It's amazing how stupid the democrats are. (and by the way, I do not suppport WBush)

4 years ago, they nominated a Harvard educated, wooden, uncomfortable, boring-ass, uncharismatic policy wonk to be president. Al Gore lost. (let's not get into the voting scandal etc)

4 years later, they nominated a Yale educated, wooden, uncomfortable, boring-ass, uncharismatic policy wonk to be president. How will he do against the same republican?

hundreds of scandals and negative reports have damaged GWBush. During that time, Kerry has managed to do BUPKIS, NADA, ZERO to take advantage of it. His numbers are squarely stuck on "neutral"

why? well.... among other things....

He voted to let W go to war in Iraq (and then tried to act like he didn't do that) so his criticism rings somewhat hollow compared to Howard Dean's

He voted FOR the "No child left behind act" but fails to mention this (so can't attack WBush for educational troubles related to this bill)

He can't criticize Bush or Cheney for not disclosing personal financial info.
Not when Kerry's own wife (net worth greater than $500 million) files a separate income tax return and keeps it secret citing "violation of her children's privacy")
This also means he can't really criticize Bush policies benefitting the rich. (anyone know how much the Kerry household benefitted from Bush policies?)

The democrats like to paint themselves as the party of the working american. and Bush as the elitist. But compared to "Chez Kerry" the Bushes are almost poor!
so what if Cheny gets $200.000 from Halliburton!
Kerry's wife earned more than $2,000,000 in one year from her investments alone!

Kerry tries to split hairs or have things both ways on issues like Gay marriage.

Mostly, Kerry (like Gore 4 years ago) hasn't presented HIMSELF, the war hero with compassion and a brain, to the american public. He is trying to "shape" and tailor his image via things like pretending he doesn't speak french (when he used to converse with reporters from Agence France Presse)

He sounds like your annoying next door neighbour who just drones on and on telling you stories without getting to the point.

Many accuse WBush of repeating his father's mistakes. I say Kerry (and the democrats) are repeating Gore's mistakes.

[ May 12, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

So...uh,.......is....ummm...4 more years...of....[gulp]...Bush the answer? Do we get on the Nader train (the little engine that couldn't possibly)?

Personally, I think Bush sucks as a candidate too, but he's good hand puppet with that stammerin' bumbling good ole back slappin' boy (yet arrogant), God fearin', stay the course straight shootin', "good over evil" act works on so many, so easily, it's just scary! eek! If his name is George W. Brown, he's not President.

I'm thinking Kerry couldn't possibly be any worse. A new face to the world may be required to get our allies back at a time we need them more than ever. I don't think it will be the "It's the Economy Stupid" in November whether it's up or down. Less than 6 months to decide.

I despise election years. Actually, it's a love/hate relationship because I like politics in general. It a little more intenses with everything going on in the World and in our country from the War & terrorist to gay marriage issues.

After the last Presidential election, who knows what this one will bring and what events lead to it at this point? Political intrigue. :cool:

Well, thank God that Nadar is having tons of trouble getting on state ballots. The loser crybaby is suing Texas and Oregon saying their registration requirements are too tough. Funny thin, he didn't think of suing until after the signature deadline had passed.

Ung, I hear alot of what you are saying, but lets be honest. The same people who throw all of their support to these so called "boring wooden" candidates, then complain about them having no personality or whatever! Well then why did you support them in the first place?? Remember the brouhaha over Dean's scream?? The man had passion, and was totally attacked for it. Is Kerry totally charismatic? No, when you say compared to Bill Clinton. I am waiting for Kerry to pick his V.P. which I think will totally energize Kerry which is truly needed at this time, plus lets see how "wooden" he is at the Dem. convention. I expect the ratchet to be cranked up big time then. Bring it on, baby!!

I think the reason Kerry hasn't made much progress in the polls despite Bush's falling approval numbers is that he doesn't come across with much personality or charm. And despite most Americans disapproving of Bush's leadership on the economy, foreign relations, and Iraq, they still like him as a person. Even back during the primaries, we didn't hear much about John Edwards positions, but he did well because he was "likeable". I think this is true about Bush as well -- he could lie, coverup, and fail for four years, but still get re-elected.

