John Kerry Must Go

[Reephdweller]

With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go.


From the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php)


This pretty much says it for me. I am not at all impressed with John Kerry. I think he's run a lousy campaign and that ultimately if things stay they way they are, than George Bush will be re-elected.

Kerry to me is uninspiring. He has nothing substantive to say. He has a horrible record of flip flopping. For all the arguments I can easily make about Bush, I can make the very same of Kerry.





<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'm not just saying this as a Republican, but I agree. The only thing Kerry has is that he isn't Bush, and that doesn't take him that far, considering he voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, 2 of the most despised elements of the Bush presidency for its detractors. He'll need a stellar running mate if he wants to make a more srious run. Ralph Nader would push him over the top, but that would never happen.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[WindowSill]

Indeed I am sorry those fucks screwed Howard Dean and Im still voting for Kerry. Im not saying hes going to be the second coming of...whoever you consider a good president, but its definitely time for a change. Id much rather Ralph Nader be president but Im not wasting my vote on him.

http://img30.photobucket.com/albums/v89/metalsat666/RFNetWindowSillJets.gif

[reeshy]

Ralph Nader would push him over the top, but that would never happen.


As much as I agree with you, NYD, that one statement is verschtunkt!!! The Bozo of the political world is nothing but poison and the laughing stock of serious voters~~~~~

[center]<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/sigpics/mrbadtouch.gif>
[center] I KNOW KARATE...VOODOO TOO!!!

[FUNKMAN]

if he does win it would be a shame if he had to try and clean up the mess Bush created in Iraq, and with the national debt

hopefully he won't give the most wealthiest the largest tax cut either...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">
INSIDE LOOKING OUT

[HBox]

Kerry to me is uninspiring.

Understatement of the year. Before he got the nomination, I said I would vote for Nader if Kerry got the nom. I'm gonna back off that, but the biggest reason I'm gonna vote for Kerry is Bush. It's so depressing that at this defining moment in our history we got the two douchbags to vote for.

http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/hotsbox.jpg

[SatCam]

Only thing going for Kerry: The fact that half of America has the thought of "If they're not Bush, they're good enough for me (even if they're murderous raping outlaws)".

That's why my sister's vote (yea, that's right, I use my sister to vote for me) is going to Mr. Kucinich.



<img src="http://img30.photobucket.com/albums/v91/SatCam/sig81_general_wasteofspace.jpg" align="right"><A HREF="http://www.satelitecam.tk">Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A>
UPDATED! | Thanks Monsterone![color=white]

[monsterone]

the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.



hahaha, so true.

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="black" size="1"> don't you think it's funny that if i grab a woman's ass and she punches me, she's fighting for her rights, but if a faggot grabs my ass and i punch his lights out, i'm a homophobe? </font>


<font color="white">moe & horde king, come back soon</font>


</center>
[color=White]

[TheMojoPin]

Psh, I AM voting for Nader at this point, so suck on it.

This knee-jerk notion of "anyone is better than Bush" is such horeshit, it's an embarassment to any Democrat or liberal who honestly thinks it. Kerry is ample proof that that idea simply is NOT true.

The man needs to WORK for my vote, not just slap on the suit of the "left" and expect to get it automatically.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[monsterone]

::ding, ding, ding::

bingo mojo, you get the cowbell.

<center><img border=1 src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=monsterone01"><br></center>

<center>

<font color="black" size="1"> don't you think it's funny that if i grab a woman's ass and she punches me, she's fighting for her rights, but if a faggot grabs my ass and i punch his lights out, i'm a homophobe? </font>


<font color="white">moe & horde king, come back soon</font>


</center>
[color=White]

[SlowDust]

I think he's run a lousy campaign


Don't we have a little over six months to go? Give the guy a chance to actually conduct a campaign before you pass judgement on it.

[Se7en]

It's obvious that I don't care about Kerry.

But really, if you are a Democrat: you're really, really, REALLY not doing yourself any favors by essentially giving him a free pass simply because he's NOT the guy currently in office.

Kerry's got far more problems than just being "uninspiring", and this "ABB" nonsense can only go so far before it comes back and bites you soundly on the ass.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

[FUNKMAN]

can you really judge any 'to be' president or other politician by their campaign... it's a bundle of promises with very litlle detail if any at all. if they achieve 30% of what they promise 'during' their term then it is probably alot...

it seems the only 'true' way to judge is during and after their term as president...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/redalbum100.gif">
INSIDE LOOKING OUT

[Tall_James]

It's so depressing that at this defining moment in our history we got the two douchbags to vote for.

