Dems 2008 HUGE MISTAKE [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Patches

12-08-2006, 12:13 AM

IN MY OPINION- The current administration is terrible- and I know at least 65 percent of the population (according to approval statistics) agrees.  It is time for a change, and in this wonderful 2 party system, that change is going to have to be Democrats, pretty much by default.However- with a Republican ticket possibly including McCain (who will be remembered as the guy wrongly destroyed by W and be a powerful yet sympathetic figure), Rudolph Giulianni (only The Man Who Saved New York, and hence Democracy- as it will likely be spun), and maybe a few surprises, I think the Republicans chosen will be a very strong ticket. The point is basically, for the Dems, this is an EXTREMELY important election, and so far there biggest front runners to face a potentially POWERFUL GOP ticket, are to put it mildly unelectable. It is a black man and a woman.Ain't happening.  Sorry.  Not now.  Larry the Cable Guys bank account proves that. I know its callous, but shouldn't the Democrats nominate in such an important election someone who has a shot?  (a white male?)

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 01:18 AM

IN MY OPINION- Dems need to pull somebody out of their asses, like Clinton, (who the fuck was Clinton before 1992?). But they probably won't becuase they suck.The Republicans will win because by smearing McCain (Rove starting a rumor campaign that maybe that time in the POW camp made him a little crazy) was precisely why Bush won - McCain won the first primary, rumor, Bush won all the rest. Repubican voters said, "morality? What's that? Bush is willing to do anything to win. Thumbs up!" Dems don't know how to counter that, and still won't. Republicans will win in 2008.

furie

12-08-2006, 03:14 AM

i agree. some governor with a good clean record is what the democrats need. If they play the media game or star power they'll lose.

FUNKMAN

12-08-2006, 05:02 AM

Hillary and Obama... go tell your mama

phixion

12-08-2006, 05:22 AM

Obama is a great candidate. and if you have to water down ur candidate just to appease the populous then ur nothing but spineless fuck who just want power. i fuckin hate hillary but obama is a great candidate. the democrats should stick their guns and say fuck you to all the square states int he middle. id rather lose with obama then win with some version of republican lite. and to quote eddie murphy: white guy: i just voted for jesse jackson as a goof.wake up the next morning white guy: the fucking nigger won?

NewYorkDragons80

12-08-2006, 05:34 AM

Patches wrote: However- with a Republican ticket possibly including McCain (who will be remembered as the guy wrongly destroyed by W and be a powerful yet sympathetic figure), Rudolph Giulianni (only The Man Who Saved New York, and hence Democracy- as it will likely be spun), and maybe a few surprises, I think the Republicans chosen will be a very strong ticket. It is a black man and a womanI know its callous, but shouldn't the Democrats nominate in such an important election someone who has a shot? (a white male?) Don't believe the hype around Giuliani.  The 2 most powerful lobbying powers in the country (right or left) are the Christian evangelicals and gun-rights advocates; both of which will never support him.  McCain has a similar (though much smaller) problem with the NRA, but he has a realistic shot at winning over conservative Christians since it looks more and more like he is the only viable pro-life candidate. Barak Obama would make a good candidate in 2012, but if he ran in 08, he would be a half-term senator with no experience.  Maybe he could get elected, but would you want the first black president to also be the least experienced?

angrymissy

12-08-2006, 05:43 AM

I was having this same conversation with Jeff the other day.  Hillary or Obama have almost no chances of winning this.  Sure it will be great to run a woman and a black man, but that shit is going to tank our chances of winning.  I hate saying it, but the rest of the country is not gonna go for that.I really used to like McCain because he seemed so bi-partisan, but he's been sucking up to the far right way too much lately.

sailor

12-08-2006, 05:45 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: IN MY OPINION- Dems need to pull somebody out of their asses, like Clinton, (who the fuck was Clinton before 1992?). But they probably won't becuase they suck.The Republicans will win because by smearing McCain (Rove starting a rumor campaign that maybe that time in the POW camp made him a little crazy) was precisely why Bush won - McCain won the first primary, rumor, Bush won all the rest. Repubican voters said, "morality? What's that? Bush is willing to do anything to win. Thumbs up!" Dems don't know how to counter that, and still won't. Republicans will win in 2008. you sure?  i think mccain had won a few before the wheels came off (new hampshire, michigan, arizona and a few northeastern states).  as a mccain supporter, i didn't feel it was any smearing that caused him to lose, i just felt he was outspent by bush.  also, it seemed as if the  republican hierarchy had bush selected for coronation (they saw him as far-and-away the front-runner) and were too afraid to be seen as flopping when mccain won some early primaries.  so, bush had money and a name, and pols hopped on-board without seeing who the people supported.  in fact, a lot of people say mccain lost because of a backlash against HIS negative campaigning.  he compared bush to clinton in terms of lack of honesty (he was right!) and republicans were turned off by this negativity.

A.J.

12-08-2006, 05:49 AM

NewYorkDragons80 wrote:  Barak Obama would make a good candidate in 2012, but if he ran in 08, he would be a half-term senator with no experience.  Maybe he could get elected, but would you want the first black president to also be the least experienced? Thank God someone else notices this.  Whatever rip against Dubya's "resume" you want to make, he was at least a twice-elected Governor of a state that bordered a foreign nation. Obama isn't even yet a one-term Senator.

sailor

12-08-2006, 06:03 AM

A.J. wrote: NewYorkDragons80 wrote: Barak Obama would make a good candidate in 2012, but if he ran in 08, he would be a half-term senator with no experience. Maybe he could get elected, but would you want the first black president to also be the least experienced? Thank God someone else notices this. Whatever rip against Dubya's "resume" you want to make, he was at least a twice-elected Governor of a state that bordered a foreign nation. Obama isn't even yet a one-term Senator.   a state bigger than many nations, at that.

Wrecked

12-08-2006, 06:07 AM

they would do better running edwards than hillary or obama...america isnt gonna go for a woman or a black anytime soon (i'd vote for either, as would some of you, but between here and california there's a lot of bubbas who still dont let their wives wear pants and want to kill gays)...but all in all it may be the easiest prediction ever to say we anti-conservatives are going to lose '08.

sailor

12-08-2006, 06:13 AM

Wrecked wrote: they would do better running edwards than hillary or obama...america isnt gonna go for a woman or a black anytime soon (i'd vote for either, as would some of you, but between here and california there's a lot of bubbas who still dont let their wives wear pants and want to kill gays)...but all in all it may be the easiest prediction ever to say we anti-conservatives are going to lose '08. we anti-anti-conservatives sure hope so.  (seriously, anti-conservatives??)

Wrecked

12-08-2006, 06:28 AM

bronxmarc wrote: Wrecked wrote: they would do better running edwards than hillary or obama...america isnt gonna go for a woman or a black anytime soon (i'd vote for either, as would some of you, but between here and california there's a lot of bubbas who still dont let their wives wear pants and want to kill gays)...but all in all it may be the easiest prediction ever to say we anti-conservatives are going to lose '08.  we anti-anti-conservatives sure hope so.  (seriously, anti-conservatives??) definition:"anti-": against"conservatives": Nazisso, yeah...it's a word

sailor

12-08-2006, 06:30 AM

Wrecked wrote: bronxmarc wrote: Wrecked wrote: they would do better running edwards than hillary or obama...america isnt gonna go for a woman or a black anytime soon (i'd vote for either, as would some of you, but between here and california there's a lot of bubbas who still dont let their wives wear pants and want to kill gays)...but all in all it may be the easiest prediction ever to say we anti-conservatives are going to lose '08. we anti-anti-conservatives sure hope so. (seriously, anti-conservatives??) definition:"anti-": against"conservatives": Nazisso, yeah...it's a word it's a wordplay word, nothing more.  if you're a liberal, be proud.  and conservatives = nazis.  clever.

Wrecked

12-08-2006, 06:37 AM

absolutely it's "wordplay"...it's how i make a livin'and as long as it bugged one of you i'm happy<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/mellow.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" />

AKA

12-08-2006, 06:40 AM

Ten things...<ol><li>The Dems didn't <strike>win</strike> get elected running white men the last two elections...</li><li>Never bet against a Clinton to win the big election...</li><li>A Democratic Gov is a good idea on paper until you hear some of them speak (at least some of the top contenders for 2008)...</li><li>If this was 2004 and not 2008 Rudy would have a good chance of winning it - with time comes perspective - "Rudy Saving The World" rings less true after we live in a world where 1000s are dead in New Orleans - 1000s of Americans dead in Iraq - 1000s of civilians die each month as a direct result of our actions also in Iraq...</li><li>McCain's age will be a factor as will his flip-flopping, trying to be all things to all people...</li><li>McCain and Rudy got too chummy with Bush and when it comes time for the National election either of them will have to back peddle or do a complete mia culpa...</li><li>The Religious Right will have a really tough time getting excited about either McCain or Rudy - the only thing that will get them out to the polls will be if they get some red meat issues (abortion, gays, god) on the local ballot to go vote on...</li><li>The time is right for a religious conservative 3rd Party Candidate to pop up and peal away votes from the GOP...</li><li>The Dems have tasted victory again and are re-learning how to win...</li><li>NEVER BET AGAINST A CLINTON</li></ol>All of that said - I would love if Hillary didn't run, but instead Al Gore (someone who really wants to "Save The World"), who (a) is a true moderate, regardless of the negative spin spun his way, (b) was the most qualified person to run for U.S. President since Richard Nixon, (c) <a href="http://www.unprecedented.org/">did win the 2000 election</a>, and (d) is one of the few Democrats who was against the war from the start (and he was one of the few Democrats who was for the first Persian Gulf war). Sadly, he's got the stink of failure on him - he did run a bad campaign, even losing his home state (<a href="http://www.unprecedented.org/">although he still won the election</a>!) - and he's having too much fun NOT being President. <img src="http://www.draftgore.com/DG_Logo1.jpg" border="0" width="395" height="348" />

This message was edited by AKA on 12-8-06 @ 10:44 AM

sailor

12-08-2006, 06:43 AM

Wrecked wrote: absolutely it's "wordplay"...it's how i make a livin'and as long as it bugged one of you i'm happy<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/mellow.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" /> well, you're just a poopy-head.  :)

phixion

12-08-2006, 06:44 AM

but would you want the first black president to also be the least experienced?i can think of two presidents off the top of my head that have had less political experience. grant and ike. grant i consider a decent president at best. and ike well i just love ike. he was great a true bipartisan president. anyway none of these guys had ever served a public office. obama is serving a public office. so no he wouldnt be the least experienced.

jetdog

12-08-2006, 06:54 AM

I really hate to do it but I have to agree with Patches statements at the start of this thread. I reall don't think this nation will elect a woman or a black man right now. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Lieberman harmed the Gore ticket. It's just something I've come to think after travelling around the country (airport bars in particular are real eye-openers).I think Obama has some great potential. but shit, give it some time, don't get all ideallistic and blow your load to quick. 