Maybe one day elections will be less about charm and more about good politics. But then again, it is the shallow American public who is voting, so....(please refer to the American Idol thread at this point).

Kinda going with Tarheel on this one, I think Kerry's vice presidential choice is very, very important. If he was to choose John Edwards or Wesley Clark (who both have the 'down to earth' image and both draw in a weak area for Kerry....south/midwest), I think you'd see his popularity rise. Also, I think one of Kerry's potential strengths is getting down to crunch time.....in the debates. Kerry should be able to out-debate Bush.

I think there's one move out there which could alone win the election......having John McCain as a VP. Now obviously it wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world to get to happen, but it would be one hell of a ticket.

Kerry doesn't need to worry about winning and making noise now. People know who he is, he's running solidly in the polls.....he shouldn't make any pushes right now. Pushes come in Sept/October. Now, I'm not saying he's doing an excellent job right now, but as long as he continues running neck and neck, there's not too much to worry about. Heck, if Howard Dean were the nominee right now, he'd be double digit points behind Bush.

Wouldn't be the first time... happened with Reagan, and (in retrospect) he had early-stage Alzheimer's to boot.

Since no one will say it, I'll say it. At this point, I wish we had not had that SCOTUS coup, and that Al Gore, who was one of the most active and best Vice Presidents we ever had, had won the presidency. I really do. Gore is smart, he's thoughtful, he's considerate, and he had evolved into a pretty progressive Democrat. He may have been wooden at times but he was portrayed by the right-wing press, with the cooperation of the "liberal" media, as a lying loon. And now we're stuck with a truly loony liar who takes his orders from the "Almighty" and can't even admit to doing anything wrong, unless of course he has the question in advance!

John Kerry is rich. So damned what. The richest president we've had so far was also a Democrat, John F. Kennedy. Did he only govern for the rich? No. Would Kerry's policies tilt in favor of people of his wife's wealth? I think not. In fact, he's not a policy wonk--like Gore AND Clinton--but has an impressive record as a former litigator and prosecutor. His positions as a Massachusetts LG and as U.S. Senator show he'd be far more likely to move in a liberal-progressive direction, which is why, despite the disasters W is causing, many rich people would rather keep him than put Kerry in office. But as Clinton showed, if you improve the economy overall, far more people benefit than if you drain the Treasury on behalf of the ultrarich.

I hope he picks a VP soon. Very soon. No matter how hard he's trying to get his message out, the GOP/RNC combo, along with people like Rush, are slamming Kerry nonstop. I mean, you've even got people on here like Timber repeating the GOP line on Kerry's attack on defense funding, when his votes were completely in line with the very recommendations that DICK CHENEY, when he was defense secretary, recommended! I think a LOT of people are being swayed by W's ads, a number of which independent watchdog groups--not just the Democrats--have analyzed and shown to be not only misleading, but outright false. But then, coming from W Ltd should that surprise anyone?

There have been opportunities during the past few weeks where Kerry has failed to step up and take a stand. But, I have been patient. It is still early and he is keeping ground...which is good this early in the race.

I, too, hope he picks a VP soon so he won't be the sole messenger.

Every politician is rich to some extent. Obviously state officials probably aren't as much as U.S. reps, but anyone running for president has a lot of money.

Does anyone remember Kerry trying to eat the cheesesteak?

That sums him up. He tries to act like a common type of guy, but he's not. He cant pull it off and just looks dumb when he does.

He's a wine and cheese kinda guy.

Not always true. Bill Clinton wasn't rich. Nixon wasn't rich. Calvin Coolidge wasn't rich. Even Al Gore wasn't half as rich as W. A number of presidential candidates and presidents haven't been rich. But some are very wealthy, like the two Bushes, or John Kennedy.