I said the exact same thing in 2000.


<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj2_sig.gif>

The Priest wore black on the seventh day and sat stone-faced while the building burned
[center]The Best Blog You're Not Reading (http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com)

[JohnnyCash]

Im not really that impressed with Kerry either but I do think that Bush needs to go. He is a terrible President and I think another 4 years with him would be very bad for the country. I think Kerry means what he says about the country- I dont think hes just bullshitting us for a vote. Im voting for Kerry because I think he could do some good as President. He will have a huge mess to clean up like Funkman said, but I think he could do a good job.

I picked up the Rock Against Bush cd the other day. Besides some really good songs, the dvd that came with it was really good. It made alot of good points about Bush. And the 40 reasons to hate Bush listed in the liner notes was another eye opener.

www.punkvoter.com has the list and some other good info.

<img src=http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/cash_sig.jpg>
Big thanks to Monsterone.

This message was edited by JohnnyCash on 4-27-04 @ 9:59 PM

[HBox]

I said the exact same thing in 2000.

Well, other than the defining moment part, I agree.

And there's a huge difference between being uninspiring and unfit for office. I have every confidence Kerry will do a better job than Bush. Not to mention that electing Kerry will be adding some much needed balance to the government. It's all but impossible for Dems to win the house, and very unlikely that they will win back the Senate. And do I even need to mention the looming spector of an extremist conservative Supreme Court for god knows how long? How about there more Scalias on the court? And wouldn't we all like to see the real EPA back? How about stem cell research? How about having some sort of openness back in government as opposed to the extreme secrecy of this administration? I could go on and on.

But more importantly, I need to repeat one thing. I don't think the value of having a Democratic President to counteract a Republican Congress, or vice versa, can be understated. We prospered in the 80's and 90's under that situation. In fact, I can't remember off the top of my head any time in our history that we prospered with one party running the government since FDR.

http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/hotsbox.jpg

[furie]

it's a dark day for a liberal candidate when the Village Voice turns on you.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/rave_lee.jpg">

[42nd-delay]

Kerry was my third or fourth choice for Democratic nominee, mostly cause I didn't find him inspiring compared to Dean or Edwards. But I do think he'd do a fine job as President cause I think he has good judgement, is honest, and his views for the most part align with mine. The personal appeal part is mainly about the campaign - I worry he'll be too bland and boring in the general election.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

[TheMojoPin]

I said the exact same thing in 2000.

Pretty much the underlying rallying cry of a new kind of "silent majority" in the '96 election, too.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[curtoid]

but the biggest reason I'm gonna vote for Kerry is Bush. It's so depressing that at this defining moment in our history we got the two douchbags to vote for

As I said in another thread, this election is not about Kerry, but rather a referendom on Bush. History has shown that voters use the second term as a way to either reward what they see as a good first term (like Clinton and Reagan) or reject the direction the country has gone in (like Bush Sr. or Carter) than embrace or give the thumbs down on the alternative - and in all four of those examples, the vote was not close.

My feeling is that if the Democrats or Progressives want to get any change done they need to rally around the candidate the way the Republicans and the extreme right have blindly rallied around Bush.

Yes, it's lowering yourself to their level, in a sense, and further adding to the division in this country, but in lew of a real maverick who can cut into both parties and reject the extremes on both sides it's what needs to be done if you believe the path of the last 3 1/2 years has been a dangerous one - if you want your children to grow up in a world where it isn't defacto that they will has asthma because of the environmental roll back that's been happening - if you don't loathe homosexuals - if you were sickened at how this adminstration used the media to help them wage a war that didn't need to be fought, while ignoring the real terror threats in the world - if you think it's important that a woman has the rights over her own body and not a governemnt that is taking pointers from the bible.

My favorite sign last weekend at the pro-choice march was maybe the most controversial: "Ralph Nader Votes Threaten Women's Lives."



http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/45.gif
[b][i]Much thanks to M1 for the siggie...!i][b]

This message was edited by curtoid on 4-28-04 @ 12:09 AM

[smeagol]

He should go. no...wait...he should stay. actually, he should go. hold it - he should stay wait, go .........


now, to be fair minded...
I personally see no "truth" at all in the following, but a chuckle's a chuckle:

If VP Cheney wears a blue dress, does he go home with oil stains on it?

[shamus mcfitzy]

It's so depressing that at this defining moment in our history we got the two douchbags to vote for.