This message was edited by jetdog on 12-8-06 @ 10:55 AM

Tenbatsuzen

12-08-2006, 06:54 AM

I saw the title of the thread and immediately thought of GOB talking about John Kerry.

A.J.

12-08-2006, 06:55 AM

phixion wrote: i can think of two presidents off the top of my head that have had less political experience. grant and ike. grant i consider a decent president at best. and ike well i just love ike. he was great a true bipartisan president. anyway none of these guys had ever served a public office. obama is serving a public office. so no he wouldnt be the least experienced. That's not really a good example.  They were both military men so by definition they had to be apolitical.  And since they were both generals they were administrators.  As you know in U.S. history several Presidents had a military background without having served in public office:  Washington, Jackson, W.H. Harrison to name a few.However, Eisenhower was also well-served as SACEUR where he had to hold together an international coalition and deal with egos and strong personalities.

nate1000

12-08-2006, 07:13 AM

AKA wrote: Ten things...<ol><li>The Dems didn't <strike>win</strike> get elected running white men the last two elections...</li><li>Never bet against a Clinton to win the big election...</li><li>A Democratic Gov is a good idea on paper until you hear some of them speak (at least some of the top contenders for 2008)...</li><li>If this was 2004 and not 2008 Rudy would have a good chance of winning it - with time comes perspective - "Rudy Saving The World" rings less true after we live in a world where 1000s are dead in New Orleans - 1000s of Americans dead in Iraq - 1000s of civilians die each month as a direct result of our actions also in Iraq...</li><li>McCain's age will be a factor as will his flip-flopping, trying to be all things to all people...</li><li>McCain and Rudy got too chummy with Bush and when it comes time for the National election either of them will have to back peddle or do a complete mia culpa...</li><li>The Religious Right will have a really tough time getting excited about either McCain or Rudy - the only thing that will get them out to the polls will be if they get some red meat issues (abortion, gays, god) on the local ballot to go vote on...</li><li>The time is right for a religious conservative 3rd Party Candidate to pop up and peal away votes from the GOP...</li><li>The Dems have tasted victory again and are re-learning how to win...</li><li>NEVER BET AGAINST A CLINTON</li></ol>All of that said - I would love if Hillary didn't run, but instead Al Gore (someone who really wants to "Save The World"), who (a) is a true moderate, regardless of the negative spin spun his way, (b) was the most qualified person to run for U.S. President since Richard Nixon, (c) <a href="http://www.unprecedented.org/">did win the 2000 election</a>, and (d) is one of the few Democrats who was against the war from the start (and he was one of the few Democrats who was for the first Persian Gulf war). Sadly, he's got the stink of failure on him - he did run a bad campaign, even losing his home state (<a href="http://www.unprecedented.org/">although he still won the election</a>!) - and he's having too much fun NOT being President. <img src="http://www.draftgore.com/DG_Logo1.jpg" border="0" width="395" height="348" />This message was edited by AKA on 12-8-06 @ 10:44 AM I think you're right. At the end of the day, Gore will be the guy they run.

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 07:16 AM

jetdog wrote: I really hate to do it but I have to agree with Patches statements at the start of this thread. I reall don't think this nation will elect a woman or a black man right now. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Lieberman harmed the Gore ticket. It's just something I've come to think after travelling around the country (airport bars in particular are real eye-openers).I think Obama has some great potential. but shit, give it some time, don't get all ideallistic and blow your load to quick. This message was edited by jetdog on 12-8-06 @ 10:55 AM I agree too, but would modify it: The nation won't elect a black or woman democrat. Republicans would say "affirmative action" or "what if JFK got a yeast infection during the Cuban Missile Crisis?" and their base is mobilized against them. But, if a black or female repulican candidate won the primary liberals would consider voting for them simply BECAUSE they're black or female. (Myself, I'm not sure I think Obama and Clinton qualify as black or female in the first place.)

johnniewalker

12-08-2006, 07:30 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: jetdog wrote: I really hate to do it but I have to agree with Patches statements at the start of this thread. I reall don't think this nation will elect a woman or a black man right now. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Lieberman harmed the Gore ticket. It's just something I've come to think after travelling around the country (airport bars in particular are real eye-openers).I think Obama has some great potential. but shit, give it some time, don't get all ideallistic and blow your load to quick. This message was edited by jetdog on 12-8-06 @ 10:55 AM I agree too, but would modify it: The nation won't elect a black or woman democrat. Republicans would say "affirmative action" or "what if JFK got a yeast infection during the Cuban Missile Crisis?" and their base is mobilized against them. But, if a black or female repulican candidate won the primary liberals would consider voting for them simply BECAUSE they're black or female. (Myself, I'm not sure I think Obama and Clinton qualify as black or female in the first place.) I find it peculiar, but was about Obama. <h2 class="r"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailyn ews.com%2Fnews%2Fideas_opinions%2Fstory%2F467300p-393261c.html&ei=gJJ5RdKuKJH-gwP_rZXVBQ&usg=__2REGRqhsNzlztN5mUem8qr5kMKQ=&sig2 =giGBWwRzTzZo3RSnHtlULg">New York Daily News - Stanley Crouch: What Barak Obama Isnt:  Black Like Me</a></h2>

johnniewalker

12-08-2006, 07:33 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Republicans would say "affirmative action" Why is there a presidential scholarship being awarded this year to underrepresented minorities?

This message was edited by johnniewalker on 12-8-06 @ 11:53 AM

A.J.

12-08-2006, 07:51 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: "what if JFK got a yeast infection during the Cuban Missile Crisis?" After all of those broads, I'm surprised that he didn't get ANY kind of infection.

Furtherman

12-08-2006, 08:05 AM

Patches wrote: Ain't happening.  Sorry.  Not now.  Larry the Cable Guys bank account proves that.Oh sure, but he, like Bush and his Republican cronies that he had surrounded himself with, are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqm-vKWEkoU" target="_blank">phoneys</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VROn7ZvVoW8" target="_blank">liars.</a> I have nothing against the Republicans, I use to vote for them, but they're hurting this country immensely, and they'll have a hard time keeping the presidency, and they deserve that.

HeyGuy

12-08-2006, 08:16 AM

phixion wrote: but would you want the first black president to also be the least experienced? i can think of two presidents off the top of my head that have had less political experience. grant and ike. grant i consider a decent president at best. and ike well i just love ike. he was great a true bipartisan president. anyway none of these guys had ever served a public office. obama is serving a public office. so no he wouldnt be the least experienced. I love the idea of obama as president or VP. He is not as inexperienced as you may think. He has been a US SEN for 2 years, a state SEN for 8 years and is incredibly knowledgeable with constitutional law.Gore would be a great choice since he really won on 2000 anyway.

TheMojoPin

12-08-2006, 10:50 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: I saw the title of the thread and immediately thought of GOB talking about John Kerry. "LOOK AT BANNER, JOHNNY!"Phixion, you're a madman if you think Grant was anything even close to a decent president.

UnknownPD

12-08-2006, 11:15 AM

It's way too early for this kind of talk. By the time 2008 rolls round the landscape will have completely changed. The leaders at this point usually fade away and someone else emerges. Sitting Vice Presidents of successful administrations are the exception to this rule.

HeyGuy

12-08-2006, 11:31 AM

UnknownPD wrote: It's way too early for this kind of talk. By the time 2008 rolls round the landscape will have completely changed. The leaders at this point usually fade away and someone else emerges. Sitting Vice Presidents of successful administrations are the exception to this rule. thats great so no dick in 08!!! <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/drunk.gif" border="0" width="58" height="30" /><img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" width="28" height="30" />

Fezticle98

12-08-2006, 11:48 AM

A.J. wrote: phixion wrote: i can think of two presidents off the top of my head that have had less political experience. grant and ike. grant i consider a decent president at best. and ike well i just love ike. he was great a true bipartisan president. anyway none of these guys had ever served a public office. obama is serving a public office. so no he wouldnt be the least experienced. That's not really a good example.  They were both military men so by definition they had to be apolitical.  And since they were both generals they were administrators.  As you know in U.S. history several Presidents had a military background without having served in public office:  Washington, Jackson, W.H. Harrison to name a few.However, Eisenhower was also well-served as SACEUR where he had to hold together an international coalition and deal with egos and strong personalities.All good reasons for Wes Clark to run again. He got in too late last time.<a href="http://www.clark04.com/">http://www.clark04.com/</a>

HeyGuy

12-08-2006, 12:10 PM

fezticle98 wrote: All good reasons for Wes Clark to run again. He got in too late last time.<a href="http://www.clark04.com/">http://www.clark04.com/</a>I forgot about Wes Clark. I really like him. Hes a militay guy who doesnt like wars and has had a big push. I think his only problem is indies may thin hes too left. He seems to be a lot like Howard Dean, which isnt a bad thing but the right has made Dean out to be some loon so that may hurt Clark.