Whether someone can suck down an unhealthy cheesesteak shouldn't matter; I mean, don't we have a problem with mad cow disease in our beef supply these days? You especially may want to lay off them, lil' Pholly--unless you buy whatever BS the Beef Lobby is promoting through its current subsidiary, the US Department of Agriculture.

W is a fako-phoney populist. He's a product of elite schools (Andover, Yale, HBS), he's been bailed out again and again by the very rich (including his alma mater, Harvard), he's benefited from preferential treatment (like getting bumped up over 100 other folks to get into the National Guard but then he was too lazy or something to serve out his term properly), he's never been penalized the way a poor person would for his failings (that DUI, the SEC citation, going AWOL, the drug and alcohol use, etc.) and on and on. His folksy image is just that--an image. Hell, the man was born in New Haven Hospital, right next to Yale!

I'll take someone like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a patrician to the bone, over Fako-Phoney W any day--FDR was rich, but he's the man responsible for ending the Depression, winning World War II, giving us Social Security, and numerous other New Deal programs. And Teddy Roosevelt, a wealthy, Republican patrician, was pretty damned good too!

[ May 13, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Methinks John Kerry is ok.

He's got my vote, and I'll enjoy sending Shrub and his exboyfriend-killing wife back to Crawford where they'll enjoy a happy retirement in an alcholic stupor.

I did consider naming Laura as a "skank" which has been used by at least one person here, but really the only term that need apply is "exboyfriend-killing" or perhaps "loose with steering wheel and accidentally running him over" is more agreeable to the misguided.

For Kerry to succeed he needs to be himself.

Trying to woof down a cheesesteak, that's not his style. If you can't see that, well you are part of the reason he will lose.

Kerry is more of the let's go to the fancy restaurant and talk over a glass of wine. He just looks out of place doing anything that is not stuffy.

For you to see W as not a regular guy you could sit down and have a beer with... then you are again kidding yourself because that is exactly the perception he gives off.

And by the way, it's almost impossible to get a nice cheesesteak out here... or a decent slice of pizza.

Oh

My

God

I almost agree with Philly.

As an interested bystander, I have listened to a lot of the right wing media call John Kerry a "Massachusetts liberal", as if it's something bad.

Why not have John Kerry co-opt their arguement, and start calling himself a Massachesetts liberal, and declare that he's proud of it.

And why not have one of the PAC's run an ad something like

He was born in Conneticut, into one of the wealthiest families in the North-East

He was educated at exclusive private schools

He went to the exclusive Yale University, and then did post-graduate work at the even more exclusive Harvard University Business School.

His family's wealth is measured in the Billions of dollars

Massechusetts liberal?

Nope. George W Bush. A Connetticut yankee in Texas.


Think it would have an effect?

So we vote based on who can eat a cheesesteak and suck down a beer better? I say we vote for the one who sucks dick better (and I don't mean Cheney's). Makes about as much sense to me.

Well he should stop that, he's an alcoholic. W. is no more a regular guy than Daniel Snyder.

[ May 13, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Actually, perception is 100% the most important aspect a candidate could have.

You could sit there and watch kerry rail on about what not, then if he tries to pull his cheesesteak deal... that's just a turn off to people... they stop believing what he says.

Tell ya what, they have that estate up in Idaho or where ever (with the SUV). I've never seen pictures but... in my mind i see lots of fine art, lavish rugs, maids... ect ect ect.

Now compare that to the Ranch that W owns.

Clinton was a smoocher who most of america liked, W is just a common guy, who most americans like and can relate to.

Although Kerry may not give off the vibe of being 'normal', he's actually been noted to be one to keep up with such things. MTV gave all the Democratic candidates a quiz on relating to the younger generation and he scored the highest on it. Today he was in Arkansas and did some Bill Clinton impression.........I think he's got the normal guy personality, but he just isn't very comfortable with it in public. It wouldn't kill for him to wear some more casual clothes as well. Not necessarily jeans and a t-shirt but something a little more casual....

Yes, perception is the point.

I have an indelible perception of Shrub on an aircraft carrier saying we've won.

