I cannot believe the ugliness coming from many of the Republicans. Trent Lott said that Edwards has "ZERO" qualifications damning him because he is a "S U I N G" lawyer. Interesting how the alleged "tort reformers" -- many of whom are shills and/or financed for/by the Corporate community are the first to run to lawyers when they need help (like stopping a recount of votes in Florida).

The negative ads, the snide remarks -- typical of a campaign and administration run on negativity.

As for criticizing the Edwards selection as a "second choice" -- what a bogus issue. I guess they forget that Dan Quayle was Daddy Bush's first choice in 88.

Actually, In the end, i'm not sure how much edwards is going to bring to the table. Besides being a media darling. Most of America doesnt know him. He did not command a large vote in the primaries.

When all is said and done, he will be painted as a trial lawyer who made his money via injury law. Raised everyones insurance... etc etc etc. There is no hiding it.

It may have been a better move to get that guy from Indiana (forget his name). Ohio is a huge swing state. Perhaps richards would have gotten him closer here in AZ. Which state is Edwards going to put in Kerry's column? Not NC. Not SC. Edwards doesnt have any pull in FL.

As a southerner, I can safely say that you'll be shocked to see how much just the southern accent will do for him alone. I know W is from Texas, but even Texas wants to be considered it's own region.

I think Edwards will help pull votes away in every southern state, but I'm not sure where it wil be enough. I read today that they're running 50-50 in NC right now.

WRONG PF!!!

When did you become a Floridian? It was just on the news that Kerry - Edwards beats Bush - "go $%^& yourself" by 7 points (outside the 4 point error rate)

Good try at your attempt to be a Floridian...

Regardless, ALOT can happen in the next 100 days. Kerry - Edwards may have a double point lead by then....

[ July 07, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: PewterPirate ]

All I want to know is when is Kerry going to release his 1988 divorce records? What is he hiding? And will we see the Chicago Tribune sue to unseal them like it did for Jack Ryan in Illinois.

Of course, I'm sure the usual folks here will excuse this with the old "it's not the same thing" response. Poppycock! Either both records should remain sealed or both unsealed.

What is John Kerry hiding? Inquiring minds want to know.

Wow this is some silly baiting. Kerry's records shouldn't be unsealed. Nor should Ryan's. I understand that people who willingly seek public office need to accept public scrutiny BUT are the details of Kerry's divorce really a reflection of his abilities as a candidate? And I hope this doesn't become a left/right issue on the board: although Dems were happy about the disclosure, Republicans weren't clamoring to protect Ryan either.

I find I can argue both sides of the "does the vp choice matter?" issue, so herein are some points on both sides to keep the discussion going:

Doesn't matter, we vote the top of the ticket:

in '68, Nixon chose the relatively unknown Spiro Agnew while Hubert Humphrey chose the far-more experienced Edmund Muskie
in '84, Walter Mondale made the historic choice in Geraldine Ferraro and it was thought millions of disenfranchised women would be energized to vote for the Democratic ticket while Reagan stuck with George Bush the elder.
in '88, George Bush the elder picked the callow, inexperienced, less-than-intelligent Dan Qualye while Michael Dukakis selected the respected, veteran Lloyd Bentsen.

It could matter:

Oddly, the current Administration may contribute to this. Dick Cheney has been Bush's foremost advisor, formulated policy, and has made the Vice Presidency into far more than "a warm bucket of shit," as it has been described by previous VPs, though my favorite description of the posiiton was by George Bush the elder: "You die, I fly." Cheney has been even more influential to this administration than Gore was to the Clinton administration.

So even though voters still look to the top of the ticket, this time it could matter in part because of Bush/Cheney's own actions & statements, as when Bush defined the difference between Cheney and Edwards: "Dick Cheney can be president." If that doesn't scare the manjority of swing voters, I don't know what will. In fact, if I were a part of the Kerry camp, I'd get footage of Cheney at his scariest and use Bush's own words as part of an ad!

~Adam

I am sorry but Cheney has the charisma of a statue.

Why Edwards as VP makes sense:

Edwards brings a youthful & vibrant face to the ticket. He polls really strong in the south & midwest. As such, the repubs will have to divert valuable financial resources to shore up support in these areas. This could cost the Repubs in New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Arizona.

Even though he's vulnerable as a trial lawyer, his boyish good looks will preclude anyone from really considering him a bad person. Plus: he always defended the underdog. If the Repubs push this issue too much, it will backfire. All Americans, libs or conservs, respect a man that defends the underdogs.

Finally, should Kerry/Edwards go tits up in this election, Edwards will be primed and poised for the 2008 nomination thereby trumping Hillary's anticipated run. Blessed be.

So Edwards brings "excitement," "youthfullness," "vigor," "charisma," etc. to the ticket? Does this mean that Kerry is dull, old, stiff, and uncharismatic? If so, then he's dead in the water.