This message was edited by Campo on 12-8-06 @ 4:11 PM

blakjeezis

12-08-2006, 12:38 PM

Bush is willing to do anything to win. Thumbs up!" Dems don't know how to counter that, and still won't.Are you implying that the Democrats haven't got that attitide, that do anything to win attitude? Yes, you're probably right. They're all perfect angels.

sailor

12-08-2006, 12:40 PM

Campo wrote: phixion wrote: but would you want the first black president to also be the least experienced? i can think of two presidents off the top of my head that have had less political experience. grant and ike. grant i consider a decent president at best. and ike well i just love ike. he was great a true bipartisan president. anyway none of these guys had ever served a public office. obama is serving a public office. so no he wouldnt be the least experienced. I love the idea of obama as president or VP. He is not as inexperienced as you may think. He has been a US SEN for 2 years, a state SEN for 8 years and is incredibly knowledgeable with constitutional law.Gore would be a great choice since he really won on 2000 anyway. sounds like he'd be better suited as a judge.

HBox

12-08-2006, 12:41 PM

blakjeezis wrote: Bush is willing to do anything to win. Thumbs up!" Dems don't know how to counter that, and still won't. Are you implying that the Democrats haven't got that attitide, that do anything to win attitude? Yes, you're probably right. They're all perfect angels. [that's not what he saying at all. there's a huge gap between perfect angels and "McCain has illegitimate black children" in which the Democrats reside.

blakjeezis

12-08-2006, 01:30 PM

there's a huge gap between perfect angels and "McCain has illegitimate black children" in which the Democrats reside. Is that where Ricky Ray Rector lives too? Oh no, wait. He's dead. Part of a Democrat's campaign to get elected. I guess leaving the campign trail in New Hampshire, after losing 12 points in the polls, to preside over the execution of man with such extensive brain damage his IQ was reported between 60 and 70; a man so retarded, so unable to comprehend the situation he was in that he asked if he could save the pecan pie desert of his last meal for later at bedtime; a man whose brain was so child-like that he aided the struggling prison doctors, who he thought were trying to help him, try and find a vein for an hour until they eventually had to just slash the inside of his elbow and insert a catheter to administer the lethal injection, all so this particular Democratic presidential candidate could appear "tough on crime". Now that I think about it, I guess that's not as bad as suggesting that McCain may have had an illegitimate black child to get elected. Look, I don't care what you say about Bush and the Republicans, but don't pretend like the Democrats are any better. Please, have more respect for your own intelligence as well as ours.

furie

12-08-2006, 01:45 PM

<hr color="cococo" align="left">Campo wrote: UnknownPD wrote: It's way too early for this kind of talk. By the time 2008 rolls round the landscape will have completely changed. The leaders at this point usually fade away and someone else emerges. Sitting Vice Presidents of successful administrations are theÿexception to this rule. thats great so no dick in 08!!! <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/drunk.gif" border="0" width="58" height="30" /><img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" width="28" height="30" /><hr color="cococo" align="left">

Well, in the past 100 years, only two men qualify as such, Bush I & Taft. All the other VP's who took over from their president due to death or resignation.

This message was edited by furie on 12-8-06 @ 5:46 PM

HBox

12-08-2006, 02:07 PM

blakjeezis wrote:   there's a huge gap between perfect angels and "McCain has illegitimate black children" in which the Democrats reside.  Is that where Ricky Ray Rector lives too? Oh no, wait. He's dead. Part of a Democrat's campaign to get elected. I guess leaving the campign trail in New Hampshire, after losing 12 points in the polls, to preside over the execution of man with such extensive brain damage his IQ was reported between 60 and 70; a man so retarded, so unable to comprehend the situation he was in that he asked if he could save the pecan pie desert of his last meal for later at bedtime; a man whose brain was so child-like that he aided the struggling prison doctors, who he thought were trying to help him, try and find a vein for an hour until they eventually had to just slash the inside of his elbow and insert a catheter to administer the lethal injection, all so this particular Democratic presidential candidate could appear "tough on crime". Now that I think about it, I guess that's not as bad as suggesting that McCain may have had an illegitimate black child to get elected. Look, I don't care what you say about Bush and the Republicans, but don't pretend like the Democrats are any better. Please, have more respect for your own intelligence as well as ours. You forgot the part where he killed a cop and an civilian and then tried to kill himself, failing and only then giving himself a mental retardation. When he killed those people he knew exactly what he was doing, enough to try and kill himself because he knew the consequences. I think that is a huge difference. Not that I'm for the death penalty, but the man killed people not because of any retardation but because he was a criminal, and that was the law at the time.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 02:51 PM

Wrecked wrote:definition:"anti-": against"conservatives": Nazisso, yeah...it's a wordWhoa! Slow down there you silly goose!  Conservative=Nazi?That's like saying Liberal=DouchebagGet my point? Yikes!!!!

joeyballsack

12-08-2006, 02:53 PM

If Republicans are such racists and mysoginists that could never tolerate a black man or a woman in power, then how do you explain the high ranking minorities and women in the current administration ?You can bang on Bush for a lot of things, but the guy is not a racist and I dont think the majority of Republicans are either. They are just as willing to vote for a black man or woman as a Democrat as long as they are the best PERSON for the job.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 03:04 PM

Yea, no kidding.  I hope the Dems run Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico.  He has run a state-well, and was the leader of the Dems at one time.So don't give me this crap that America doesn't want minorities or women in office.  Give us a test then Democrat Party.  Give us a choice between a qualified Hispanic and a Republican old white dude, and let's see who America goes for.

epo

12-08-2006, 03:16 PM

scottinnj wrote: Yea, no kidding.  I hope the Dems run Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico.  He has run a state-well, and was the leader of the Dems at one time.So don't give me this crap that America doesn't want minorities or women in office.  Give us a test then Democrat Party.  Give us a choice between a qualified Hispanic and a Republican old white dude, and let's see who America goes for. Don't go there.  Just because Bush & Fox News are too lazy to use the "ic" doesn't mean that you must.  It's the Democratic Party.  We are democrats.  I am a democrat.Sorry, just a big pet peeve I've developed the last 6 years.

epo

12-08-2006, 03:35 PM

It's way too early to say a candidate from either side is wrong.  Times change and can do so very quickly.  Two years ago Bush was re-elected, now he'd barely win County Dog Catcher.  In two years he could be King Tut again.  That being said I like Richardson, Edwards & Gore...with a crush on Clark & Obama.  And if I see James Carville, Donna Brazille or Bob Strum running any of their campaigns my head is gonna explode.  Like I said though...way too early!

NewYorkDragons80

12-08-2006, 04:27 PM

I think this is a fair question to throw out there; What has Obama done to make him qualified/considered for President?

Gvac

12-08-2006, 04:32 PM

HOLY SHIT!A Dragons sighting! How ya been buddy?

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 04:36 PM

blakjeezis wrote: Bush is willing to do anything to win. Thumbs up!" Dems don't know how to counter that, and still won't. Are you implying that the Democrats haven't got that attitide, that do anything to win attitude? Yes, you're probably right. They're all perfect angels.  What's the topic? Winning presidential elections. What did I say? "Dems don't know how to counter that". That's not the same as saying they're not willing to do or say bad things to win. They are, and they have. But they don't have the same bases they're trying to appeal to - so the strategies have to be different. If the dems mirror the republican strategies their bases will react differently and they'll lose every election. The job of the democrats is to figure out what they need to do to win more votes (within the electoral college system - please no more arguing the 2000 popular vote!). If they need rumor campaigns and phony veterans organizations spreading lies, then I'm saying they're failing to do that. If they need to chant kumbaiyya and throw blood on Mel Gibson to win, then I'm saying to do that. I introduced the ethics of the republicans because I think it's a factor in how it mobilizes their base and wins them eletions. You're getting bent out of shape because I didn't do the conservative PC thing and say "dems and reps employ equally unethical campaign practices" even though it was irrelevant to the topic.However, if it makes you feel better: dems don't employ nearly as unethical campaign practices as the republicans in recent presidential election campaigns. NOW your arguments about the morality of both campaign tactics are justified.First of all, which base was Clinton appealing to when he did that? Wasn't me. As governor, Bush oversaw more executions in Texas than any other state. He didn't have to publicize that fact because his base expected it of him. Clinton was trying to get republicans to vote for him by NOT overriding the courts of his state. Moreover, that was a political choice Clinton had to make because the execution had been scheduled during the election campaign. It was not a campaign decision to inject falsehoods about your opponents into the minds of voters, (see the South Carolina push polls of 2000 that HBox mentioned). More importantly, the democrats, in recent years, have not pulled anything as unethical as republicans did against Kerry in 2004 for Bush - and were rewarded for by their voters. By the way, when you get all diva with the sarcasm and exaggeration to make your point "Yes, you're probably right. They're all perfect angels." you should enclose it with [in Rosie Perez voice and accompanied by head-rolling and snaps, girlfriend!] brackets. That would be cool.

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 04:39 PM

NewYorkDragons80 wrote: I think this is a fair question to throw out there; What has Obama done to make him qualified/considered for President? Thank you! This should be the first question anyone considers before deciding who to vote for!

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 04:58 PM

epo wrote: scottinnj wrote: Yea, no kidding.  I hope the Dems run Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico.  He has run a state-well, and was the leader of the Dems at one time.So don't give me this crap that America doesn't want minorities or women in office.  Give us a test then Democrat Party.  Give us a choice between a qualified Hispanic and a Republican old white dude, and let's see who America goes for. Don't go there.  Just because Bush & Fox News are too lazy to use the "ic" doesn't mean that you must.  It's the Democratic Party.  We are democrats.  I am a democrat.Sorry, just a big pet peeve I've developed the last 6 years.  Right it is the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party is part of the democratic process.  Just like the Republicans.  Republicans participate in the democratic process of this republic.   Now that we have properly introduced ourselves......