I recall him saying last year we'd have 2 million new jobs this year.

I recall him saying we have evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What I don't hear him saying:
1. We have the largest budget deficit in history.
2. We have a war we cannot win, because we've alienated the people we're trying to liberate by degrading them and taking pictures and videos.
3. We have high gasoline prices.
4. We have lost a net 2.5 million jobs since he's been elected.
5. We've forged alliances with the likes of the dictator in Pakistan all the while saying we're for democracy.
6. We've puclicly stated that a constutional ban on gay marriage is OK.

I could go on and on, and I will if necessary. Shrub is a disaster of the first order in US history. He and the cronies he represents need to be sent packing back to the caves and rocks from which they've crawled out from under.

The only thing W has in common with most people is that we're all stupid sometimes--he just is stupid most of the time.

His ranch? Are you kidding me? Those Bushes have more money than they know what to do with it. Do you really think this scion of privilege--I mean, his damned great-grandfather owned a manufacturing company, another great-grandfather founded a financial banking house, his granddaddy was a U.S. Senator and traded with the Nazis, his daddy was PRESIDENT!--has anything in common with most Americans??? Maybe in the Porcellian Club at Harvard or the New York Yacht Club, if even there! Folksy talking and acting stupid doesn't cut it...what he really has in common with way too many people is religious zealotry.

Clinton really was cut from the common cloth--born and bred in the South, he grew up in a divorced family, had a colorful, loudmouthed mother and cruel stepfather, two different last names, is part Irish (go Irish!), whored around a lot...and his wife too, from an upper-middle-class Midwestern family, is closer to most Americans than W! The fako-phony GOPers couldn't stand them in part because they really were more like most Americans than H. W.--who at least didn't hide from his patrician background, at least at first (go Poppy Bush!).

I do sort of hope Kerry picks either Wesley Clark or John Edwards--I mean, what are the GOP going to think of then?

Speaking of which, lil Pholly, since when is it a problem that some people are wealthy--or very wealthy? Are you promoting class warfare? I mean, isn't that what the GOP stands far? Ooops, I must be confusing them with the old GOP. These new hypocrites are religious fanatics masquerading as the party of smaller government and individual rights. That is, unless the government wants to roll up massive deficits and the individuals are homosexual or not right-wing Christian.

If you don't like THK's low rate of taxation and massive wealth, elect her husband--because he'll makes sure the government gets a bigger slice of that dough she's sitting on.

[ May 13, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I am really starting to worry about the Kerry candidacy.

Piles of naked Iraqi prisoners, piles of flag draped coffins, piles of critical "tell all" books, piles of negative Congressional public testimony - and the Kerry handlers can't find a way to take advantage of this? Rove put Mush in prime time and on Meet the Press where he fell on his face, and still no bump for Kerry? MoronBoy has had the worst two months of his presidency, and Kerry can't move out of the margin of error in most polls.

I'll vote Kerry against this pretender for the common man, but I sure wish his campaign would start moving forward and upward in the polls.

One other note. As a big fan of our most "patrician" President, the man that had almost nothing in common with "the common man" and yet did more to help his plight than any President before or since, I have often on these boards shouted praise for FDR. Recently fantomas posted a reminder for some about this great President's legacy and I want to restate it again, and I agree with the nod to TR as well:

I'll take someone like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a patrician to the bone, over Fako-Phoney W any day--FDR was rich, but he's the man responsible for ending the Depression, winning World War II, giving us Social Security, and numerous other New Deal programs. And Teddy Roosevelt, a wealthy, Republican patrician, was pretty damned good too!

[ May 13, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

You people take this too personally...

It doesnt matter if you despise W, the majority of the country doesnt. It doesnt matter if you think kerry doesnt flip flop, most of the country does.