I said the exact same thing in 2000.



yeah I'm sure people said that in 1836 and 1844 and probably even 1860 (not that I'm comparing either guy to Lincoln). It's not new. Our presidents are rarely ever our best politicians to say the least. SOMETIMES we get a good one. I consider myself educated, but I still forget a couple of the presidents, let alone the losers. Kerry and Bush are certainly not the worst guys to ever run and therefore everyone should shut their head holes. Hardly any of our votes matter anyway. Every vote for Kerry past 51% in NY, NJ, Conn., and everywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi is worthless. Vote for someone else then. I don't think anyone here (let alone anyone that's now gonna say something) will truly vote for Kerry because he's not Bush. I'm voting for like a 4th party candidate personally.

Then I'll move to Wyoming. My vote will count for 4 of yours!!! :)

[Patches]

EDIT- post made zero sense. Will now gather thoughts and try later.
<img src=http://img24.photobucket.com/albums/v72/bcqueens/patches2.jpg>

<b>I'll punch every one of those bees in the face. Fuck bees. -Dane Cook</B>

This message was edited by Patches on 4-28-04 @ 9:53 AM

[Reephdweller]

I think that Kerry would make better ground if he actually was interesting, and had solid ideas for the economy, dealing with terrorism and international issues, education, social security, and rebuilding highways, etc.. I think people would be more inclined to vote for him.

The fact that he fought in a war (while heroic and noble) doesn't clinch it for me that he's worth taking a chance on. I think there are a lot of voters like me who while not exactly thrilled with Bush, still know what we're getting. With Kerry and his ever changing stances on issues and whatnot I don't think he's made a clear argument to vote for him.

I'm not denying the fact that there is definitely a portion of the population that is voting for him purely to vote Bush out of office. However I do not believe there is enough of those kinds of voters who will be voting on that alone to make enough of a difference to vote Bush out. Kerry needs to make compelling arguments, and presentations to the voters on what he plans to do. I know there's still plenty of time before the election but to date I'm not at all impressed with him.

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>

[Se7en]

Yes, it's lowering yourself to their level, in a sense, and further adding to the division in this country, but in lew of a real maverick who can cut into both parties and reject the extremes on both sides it's what needs to be done if you believe the path of the last 3 1/2 years has been a dangerous one - if you want your children to grow up in a world where it isn't defacto that they will has asthma because of the environmental roll back that's been happening - if you don't loathe homosexuals - if you were sickened at how this adminstration used the media to help them wage a war that didn't need to be fought, while ignoring the real terror threats in the world - if you think it's important that a woman has the rights over her own body and not a governemnt that is taking pointers from the bible.


Hey, thanks for portraying all us conservatives as heartless monsters.

Gross generalizations - GOTTA LOVE THEM!

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

[curtoid]

Hey, thanks for portraying all us conservatives as heartless monsters.

Gross generalizations - GOTTA LOVE THEM!

I can't help it if when I say "Retard" you turn around and say, "What?!"

This administration is currently being controlled by the extreme wing of the Republican party, all the while busy painting the moderates in the Democratic party as the extreme left in THAT party (nevermind that the extreme left is tripping over themselves saying that Kerry isn't liberal enough).

But you have said more than once that you do not care - just as long as it's not "THE OTHER SIDE." This is why support among the Republicans, even the moderate and true fiscally conservative ones remain solid among those on the right.

If you care about women's health, don't hate gays, want to leave a decent planet for future generations, are troubled by the direction this country has gone on the foreign stage, AND claim to be fiscally conservative, you have to pause and give the hairy eye-ball to see where this administration has taken this country in the last 3 years, and not just give him a rubber stamp because Bill Clinton once got a blow job and you are still pissed at The Democrats.





http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/45.gif
[b][i]Much thanks to M1 for the siggie...!i][b]

This message was edited by curtoid on 4-28-04 @ 12:03 PM

[TheMojoPin]

yeah I'm sure people said that in 1836 and 1844 and probably even 1860 (not that I'm comparing either guy to Lincoln). It's not new.

No, it really is new, and really just confined to the last two decades of the 20th century. Compare voter turnout (In comparative percentages) from those elections (Or ANY presidential election before, say 1988) to any of the ones we've had since the first Bush ran for the big office.

The differences are staggering...and depressing.

Also, compare the number of viable parties that ran candidates for president throughut our history really all the way up until the Great Depression. Our current mess really is a "modern" situation in this country.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[shamus mcfitzy]

Also, compare the number of viable parties that ran candidates for president throughut our history really all the way up until the Great Depression. Our current mess really is a "modern" situation in this country.


i guess that does come into play. There are no viable third parties anymore to get votes. I'd say that's probably the biggest problem ultimately.

