[ I mean, W's father did have proven links with the Nazi regime and was even fined and had his businesses seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act, etc.--[/QB][/QUOTE]

What? Are you saying the elder Pres Bush was linked to Nazis? Never heard that one....please enlighten me.

Hey, SFP: Fantomas did say that, but he got it wrong. Dubya's father, as we all know (even those of us who despise the Bushes politics) served this country with distinction in WW II.

Dubya's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was however in business with the Nazis (so was Joe Kennedy, by the way, something conservatives love to point out when they feel like bashing any member of the Kennedy family -- which makes fantomas's line of argument fair, if equally irrelevant as the Kennedy smear).

You can read about the details in an article written by a former prosecutor for the Justice Department's Nazi hunting unit here

Yes, Skiguy is correct, I meant to type GRANDFATHER. Prescott Sheldon Bush, the Senator from Connecticut and W's GRANDFATHER, not George H. W. Bush, the 41st president, was caught up with the Nazis and the business community in Germany during World War II.

However, Joseph Kennedy was not in business with the Nazi regime, nor was he fined nor did he have businesses seized. His major issue was that he expressed pro-Nazi sentiments on the eve of the war, and also believed in appeasement.

Rather tellingly, both men's sons--George H. W. Bush and John F. Kennedy--joined the military and served with distinction, especially Kennedy. (Joseph Kennedy also lost his eldest son as a result of the war, and a son-in-law, the Marquess of Hartington.)

[ January 21, 2004, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Trust me, BillW, I'm as left-wing as you are, but I think the words should be "caution & concern" rather than "stupidity & cowardice". The Democrats are facing what could be an electoral disaster of historic magnitude, with a net loss in the House all but assured (by the Texas redistricting alone) & a loss of 6 or 7 seats in the Senate a distinct possibility (especially considering all the retirements of incumbent Democrats in the South). To have any hope of avoiding this, we NEED a southerner at the top of the ticket, even if it's the lawyer with his sunshiny platitudes.

I was against W.'s glorious adventure in Babylon from the get-go, & I believe that events of the past 10 months have proved us right. But I know that the Democrats absolutely can't run a campaign based on opposition to the war, because even at those times when things looked like they were falling apart over there, public support for Shrub's Iraq policy never dropped below 50%. And all he needs to do is pull another stunt like the "Electoral Raid on Baghdad" for an instant 8-point bounce. Also, nobody knows how things will play out over there, but with the world's most powerful army at his disposal, odds are that W. can keep the lid on things enough to keep Iraq from becoming an electoral liability. I was glad to see Gephardt go down & will shed no tears when Lieberman crashes in N.H. But as much as I hate to say it, we're probably going to have to give the Democratic nominee a pass on the war. Apparently Iowa Democrats understood this: 75% of caucus-goers polled said they opposed the war, & Kerry & Edwards each won more of their votes than Dean.

Many of my friends on the left have written off the Democrats, but pathetic as they are, they're all we've got, & if they crash, the thugs will be able to consolidate power completely, & future of American society will be authoritarian & merciless, much more so than today.

[ January 21, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

Well fantomas, I hope your assessment of New York, as being safely in the Democratic column is true this November - I would gladly be wrong on this point.

Having said that, I must say that New York Republicans have the governorship, the Mayor's Office of NYC, and control the State Senate - not a bad showing even if they are (your words) "so far to the left that they actually are more liberal than many Democrats." With Guiliani on one side of him, and the "to the left of every Democratic candidate running except...etc" Pataki on the other, Mush might look palatable to New York voters - especially standing at Ground Zero. I know Guiliani is extremely popular out here - his endorsement and campaigning for Moronboy will have an effect. But again, I would happily be wrong on this. Might be interesting to see how New York Log Cabin-ers (Cabin-ite’s? Cabinets?) read their state.

California has gone for the Democrat on the national level every time since 1988. Even with the circus that was the re-call it was no Republican rebirth (hatching sounds more appropriate), as much as it was a referendum on Davis. Gore thumped Mush here, and won by bigger margins than Clinton did. I believe the state to be securely in the Democratic column in 2004 - unless there's a massive terrorist tragedy then all bets are off.

I know the thread is about Kerry, (with apologies to Gamecock) but I love this time of the political season - and would respond to your handicapping as follows:

fantomas wrote:
More iffy are Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania.

