Sure they are good places from which to jump, but if people aren't motivated to take the steps to see for themselves, their opinions will be formed only by what they hear other people say.

Ex.  Hannity, while waffling on his support for McCain, says to support him regardless to prevent a Clinton or Obama presidency.

McCain is a trainwreck, himself.  This is an instance of a pseudo-conservative talk show host prodding his audience to vote for the lesser of two evils.  Hannity goes as far as to say that you will be "wasting your vote" if you do otherwise.

All of these guys are a good starting point, but most of them talk of treating symptoms.  Doing so will never cure disease.  Without delving deeply into the issues, people will blindly follow what these guys say and never question why simply because "these guys are smart, come to me through my TV and radio every day and I feel comfortable with them".

I'd throw in Glenn Beck, he seems to be very tired w/ the status quo of the parties...

The Hannitys, the Savages and the Limbaughs are the beginnings of independant thought.  They are the foundation to stand on whilst seeking more information.

The newspapers and 'news shows' are hardly informative; all are so repetitively grinding out a pimped-up version of the news to fit their agendas.

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. The incumbent wins every time, unless he has been caught red-handed taking a bribe or soliciting sex via text messages or in airport bathrooms. Unless we the people do something different, perhaps giving an alternative such as this a chance, we will continue to get the same politicians we already have.

I think questions like this are just another example of how the two parties try to scare people so they will not consider another way.

jays,

Most people, in my observations in conversations, are able to regurgitate details that they hear on the radio and on television media.  They are very passive and typically don't go to the actual sources of information to arm themselves to form their own opinion on a subject.  Most mainstream media outlets are biased toward one side or another on subjects, therefore their opinions are influenced by what they hear in other peoples' opinions.

Basically, what I am saying is, for the majority of people, you have to take the information to them rather than hoping they go looking for it.  An uninformed public without facts to form the opinion that things need to change, is unlikely to go looking for it.  I'm guilty of being as apathetic as the next guy to what's been going on around me.  It's only been in recent years that things have clicked and I decided to see the facts for myself and form my own opinions.

The Hannitys, the Savages and the Limbaughs had previously been the only basis on which my opinions were formed because it was easy to turn on a radio or TV and listen to THEIR opinions.  In the particular case of GOOOH, I would not have known about the initiative had I not heard Tim Cox on my local morning talk show,  I think more of this is required for folks to take notice.

Carl

It's true that with our current two-party system, any independent candidate ends up benefiting either the Democrat or Republican.  The best thing to happen to Bill Clinton in 1992 was Ross Perot's bid for the presidency.  Perot took so many votes away from George Bush Sr that Bill Clinton walked away victorious. 

This situation needs to change.  Independent candidates need to become a formidable presence in their own right, not simply spoilers for the Democrat or GOP candidate.  The only way this can happen is to increase the momentum of alternative candidates and get more and more people to vote for them.  Ultimately you reach a critical mass of votes for the independent and they have a decent shot a winning on their own merits, rather than simply draining votes from the two major parties.  Ideally you'll have several independents that make it this far, so you have a race between the Democrat and Republican and three or four viable independent candidates.  Then the voters get real choice and hear a variety of opinions.  This is what I see as the GOOOH movement providing. 

My $0.02.

CFuller, can you expound on your statement below?   I agree with the first three sentences, but what do you mean by the last two?  Seems to me the GOOOH inititiave is targeted directly at the people you're talking about.

If people will just wake up, we can band together successfully.  Unfortunately, most people don't seek information. They just go with what's shoved in their face.  I see the GOOOH initiative as no different.  You have to go to the people where they are most likely to be in order to get the information to them.

CFuller, can you expound on your statement below?   I agree with the first three sentences, but what do you mean by the last two?  Seems to me the GOOOH inititiave is targeted directly at the people you're talking about.

If people will just wake up, we can band together successfully.  Unfortunately, most people don't seek information. They just go with what's shoved in their face.  I see the GOOOH initiative as no different.  You have to go to the people where they are most likely to be in order to get the information to them.

One of the many benefits of GOOOH is that you can participate in the process and whatever "your" party is doing in parallel. Nobody can commit to voting for either candidate until November 4th, so let's work to identify the best 435 candidates we can and THEN decide if we would be throwing away a vote by voting for those that bubble to the top of our system . Anyone making that argument now is only trying to prevent us from having a choice - that is why,  historicially, 90-95% of those in office are re-elected; we have no choice. 

I believe strongly that the GOOOH candidates will be the preferred choice, but we don' thave to make that decision until next November. There is nothing to lose, other than the $100 donation, to give us another choice. I hope that America agrees that is a reasonable investment.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we continue to elect career politicians, funded by special interest groups, who are not held accountable, and who are controlled like puppets by their party, are we insane?