But, i think this a new era in politics. We ran out of good guys to vote for after Jackson (ironically the first elections I think when most men were able to vote). In the 1838-1860 period, politics were completely dominated by the slave-free debate and therefore you had guys like Zach Taylor getting the nomination merely because he could win, not because he was a good candidate. Essentially we had warlike conditions leading up to actual war.

Then from the Civil War to Wilson, politics was ruled by Republicans basically (but at least there were third parties). Reconstruction and overall Manifest Destiny, with the Spanish American War and expanding international policy, dominated as the US started to take its place in the world.

And really post-FDR to Bush I, politics were certainly based on fear in the Cold War. JFK was maybe the most likable running for office, LBJ was the only guy who seemed to have any substantial domestic reasons to become president.

In this new period I don't really see a huge deal going on when compared to how politics was dictated for us for so long. I think this might just be what happens when we have nothing really to worry about (terrorism isn't really an issue as far as i'm concerned because neither candidate is "pro-terrorist" or really "anti-fixing Iraq") I really don't think the average person gets past the major differences in party lines before they tune it out. This is the age of "do something cool for us and we'll vote ya in" for swing voters. Don't wanna make huge assumptions here, but I think we're one of those country's that just functions better politically when we're in a serious war.

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 4-29-04 @ 12:13 AM

[NewYorkDragons80]

And really post-FDR to Bush I, politics were certainly based on fear in the Cold War. JFK was maybe the most likable running for office, LBJ was the only guy who seemed to have any substantial domestic reasons to become president.
LBJ won as the "peace" candidate. Barry Goldwater, who actually did instill Cold War fears lost for being honest, while Johnson pretended Vietnam wasn't going on. If fear was the motivator behind politics during the Cold War, it was that politicians were afraid of the consequences of confronting it; that is until 1980.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[Cybersoldier]

Looks like Nadar is getting my vote this year, I don't like Kerry or Bush

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/cybersoldiernyc/myhomepage/cs_sig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US">
Thanks for the sig monsterone

[ChickenHawk]

So then you're voting for Bush?

<IMG SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/papachristmas/.Pictures/chickenhawknike.jpg">
HORDE KING FOREVER!!! ORACLE NEVER!!!
<strike>Shock</strike>
<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=2><b>EMFA</b></font></marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

And really post-FDR to Bush I, politics were certainly based on fear in the Cold War. JFK was maybe the most likable running for office, LBJ was the only guy who seemed to have any substantial domestic reasons to become president.
LBJ won as the "peace" candidate. Barry Goldwater, who actually did instill Cold War fears lost for being honest, while Johnson pretended Vietnam wasn't going on. If fear was the motivator behind politics during the Cold War, it was that politicians were afraid of the consequences of confronting it; that is until 1980.

Let's not pretend Goldwater wasn't twice the hawk LBJ was. Vietnam WASN'T "going on" during the '64 election...not in the sense of what it would become. Nobody could forsee what Vietnam could become in a few years, and Johnson was about the last person that wanted it to become that. LBJ is easily the greatest president we've had since Lincoln in terms of domestic policies...well, maybe outside of FDR. And that's what LBJ won on...his incredible domestic policy record in the short time he was in office between JFK's assassination and the '64 election. Vietnam wasn't the huge issue it would become. The better man DID win in '64.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-29-04 @ 4:31 PM

[A.J.]

LBJ is easily the greatest president we've had since Lincoln in terms of domestic policies...well, maybe outside of FDR

We WILL win the War on Poverty!

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[NewYorkDragons80]

Let's not pretend Goldwater wasn't twice the hawk LBJ was. Vietnam WASN'T "going on" during the '64 election...not in the sense of what it would become. Nobody could forsee what Vietnam could become in a few years, and Johnson was about the last person that wanted it to become that.
I think my post was pointing out Goldwater's hawkish opinions. Goldwater basically said that we've gotta win this motherfucker, and I think there's truth to the idea that Johnson's graduated response was an attempt to keep Vietnam out of the headlines.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[HBox]

And that's what LBJ won on

You forgot how Goldwater wanted to nuke little girls picking flowers.

http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/hotsbox.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

I think Kerry is running a smart campaign right now. He's laying low and letting Bush earn his reelection, which is an uphill battle right now, and will continue to be so until the election. He's got an on-going liability in the 9/11 Commission because the way he described the ability to prevent such an attack is being disproved by the commission's findings. His central premise has been that nothing could have been done and nobody could have expected such an attack. In fact the elements of 9/11 had been imagined by various agencies, and warnings had been given. But the pieces had not been put together and the systematic changes that the intelligence community needed in order to make that happen was not being done. So, while this doesn't add up to a specific indictment of the administration's handling of the terrorist threat, (except as a part of the failure of the government as a whole under several administrations), it will be a major change in the way the public thinks about 9/11, and about how it was described by the administration. They said "there was nothing we could have done," but when the Commission concludes in July the public will know there were things that could have been done but weren't.