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 05:01 PM

I think that Obama is a good guy, and a patriot, but I would like to see him answer questions on what he plans on doing to improve the country, and how he is going to fix the debacle in Iraq.That's IF he runs for president or is put on a Dem ticket as the VP candidate.  If he doesn't, then the only people who should be concerned are the citizens of Illinois.

empulse

12-08-2006, 05:06 PM

NewYorkDragons80 wrote: I think this is a fair question to throw out there; What has Obama done to make him qualified/considered for President? Thank you! This should be the first question anyone considers before deciding who to vote for!I call SERIOUS BULLSHIT on that.  America elected the dumbest fuck of them all, and still to this day some of us are slerppin up his bullshit -- George W Bush.  Guiliani is a turd, wrapped in shit, and he will get blown outta the water.  Plus the supposed morals crowd won't go for a baby killin, homo lovin, NYC liberal loving president.  No matter how many times he blows James Dobson on TV.Frist is out.MCcain - he needs dropped back in vietnam.  He is a disgusting mess of a human.  He actually had the nerve to accuse Kerry of Bashing the Troops with his joke, and ill say it, NOT BOTChed. watch the whole clip.  Plus he is looking unhealthy, everytime i see him he looks like he has a tumor growing on his face.  I suspect that it might be that last bit of dignity forming a hard lump and preparing to fall off of him to escape.  He is one Vet i have zero respect for.Hillary - this is more just wishful thinking, but...  I hope that she doesn't run, and just keeps danglin he Presidential possibilities in the Rights faces and drawing their fire while a better Dem candidate comes up from behind.  She can afford to draw their fire for a while, even deplete Repub hopefuls funds.  But that may just be my fantasy.   Plus we have gone almost a whole generation with the Bush/Clinton bullshit and i am done, i love Bill to death, but he can't run.Obama - Why not?  You "He's not qualified, no record" Exactly.  no corporate cock have been in him yet.  perfect.  But he still isn't Presidential yet, altho' he does have 2 years, well 1 i guess to make something magical happen.Gore - This guy is on fire, kicking ass and taking names.  Guess what ? GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.  Get used to it.  You can actually make money doing something about it.  He is a different man, but has the knowledge/expirience to deal with the left over mess of the Iraq war, none of the other candidates (or supposed) can say this.  This won't happen, but maybe this next time we can drop the Guns-Gays_God-Abortion bullshit and elect someone that will do whats right for America and not just our own narrow self-interests.

TheMojoPin

12-08-2006, 05:08 PM

How could there even possibly be an elected official in this country who isn't a "patriot?"  Unless people are shooting redcoats or tossing tea off of ships, I don't think anyone can legitmately use "patriot" as a reason someone should vote for them.  It's a platitude at best that really doesn't mean anything concrete anymore in terms of whether or not someone should be elected.Just a general rant.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 12-8-06 @ 9:20 PM

Yerdaddy

12-08-2006, 05:12 PM

joeyballsack wrote: If Republicans are such racists and mysoginists that could never tolerate a black man or a woman in power, then how do you explain the high ranking minorities and women in the current administration ?You can bang on Bush for a lot of things, but the guy is not a racist and I dont think the majority of Republicans are either. They are just as willing to vote for a black man or woman as a Democrat as long as they are the best PERSON for the job. Look conservatives. I choose my words carefully because I want to say exactly what I mean. So stop pretending that I fit your fucking stereotypes of liberals and putting Rush Limbaugh's words in my mouth. I never said republicans are racists and mysoginists and I never even mentioned Bush in a post about black or female candidates. I said what the republican campaign would say and it would be effective becuase, generally speaking, more mysoginists and racists vote republican. Dems have them, but less. In private, any responsible campaign manager would factor this into their tactics. But the biggest bias that the republican strategist would be exploiting is that republicans are anti-democrat/anti-liberal. Thus they will generally consider a black or woman equal and qualified IF THEY ARE REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE. If they are democrat, many republicans will revert to the old assumptions of unqualified/unfit because of race or gender. This level of mysogeny/racism is much less than it was one or two generations ago. But they still exist and therefore they will be exploited. Therefore, a black or woman republican has a much better chance of being elected than a democrat. Why do you think the Bush campaign chose South Carolina to ask republicans the question "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

FezPaul

12-08-2006, 05:15 PM

empulse wrote:   GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.  Get used to it.  You can actually make money doing something about it.  <a href="http://www.failedsuccess.com/index.php?/weblog/more/arch_weather_story">Starting in St. Louis.</a>

This message was edited by FezPaul on 12-8-06 @ 9:15 PM

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 05:24 PM

empulse wrote: NewYorkDragons80 wrote: I think this is a fair question to throw out there; What has Obama done to make him qualified/considered for President? Thank you! This should be the first question anyone considers before deciding who to vote for!I call SERIOUS BULLSHIT on that.  America elected the dumbest fuck of them all, and still to this day some of us are slerppin up his bullshit -- George W Bush.  Guiliani is a turd, wrapped in shit, and he will get blown outta the water.  Plus the supposed morals crowd won't go for a baby killin, homo lovin, NYC liberal loving president.  No matter how many times he blows James Dobson on TV.Frist is out.MCcain - he needs dropped back in vietnam.  He is a disgusting mess of a human.  He actually had the nerve to accuse Kerry of Bashing the Troops with his joke, and ill say it, NOT BOTChed. watch the whole clip.  Plus he is looking unhealthy, everytime i see him he looks like he has a tumor growing on his face.  I suspect that it might be that last bit of dignity forming a hard lump and preparing to fall off of him to escape.  He is one Vet i have zero respect for.Hillary - this is more just wishful thinking, but...  I hope that she doesn't run, and just keeps danglin he Presidential possibilities in the Rights faces and drawing their fire while a better Dem candidate comes up from behind.  She can afford to draw their fire for a while, even deplete Repub hopefuls funds.  But that may just be my fantasy.   Plus we have gone almost a whole generation with the Bush/Clinton bullshit and i am done, i love Bill to death, but he can't run.Obama - Why not?  You "He's not qualified, no record" Exactly.  no corporate cock have been in him yet.  perfect.  But he still isn't Presidential yet, altho' he does have 2 years, well 1 i guess to make something magical happen.Gore - This guy is on fire, kicking ass and taking names.  Guess what ? GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.  Get used to it.  You can actually make money doing something about it.  He is a different man, but has the knowledge/expirience to deal with the left over mess of the Iraq war, none of the other candidates (or supposed) can say this.  This won't happen, but maybe this next time we can drop the Guns-Gays_God-Abortion bullshit and elect someone that will do whats right for America and not just our own narrow self-interests.  So.............you won't be voting Republican in 2008?   WOW!  Take a breath, put down the Kool Aid, and blame the conservatives for all the worlds ills one issue at at time!

UnknownPD

12-08-2006, 05:48 PM

furie wrote: Campo wrote: UnknownPD wrote: It's way too early for this kind of talk. By the time 2008 rolls round the landscape will have completely changed. The leaders at this point usually fade away and someone else emerges. Sitting Vice Presidents of successful administrations are the exception to this rule. thats great so no dick in 08!!! <img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/drunk.gif" border="0" width="58" height="30" /><img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" width="28" height="30" /> Well, in the past 100 years, only two men qualify as such, Bush I & Taft. All the other VP's who took over from their president due to death or resignation. This message was edited by furie on 12-8-06 @ 5:46 PM I am not saying they win. Only that they get an automatic leg up to their party's big dance.

docgoblin

12-08-2006, 06:52 PM

I have voted in every election since 1980. I'm very serious about it. I was a registered Rebublican for a while because of my family. I switched to become a registered Democrat in 1992, then switched to be a registered Independant in 2004 when I realized that strict party affiliations are pointless. Having said that I will show that I am truly a non-partisan voter by my record:1980 - Reagan1984 - Reagan1988 - Bush(To this point there was absolutely no competitors from the Dems)1992 - Clinton1996 - Perot (The growing scandals started to make me worry about where Clinton's focus would be... And Dole was a dud!)2000 - Gore (He's the best Democratic candidate then and now... Unfortunately his loss to Bush made him go a little goofy for a while... However, I think he's back in a big way!)2004 - Bush (Sorry but the Dems can say the election was fixed all they want, but Kerry is a flip-flopping bufoon and doesn't belong anywhere near the White House)As far as '08 is concerned, I like Gore again. Hillary can't win and Obama is too green. Giuliani is a good kick-ass guy, but he has no chance. They will find so many skeletons in his closet that it won't even get him through the first primary. McCain is too left leaning to get through the primaries (not to mention if the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill passes next year, the party will disown him). Kerry is done given his last few faux pas' (The party has all but buried him). Santorum has potential, but the recent loss in Pa. may have killed that idea. Frist is another possibilty, but he also seems to fly below the radar. Wait until the spotlight hits him. As for Kerry, see my comments about him in the 2004 election above. The Ticket I see pulling it off in 2008 is Gore/Edwards. I think this could be the dynamic team that may take the country by storm. If Gore chooses to run again (and he's gotten his stock way up recently) the party will push him through to avenge the brutal loss of 2000. Edwards is worthy of a Presidential candidate himself, but will have to defer to the more experienced Gore as the lead of the ticket and will once again accept the number two slot.As for who they will defeat, it's a real toss-up. My guess is that the GOP will push through a McCain/Giuliani or a McCain/Santorum ticket. As I said, if McCain pushes the immigrant amnesty bill the republicans will abandon him and the field will be wide open. This will all but give the White House to the Democrats, as long as they don't screw it up with a rediculous ticket.This should be the most interesting race in recent history. 

This message was edited by docgoblin on 12-8-06 @ 10:53 PM

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 07:01 PM

I don't know about a McCain/Santorum, or a AnybodyGOP/Santorum ticket.  Santorum lost in a big way.  His victory the time before to become a Senator of PA. was a squeaker.  If a religious right candidate were to be VP to balance the GOP ticket between moderates and conservatives, look for Senator Brownback from Kansas.