Just as Bush choosing a Guiliani or Condi Rice would have overshadowed himself, so can Edwards overshadow Kerry.

BTW, interesting development from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today. They have historically remained neutral in presidential races, never before having endorsed or worked for/against a candidate. However, today the Chamber announced they are leaning to supporting Bush-Cheney because they believe Kerry-Edwards is a serious threat to American businesses. As they said today, this ticket will hurt "the manufacturing sector and the working man."

Should they be surprised? After all, the Americans for Democratic Action calls this "the most liberal ticket to ever run for president and vice-president of the United States."

If Americans realize this, Kerry loses. If the media continues to ignore this and cover it up, Kerry stands a chance of pulling the wool over the eyes of the American electorate and winning. Regardless, it's way too early to tell.

I heard this 4 times yesterday. I guess the media is doing a poor job covering it up.

Kerry-Edwards the most liberal ticket ever?? Oh please! Lets not forget Deocratic candidates Michael Dukakis (a Mondale liberal), Walter Mondale (the original Mondale liberal ), the "green" Al Gore, and a basically socialist FDR! And out of the candidates in the Democratic primaries this spring Howard Dean, Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich were all much more liberal than either Kerry or Edwards. Only Joe Liberman was clearly more conservative than either of these two. These two guys are definitely moderate Democrats. But even if you want to label them as "liberals" (as Fox News has been doing this week), then fine because people aren't running from that label anymore. LIBERAL = GOOD.

Kerry isnt running away from being called a lib?

uhhhhh, when did that happen?

Sorry MIB but your sources obviously don't know what they are talking about related to business and Kerry. As most of us know Kerry wants to give businesses a tax break/credit, as incentive to keep them in this country instead of going overseas, like they are right now under Shrub's watch. But I guess this will really hurt the business, right? Wrong!

Hey PF - Tell us about the candidate you support....lib? conservative?

Yeah, I think Kerry has been kinda avoiding the "Liberal" label. Not really running from it, but avoiding the issue altogether.

Somehow the Republicans and Fox News have managed to turn it into an insulting, dirty word, when it shouldn't be. When they say he's the most liberal member of the Senate, I think to myself, that's a good thing! Remember Dukakis? He ran from "the L word" like mad, until near the end of his campaign when he finally embraced it with some success, calling himself "A liberal in the tradition of John Kennedy." But it was too late. I think Kerry and Edwards need to own the word "Liberal" now, and define it for the good thing it is.

I equate being a liberal with someone who is open minded, as well as fair minded. In fact I recall Howard Dean and John Kerry saying the same thing about liberal, which is not a dirty word. They both said, "if wanting a balanced budget is liberal, then that's fine with me."!

I thought if you wanted a balanced budget you have to elect the repubs to the house and senate? oops my bad.

No, if you want a record deficit you elect repubs. Where does your candidate stand on the deficit?

"Compassionate conservative" is merely a smokescreen to hide a radical conservative agenda and make it palatable to independent and swing voters who would otherwise not embrace as hardline a candidate.

And now word that Shrub has declined to speak at the NAACP convention again, next week. He has yet to make an appearance at a convention during his Presidency. Hmmmmm...actions speak louder than words George. Kerry is speaking next Thursday.

[ July 08, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

He's been to PA 29 times since he was installed by the Supreme Court -- I guess he's too busy now.

Are you talking about the Racist NAACP? The one who compared him to hitler? Id not go either and tell them to stick it up their.. nevermind.

Then he should at least send Dick to tell them to go f**k themselves.

Philly, I'm not sure what paper you read.......


Ummm buddy, he lasted longer than any other Democrat besides obviously John Kerry. And yeah, Dick Cheney was a household name when he was announced as the VP candidate.

Are you joking again, "judge"?

Michael S. Dukakis & Lloyd Bentsen in 1988
Walter Mondale & Geraldine Ferraro in 1984
George McGovern & Sargent Shriver in 1972 (seriously--were they totally unaware of these two???)
Hubert Humphrey & Edwin Muskie in 1968
Lyndon Johnson & Hubert Humphrey in 1964
Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Wallace (a socialist in all but name) in 1940
Abraham Lincoln & Hannibal Hamlin in 1860 (helped spark a Civil War....)

ALL the Socialist, Socialist Labor, Communist and Progressive Party tickets that ran from the 1890s through the 1930s (and got more than 100,000 votes)

By ANY measure, McGovern and Shriver, Humphrey and Muskie, FDR & Wallace, Johnson & Humphrey, and Dukakis & Bentsen have got Kerry and Edwards beat in the "liberal" department. I think those Americans for Democratic Obfuscation should open a history book....

I see almost daily someone on the news talking about how Kerry has nothing positive to say and how he's being so negative in his campaign.....

Then I look at the 2 candidate's websites.

Bush's has.....

