|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 415 of 536:
| 
Dec 10 21:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 416 of 536:
|
Dec 10 21:47 UTC 2003 |
A Clark vs. Bush race would be interesting. Or Lieberman vs. Bush.
I've always wondered what would happen if two Republicans ran against
each other for President.
|
scott
|
|
response 417 of 536:
|
Dec 10 23:36 UTC 2003 |
Interesting, anyway. Lieberman tends to rub me the wrong way for some reason,
but not as much as Bush. Dean or Clark would be interesting.
|
jp2
|
|
response 418 of 536:
|
Dec 10 23:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 419 of 536:
|
Dec 11 01:03 UTC 2003 |
Lieberman is too sanctimonious for me. He is less so, though, than
Bush.
|
richard
|
|
response 420 of 536:
|
Dec 11 07:10 UTC 2003 |
The problem is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt are traditional democrats.
They symbolize the Democratic leadership in Congress in the nineties when the
Demcrats became the minority party there. They do not inspire any passion.
People don't care about them, they see them as politics as usual, and I do
not think they will vote out Bush in favor of someone who represents the
same-old same-old
Dean inspires a great deal of passion, particularly among younger voters.
Gore recognizes this. He recognizes that the party can't beat Bush without
a candidate they can get passionate about. They can't get passionate about
and aren't getting passionate about these others. It is Dean that has the
grass roots movement behind him and that means it is Dean who has the best
chance to beat Bush. General Clark is the only alternative IMO and I think
there is too much distrust of the military among the party's rank and file
to nominate a general.
But what does that leave for the strongest ticket, the ticket that could
inspire the most independent voters, and the most new voters, logically a
Dean/Clark ticket. Face it, if Gephardt or Kerry run against Bush, a lot of
voters won't care. They'll stay home. They'll see the same-old same-old.
Why replace Bush with one of the Democratic leadership in Congress when many
voters think both sides have failed in recent years? To win, to beat Bush,
the Democrats must give the voters someone different, someone outside
Washington who has shown political skills and the willingness to get right
in Bush's face and stare him down. That is Howard Dean.
|
remmers
|
|
response 421 of 536:
|
Dec 11 12:30 UTC 2003 |
According to a story in today's New York Times, Bush's advisers are
now assuming that Dean will be his opponent in 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/politics/campaigns/11REPU.html?hp
|
other
|
|
response 422 of 536:
|
Dec 11 15:29 UTC 2003 |
I'm assuming America will be his opponent.
|
twenex
|
|
response 423 of 536:
|
Dec 11 15:51 UTC 2003 |
rotflmao. How true.
|
remmers
|
|
response 424 of 536:
|
Dec 11 17:15 UTC 2003 |
(We can hope...)
|
klg
|
|
response 425 of 536:
|
Dec 11 17:24 UTC 2003 |
One word for Mr. richard: George McGovern
(Go, How-weird! Go, Weasley! Our "dream ticket.")
|
rcurl
|
|
response 426 of 536:
|
Dec 12 02:07 UTC 2003 |
Don't you wish.....
|
bhoward
|
|
response 427 of 536:
|
Dec 12 03:19 UTC 2003 |
So which word was it Mr. Klg, "George" or "McGovern"?
|
klg
|
|
response 428 of 536:
|
Dec 12 03:32 UTC 2003 |
(Hey. We ought to know. We campaigned for him.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 429 of 536:
|
Dec 12 15:18 UTC 2003 |
(Yet more confirmation of my long-standing observation that ex-liberals
make the most tiresome conservatives. ;-)
|
gull
|
|
response 430 of 536:
|
Dec 12 15:20 UTC 2003 |
Not surprising. The most annoying and overly evangelistic religious
people are always the freshly converted, as well.
|
klg
|
|
response 431 of 536:
|
Dec 12 17:09 UTC 2003 |
(We gotta make up for the foolishness of our youth.)
|
klg
|
|
response 432 of 536:
|
Dec 12 17:41 UTC 2003 |
(and for the foolishness of those who do not realize theirs)
|
willcome
|
|
response 433 of 536:
|
Dec 12 19:22 UTC 2003 |
Have you made up for Christopher Hitchens's?
|
remmers
|
|
response 434 of 536:
|
Dec 12 20:52 UTC 2003 |
I am curious about the reasons for Kerry's switch.
|
richard
|
|
response 435 of 536:
|
Dec 14 07:43 UTC 2003 |
1. McGovern ran a poor campaign, and had a disastrous convention, and then
three weeks later his runningmate Thomas Eagleton had to resign from the
ticket when it was revealed he'd had electroshock therapy.
2. McGovern ran out of money, went completely broke. That won't happen
with Dean, his campaign is and will continue to be extremely well funded.
3. Dean isn't as liberal as McGovern. Dean is a fiscal consevative who
is a strong advocate of balancing budgets instead of defecit spending.
Also as a governor of a rural state, he takes the view of his Vermont
constituents that gun control laws are a state issue. Consequently the
NRA gives him a pretty good rating, which tells you he's no McGovern.
4. McGovern's opponent was Richard Nixon, who broke laws and went to all
extents legal and otherwise to win (Watergate-- sound familiar?) Dean
won't have such slimeball tactics done to him. Oh wait, then again,
Dean would be running against Bush and his right hand men, Karl "The
Hatchet Man" Rove and "Dirty Dick" Cheney, so you never know right...
|
klg
|
|
response 436 of 536:
|
Dec 15 03:53 UTC 2003 |
1. The backbone of Dean's campaign is younger neophytes. If/when the
pros want to take over, it is likely to get messy.
2. The campaign may have been poorly funded, but even that doesn't
excuse the final electoral count.
3. The country has shifted to be more conservative than it was back
then.
4. McGovern was, at least, consistent in his stands. For example, he
didn't (as How-weird does) claim to have been against the war "from
the start" when the facts show otherwise.
5. McGovern was a war hero. He was no Dean.
6. No matter how often you repeat your childish/outlandish/untrue
accusations against President Bush and his staff, the country won't
believe you.
|
scott
|
|
response 437 of 536:
|
Dec 15 05:05 UTC 2003 |
5... are you planning on putting Bush's war record up for debate, klg?
I didn't think you had the guts, or were that stupid.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 438 of 536:
|
Dec 15 06:40 UTC 2003 |
I read 6. as a cry of desperation.
|
twenex
|
|
response 439 of 536:
|
Dec 15 09:11 UTC 2003 |
Re: 438. Heh heh heh, heh. MWAHAHAAAH!
|
