31 Jan 04
I thought Howard Dean sounded like he'd make a really refreshing change, but I guess he's probably blown his chances now. Wesley Clark got a lot of coverage over here when he first announced he was standing, but his campaign doesn't seem to have got off the ground. Realistically, it's looking like Kerry isn't it?
Rich.
31 Jan 04
1 edit
Originally posted by richhoeyI can't vote, but I wanted to bring up a point concerning Kerry's chances. For those of us with a good enough memory and who are old enough... we remember a brash young rich kid... rich enough to hire a 64 mm film crew to accompany him into battle. We remember him coming home and commissioning pol's to see if he had improved his political capital. We remember him joining the anti-war movement. We remember him standing on the steps of the capitol building, throwing his good conduct medals against the wall. But mostly we remember that he was the ONLY ONE of the hundred or so war veterans who threw his "Silver Star" for valor , OR ANY medal for valor, up against the wall. All just to get elected. Does anyone think that IF old SVW remembers, some footage of that will not surface? Interesting. Dean... who shot his foot off early? Or Kerry... who did it years ago? I feel bad for the Democratic party. I really do.
I thought Howard Dean sounded like he'd make a really refreshing change, but I guess he's probably blown his chances now. Wesley Clark got a lot of coverage over here when he first announced he was standing, but his campaign doesn't see ...[text shortened]... round. Realistically, it's looking like Kerry isn't it?
Rich.
31 Jan 04
Originally posted by kirksey957You, a Republican? I'm stunned. I thought for sure that you'd be a Democrat. This will give me extra incentive to crush your clan in battle.
OK, Rob, I won't vote as I am a Repupblican, but I thought it would be interesting if you would provide some commentary/critique of your candidates.
I've watched the last two Democratic debates and my assessment is as follows:
Dennis Kucinich: He's actually my favorite, but he has no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency.
Al Sharpton: I have been very impressed with Sharpton. He's the best speaker of the group, and is usually good for an amusing quip or two. But I will never vote for a minister.
Joe Lieberman: He's the one I like the least. He's the most conservative of the group. He may as well be a liberal Republican. Say it ain't so, Joe.
Wesley Clark: A complete waste of time. I was very unimpressed with his performance in the debates. I can't understand why Michael Moore endorsed him.
John Edwards: I've been favorably impressed with him. But not enough to vote for him. As Mmanuel pointed out, he might make a good vice-presidential nominee. It'll give the Democrats more clout in the south.
Howard Dean: Even though his candidacy looks to be floundering, he's the one I'll probably vote for in the February 7th Michigan primary. I like his fighting spirit and the fact that he's not afraid to say what's on his mind. This quality has cost him politically, but I like it. Plus he has performed the valuable function of pulling the Democratic party more towards the left.
John Kerry: I have to admit that he probably has a better chance of beating Bush than Dean does, which is an important consideration. It wouldn't break my heart if he won the nomination. I'd vote for him against Bush (but I guess that goes without saying).
31 Jan 04
Originally posted by rwingettSee there, not all Republicans are bad people. You must be in a terrible quandry as some of the people you are impressed with and like you would never vote for. I will give you this. The Democrats are in a better position even if they lose this next election. Why? Simply because there are more choices that they offer for 2008. If Bush does win reelection, I cannot see Cheney running for president.
You, a Republican? I'm stunned. I thought for sure that you'd be a Democrat. This will give me extra incentive to crush your clan in battle.
I've watched the last two Democratic debates and my assessment is as follows:
Dennis Kucinich: He's actually my favorite, but he has no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency.
Al Shar ...[text shortened]... if he won the nomination. I'd vote for him against Bush (but I guess that goes without saying).
31 Jan 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Fun with syllogisms:
See there, not all Republicans are bad people. You must be in a terrible quandry as some of the people you are impressed with and like you would never vote for. I will give you this. The Democrats are in a better position even if they lose this next election. Why? Simply because there are more choices that they offer for 2008. If Bush does win reelection, I cannot see Cheney running for president.
A. All Republicans are bad people
B. Kirk is a Republican
C. Therefore, Kirk is a bad person
You see? A perfectly valid argument.
I have wondered about 2008 as well. If the Democrats lose this time around, it looks like Hillary in 2008. Who will the Republicans have to offer? Cheney? He's a nonentity. They don't have anyone waiting in the wings. Their days are numbered.
31 Jan 04
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957And that is the ENTIRE POLICY of the REAL powers in the Democratic party. They are PLANNING on losing this year. Then they have a Clinton/Clark or Clinton/Edwards ticket in 2008. By the way, you notice that the "real power" is always tied up in the "big money"? That is to say... it still sets with the OWNERS of W.J. Clinton and the people who purchased him at the age of 11 and built a president? If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.
See there, not all Republicans are bad people. You must be in a terrible quandry as some of the people you are impressed with and like you would never vote for. I will give you this. The Democrats are in a better position even if the ...[text shortened]... does win reelection, I cannot see Cheney running for president.
It would pay all citizens of earth to see who bought W.J. and invested over three million dollars in creating a president. If you don't investigate it for youself you won't believe it. It is a story beyond belief. Let's just say that PR rules. The true story makes "Wag The Dog" seem tame and innocuous. And this guy still OWNS billy and hilly.
31 Jan 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNOw wait a minute. Are you saying that someone bought Bill Clinton at age 11 and decided to make him president? KInd of reminds me of a Saturday Night Live spoof on Pat Robertson once where he claimed Hitler's brain was being kept alive in Paraguay.
And that is the ENTIRE POLICY of the REAL powers in the Democratic party. They are PLANNING on losing this year. Then they have a Clinton/Clark or Clinton/Edwards ticket in 2008. By the way, you notice that the "real power" is always tied up in the "big money"? That is to say... it still sets with the OWNERS of W.J. Clinton and the people who purcha ...[text shortened]... story makes "Wag The Dog" seem tame and innocuous. And this guy still OWNS billy and hilly.
31 Jan 04
Originally posted by kirksey957What a waste of refrigerant! I am just saying that it is out there. You will have to devote some effort into going to Hope, Arkansas. See what W.J.'s name was at birth. See who supported his mother. See who paid for his education, including the "Rhodes". By the way... while you are at it... read the small print on those scholorships. You might be surprised to discover a "brittism" there. Like much in societies that are based on a caste system, you can purchase anything you need if you have the money. Including a "Regiment" and command of it.
NOw wait a minute. Are you saying that someone bought Bill Clinton at age 11 and decided to make him president? KInd of reminds me of a Saturday Night Live spoof on Pat Robertson once where he claimed Hitler's brain was being kept alive in Paraguay.