Actually, i'd go ahead and say this... the poll that has not changed... When it comes to protecting america... the vast majority see W as their best option and kerry as a weak little sissy.

and ahhhh the glory days of FDR, where he killed a thousand times more civilians than W. But hey, he put in a bunch of social programs that are almost broke... tally ho

I have begun calling Kerry a "new ambidexter," in that he openly weighs all issues & the relative merits of positions (on the one hand.....while on the otehr hand....) Acknowledging the complexities facing the nation in this way is highly commendable BUT it makes him appear wishy-washy and Clintonesquely-lawlerly--and though the country elected Clinton twice (and I admire him greatly) his lawyerly qualities (how one defines "is") are not positives for a candidate. It leads to wondering about the candidate's core beliefs. One asset the Dimbulb-in-Chief has is the ability to speak (and mis-speak) directly without seeming to weigh all aspects of issues. In business, we are all taught KISS: keep it simple, stupid. Bush has mastered KISS Kerry has not.

~Adam

and remember Kerry in a leather jacket, riding a Harley on the Tonight Show? How phony was that? It was like seeing your grandpa wear Abercrombie&Fitch trying to be hip.

and private schools? no. Kerry went to boarding school in Switzerland. That definitely is a step up from Georgetown Country Day or even St.Albans (Lets Go STA!)

Somehow his attempts at populism smacks hollow when he takes a ski vacation. falls on the slope and blames the secret service agent sworn to take a bullet for him.
"Senator Kerry. did you fall?"
"I didn't fall. That son of a bitch ran into me."
(niiiiice!)

I agree that lack of conviction in his presentation is a big problem. Say what you will about W. (and God knows I can't stand WBush) But when W speaks, at least he believes whatever crap is coming out of his mouth.

When Kerry speaks.... I don't know if he believes what he's saying or just repeating what his aides gave him.

Give me Howard Dean any day.

Philly, if you can tell me one person in politics who hasn't flip-flopped at some point, especially given that Kerry's been in politics for 20+ years, please do tell me. As for the whole flip flopping issue, many of those things are easier said than done. Such as the whole 'war approval' thing.......sure, Kerry gave approval for military action....but it was also supposed to be done as a last resort. And if you're going to tell me today that going to war was the absolute last resort, that's just a flat out lie.

Secondly, George Bush's approval rating is currently 43%. That's not a majority last time I checked.

And for all of John Kerry's flaws, he's still right there with Bush.

let me take a contrarian view of kerry's performance so far.

1. george bush has spent between 60 and 75 million dollars to stay even in the polls, as a war-time incumbent, six months before the election. he can't maintain that burn rate through the election, and what happens when the spending stops?

2. kerry has been spending judiciously, slowly narrowing the gap between himself and bush, financially, while not losing any ground in the polls, a financial rope-a-dope, perhaps? if so, it could prove a stroke of genius. if not, it could be idiocy.

3. no, kerry is not hammering bush on the war, or jobs for that matter. but it is six months before the election, and too soon to put too many eggs into those baskets. right now kerry is hammering away on those less than thrilling issues of the bush team's performance vis-a-vis education and health care. we know what bush's record will be on those issues in november; there isn't time enough to change his spotty (at best) record. the war and jobs picture, however, could change radically between now and november. if kerry starts hammering away on jobs and the war, and another 200,000 jobs are created each month, he's wasted his effort, time, and money. similarly, the war could be going swimmingly in the late fall, and with the public's short memory and attention span, his railings against the conduct of the war would fall on deaf ears.

again, if kerry is using bush's known, unfixable shortcomings to raise doubt in voter's minds, while waiting for the hot-button issue of the fall to emerge, and waiting until october to raise the issue that he wants the voters to carry into the voting booth with them, he could look like a political mastermind.

4. being the media darling and way ahead in the polls six months before the election isn't worth a damn. ask howard dean.

5. in january, we had a thread wondering when kerry was going to drop out of the primaries, because, then, as now, people were impatient, and didn't recognize that elections are won as much on the ground, door-to-door, as they are on the airwaves. in march, he was anointed "probable nominee". i hope (oh, how i hope) i'm right when i say that kerry knows what he's doing.

[ May 14, 2004, 05:01 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

I don't pretend to understand US politics, so let me ask you this.

