Ralph, you're kidding, right ?

Oooooooooookay...enlighten me. How did Bush steal the 2004 election?

Prove the precedent. I'll help you out. Of the 42 presidents, 17 were governors. Less than half. Not a precedent. Not a majority. FAIL!

And as far as qualifications, the real ones have nothing to do with a previous job (other than, if someone is removed from office, they can't run again, or if they have served twice in a row, they can't run again). They are:

be a natural-born citizen of the United States
be at least thirty-five years old
have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years

Widespread electoral fraud in Ohio?

While I'm sure some people wouldn't outright use the term "steal"; there was voter suppression, voter intimidation, fraud, gerrymandering, character assassination of a war hero, fear-mongering, etc...

Corrupt is a more accurate term. Democrats could hardly claim innocence; but the GOP sure set the precedence in that election.

Plus the fact that he didn't really win the 2000 election, so he was running as a false incumbent.

16 were. Thats almost 25 percent

War Hero? They couldnt locate anyone who served with him that even LIKED him, much less RESPECTED him. Character assassination?!?! Lets see.... Rathergate...ooops wrong guy.... ummm... tossing medals over the fence at the White House? "those wernt MY medals"-John Kerry

Then there is the divorce of one wealthy white widow so he could marry a wealtheir white widow? Character?!?! Do Gigolo's HAVE character?
As far as voter suppression goes, nobody is asking how a white, elitist female Democrat beat a black, male Democrat in HARLEM in an election.

The problem with 3rd party candidates is that instead of building a base and working their way up, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president. Take 4,8,12 years and build a viable party that people want to vote for and use it to run a state first to show that your party can get shit done. Once you have that kind of backing you can move to the national level.

And don't give me crap about people not wanting to wait that long or some crap the fundies spent the last 30 years getting their people into position slowly and methodically so it can be done if someone simply had the will to do it.

Yes, they are.

Wow, do you get a nickel for every time you're wrong about something?

Havnt seen THIS article in the evening news (guess I havnt been watching enough Fox News lately, they MIGHT be covering it) What page was this on in the print edition? Buried so far down that even the parrot couldn't shit on it?

My question is, HOW are they covering it? This isnt a headline anyplace.

Calling 16 out of 42 (actually, I counted 17, but anyway) a qualifying precedent is roughly equal to Bush calling his 51% victory over Kerry a "mandate from the masses." In other words . . .

Feel free to let us know when it reaches troll standards.

Troll standards are to use capslock for every word. Caps Lock is Cruise Control for Cool. This idiot is nothing more than an Imp-level Troll.

Hey, you're not on the line with Rush... You're going to have to actually be relevant instead of relying on Rovian talking points.

The problem with big party candidates is that instead of actually having their own opinions and standing for what they personally believe in, they expect to explode onto the scene and just get elected president.simply because of lot of voters can't see beyond the words "democrat" or "republican", as if all thoughts and opinions on the way governance should happen can be distilled down into one of these two groups.

Agreed, however the big two have alot of power because they can write the rules. A third party candidate needs to have that same base to build upon or they could have the best ideas in the world and the other two will simply steal them.

There is nothing stopping a legitimate multi-party election - gosh there are many parties. But, they will need to gain supporters and funding to make a difference.

It is highly possible to have a legitimate 3-4-5 way race, but it will take many years to evolve. First step is likley to get some seats in the house.

Write this day down. I agree with Oyagi

I disagree. Twenty years ago, I might have agreed, but that argument doesn't work anymore. Independents are the fastest growing group in American politics. And with cable news and internet media making the candidates much more highly visisble, it's not the same blind vote that you had back in the days of political machines and party bosses. Obviously many people are inclined to vote for one party or the other, simply because they polarize themselves on the issues. But individual candidates are very much in the public eye at least a year or two out from the Presidential election. Just look at this year's crop. Hillary has been around for almost twenty years. McCain ran in the last election and was highly visible in politics before that. The only relative newcomer is Obama, and he's been an elected official for a long time, though mostly at the state and local level. Also, most Presidential candidates, if they appear to come out of "nowhere" are actually just making themselves known in the public eye that spends most of its time not paying any damn attention. Ask most Americans who their reps in Congress are, and they couldn't even tell you.

Then you have Nader, who announces his candidacy about eight months out. It's not such a big deal there because 1)everyone who cares is pretty much aware of his platform and 2)not that many people care.

but none of this changes the fact that Nader hasn't made a real effort to build a viable third party as an option, nor the fact that he will, again, be completely defeated in the general election.

He looks like my homeless ex-roommate.

Nader has long since gotten too old and self-absorbed to realize that no one gives a fuck about his "point" anymore. In fact, so few now give a fuck, that his running will have a negligible effect on this election. He's kind of an activist morphed into a megalomaniac, but whatever. Ralph Nader? Meh.