BILL WELD FOR PRESIDENT !!

Hell...Obama was heavily sponsored. All Republicans and most Democrats are sponsored by corporatists and as long as we continue to elect heavily sponsored politicians, we will have a government that is owned and indebted to a handful of wealthy people as opposed to truly working for the masses. Biden, Obama and Huntsman may be better than most but don't kid yourself, they are/were sponsored just like at least 90% of the politicians in congress. 85% of elections are won by candidates with the most money. That makes it extremely difficult for any politician who is genuinely interested in serving the masses over and above corporate interests to get elected. I don't disrespect all politicians - just most of them. I am not an anarchist and you're right, we do pay them, but so do corporate interests in the form of campaign financing and lobbying perks and promises. In many cases, their sponsors provide far superior benefits than their government salaries. This is evidenced by the small amount of time they spend legislating compared to fundraising. We can never have a representative government as long as wealthy corporatists control our elections. Swiftboat, Kenya, Muslim, birth certificate, college grades, etc., etc., etc., were all sponsored by corporate interests that put out false advertising...which costs a lot of money. If a politician refuses to do what a sponsor dictates, he/she risks having a challenger in the next primary who will be backed by the same corporatists who put him/her in office. EVERYTHING political that happens, happens because of money.

Don't give me your condescension keith . You're no better or smarter than anyone else here.

Apparently, you missed what I said. I said, "Biden, Obama and Huntsman may be better than most but don't kid yourself, they are/were sponsored just like at least 90% of the politicians in congress.

" The McCain/Feingold bill took place at a very different time in our history, well before the corruption had become so obvious to most voters, and the version of the bill that passed was very watered down from the original bill. Campaign financing has become one of the top issues to voters today, and we have a few candidates on our side who have made it a major part of their platforms - candidates who don't just talk the talk, but who walk the walk as well by refusing large donations and/or PAC money. Those are the people I will trust first before trusting anyone who has been sponsored by special interests.

You had asked regarding Huntsman, "Do you think Obama would have appointed him to his post as Ambassador to China if he felt he was bought and sold?
" My answer is yes. In light of the fact that Obama took special interest money himself, why would anyone think he wouldn't appoint someone who also took special interest money? Besides, if any president wants to appoint someone who is either currently or formerly a politician, he/she would have little choice but to appoint an owned politician since virtually all of them are owned. You tried to use the fact that since Obama appointed Huntsman ambassador to China, that's proof Huntsman wasn't "bought and sold" as you put it. That doesn't make sense when Trump appointed Huntsman ambassador to Russia. If that's your argument, Huntsman went from not too dirty to disgustingly filthy.

Everything is relative. Biden, Obama and Huntsman did a lot of good things for the masses which is what makes them "better than most," but when any politician is on the dole from special interests, it's impossible for us to trust they will always have our best interests at heart. For that reason, while I like them better than most, I'm not on the side of any of these men. I want a good reason for placing my trust in a politician. When a politician takes special interest money, he/she proves to be untrustworthy right out of the gate. We will never have a representative government as long as special interests are allowed to manipulate elections with advertising dollars, and control politicians once they're elected with lobbying perks.

keith , where pragmatism is concerned, it's pragmatic to want to eliminate big money from controlling our elections based on all the evidence that shows politicians who accepted money from special interests invariably vote in favor of their sponsors. Politicians are either sponsored by special interests or they're not. They've either been "bribed" or they haven't. Any level of bribery is still bribery and when it comes to people we've elected to represent our interests, there can be no compromise. I'm not saying corporate interests and the wealthy shouldn't have a say. I'm saying, their say shouldn't be correlated with money they've contributed to campaigns or PACs or lobbying efforts. That said, I am an idealist, but eliminating the ability of the wealthy to manipulate elections and politicians with money is pragmatic. No one should have that special privilege no matter how much money they have.

Well keith, you're not stupid so I'm sure you know exactly what I was getting at. It's easy to find exceptions to the rule but the bottom line is simple. As long as big moneyed interests are allowed to manipulate elections and politicians, we will never have a representative government - period.

Really? You might point that out to me. One thing I did say is that all Republicans are owned. I will also say, any politician who accepts special interest money is indebted to that special interest and therefore can't be trusted. I never said that a sponsored politician would (without exception) abide by their sponsor's demands, but when a politician does that, he/she risks sponsorship money going toward a competitor in the next primary. You seem to think that an "owned" government is something we must live with. That's not pragmatic. That's defeatist. Striving for an honorable government that isn't indebted to special interests isn't idealistic. It's pragmatic. Striving for an honest government makes perfect sense.

I will reiterate...I have no use for politicians who take special interest money. It's tantamount to bribery. That said, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, that person will have my vote in 2020 so I agree, getting rid of Trump is the #1 priority, but I hope it's someone who refuses special interest support. Let's see what the debates reveal.

i pray that the republicans nominate weld but unless something happens to trump it won't happen.pence should not be the nominee.