The headline stating how much Kerry has missed this year in Congress (well, duh)...

A story on the side about Kerry's "second choice" as running mate....

Links for the "Kerry Gas Tax Calculator" and "Why John Kerry is Wrong For Your State"

And 2 television ads criticizing John Kerry.


John Kerry's front page.....

Doesn't mention George Bush once.

The two links to campaign commercials are both positive ones.

I never knew Braun and Kucinich were the nominees. Did I miss something? I repeat, as the ADA explained, this is the most liberal ticket to ever have run for president.

Voting records don't lie, you know.

Uh, puckman, these aren't "my sources." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said this themselves. So I guess the entity that IS business is now lying ABOUT business, according to puckman.

Man, you guys crack me up. God Himself could come down and tell you something that states a fact about Kerry that you don't like and you'd be saying HE was inaccurate.

Of course Kerry will pander to the NAACP, who will once again endorse him yet can never ask just what HAVE the Dems done for them?

Anyway...why should Bush go? If he does, he gets blasted by a bunch of whiney protesters and a bunch of nitwits here will say he's just pandering for votes, blah, blah, blah. If he doesn't go, he...never mind. See above.

Considering the ADA, a liberal group, analyzed the voting records of Kerry and Edwards and found it was the most liberal--even more so than your names above--well, you do the math.

I'm simply stating what the ADA stated, and now the libs here are denying THAT! You guys crack me up as you once again run away from the fact that this is an extreme ticket. It's waaaayyyyy to the Left. Hell, Ted Kennedy has to look left just to see these guys.

Sorry, but Kerry's first and most important priority is as U.S. Senator and Member of Congress. His missing all those votes is inexcusable. He has to learn to make arrangements to be there to vote, at least for most of them.

How sad that it was HIS absence that caused the unemployment relief bill to fail. Had he been there to vote, it would have passed. Even the media mentioned this several times.

Funny, however, that Kerry--and Edwards--conveniently found the time to pop in and vote for a filibuster for federal judicial nominees.

Wow MIB, 5 posts in a row, the docket must have been slow yesterday.

MIB, I don't care that the ADA says that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is the most liberal ever. Pretty much any reasonable person who thinks for themselves knows that not to be the case (when did you start believing what liberal spin groups say anyway?) But, I'll tell you what, I hope they're right!

MIB, do you know how Congress works? They vote daily.......so that means you expect Kerry to stay in D.C. 5 days a week? Do you want to go back to Bush's last year as Governor and see how much he accomplished? At least as Governor, you can just leave things to be done on your desk.

Go back and look at every Republican and Democratic nominee for President or VP and find me someone who was there a reasonable amount of time.

And by the way, John McCain is often criticized for how many votes he misses and here he is the 'poster boy' of the Bush administration right now.


Here's a thought. When you're not seen as someone who is caring/worried about an entire race, it might not be a bad thing to show up at their major convention and at least LOOK like you care. Avoiding them all together just shows how much he doesn't care.

With respect to the ADA ratings--comparing voting records from 20 years ago makes little sense. Let's take a look at where Kerry compares to other Democratic senators TODAY. What I found was that of the current democratic senators

20 had ratings of 90 or higher
20 had ratings of 80 or lower
so that means that at 85, Kerry is a smack down the middle, typical democrat. Interestingly, Joe Lieberman is also rated an 85.

As to Edwards, a rating of 70 is quite low for a democrat, about as low as you can go and still be considered mainstream. Only three democratic senators had lower scores, John Breaux (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), and Zell Miller (GA).

Personally I don't give a rat's behind how liberal or not so liberal the Dem. ticket is. I guess alot of Americans feel the same way, hence the closeness in all the polls to date. Oh but thats right, MIB thinks I depend on polls. My bad. wink

Another note: since Lieberman is apparently as liberal as Kerry according to the ADA, unless you believe that Gore would have been as conservative as the 3 most conservative dems currently in the Senate, the 2000 ticket was at least as liberal as this years, if not more so.

Since no one else posted it, here's the skinny on the Kerry-McCain flirtation, and the truth that he was BUSH's first choice in 2000....:

Or, in McCain's own words:

Now, does W Ltd.'s commercials claim Kerry offered the post to McCain, or do they just say Edwards was the second (but better) choice?

Unless I am wrong nobody has posted any comments on the big Kerry fundraiser in New York the other day, with the celebs and all. I understand there were some pretty interesting for lack of a better word comments generated by such celebs as Whoopie Goldberg and Chevy Chase to name but a few. I guess Chevy said that Bush " is about as bright as an egg timer", or words to the effect. Kerry's campaign Manager put out a statement after the Bushies got their panties in a wad about some of the comments that the comments were from the celebrities only. Now in their latest negative attack ad, they are using the words the Repugs. think they invented values to attack Kerry. How pathetic.

[ July 10, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Bush Criticizes NAACP's Leadership