MIB. Sorry if I over reacted. Guess I missed the emoticon.

Guess I also need a way to work off all this nervous energy.




Now with regards to the new "scandal". Let me preface it by saying that if I lived in the United States I would be a VERY left wing Democrat. Here in Canada that counts as middle of the road.



(be quiet MIB)

I do not, repeat do NOT beleive it is the Republicans doing this.

THIS TIME.

I think it's a democrat hatchet job.

My reasoning? The Washington Times, which IS a right wing newspaper, sometimes almost to the extreme of the World Nut Daily, has no mention of it on their website today.

One would think that if it really were a scandal, it would be in 128 bold Times New Roman font.

So far, the only one flogging this one to death is Drudge.

And I trust him about as much as I trust my proctologist. The man with FREEZING hands.

So, um, that's why Clark is endorsing Kerry today?

Why do people believe anything that originates from the Drudge Closet?

Can you not read them yourself? That's sad.

It's kind of interesting how none of the mainstream press is running with this Kerry allegation. Oh, yeah, "the filter" is on...now I remember.

William, you sound worried, as well you should be. Your man is in deep trouble.

Oooh, you read my like a book. For those not as enlightened as our dear Mr. Puckman, let me make clear that I saw to it that my last post ("Can you not read them yourself? That's sad.") was shot through with a rippling fear, paranoia and anxiety threatening to at any moment erupt to the surface. So glad someone got that, I put a lot of thought into it.

I hate to come down on you, puckman, but you really gotta get a grip with regard to these polls. It's nowhere near election day, and things are so volatile in this nation and in the world that literally anything can happen.

Joe, point taken, and I understand what you and some others are saying, but at the risk of repeating myself I will repeat myself. This is rather significant because we are nowhere near the Democratic nomination yet, and usually a sitting President often enjoys a lead over any up and cummers, but in this case...not. Bush is in trouble in many areas, and its interesting that the media keep putting these poll results out there. I will accept them because I am optimistic that regime change will occur in our great country in November!!! Bring it on!

Nice try, twin, but that doesn't quite count--for obvious reasons, too.

No U.S. president has ever had the line item veto. None.

Dukakis hadn't been nominated yet, but as the Democratic front runner in 1988, he was 17 points ahead of Bush Sr., and Dukakis ended up getting crushed in the General Election.

Yes, but Dukakis wasn't running against an incumbent. What were the numbers at this point the last few times a Republican sought re-election?

Why is this interesting?

Bush essentially was an incumbent, since he had been VP for eight years and was hardly an unknown commodity.

At any rate, you understand, I assume, that "the last few times" a Republican President sought reelection would date back to, what, 1972? Just wanted to clarify.

[ February 13, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Well, yeah, why not? I was only 10 in 1984, so I have no idea where Mondale stood in the polls at this point. I can't recall Clinton's numbers in early 1992, either. Can somebody help me out? I just want something to gauge Kerry's numbers against.

[ February 13, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: FeverDog ]

All this Kerry hoorah reminds me of somebody who wins the lottery and then has adoring relatives crawling out of the woodwork. Reminds me of a snippet of dialogue in The Royal Tenenbaums between Margot and Eli Cash:

Eli : You never even gave me the time of day till I starting getting good reviews.

Margot: Your reviews aren't that good.

Eli: But the sales are.

So? I never said anything about that.

Essentially he was. Bush was the sitting VP and had been in office for 8 years. There would have been a big difference had both candidates been fresh.

OK. Just making sure. wink

More on the Kerry infidelity allegations can be found HERE.

John Kerry has spoken out on this allegation already MIB, and said it is categorically false, and never happened. So sorry to disappoint you. But feel free to keep trying. wink

So just because he denied it it's false? Too bad when Republicans deny similar allegations you're so quick to dismiss that.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

I have said here before, BTW, that I'll believe this entire thing when I see it. I refuse to jump on the rumor bandwagon. However, there sure seems to be a lot of smoke out there on this, and I doubt the woman in question is a fake, and that Clark's comments were fake, and that Gore's and Dean's decisions were fake.

Time will tell in this.

Hi, Puckman - If there's one thing most of us learned during the 90's it's that just because an oversexed politician says something didn't happen doesn't mean something didn't happen. If ya know what I mean........ wink

[ February 14, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Its way to early though to even think about comparing Kerry to Clinton though. Kerry was a war hero for one thing.

The rumors that are being spread are laughable at this point. It's like they're trying to make up something. First I read there was a fling with an intern, then I read she was sent packing to Africa, now today I read she actually works for the AP and is on assignment.

