I don't disagree, but I think term limits for members of congress were deemed unconstitutional a while back. A system of publicly financed campaigns would, hopefully, do wonders. A system that makes politicians and potential politicians dependent on the people. Also, in Australia, 96% of people show up at the poles. 96%! It's not magic; we know how they did it and we can do it too. We don't need "safe-seats" for our representatives, we need competition. Getting rid of gerrymandering is doable. We don't need red states, blue states, and red and blue districts. We need a purple country, where the best candidate with the best ideas wins the nomination and, hopefully, the election.

That is a very good question. Where is he/she.

Colin Powell could have been such a leader, he would have made an awesome president IMHO, but he got thrown under the bus by the Republicans with the "aluminum tubes" business and then the Tea Party reviled him further, for speaking common sense instead of towing the party line of Tea Party dogma. Numerous "Blue Dog" Democrats had a shot at being bi-partisan, and were primary-challenged by their own party and then nuked by the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, making them a dwindling and largely irrelevant group today. John McCain in 2000 was very well respected and was not hated by Democrats at the time (and still is respected by many today as a voice of reason) and would very likely have defeated Al Gore in 2000. But Karl Rove and the religious right destroyed McCain with negative attack ads in the 2000 primary season, in favor of the less experienced, more hard-right George W. Bush... McCain in 2000 was an extremely viable candidate, and would have made for a VERY different decade in America IMHO, but by the time McCain ran again in 2008 it was too late, the damage had already been done.

Many on the right side hate and revile her, but in her actual track record Hillary is actually a pragmatic moderate and a decent statesperson...But of course the Democrats dumped her in favor of an unproven candidate with whom the Republicans (driven by the Tea Party) have openly declared they will choose not to work with him at all. In 2004 Howard Dean had a track record of being socially liberal, while fiscally conservative, which is in line with what polling data suggests that "average Americans" have said they want, or what works best with leading a divided country such as ours. If the country is evenly split, then socially liberal, fiscally conservative policies are the historically proven way to go, at least based on the past. Dean's actual track record as governor was moderate and implemented many Republican fiscal ideas...he had endorsements from elements of the left (Al Gore) and elements of the right (NRA)....but then he kind of imploded with The Scream, and the media on both sides absolutely torched him, instead of saying, hey, well at least the guy is human.

So it seems to me, the potential for real leaders are there. It's just not being implemented on either side.

Gawd this post is so full of BS my eyes are turning brown.

Name one thing the TEA party actually stands for that you don't like.

George W hard right? Are you freaking kidding me? The hard right despised GW for his frequent caving to the left and his spending like a Democrat.

My gawd I didn't think anyone could be this mislead. I guess thats how a Marxist like Obama comes into power. Hitler called you guys useful idiots. I just disagree with the useful part.

This birther thread has digressed into GOP vs. Demo name calling... it was about birthers guys.

Sadly, thread closed.