Dash77

12-08-2006, 07:15 PM

Right now the Dems don't have a strong candidate at all, the choices are a black man and a women, the country just isn't ready for either, the Republicans can sit the bowl of gravy up there and it would have a better chance of winning.  The Dems should work together and come up with a real strong candidate and stop with the gimmicks..

empulse

12-08-2006, 07:22 PM

WOW!  Take a breath, put down the Kool Aid, and blame the conservatives for all the worlds ills one issue at at time!Who did i blame for any ills? I was solely throwing my specualation as to presidential contenders/hopefuls.  We have two whole years of investigations and indictments, and jail sentences to wait for. I will back up anything I write.  I take politics very seriously, and I am pretty sure its not a game.  So while my firends come home fucked up in the head, or dead, fighting a war of CHOICE for a bunch of FUCKING LIES you want to throw cliches'?  If you support these people so much, go to the nearest recruiters office and put your money where your mouth is.   This isn't a football game where you get to cheer for your favorite team, people actually live or die based on the decisions we make, the decisions of those we choose to elect.  I long to hear a conservative say something smart (thats not sarcasm or me being shitty)  I miss being able to have a debate over ideas.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 08:00 PM

Well then I read you wrong.But starting a debate calling Guiliani a turd wrapped in shit is a pretty poor start to get a good argument started.  It just attracts the Ann Coulters of the conservative side, which does no one any good.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 08:13 PM

empulse wrote:   scottinnj wrote: WOW!  Take a breath, put down the Kool Aid, and blame the conservatives for all the worlds ills one issue at at time!"Who did i blame for any ills? I was solely throwing my specualation as to presidential contenders/hopefuls.  We have two whole years of investigations and indictments, and jail sentences to wait for."Well I hate to disappoint you, but your side has promised no impeachment hearings, only oversight committees to see if money has been wasted and how to improve the intelligence community. "I will back up anything I write."So far I haven't seen you back anything up, just calling those you disagree with shitheads and liars.  "I take politics very seriously, and I am pretty sure its not a game.  So while my firends come home fucked up in the head, or dead, fighting a war of CHOICE for a bunch of FUCKING LIES you want to throw cliches'?"It worked right?  Got you pretty pissed off so we all can see how irrelevant you are to honest debate.  Besides show me the lie-Because if "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED" is true, then include on your list of shitheads and liars you seem to want to jail:President Clinton-told the American People Sadaam had WMDs.Senator Kerry-told the American People Sadaam had WMDs.Senator Hillary Clinton-told the American People Sadaam had WMDs.Prime Minister Tony Blair-Told the U.K. Sadaam had WMDs.And so on and so on..............  "If you support these people so much, go to the nearest recruiters office and put your money where your mouth is."I did.  Army 88-93, National Guard from 93-96.  I was in Germany when the Berlin wall fell, and participated in Desert Shield/Storm as part of the brigade from Europe that spent the most time in the sand.   "This isn't a football game where you get to cheer for your favorite team, people actually live or die based on the decisions we make, the decisions of those we choose to elect."And I'M talking in cliches?    "I long to hear a conservative say something smart (thats not sarcasm or me being shitty)  I miss being able to have a debate over ideas."So do I empulse, so do I.

scottinnj

12-08-2006, 08:34 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:  But the biggest bias that the republican strategist would be exploiting is that republicans are anti-democrat/anti-liberal. Thus they will generally consider a black or woman equal and qualified IF THEY ARE REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE. If they are democrat, many republicans will revert to the old assumptions of unqualified/unfit because of race or gender. This level of mysogeny/racism is much less than it was one or two generations ago. But they still exist and therefore they will be exploited. Therefore, a black or woman republican has a much better chance of being elected than a democrat.  Respectfully I disagree.  Watching my party implode on the campaign trail this past election cycle, I fear that if a Senator Clinton/Senator Obama ticket from the Dems will result in a pandering attempt by the GOP with a Guiliani/Rice ticket to counter the Dems ticket based solely on race, and not on substance.  Remember,  the GOP was poised to make President Clinton a single term president after rolling into Congress in 1994.  What did we do?  Gave Senator Dole his chance at his campaign because he was "next in line" like we had some sort of hierachy of candidates.  Just because he was due a chance, didn't make him the best candidate.  And the anemic campaign he ran proved that.  He acted like he was due, and the American people said "no you're not"Ken Mehlman needs to split from the GOP chairmanship.  The George Allen campain was a disgrace.  We deserved to lose the election.  If we run the 2008 election the same way, all you guys have to do is stay quiet and let us screw ourselves up.

keithy_19

12-08-2006, 08:39 PM

phixion wrote: Obama is a great candidate. and if you have to water down ur candidate just to appease the populous then ur nothing but spineless fuck who just want power. i fuckin hate hillary but obama is a great candidate. the democrats should stick their guns and say fuck you to all the square states int he middle. id rather lose with obama then win with some version of republican lite. I don't really know what Obama stands for. I've also been staying away from the news lately.

shittyhambrgers

12-08-2006, 09:49 PM

both obama and hillary suck.  since when is it cool to route for two people who would never win unless they're going against each other?  candidates used to be powerful figures; hillary and obama wouldn't ever win against a stronger opponent (dem or rep, respectively).  it's just silly.

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 01:55 AM

scottinnj wrote: [quote]"Who did i blame for any ills? I was solely throwing my specualation as to presidential contenders/hopefuls.  We have two whole years of investigations and indictments, and jail sentences to wait for."Well I hate to disappoint you, but your side has promised no impeachment hearings, only oversight committees to see if money has been wasted and how to improve the intelligence community.They promised no impeachment hearings, but have promised investigative hearings. So you'll see hearings on the administration's handling of the pre-war intelligence, and probably handling of the post-invasion period - including wasted money, the contracting process, and possibly the administration's detention and interrogation policies and how they effected Abu Ghraib and other abuses. They will be extremely damaging. There's alot of information in the public record that isn't in the official record because of republican control. The first hearings will be a floodgate of admissions from current and former administration officials. It's too early to say there will be indictments or jail sentences. If there are it's more likely they would be for lying DURING the upcomming hearings. An official that comes clean usually gets leniency from Congress rather than courts. But the "perp walk" is not the point of such hearings. The point is to get the administration to answer real questions about how we got here instead of an official record - and a public conventional wisdom - that is based solely on White House press releases.I think we're already seeing one positive result from the dems retaking Congress and the inevitablility of hearings - the president wants Iraq in as good a shape as possible when the hearings occur and he can't be seen to still be running the war like an autocrat - so it's at least part of the reason he replaced Rummy with Gates, (a guy who respects Congressional oversight as well as outside opinions on the conduct of the war - at least that's what I'm expecting from him), and he will probably change Iraq policy with parts of the Iraq Study Group recommendations. He's never taken outside advice on the war before, but he's doing it now to temper some of the anger that will drive the hearings.Besides show me the lie-Because if "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED" is true, then include on your list of shitheads and liars you seem to want to jail:President Clinton-told the American People Sadaam had WMDs.Senator Kerry-told the American People Sadaam had WMDs.Senator Hillary Clinton-told the American People Sadaam had WMDs.Prime Minister Tony Blair-Told the U.K. Sadaam had WMDs.These people said this. What they didn't do is make sure that the US intelligence community proved them right, dispite the complex answer that the evidence produced. These people lied to make political points - and Bill Clinton in order to not lose control of the sanctions and containment of Saddam Hussein. And their lies were based on their speculation that Saddam was lying when he said he destroyed his WMD. It was a good bet on their part. But when you set out to make that speculation the opinion of the intel community so you can attack a country rather than let them give you their honest opinion of whether the speculation is right  - and then act on it, well that's a whole other thing.But that's a debate we'll have again when the hearings happen next year. There will be plenty of people who get paid lots of money to make the same points we're making now. I say we wait and steal their work.  </bl

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 02:17 AM

scottinnj wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:  But the biggest bias that the republican strategist would be exploiting is that republicans are anti-democrat/anti-liberal. Thus they will generally consider a black or woman equal and qualified IF THEY ARE REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE. If they are democrat, many republicans will revert to the old assumptions of unqualified/unfit because of race or gender. This level of mysogeny/racism is much less than it was one or two generations ago. But they still exist and therefore they will be exploited. Therefore, a black or woman republican has a much better chance of being elected than a democrat.  Respectfully I disagree.  Watching my party implode on the campaign trail this past election cycle, I fear that if a Senator Clinton/Senator Obama ticket from the Dems will result in a pandering attempt by the GOP with a Guiliani/Rice ticket to counter the Dems ticket based solely on race, and not on substance.  Remember,  the GOP was poised to make President Clinton a single term president after rolling into Congress in 1994.  What did we do?  Gave Senator Dole his chance at his campaign because he was "next in line" like we had some sort of hierachy of candidates.  Just because he was due a chance, didn't make him the best candidate.  And the anemic campaign he ran proved that.  He acted like he was due, and the American people said "no you're not"It's too early to debate the 2008 primaries too much. I will say that I think the repulican party, is better able to learn from its mistakes than the democratic party. The dems lost in 2004 for the same reasons they did in 2000. They learned nothing in that period. In 2000 Bush had two gubernatorial election victories on his resume and nothing else. (He had been an unsuccessful businessman, had avoided service in Vietnam, and had few, if any, achievements as governor to qualify him to be the most pwerful man in the universe.) But the party was able to keep Gore - with a solid resume - on the defensive and make resumes irrelevant. They did the same thing in 2004. Kerry was the best candidate in the primaries, especially on Iraq. But again, the republican campaign - Rove - was able to make the election a referrendum on Kerry and not Bush. This shows one party that knows how to do its primary job - win elections, and a party that doesn't. And, while the republicans probably won't have Rove run the campaign, they will have someone Rove-like. Despite the mid-terms, Rove is a winner. Republicans aren't the type to forget that fact and pretend the last elections changed everything and throw the baby out with the bath water. My money's on them.Ken Mehlman needs to split from the GOP chairmanship.  The George Allen campain was a disgrace.  We deserved to lose the election.  If we run the 2008 election the same way, all you guys have to do is stay quiet and let us screw ourselves up.He's already out. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez" target="_blank">Here's your new guy.</a>