The whole thing sounds like a joke that's gotten out of hand. Not that it matters. Whoever is nominated gets my vote in November. I don't care if they've committed murder.

It’s started - Interns, and gay marriage. If Republicans succeed in making these the issues of the election, we deserve to be laughed at by the rest of world. Dems must not let Republicans set this agenda of distraction or we all lose as a country.

Ignoring a war we were lied to about; ignoring an economic "recovery" without jobs; ignoring a march to environmental disaster; ignoring the "outsourcing" of what good jobs are left; ignoring a crisis in health care that is shameful; ignoring the erosion of our civil liberties - we can not allow this to happen.

We can legitimately debate the war and the reasons for it, debate the best plan to re-employ America, debate the best use of our environmental treasures, debate how to best solve our health system problems, as well as the balance of liberties in a "war on terror" - but we must be allowed to have the debate.

Be careful what you wish for! Ted Kennedy might still jump in the race!

Just goes to show everyone how intellectually shallow liberals are.

This is an outstanding post. The only thing I would add are the distractions the Democrats are employing. Most notably that of Bush's military service. This is a seriously dead horse; if the Democrats really want to focus on issues this should never have even been brought up, this issue was settled years ago.

NO, it wasn't. The Bushites want you to think that, but go here and scroll through the archives, Kevin Drum has the best coverage of the issue I've seen. And it IS an important issue because since Bush can't run on his abysmal record, he has to run as "a war president", that he'll make Amerka safe from terra. How does he accomplish this? By posing in flight suits that show his package. But if it's proven that he was an AWOL fraud, that undercuts that.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. And the right wingers on this board are such towering intellectual geniuses.

This isn't some ivory tower debate about the fine points of farm policy or the merits of Kenysian vs. trickle down economic theory. This is simply about getting a bunch of thieving, war-mongering religious nuts out of power. PERIOD. It's the same as in 1992: after 12 years of Regan/Bush, I'd have voted for anyone the Democrats ran who had a pulse. That was it, that was my only requirement. I knew the Clenis was a used-car salesman with a fondness for trailer trash ho's, but I didn't care. The big picture was getting Bush I out of office and the Clenis was the way to do that. People thought that Nader was the way to protest the dire candidates both parties put up in 2000 and look where that got us. I personally think Kerry is a milk-toast accomadationist "liberal" but if the polls show that he's ahead of Bush, I'll vote for him. I'd vote for ANYONE that was in that position. Getting Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolofitz, Ashcroft, Perle, Rumsfeld et al out of power and back in the corporate boardrooms or wingnut think tanks where they belong is the ONLY THING that matters.

[ February 14, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

And too bad it is not. If most of the American voters gave half a shit about the candidate’s intellect we wouldn’t have this bozo in the white house in the first place.

MIb said just goes to show you how intelectually shallow liberals are , thats too funny, because that's exactly how I see Repuglicans and Independants.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
[QB] NO, it wasn't. The Bushites want you to think that, but go here and scroll through the archives, Kevin Drum has the best coverage of the issue I've seen. And it IS an important issue because since Bush can't run on his abysmal record, he has to run as "a war president", that he'll make Amerka safe from terra. How does he accomplish this? By posing in flight suits that show his package. But if it's proven that he was an AWOL fraud, that undercuts that.

Granted it would look bad if it were PROVEN Bush was AWOL, but how long are you going to try and "prove" it? With every bit of evidence that Bush presents that "proves" he was there his critics point out that the evidence "raises more questions". Bush's political opponents have been beating this dead horse for several years, including the 2000 campaign for President. The Democrats are just desperate to find an issue.

As a former member of the Army I have to tell you that the President's landing on an aircraft carrier, as well as his surprise trip to Baghdad for Thanksgiving, speaks volumes for his commitment and dedication to the troops. Civilians (especially Democratic civilians) might see this as grandstanding. But for a lot of troops this tells them they have a Commander In Chief who is willing to take on some risk of his own. This is a man who does not sit in the Oval Office with his feet propped up on his desk, smoking a cigar (or being smoked by an intern), as he orders men and women into combat. Bush is willing to take on PERSONAL RISK himself. I have not heard ANYONE give this man credit for any of that. When is the last time you even heard ANYONE, talk about the Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad? I do not think Bush is perfect, but give credit where credit is due.

Timber, you said that the Democrats are desparate to find an issue??? Thats funny, because there are so many "issues" regarding Shrub where he is vulnerable. I think what the Dems are doing is to point out here again, that Bush lacks credibility, something which the polls keep showing with more and more regularity.

