costs of freedom all while wrapped in their flags and hoisting their bibles.

With any luck the conservatives will follow their politicians over that next cliff.

I see where Mitt told another wopper. He said when he lived in Paris, he lived in some places where there were no refrigerators, etc

Actually, long ago he did do missionary work for his church in Paris, wasn't exactly luxury accommodations but with his millionaire dad paying the bills it was hardly the hardship he claims.

But the really interesting thing is how he never lets on that he learned to speak French! Oh, no, the Teaparty would never condone a French speaking President! Hmm, come to think of it, Gingrich spent some time in France, too...

Yawn!

Oooh, physical Conservatives!

Why would China want an environmental mess on their hands Casca, when fiscally it doesn't make sense anyway?

It doesn't create that many jobs, it far exceeds it's estimated costs & it's just temporary positions that will vanish as soon as it is built benefiting nobody but the companies who own it

A little issue you seem to be somewhat confused about- if an unborn is "smuggled" into this country, I assume you mean it was subsequently born in the US. The laws of the land say that such a baby is therefore a natural born US citizen, not an illegal alien as your rant describes.

Please try to be accurate with legal issues if you want anyone to listen.

tex2c2, you are correct, but if that child is born in the US to illegal parents, that child has until 18 years old to declare what their citizenship is. In the meantime, they can be deported unless they declare US citizenship, and can prove they were born here.

If you think the price of oil will go down with this Keystone pipeline your wrong. The market could be flooded with oil and speculation will keep the price up. Foreign oil suppliers are not the problem its the oil speculators. Thank former Senator phil graham for dropping regulations on the purchase of oil. Here is a good example of deregulation. Want more just elect more republican/tea baggers.

Casca, for you information, talking about the pipeline...the majority of the oil going down it and refined in Texas is already set to be sold to China. What have you been reading? It is not for American use.

but if that child is born in the US to illegal parents, that child has until 18 years old to declare what their citizenship is. In the meantime, they can be deported unless they declare US citizenship, and can prove they were born here.

Read what Constitutional Amendment 14 actually states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Nothing about "having to declare" or anything on age 18, it doesn't even mention having to prove location of birth (though obviously it could be difficult to prove you were a citizen if you couldn't prove you were born here or naturalized).

Jeez, it would really help if the Teapublicans would actually read the Constitution and try to understand it, rather than worship it and pretending it says something it doesn't.

They could, but Sarah Palin missed the deadline.

Vet, I don't think we're done with Sarah, it's not her style. I could see something wacky like Trump/Palin as Independents. It's been a strange Republican Primary, and it we're not done.

No, because when you run for POTUS there is supposed to be a thing called vetting. Newt has already tossed out the baby with the bath water, including a few wives, and he still thinks that his "omnipresence" will withstand this campaign.

A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS, WHEN WE HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A LESSER OF TWO EVILS.

Just my opinion.

Sorry, super x, but if a totally inept zero like Obama can get elected, anybody can, no matter their "baggage".

spider, allow me to correct you there. It was GWBush you were talking about - the inept zero thingie. Lie louder, we still cannot hear you above the din of truth.

Perry is validation that you don't have to be smart to be Governor of Texas. Like Bush, you just have to baffle them with BS. Americans were fooled once, electing an idiot, and now they want someone with a brain.

Newt, Romney, Paul and Huntsman are intelligent and each would easily debate Obama, another intelligent lifeform. The best candidate with the least baggage is Jon Huntsman. The baggage he does carry is irrelevant, his religion and his respect for human rights.

Yes, I'm sorry but I really do feel embarrassed for the people of Texas now that Perry has been exposed. I will feel worse for the whole USA if someone like Blingrich represents America as President or even as a nominee for President!.......

spider-737231 , you must be one of the TP thugs. Participated in any Voter intimidation lately??? Stop the Hate crimes!!!!

Yuk! Why are you saying such cruel things about Tina Fey? Newt is an old, fat pig. Not something most women, or men for that matter, would want to see naked.