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 02:41 AM

empulse wrote: NewYorkDragons80 wrote: I think this is a fair question to throw out there; What has Obama done to make him qualified/considered for President? Thank you! This should be the first question anyone considers before deciding who to vote for!I call SERIOUS BULLSHIT on that.  America elected the dumbest fuck of them all, and still to this day some of us are slerppin up his bullshit -- George W Bush.  Guiliani is a turd, wrapped in shit, and he will get blown outta the water.  Plus the supposed morals crowd won't go for a baby killin, homo lovin, NYC liberal loving president.  No matter how many times he blows James Dobson on TV.Frist is out.MCcain - he needs dropped back in vietnam.  He is a disgusting mess of a human. I have to say I read this far and stopped reading. It's mostly personal attacks on people with detailed public records. There's no reason for it. McCain "needs to be dropped back in Vietnam?" Why should anyone take you seriously after that?He actually had the nerve to accuse Kerry of Bashing the Troops with his joke, and ill say it, NOT BOTChed. watch the whole clip.  Plus he is looking unhealthy, everytime i see him he looks like he has a tumor growing on his face.  I suspect that it might be that last bit of dignity forming a hard lump and preparing to fall off of him to escape.  He is one Vet i have zero respect for.Hillary - this is more just wishful thinking, but...  I hope that she doesn't run, and just keeps danglin he Presidential possibilities in the Rights faces and drawing their fire while a better Dem candidate comes up from behind.  She can afford to draw their fire for a while, even deplete Repub hopefuls funds.  But that may just be my fantasy.   Plus we have gone almost a whole generation with the Bush/Clinton bullshit and i am done, i love Bill to death, but he can't run.Obama - Why not?  You "He's not qualified, no record" Exactly.  no corporate cock have been in him yet.  perfect.  But he still isn't Presidential yet, altho' he does have 2 years, well 1 i guess to make something magical happen.Gore - This guy is on fire, kicking ass and taking names.  Guess what ? GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.  Get used to it.  You can actually make money doing something about it.  He is a different man, but has the knowledge/expirience to deal with the left over mess of the Iraq war, none of the other candidates (or supposed) can say this.  This won't happen, but maybe this next time we can drop the Guns-Gays_God-Abortion bullshit and elect someone that will do whats right for America and not just our own narrow self-interests.

sailor

12-09-2006, 04:30 AM

NewYorkDragons80 wrote: I think this is a fair question to throw out there; What has Obama done to make him qualified/considered for President? i think he gave a good speech one time.  seriously, that's all i've ever heard of him.

UnknownPD

12-09-2006, 04:50 AM

Dash77 wrote: Right now the Dems don't have a strong candidate at all, the choices are a black man and a women, the country just isn't ready for either, the Republicans can sit the bowl of gravy up there and it would have a better chance of winning.  The Dems should work together and come up with a real strong candidate and stop with the gimmicks.. All you're doing is repeating an old paradigm. The race and or sex of the candidate will probably have little influence by itself. Colin Powell could have walked into the White House if he'd wanted. In this case it's not what they are but who they are. Hillary is a vastly polarizing figure and would be regardless of her sex. Obama may have limited experience, but in today's world no record may be better than an extensive one. People would fall over themselves for an excuse to prove they're not racist/sexist when voting. But in the end I believe both Hillary and Obama will fade and someone we are least expecting will rise...the Democrat success of late has been to get people outside of the DC ring...I say expect some governor to rise on the democratic side.

sailor

12-09-2006, 04:50 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: scottinnj wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:  But the biggest bias that the republican strategist would be exploiting is that republicans are anti-democrat/anti-liberal. Thus they will generally consider a black or woman equal and qualified IF THEY ARE REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE. If they are democrat, many republicans will revert to the old assumptions of unqualified/unfit because of race or gender. This level of mysogeny/racism is much less than it was one or two generations ago. But they still exist and therefore they will be exploited. Therefore, a black or woman republican has a much better chance of being elected than a democrat.  Respectfully I disagree. Watching my party implode on the campaign trail this past election cycle, I fear that if a Senator Clinton/Senator Obama ticket from the Dems will result in a pandering attempt by the GOP with a Guiliani/Rice ticket to counter the Dems ticket based solely on race, and not on substance. Remember, the GOP was poised to make President Clinton a single term president after rolling into Congress in 1994. What did we do? Gave Senator Dole his chance at his campaign because he was "next in line" like we had some sort of hierachy of candidates. Just because he was due a chance, didn't make him the best candidate. And the anemic campaign he ran proved that. He acted like he was due, and the American people said "no you're not"It's too early to debate the 2008 primaries too much. I will say that I think the repulican party, is better able to learn from its mistakes than the democratic party. The dems lost in 2004 for the same reasons they did in 2000. They learned nothing in that period. In 2000 Bush had two gubernatorial election victories on his resume and nothing else. (He had been an unsuccessful businessman, had avoided service in Vietnam, and had few, if any, achievements as governor to qualify him to be the most pwerful man in the universe.) But the party was able to keep Gore - with a solid resume - on the defensive and make resumes irrelevant. They did the same thing in 2004. Kerry was the best candidate in the primaries, especially on Iraq. But again, the republican campaign - Rove - was able to make the election a referrendum on Kerry and not Bush. This shows one party that knows how to do its primary job - win elections, and a party that doesn't. And, while the republicans probably won't have Rove run the campaign, they will have someone Rove-like. Despite the mid-terms, Rove is a winner. Republicans aren't the type to forget that fact and pretend the last elections changed everything and throw the baby out with the bath water. My money's on them.Ken Mehlman needs to split from the GOP chairmanship. The George Allen campain was a disgrace. We deserved to lose the election. If we run the 2008 election the same way, all you guys have to do is stay quiet and let us screw ourselves up.He's already out. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Martinez" target="_blank">Here's your new guy.</a>  look at bob dole.  look at bill clinton.  seriously, the republicans are the ones who don't know how to win elections?  i think it's dishonest to say that republicans win because they are good at winning.  isn't it just possible that people agree with them, even if you don't?

sailor

12-09-2006, 04:54 AM

my republican plan (which means it's nothing) mccain+random religious nut in 2008+12, giuliani ny gov in 2010+14 and then for pres in 2016.  tuck that one away and pull it up in 10 years.  :)

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 06:27 AM

look at bob dole.  look at bill clinton.  seriously, the republicans are the ones who don't know how to win elections?  i think it's dishonest to say that republicans win because they are good at winning.  isn't it just possible that people agree with them, even if you don't?Your words frighten and confuse me. Help me out here:look at bob dole.  look at bill clinton.<img src="http://www.clintonfoundation.org/gif/programs-rr-wjc-dole-scholarship.jpg" border="0" alt="Takes Viagra - IS Viagra" title="Takes Viagra - IS Viagra" width="242" height="275" />OK, now what?seriously, the republicans are the ones who don't know how to win elections? Is this a typo? Because I said the opposite. i think it's dishonest to say that republicans win because they are good at winning. Huh?isn't it just possible that people agree with them, even if you don't?Did I say otherwise? Bob, up there, seems to be saying "Hey Bill, quit Bogarting the Viagra. You've had enough! Hook a Bob Dole up!"

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 06:29 AM

bronxmarc wrote: my republican plan (which means it's nothing) mccain+random religious nut in 2008+12, giuliani ny gov in 2010+14 and then for pres in 2016.  tuck that one away and pull it up in 10 years.  <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> What does it say about your party when half of your dream team is "random religious nut"?

sailor

12-09-2006, 08:06 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:   look at bob dole. look at bill clinton. seriously, the republicans are the ones who don't know how to win elections? i think it's dishonest to say that republicans win because they are good at winning. isn't it just possible that people agree with them, even if you don't? Your words frighten and confuse me. Help me out here: look at bob dole. look at bill clinton. <img src="http://www.clintonfoundation.org/gif/programs-rr-wjc-dole-scholarship.jpg" border="0" alt="Takes Viagra - IS Viagra" title="Takes Viagra - IS Viagra" width="242" height="275" />OK, now what? seriously, the republicans are the ones who don't know how to win elections?  Is this a typo? Because I said the opposite.  i think it's dishonest to say that republicans win because they are good at winning.  Huh? isn't it just possible that people agree with them, even if you don't? Did I say otherwise? Bob, up there, seems to be saying "Hey Bill, quit Bogarting the Viagra. You've had enough! Hook a Bob Dole up!" yes, obviously that was a typo. it was early and i was out late. you were effectively saying that republicans only win because they are good at campaigning, not because people might happen to agree with their ideas. and you know i was implying that you should compare clinton and dole in terms of how they run a campaign. clinton is a master campaigner, while dole presidential bid was stillborn. don't be a silly person.edit:  The dems lost in 2004 for the same reasons they did in 2000. They learned nothing in that period. In 2000 Bush had two gubernatorial election victories on his resume and nothing else. (He had been an unsuccessful businessman, had avoided service in Vietnam, and had few, if any, achievements as governor to qualify him to be the most pwerful man in the universe.) But the party was able to keep Gore - with a solid resume - on the defensive and make resumes irrelevant. They did the same thing in 2004.  see, you are giving no credit to the fact that maybe people just happened to agree with bush on the issues of the day. 

This message was edited by bronxmarc on 12-9-06 @ 12:14 PM

sailor

12-09-2006, 08:09 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: bronxmarc wrote: my republican plan (which means it's nothing) mccain+random religious nut in 2008+12, giuliani ny gov in 2010+14 and then for pres in 2016. tuck that one away and pull it up in 10 years. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> What does it say about your party when half of your dream team is "random religious nut"? it says that some of the people are religious nuts.  what, there aren't factions of the democratic party that you find to be kooky?  or are you one of the kooks that the other dems are embarrassed by?  :)