You kind of hit on what I meant. Credibility is the issue the Democrats are desperatly focusing on. I'm sure the Democrats are going to try and hit away on the economy as well as other issues. But for every point the Democrats make Bush will have a legitimate counterpoint. (I can't wait for the first debate, Bush should smash whoever the Democrat is.) If the Democrats can somehow, someway click their heels and wish three times for an issue, it would be credibility. If they can somehow make it work Bush would have a hard time defending it.

I can't wait to hear the economy come up in the debate either, and hear Shrub's as you say legitimate counterpoint, like he is on the mark to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have actually lost more jobs than gain them, and then there is the subject of health care, and how Shrub sold out to the drug and insurance companies,regarding so called Medicare "reform". Or how about his controversial immigration plans and policies. And last but not least,how can we forget about WMD and the real reason we went to Iraq. I can't wait...bring it on......it should be great fun. I forgot to add how about his budget busting defecit exploding budgets, what happened to the Repuglicans being the party of small governments, and controlled spending????

[ February 15, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

LOL, we have a debate preview! I don't agree with Bush on every issue but here is a little of what he will probably counter with: 1- He has lost more jobs than gained them: Counter: True, but most of those jobs were lost because of the recession which began just as he was coming into office. 911 compounded the problem. The economy is clearly now in recovery. Job growth is the last thing to respond in an economic recovery. We are seeing job GROWTH now, even as we speak. Government data now indicates jobs are being added to the economy. As the economy continues to improve, so will job growth. 2- Healthcare and Medicare Reform: You might want to fill me in on the details but didn't the AARP endorse this? Sounds like there are some happy Seniors out there to vote for Bush now. 3- Immigration policies. I know a lot of Hispanics that are happy about that one; more people voting for Bush. It's funny how both of the preceding policies have such an impact on the Seniors and immigrants in Florida; a state he won by 500 or so votes last time. 4- WMD and the War in Iraq: The Democrats should just leave this alone. The US and entire world is clearly more stable with a Democracy in Iraq, regardless of the reasons we went to war. Bush can have a field day with this one. 5- Exploding Budget Deficit: Personally I have a small problem with Bush on this one. But he will likely say something like he recently put forth last week. He is spending money to create more jobs in the economy. I think a better response would be that as the economy grows tax revenue from businesses will increase and cut down on the deficit. Personally I would like to see him delay any future tax cuts for anyone until the budget is balanced. I also think he should do a better job controlling spending. The entire reason for all his spending is to try to beat the Democrats at their own game and steal their voters away; we'll see in November how well he does.

Just for the record, I did vote for Al Gore in 2000. I agreed with Bush on more issues, but with his stand on gay rights I could not conscientiously vote for him. In 2004 the bar has been raised. The issue isn't just gay rights, but gay marriage. If the Democrats expect my vote this time they must openly come to the table and support us on this one.

Timber said just for the record, I did vote for Gore in 2000 . Timber there may just be hope for you yet! wink

There's a democracy in Iraq? I must have missed the elections. Will it be more stable when they elect a militant Shiite government aligned with Iran, or when the U.S. backs a coup overthrowing that government and replacing him with a new Saddam? Furthermore, I don't believe Saddam posed a significant threat to anybody outside Iraq, and I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. No WMD's, no credible terrorist ties, and a military too weak to control its own country let alone invade its neighbors.

And while the economy is growing again, the recovery was much slower than after the early '80s and early 90's recessions. What growth there is is fueled by the collapse of the dollar (improving export competitiveness) and the burgeoning debt. This is a lot less secure than Clinton's recovery. Job growth (or OPEC getting their act together) could lead to inflation.

Did you miss the eighties entirely? We've heard this song before. W's father called it "Voodoo Economics", and rightly so.

No, it goes to show how much Bush and his cronies are despicable and their most ardent supporters are shortsighted, stuck-up, condescending, hypocritical morons. And unlike those they attack, they are un-American as well, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

[quote]JC:
[quote] [/quote]There's a democracy in Iraq? I must have missed the elections.

I was speaking in terms of a future debate between Bush and the Democratic nominee. Since Iraq is slated for independence July 1, I made the assumption that they would have caucuses or direct elections by that time.

Will it be more stable when they elect a militant Shiite government aligned with Iran, or when the U.S. backs a coup overthrowing that government and replacing him with a new Saddam? Furthermore, I don't believe Saddam posed a significant threat to anybody outside Iraq, and I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. No WMD's, no credible terrorist ties, and a military too weak to control its own country let alone invade its neighbors.