The Dems will carry New Mexico, lose Pennsylvania, and Minnesota is up for grabs.

fantomas wrote:
Very iffy but possible are Arkansas, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, and Florida.

Dems will lose them all except Nevada.

When we get closer to the General this will be even more fun to call - and now that the Doctor has been bruised (and how the press has piled on him) the Democratic race will be very interesting all the way to California.

Okay, first, Democrats look to win Pennsylvania, and probably New Hampshire--I can tell you that several people I know who live in Massachusetts and have friends and relatives in NH say that the GOP folks among them are increasingly fed up with W, and really feel like they're up against a wall, since they don't want to vote for a Democrat (though New Hampshire GOPers will vote for Democrats from time to time, Clinton did win the state), but really feel like W is so far to the right (even for New Hampshire!) and fiscally irresponsible that they simply cannot vote for him either. I say stay out of it, then, just don't vote!

Giuliani is popular out in California, and still in New York, but I assure you, W is TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT for New York State. I'm not making this up. My home is in neighboring New Jersey (yea, Garden State!), which is more liberal overall than New York STATE, but even New York State is more moderate than the rest of the GOP. Seriously, though, Pataki is to the left of about half the Democratic governors in the US--if not more. Bloomberg is a Republican only in name and wallet. What Republican in his right mind would propose raising taxes--property taxes, no less, not some obscure fee or whatever--during a RECESSION? Bloomberg did this. I can tell you, he is going to have a race on his hands against his Democratic challenger UNLESS it's someone like Sharpton (please, let it not be him!) who will win about 30% of the vote (some blacks, many Latinos, extremely radical white people), or Ferrer (some blacks, most Latinos, extremely radical white people), or Ruth Messinger (some blacks, some Latinos, all the extremely radical white people). Chuck Schumer, one of the most liberal senators in the US, who is up for re-election, is so assured (and he has the personality of a Brillo pad) that Giuliani isn't daring to challenge him. New York City has grown, not shrunk, so a Republican cannot be to the right of, say, the folks from Nassau (now in Democratic hands) and win a statewide election.

Back to Kerry, I do wonder about some of his more liberal stands and how they'll play in the border states if he gets the nomination. Pairing him with Edwards or Clark would be the only way to have a chance of winning these places. But let's not forget that states like Missouri, Arizona, Kansas, Tennessee (!), etc., have elected Democrats as governor in the last election cycle, and Missouri's Democratic governor is no ultraconservative. Mississippi's was, and he lost.

He's not my type, but he's not as ugly as people claim, especially when he was younger (and he's got quite a head of hair!): [img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/ 0WQAAAPgaQ8sVshoi!q!OlmVgL1ezYJLgrjO0KkVaUJS6iC5yjjZdaxa!fwA0kvF*E2aJwWpplk1z8gJ
IJn9WdCOKYVHrYo0Ft!OZVZNshOPz*tWl3Hu57SR3Nyes6zlkRd6QLcvT9CM/JKSenWin84.jpg?dc=4675435267695754684[/img]

Keep in mind, however, that in the entire history of our nation, only three times has a sitting member of Congress ever become president.

fantomas wrote:
Democrats look to win Pennsylvania, and probably New Hampshire--

Be right fantomas. I have to say, with Secretary of Homeland Security (something about that word "Homeland" that always sounds like "Fatherland" to me...) Tom Ridge running around Pennsylvania scaring folks for Mush, and Santorum preaching to religious zealots for Mush, (they should have buttons printed up - "Zealots for Mush") I think this state is in play. I agree that Hampshire sourcreams are a bit fed up with the type of Republican Moronboy has turned out to be - but still can't see a majority of them picking Kerry or Edwards over King Deficit when the chips are down.

fantomas wrote:
Back to Kerry, I do wonder about some of his more liberal stands and how they'll play in the border states if he gets the nomination. Pairing him with Edwards or Clark would be the only way to have a chance of winning these places.

Kerry is a hard sell in the Border States, and an even harder sell the closer you get to Terra, Kattie Scarlet O'Hara. I think the south is lost for the Dems this cycle. The only way to have a shot in any southern state is to have either Edwards or Gephardt on the ticket. Of the two, I think Gephardt would deliver Missouri before Edwards could deliver North Carolina - which might be an argument for a Kerry/Gephardt ticket.