FezPaul

12-09-2006, 08:10 AM

Dash77 wrote:  the Republicans can sit the bowl of gravy up there and it would have a better chance of winning.  Fez4PrezN2008

empulse

12-09-2006, 08:14 AM

I will say you are right to a point, but i didn't fire the first shot in this.  I was posting opinion/speculation, not so much assigning blame for the countries woes.  The whole argument that Clinton did it, Kerry did it has no validity.Clinton, Kerry and the rest of the Dems that you say "Voted to go to war" did no such thing.  They voted to give the President the OPTION to use force, much much different than what the TV has programmed so many to say and think.   Weapons inspectors WERE in Iraq.  Hans Blix was there.  Bush pulled them out.   The Dems did NOT have the same intel as the President because his committee chairs chose not to share it with the Dems.  Any one who questioned this president on going to Iraq had their Patriotism questioned, and called traitors. Now, my harsh words for McCain-He has repeatedly been kicked and beaten by his own party, He allows Veterans to be shit on by this President.  McCain belives more Troops will WIN the war, but can't define a WIN.  more Stay the course.McCain was for the gov't staying out of peoples lives before he was against it.He feels that morallity CAN be legislated.He has voted almost 100% of the time against any oversight in this war.McCain Talks Tough On Lobbying Reform, Secretly Pumps K-Street For Big Contributions He was against illegal wiretaps and torture before he voted to allow it.Enron caliber banking scandals during the 80's that he played a major role in, depriving many people of their 401k's, leaving them destitute.I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all the bills he voted for (all while saying on the tube he was against them..) that have been instrumental in eroding our constitution.  Someone like McCain loves to play the Military Hero role, and wave the Flag and profess his partriotism - all while sneaking up behind lady liberty to cut her throat - I have no respect for the man - none.  He is a disgrace to the uniform.  And before you ask - Navy, whole family.  He is a Maverick all right, he will manuever and wiggle to put himself in the Whitehouse no matter who he has to lie to or step on.To scottinnj - I am sorry that political debate and discourse in this country is where it is, and its wrong for me (or any of us) to make it personal.  When we argue things based on what we see/hear from the MSM we both look like tards.  Its our duty as Americans to look at the records of those we are voting for and scrutinize them, hold them accountable and do whats best for our country.As a Dem I promise to hold those i voted for (and didn't vote for) to account for every action they take in our name.  And I would hope for, and expect no less out of the rest of the people here.  And none of us can be to far gone, we all have one thing in common that we agree on - Ron an Fez, might be cheesy but we all have to start seeing the good things we have in common with one another before we think about pulling out the claws and disemboweling each other.I have a couple trees out in the yard that need a hug. - peace.

FUNKMAN

12-09-2006, 08:15 AM

i think i read some people feel Obama doesn't have the experience. If George W hasn't dispelled that myth i don't know what to say, Not only did he have his own experiences, a father who was president, and experienced people around him and he still fucked it up.

epo

12-09-2006, 08:19 AM

empulse wrote: Now, my harsh words for McCain-Enron caliber banking scandals during the 80's that he played a major role in, depriving many people of their 401k's, leaving them destitute.Holy shit!  Thanks for the reminder, I almost forgot about the Keating Five.

sailor

12-09-2006, 08:23 AM

empulse wrote: I will say you are right to a point, but i didn't fire the first shot in this. I was posting opinion/speculation, not so much assigning blame for the countries woes. The whole argument that Clinton did it, Kerry did it has no validity.Clinton, Kerry and the rest of the Dems that you say "Voted to go to war" did no such thing. They voted to give the President the OPTION to use force, much much different than what the TV has programmed so many to say and think. Weapons inspectors WERE in Iraq. Hans Blix was there. Bush pulled them out. The Dems did NOT have the same intel as the President because his committee chairs chose not to share it with the Dems. Any one who questioned this president on going to Iraq had their Patriotism questioned, and called traitors. Now, my harsh words for McCain-He has repeatedly been kicked and beaten by his own party, He allows Veterans to be shit on by this President. McCain belives more Troops will WIN the war, but can't define a WIN. more Stay the course.McCain was for the gov't staying out of peoples lives before he was against it.He feels that morallity CAN be legislated.He has voted almost 100% of the time against any oversight in this war.McCain Talks Tough On Lobbying Reform, Secretly Pumps K-Street For Big Contributions He was against illegal wiretaps and torture before he voted to allow it.Enron caliber banking scandals during the 80's that he played a major role in, depriving many people of their 401k's, leaving them destitute.I don't have the patience to go back and re-read all the bills he voted for (all while saying on the tube he was against them..) that have been instrumental in eroding our constitution. Someone like McCain loves to play the Military Hero role, and wave the Flag and profess his partriotism - all while sneaking up behind lady liberty to cut her throat - I have no respect for the man - none. He is a disgrace to the uniform. And before you ask - Navy, whole family. He is a Maverick all right, he will manuever and wiggle to put himself in the Whitehouse no matter who he has to lie to or step on.To scottinnj - I am sorry that political debate and discourse in this country is where it is, and its wrong for me (or any of us) to make it personal. When we argue things based on what we see/hear from the MSM we both look like tards. Its our duty as Americans to look at the records of those we are voting for and scrutinize them, hold them accountable and do whats best for our country.As a Dem I promise to hold those i voted for (and didn't vote for) to account for every action they take in our name. And I would hope for, and expect no less out of the rest of the people here. And none of us can be to far gone, we all have one thing in common that we agree on - Ron an Fez, might be cheesy but we all have to start seeing the good things we have in common with one another before we think about pulling out the claws and disemboweling each other.I have a couple trees out in the yard that need a hug. - peace.  as far as the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/" target="_blank" title="keating 5">keating 5</a> scandal, mccain's actions were ruled to be not "improper nor attended with gross negligence."

A.J.

12-09-2006, 09:39 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Why do you think the Bush campaign chose South Carolina to ask republicans the question "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Because of THIS guy?<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Strom_Thurmond.jpg" border="0" width="246" height="300" />

FezPaul

12-09-2006, 09:47 AM

empulse wrote:  As a Dem I promise to hold those i voted for (and didn't vote for) to account for every action they take in our name.  And I would hope for, and expect no less out of the rest of the people here.  <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2006-11-14">Puke.</a>

This message was edited by FezPaul on 12-9-06 @ 1:47 PM

johnniewalker

12-09-2006, 09:47 AM

A.J. wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Why do you think the Bush campaign chose South Carolina to ask republicans the question "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Because of THIS guy?<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Strom_Thurmond.jpg" border="0" width="246" height="300" /> Thurmond met Washington-Williams when she was 16. He helped pay her way through college and later paid her sums of money in cash or, through a nephew, checks. These payments extended well into her adult life.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#_note-60min">[3]</a> Washington-Williams has stated that she did not reveal she was Thurmond's daughter during his lifetime because it "wasn't to either advantage of either one of us" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#_note-60min">[3]</a> and that she kept silent out of love and respect for her father.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#_note-1">[4]</a> She denies that there was an agreement between the two to keep her connection to Thurmond silent. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#_note-60min">[3]</a> After Washington-Williams came forward, the Thurmond family publicly acknowledged her parentage. Wow I never knew that.  She was only 16, that's a pretty ballsy lie to keep going for 80 years.

JimBeam

12-09-2006, 11:23 AM

Some of this was discussed in a previous thread a few months ago about who would win first a black man or white woman for president.Clearly we won't get either in 2008.I'd be considered Republican but i would not vote for Guiliani and I honestly believe only peope on the east Coast, actually maybe only in NY, think that Giulliani could win the presidency.Do you really think that the rest of the nation cares that " he saved NYC " ?We've seen it in several votes for Federal funding that the nation isnt as gung ho about NYC as people would like to believe.In the end people feel bad but then they move on because they say to themselves " at least it didnt happen here "Giulliani isnt conservative enough I believe, on social issues, to attract the base that won Bush his elections.Sure he might get some of it but I think a lot of it would go to a 3rd party candidate that's be smart enough to run against a Clinton/Obama and Giuliani/Anybody ticket.If you even have a chance of getting 40% of the national vote, whether you be a Dem or Rep, you would clearly wanna be a 3rd party candidate in that election.The difference between Hillary C and Bill C is Hillary is now considered a northern Dem liberal whereas Bill was a southern good ole boy with some populist in him.Hillary winning landslides in a heavily Democratic NY is one thing. Winning a national election is another thing altogether.I'm not sure who the Republicans will run.I'm not big on McCain so I'm not sure how it's gonna go.

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 05:42 PM

bronxmarc wrote: yes, obviously that was a typo. it was early and i was out late. you were effectively saying that republicans only win because they are good at campaigning, not because people might happen to agree with their ideas. and you know i was implying that you should compare clinton and dole in terms of how they run a campaign. clinton is a master campaigner, while dole presidential bid was stillborn. don't be a silly person.edit:  The dems lost in 2004 for the same reasons they did in 2000. They learned nothing in that period. In 2000 Bush had two gubernatorial election victories on his resume and nothing else. (He had been an unsuccessful businessman, had avoided service in Vietnam, and had few, if any, achievements as governor to qualify him to be the most pwerful man in the universe.) But the party was able to keep Gore - with a solid resume - on the defensive and make resumes irrelevant. They did the same thing in 2004.  see, you are giving no credit to the fact that maybe people just happened to agree with bush on the issues of the day. This message was edited by bronxmarc on 12-9-06 @ 12:14 PM So, Dole won that election against the master campaigner because people just happened to agree with him on the issues of the day. But if it's issues people vote on then, in 2004, Bush and Kerry could have spent...<li>George W. Bush (R) $367,227,801 / 62,040,610 = $5.92 / vote </li><li>John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 = $5.52 </li>$693,464,089 on booze and hookers instead of trying to win votes? (D.C.-style!) Dumbasses! The truth is I don't see your point. And I don't see why you keep making the opposite of your point. Clinton was a "master campaigner" so he won. How does that make the point that issues, and not campaigning, win elections? Have you been drinking?

Yerdaddy

12-09-2006, 05:48 PM

bronxmarc wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: bronxmarc wrote: my republican plan (which means it's nothing) mccain+random religious nut in 2008+12, giuliani ny gov in 2010+14 and then for pres in 2016. tuck that one away and pull it up in 10 years. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> What does it say about your party when half of your dream team is "random religious nut"? it says that some of the people are religious nuts.  what, there aren't factions of the democratic party that you find to be kooky?  or are you one of the kooks that the other dems are embarrassed by?  <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> So, what you're saying is that enough religious nuts are in the republican party to make a religious nut on the ticket necessary to win the presidency for the republicans in 2008. And those are the people who agreed with Bush on the issues of the day enough to put him in the White House for eight years. Now we're starting to find some common ground.

JimBeam

12-10-2006, 08:49 AM

The whole military service issue was blown out of the water once Clinton was elected.So please lets refrain from using that as a litmus test anymore.Prior to Clinton it was always a big deal, whether that was important or not, but its now moot.