And while the economy is growing again, the recovery was much slower than after the early '80s and early 90's recessions. What growth there is is fueled by the collapse of the dollar (improving export competitiveness) and the burgeoning debt. This is a lot less secure than Clinton's recovery. Job growth (or OPEC getting their act together) could lead to inflation.


[/quote]Did you miss the eighties entirely? We've heard this song before. W's father called it \"Voodoo Economics\", and rightly so. [/QUOTE]

Actually, in my opinion, it was the Reagan / Bush Sr. economic policies that established the growth we experienced in the 90's. Voodoo Economics works.

[quote]JC
[QB] [QUOTE] The US and entire world is clearly more stable with a Democracy in Iraq, regardless of the reasons we went to war [/quote]There's a democracy in Iraq? I must have missed the elections.

I was speaking in terms of a future debate between Bush and the Democratic nominee, presumably Dukakis Jr. Since Iraq is slated to be independent July 1, I made the assumption that caucuses or a direct election would be held by then.

And unlike those they attack, they are un-American as well, in case you haven't figured that out yet. [/QB][/QUOTE]

"Un-American"!! I thought that was the battle cry of the Democrats? Didn't they whine about being called Un-American for opposing the war?

It's the right wing that always claims that anyone who disagrees with them is un-American. I'm merely throwing it right back at them.

George H. W. Bush rightly called the financial chicanery of those years "Voodoo Economics." They did little to keep him in office. His son should take note. Maybe they both can find a real voudun houngan from Haiti (which ought to be sending thousands of boat people our way very soon unless Castro offers up some troops) to help make them actually work in real economic terms. Doubtful, but hey, why not try?

[ February 15, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Au contraire, TF, it's the American Way. Though you DO have to go back before the War of Northern Aggression to see pristine examples... it's like the bumper sticker says, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

Right--ten years after Reagan's tax cut, they suddenly had an impact. Reagan drastically cut taxes on the wealthy, claiming we would grow our way out of the resulting deficit by the increased investment. The economy grew well enough in the '80s, but the deficit kept growing and growing. Most of the growth in the '90s--and the deficit reduction--happened after Clinton had added the 10% surcharge on high income Americans.

Buwhahahahaha! That's a good one. I know you'll just dismiss the link because it's from the DNC, but read this and weep. And it doesn't mention the awful diss of forcing the body bags from Iraq to be unloaded in the dead of night and under an enforced media-blackout so that people don't have a viceral connection to the costs of his unjust war. Just because Shrub poses on aircraft carriers like a GI Joe doll doesn't mean he gives a damn about the military.

My dad was in the Air Force for 24 years and has been a far-right Ike Republican for as long as I can remember. And he's scathing about Bush II. My retired parents rely heavily on those post-service benefits and if Bush thinks that pissing off a bunch of vets is the way to go, so be it. Just because Faux News says Bush loves the military doesn't make it so.

Anyone watch the debate from WI last night? Sharpton got off the best lines about Bush being a liar. One of the journalists sounded shocked that he would say that, but Rev. Al just shrugged and said "He's a liar" like it was so obvious it didn't need further comment. Every time Dean spoke, my friend and I mockingly said "He's too angry for me". Edwards is really cute, nice voice but his "I'm working class" thing wears really thin for me. Kerry seemed a little stiff and unconvincing. It's easier to be the challenger than the front-runner, that's for sure (see: H. Dean). Kucinich says all the right things for me, but I kept thinking "Psycho killer" because of his voice and bug-eyed way of speaking. Apparently, all the candidates got the same memo and it was "Lay off the attacks on each other and go after Bush".

[ February 16, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

In another thread, Eastsidewa posted

John Kerry's other woman AKA the new Monica

The London Sun has found "that woman" Ms Polier

I didn't have sex with this Woman!!


swimmer replied

As if anyone needed proof, it looks like it was all made up. I wonder what the republican slimeballs will try to come up with now.
Woman Denies Rumors


fantomas replied

Funny, but the blogger on Satanosphere noted that it was too bad the rumor wasn't true, because it only would have underlined the fact that Democrats LIKE SEX!

Well I have to say I'm very troubled by the statement "On Monday, his campaign said he [Kerry] would have no further comment."

There are still many unanswered questions about all of this. The allegation, as I understand it, isn't that he necessarily had an affair, but attempted to seduce her while married to heiress Teresa Heinz. We need to know exactly what was the relationship between Mr. Kerry & Ms. Polier, how did they meet, what sort of communications were exchanged between them, etc., etc.

Haven't we really had enough marital infidelity from Democratic Presidents?

This is just a bunch of crap, and I agree with Kerry, why should he comment on it any further when he has said all there is to say on it. Somebody or some group is trying to spread some sludge here.