There's also the matter of the Valery Plame leak investigation, which is currently under grand jury preceedings, which will release findings before the election. How damaging that will be depends on how high up the leaks came from and approval was recieved. Clearly the name was leaked by someone in the administration, so it will be damaging; the only question is how much.

Presumably sovereignty will be handed over to Iraqis on June 30. The president is unable to say whom it will be handed over to. Clearly there are no Iraqi leaders that have enough broad political support to claim that the the new rulers of Iraq were chosen by the Iraqis, ( regardless of how many times the president repeats it.) Most likely the current Iraqi Governing Council members, made up primarily of exiles with little or no legitimacy within Iraq, will be in charge. This will not make a demonstrably positive change in the attitude of most Iraqis, and may in fact be accompanied by mass protests. In either case, every political event within Iraq, the Arab world, the Muslim world, and the United States, has seen an increase in violence from the insurgency. So the June 30 handover will take place in an atmosphere of increased violence, as will July 4th, the US political conventions, and the US elections. That has been the nature of the political and psychological war being waged by the insurgency, and the administration, by not aknowledging and explaining that to the public will suffer for it politically. In short, Iraq is and will be a political liability for the president from here through election day. No other foreign policy issue is going to be able to weigh as much as Iraq in Bush's campaing, certainly not Afghanistan, and since he has made Iraq the central focal point of his "war on terrorism" the fight against al-Quaeda will not even equal the weight Iraq has on the campaign.

Iraq is also costing $4.7 billion per month, and there is now a $4 billion shortfall, that, although the administration won't ask for more, the House Appropriations Committee has said it will provide this year. So the issue of the financial cost of Iraq will be a campaing issue, and will impact the strength of any arguments about the rationality of the president's fiscal policy of tax cuts in a time of war.

That's my general perspective on the campaign right now. I'm comfortable that Kerry can beat Bush, and that he's doing the right thing at the moment by letting Bush be the center of attention for as long as possible. As things are, it seems the election is Bush's to lose. If his foreign policy is any guide, (which is obviously where my perspective comes from), he's just the man to lose it.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[TheMojoPin]

And that's what LBJ won on

You forgot how Goldwater wanted to nuke little girls picking flowers.

http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/hotsbox.jpg

That's easily the greatest commercial ever made.

But hey, FDR ran on Pearl Harbor...it's all fair game! Bush should milk 9/11 for all it's worth.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[NewYorkDragons80]

You forgot how Goldwater wanted to nuke little girls picking flowers.
Pfft. I didn't forget shit.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[shamus mcfitzy]

I tried to narrow my post into just general statements so that it wouldn't be too long. I meant that LBJ was a great domestic president from what i said. Johnson won because he was good domestically. He's the exception, but still he was strong enough that he's not seen as bad as Carter. Just to get that straight.

The fear of the Cold War thing was more just saying that the environment was one of "war" and that i don't think could be ignored. Presidents definitely needed to be "strong" on an international level, something i don't think is really that prized anymore (which I guess might be too early to say considering we've had only George I and II and Clinton, but I believe that presidents just don't have to be "powerful" figures as much as they used to). I think people had to have on their minds either what Congress was telling them about Commies and/or what had been engrained as early as the 1910's and the Socialist movement (when Eisenhower and Kennedy were elected). Later the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam (which I at least consider part of the Cold War) scared people into thinking they needed a strong, almost father figure, to protect them (which they may have). Carter is considered a failure because he was weak. Presidents were not running on a "I am stong" platform, but they definitely looked they could handle the Cold War. Fear of the Cold War had to be in the back of people's minds though.

[Reephdweller]

You forgot how Goldwater wanted to nuke little girls picking flowers.


I'm trying to remember but wasn't this same commercial ressurrected during the last campaign? I forgot who used it and what was the message. Does anyone remember?

<center><IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=3">
Reefy's website... (http://www.osirusonline.com/)</center>
<font size="1" color="red">
<center>Check out The Ron and Fez Show Logs...UPDATED!!!!! (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm)</center>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Right now you could care less about me...
but soon enough you will care, by the time I'm done</marquee> </font>