FMJeff

12-10-2006, 03:25 PM

Obama is loved all across the country. He will be president. He doesn't look that black, which in my opinion made Jesse Jackson unelectable as president. He is the kind of black a mid-western white can be comfortable with. He also has a warm personality that plays down racial stereotypes. He's the Tiger Woods of politics, and he's utterly electable. I think it's due time a president in this country represents the diverse racial makeup of our population. For far too long, white men have run this country into the ground. Where is it written a black man can't do an equally good job of running the country into the ground as well? He's smart, he's published, he's real. I would vote for him in a heartbeat, and I think other people will too. P.S. Rudolph Guliani will never be president. Too many scandals, and I will sooner see a President Obama than a President Guiliani. And McCain, well, I think he'd be hard pressed to explain specific flip-flops in rhetoric. God knows how much the DCCC wants the opportunity to stick a "flip-flopper" 30 second media buy in the GOP's face.

johnniewalker

12-10-2006, 03:55 PM

FMJeff wrote: Obama is loved all across the country. He will be president. He doesn't look that black, which in my opinion made Jesse Jackson unelectable as president. He is the kind of black a mid-western white can be comfortable with. He also has a warm personality that plays down racial stereotypes. He's the Tiger Woods of politics, and he's utterly electable. I think it's due time a president in this country represents the diverse racial makeup of our population. For far too long, white men have run this country into the ground. Where is it written a black man can't do an equally good job of running the country into the ground as well? He's smart, he's published, he's real. I would vote for him in a heartbeat, and I think other people will too. P.S. Rudolph Guliani will never be president. Too many scandals, and I will sooner see a President Obama than a President Guiliani. And McCain, well, I think he'd be hard pressed to explain specific flip-flops in rhetoric. God knows how much the DCCC wants the opportunity to stick a "flip-flopper" 30 second media buy in the GOP's face.  I don't know about loved, i'd probably say people are indifferent towards him.   That's better than being hated.

sailor

12-10-2006, 04:53 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: bronxmarc wrote: yes, obviously that was a typo. it was early and i was out late. you were effectively saying that republicans only win because they are good at campaigning, not because people might happen to agree with their ideas. and you know i was implying that you should compare clinton and dole in terms of how they run a campaign. clinton is a master campaigner, while dole presidential bid was stillborn. don't be a silly person.edit: The dems lost in 2004 for the same reasons they did in 2000. They learned nothing in that period. In 2000 Bush had two gubernatorial election victories on his resume and nothing else. (He had been an unsuccessful businessman, had avoided service in Vietnam, and had few, if any, achievements as governor to qualify him to be the most pwerful man in the universe.) But the party was able to keep Gore - with a solid resume - on the defensive and make resumes irrelevant. They did the same thing in 2004. see, you are giving no credit to the fact that maybe people just happened to agree with bush on the issues of the day. This message was edited by bronxmarc on 12-9-06 @ 12:14 PM So, Dole won that election against the master campaigner because people just happened to agree with him on the issues of the day. But if it's issues people vote on then, in 2004, Bush and Kerry could have spent...  <li>George W. Bush (R) $367,227,801 / 62,040,610 = $5.92 / vote </li><li>John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 = $5.52 </li>$693,464,089 on booze and hookers instead of trying to win votes? (D.C.-style!) Dumbasses! The truth is I don't see your point. And I don't see why you keep making the opposite of your point. Clinton was a "master campaigner" so he won. How does that make the point that issues, and not campaigning, win elections? Have you been drinking? if you don't uinderstand me, igive up.  you said democrats don't know how to run campaigns so i gave you a primo example tha, yes, they do.  i'm done with this thread.

FezPaul

12-10-2006, 05:25 PM

if you don't uinderstand me, igive up.  you said democrats don't know how to run campaigns so i gave you a primo example tha, yes, they do.  i'm done with this thread.<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" width="28" height="30" /><img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/bye.gif" border="0" width="26" height="18" /><img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/thumbup.gif" border="0" width="38" height="20" />........<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/tongue.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" />.................<img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" width="20" height="20" />

A.J.

12-11-2006, 03:04 AM

K.C.

12-11-2006, 12:20 PM

I think Al Gore would beat anyone, on either the Democrat or Republican side if he chooses to run. However, he seems to be enjoying his new gimmick too much. Maybe as it gets closer, he'll decide to run, but right now, it doesn't look like it will happen.  I'm not sure Hillary or Obama could win in 2008 (maybe Obama at a later date), although they both have things going for them, so I wouldn't count them out. Hillary has the Clinton name, and Obama probably has as much charisma as anyone in the race. As far as the other democratic names being tossed around; Biden, Vilsack, Richardson, etc...none of them have much heat. If the war continues to be the dominate issue heading in to 2008, Biden could pick up some steam, but other than that, I wouldn't look to them. The guy people seem to be forgetting about who is definitely lobbying for the nomination already is John Edwards. If I had to guess, I'd actually pick him to win the nomination at this point...not that he's necessarily my choice, but I think he's in the same class as Obama, but has a better resume.  For the Republicans, they're in disarray...the only names we hear are McCain and Giuliani and I don't think either would stand up in a primary. 

This message was edited by K.C. on 12-11-06 @ 4:21 PM

JimBeam

12-12-2006, 05:04 PM

Didn't John Edwards and Kerry lose NC to Bush/Cheney in the last election ?Not sure how viable he is if he cant win his own state.Geez even Mondale and Dukakis ( spelling ?? ) carried their home states.And Hillary carrying the Clinton name, along with her first name, si exactly why she wouldnt win.

A.J.

12-13-2006, 02:53 AM

And Gore lost Tennessee in 2000.

TheMojoPin

12-13-2006, 04:59 AM

Man, up until the 80's or so, losing multiple elctions on several levels was almost required before someone finally won the presidency.  Running and losing still got your name out there and you could easily run again and potentially win.  Now if you lose once, people think you're done and refuse to even consider you again.

FUNKMAN

12-13-2006, 07:16 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Man, up until the 80's or so, losing multiple elctions on several levels was almost required before someone finally won the presidency.  Running and losing still got your name out there and you could easily run again and potentially win.  Now if you lose once, people think you're done and refuse to even consider you again. in professional boxing it seems to have gone the other way over the years. you had to have alot of fights to earn a title shot. now you just got to beat some jabroniwhat this has to do with politics i have no idea, just doing an opposite comparison 'huh?'

HoddTilliard

12-13-2006, 12:37 PM

johnniewalker wrote: FMJeff wrote: Obama is loved all across the country. He will be president. He doesn't look that black, which in my opinion made Jesse Jackson unelectable as president. He is the kind of black a mid-western white can be comfortable with. He also has a warm personality that plays down racial stereotypes. He's the Tiger Woods of politics, and he's utterly electable. I think it's due time a president in this country represents the diverse racial makeup of our population. For far too long, white men have run this country into the ground. Where is it written a black man can't do an equally good job of running the country into the ground as well? He's smart, he's published, he's real. I would vote for him in a heartbeat, and I think other people will too.  I don't know about loved, i'd probably say people are indifferent towards him.   That's better than being hated.  This is exactly why Hilary has no chance, and Obama is the Dems best Chance.  Hilary has a built in 50%+ intractable figure against her, that will not vote for her under any circumstances.  Plenty of them are Dems.  Few are indifferent about her.  Obama has no negatives, except from the racists who likely would not vote Dem anyway.  He doesn't have the negative of voting for funding the Iraq disaster.  Obama oozes charima(even more than Scott Hall, Chico), and those that are indifferent about him now, will certainly not be so when he becomes more recognized, and most of them will like him.  He just comes off as a damn likeable, and real dude.  He's the next President if he wants it bad enough.  If not, Gore or Edwards are the Dems next best shots.  Hialry has no shot whatsoever, and most Dem insiders know it and will hopefully be able to convince her of that.

K.C.

12-14-2006, 09:31 AM

JimBeam wrote: Didn't John Edwards and Kerry lose NC to Bush/Cheney in the last election ?Not sure how viable he is if he cant win his own state.Geez even Mondale and Dukakis ( spelling ?? ) carried their home states.And Hillary carrying the Clinton name, along with her first name, si exactly why she wouldnt win. People don't vote on the Vice President...they lost NC because Kerry was the front man of the ticket.

Chuck

12-15-2006, 01:30 PM

Obama is a media creation.  What has he accomplished?

phixion

12-15-2006, 02:28 PM

What has he accomplishedlets see hes sponsored legislation that expands the size of federal student loans and lowers interest rates, thats good. what esle, oh he and a republican co-sponsored a bill protecting domestic workers from guest workers, so that shows hes against illegal immigration, great example of bipartisanship. his coming out speech at the democratic convention impressed almost every and any one who heard it. thats what i know off the top of my head, ill research some more once i finish this project for work.oh and what did Lincoln do before becoming president? he was just a lowly representative who served only 2 years in congress before being ousted in the next election. and hey he did it in the house, obama is doing things in the senate you now the 'upper house' and finally both of these guys happened to represent the illinois. now im not saying obama is going to be lincoln, id like to believe he has more respect for the constitution than lincoln did, but these are similarities that people just enjoy over looking because obama is black.

Snacks

12-15-2006, 07:45 PM

Chuck wrote: Obama is a media creation.  What has he accomplished? Dont hate.

NewYorkDragons80

12-22-2006, 09:17 PM

Gvac wrote: HOLY SHIT!A Dragons sighting! How ya been buddy?    I've been hanging in there.  I'm in my last year of college before I head out into the real world as an Air Force officer.  I lost interest in the board when I wasn't listening anymore, but now the boys are back, so I'm back and happy to be here.  Thanks for noticing!   phixion wrote: What has he accomplishedlets see hes sponsored legislation that expands the size of federal student loans and lowers interest rates, thats good. what esle, oh he and a republican co-sponsored a bill protecting domestic workers from guest workers, so that shows hes against illegal immigration, great example of bipartisanship. his coming out speech at the democratic convention impressed almost every and any one who heard it. thats what i know off the top of my head, ill research some more once i finish this project for work. From the statement "he and a republican co-sponsored a bill..." I can see how much the details of the bill and its co-sponsors mattered.  The fact that you don't remember the co-sponsor's name only reinforces what many here are saying.  And the speech he gave at the 2004 DNC is a how, not a why.