Then let him get a job as an airport greater,,, Paul is too freaky for even the right.. But then again, the right is usually wrong about everything

Darn right. Ron Paul is honest. Just look at the support from our soldiers. If we count them up, his military supporters out number all the other candidates added together, including Obama. They are sending you a message America. I sure hope you give them the respect they deserve and listen to what they understand and are telling us. Ron also wants to reduce the pay if he is elected back down to the average income. I cant remember the number exactly but its less than 40,000. He feels if anyone in politics wants more than the average income, then help the average worker increase their income. Makes sense. Also his door has been closed to the lobbyist for 40 years because he feels its just wrong to buy off leaders. Just follow the constitution. Its the OATH. When have you ever seen, Or ever going to see another person with such proved principles again?

i have been a progressive supporter of Paul for years. His "tell it like it is" approach is unequalled in the morass of lying politicians that make up our local, state, and federal governments. While I do not agree 100% with his solutions, I find fresh air in his honesty that seems more important for a healthy future for our kids.

The problem is that he is too outspoken about the corruption.

How in the hell is he going to get past the system by pointing out that it is corrupt? Oh, well, maybe we can help!

Ron Paul - 2016!

I like a lot of Ron Paul's foreign policy views, and with the exception of his opposition to the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, his domestic policies wouldn't be too bad. But the man has the economic understanding of a below-average third grader. The man's a cake-eater; a clown. And thankfully, despite his supporters being the loudest in the room, he'll never get enough of the vote to compete with anyone other than Rick Santorum.

I had no idea the Supreme Court ruling as it pertains to unlimited Super PAC money would come to this. This is the epitome of the law of unintended consequences.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars used to generate an onslaught of sludge. A total sensory overload of muti media lies, obfuscation, deceit, spin, noise and confusion all in an attempt to get a lemming to pull a voting lever

Sludge refers to the residual, semi-solid material left from....... well @!$%# ! and leave it at that.

Corporations are a person ????

When is the last time you saw an ambulance respond and transport a Domino's, Microsoft, or other "person in this case" to the hospital ?

Oh.... I get it , The Supreme Court said so! Guess I'll have get out my old world map's where we go back to the world being flat.

No ambulances, but I did see the folks in Washington hook up an IV and administer a colossal transfusion of money into Wells Fargo JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs. Does that count?

I haven't seen your face in a while i like what i see betterof the GOP than you.

I say, write in Pat Paulson, even though he died a couple of decades ago. He was the best non-candidate candidate ever to run for the office. Your other option is Nevada's NONE OF THE ABOVE or the USVI's NO VOTE option that appear on their ballot/voting machine. If your state doesn't allow for either of those options, write one of them in. What would your Secretary of State and Elections Boards do if the majority of the votes case were for either of these options? I've never been able to get our Elections Board to answer that question. BTW, here in the USVI, we essentially vote for "at large" senators for our 15 member legislature (seven from St. Croix, seven from St. Thomas/St. John....one voting district, and one "at-large" who must be a resident of St. John.) So if NO VOTE takes the highest number of votes, then does that mean that none of the seven from a district gets elected? Or just the top six below the NO VOTE since the top seven vote getters get the seven district seats?

Hey Jim,

He won't be around too much longer, as there is a web site that the Fed's wish us all to copy, paste, and direct to them. And guess what????? Copy and paste !

http://www.iprcenter.gov/referral

The political system as it exists today is a consequence of the failure of the large segment of the American electorate to go to the polls and vote AGAINST the "windbag losers" and FOR candidates of merit. Because we've allowed the system to evolve to the sad mess it's become, fixing it involves effort, which we, as a nation, don't seem to have the will to exert; it's easier to let the media do our thinking for us and then whine about their slanted reporting. As a country we've done harder things; unfortunately, it seems to take disasters to get us off our collective duffs and make a difference. As the saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, then YOU are the problem.

So is nancy pelosi. its amazing how you can come to congress broke and make 10 million a year by the time you leave and still have the gall to play the race and class warefare card. Its great comedy.

Mr. Hitchens was one of our most profound modern intellectuals. He will be sorely missed.

someone needs to stop eating paint chips and believe it or not ron paul is not the great Libertarian so many of you that believe ron pauls views are so great think of all the things he wants to get rid of and then think of how your life will be with out it (ie clean drinking water, building codes, highways) the things you use everyday are only possible because of the government ron paul wants to shut down to live out his little fantasy

JMRJM, I totally agree. I would vote for any Republican candidate over Obama, except, Paul!

Not 5 mailers total, that's 5 mailers sent to thousands of Iowans, darn near all Iowans that are registered Republican.

Starderup, leave Newt alone - he was paid for his historical knowledge and nothing more. (sarcasm)