How would it go over if Kerry had an ad that said

"I will not use negative advertising. I will not support any group that does. I beleive the American people deserve better than that, and that they are smarter than that.
I beleive in running on the issues, I do not beleive in running on negatives and stereotypes."

Do you think that would resonate with the public?

Taking the high road promising no negative campaigning is actually a very risky move. All you gotta do is go back to the Bush/McCain primaries to see how much Bush ripping apart McCain arguably helped him win. As we can see by the ads so far, this is not a friendly election and although people don't want it to get out of hand, usually a guy not doing negative campaigning will end up doing worse because he/she is getting ripped apart, but they are just responding with a smile. However, as for no negative ADVERTISING, once again, it'd be better because Kerry could still go after Bush in other venues, but once again, Bush is going to rip apart Kerry as much as possible, he's shown that from past elections and already this one.

Lksimcoe -- Mudslinging has been around since 1796. It's ingrained to our political culture. It will only get worse. In a sense, I'm thankful to live in one of the "Blue States" so I don't have to watch the damn commercials every 5 minutes.

Mmmmmmm....cheesesteak!

I dont even know where to begin with that brilliant comment.

Instead of always bashing Kerry, why dont you tell us one or two good things about your candidate. Ive been asking alot, so far you seem to embarrassed to answer, care to share today?

(Not holding breath)

Oh yes, be thankful. Although I live in KS, a Republican stronghold, the KC metro area is covered by Missouri-based media. And as we all know, MO is one of those swing states, and we're being bombarded by commercials. Practically every commercial break during prime time has a commercial for one side or the other. It's simply astonishing how much they're spending. I think some of the recent Kerry commercials have been really good, like the one where he talks about being born on an Army base, blah blah blah. The worst part about that commercial is his wife Teresa. She's definitely not an asset to him in this race.

Max same here. Washington is also a "battleground" state. Get commercials about every 5 minutes. I disagree about Teresa not being an asset though. wink

Are you going to parrot everything the RNC puts out? John Kerry went to school in Switzerland because his father was POSTED in Europe--he was a diplomat. Kerry graduated from the St. Paul's School, in New Hampshire. Not from Le Rosey or one of those other tony boarding schools. St. Paul's, in Concord. It's very much like St. Alban's, just older and waspier.

So what if he curses when he falls on a ski slope. Is the man supposed to be a damned saint? Is W? Do you really think he doesn't slam people? Hell, he had people out a CIA agent and tried to smear Richard Clarke with insinuations about his personal life. What is worse? An outburst, or a steady pattern of malevolent, destructive actions against opponents, which is the W way. What did W say when he got pulled over for his DUI? Has anyone ever asked or probed THAT? I mean, let's stop picking on this man, just like the right-wing, along with the "liberal" media, did on Gore.

Just ask yourself this: would you rather have the current Disaster-in-chief continue screwing up things, or someone else to reboot this country?

[quote]fantomas:
[/quote]Are you going to parrot everything the RNC puts out? John Kerry went to school in Switzerland because his father was POSTED in Europe--he was a diplomat. Kerry graduated from the St. Paul's School, in New Hampshire.

I mean, let's stop picking on this man, just like the right-wing, along with the \"liberal\" media, did on Gore.

[/quote]


Fantomas... you have read enough of my posts to know that I am not a mouth piece of the RNC. Far from it. and as I made abundantly clear, I do NOT want 4 more years of Tweedle Dee and his four horsemen of the apocalypse (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz)

The reason why I criticize Kerry and his campaign is precisely because I don't want W re-elected. Ya see?

amd anyway... yes Kerry's father was posted. But Kerry went to BOARDING school. Meaning, he wasn't living with his family anyway. many of his own supporters have pointed to this isolation from family as one of the significant factors in his development. and as you yourself noted, St.Paul's is not PS122 in NYC.

I agree. I don't expect him to be a saint. But his falling down due to his own fault and then saying "that son of a bitch ran into me" really reminds me of how many many moneyed people treat and blame the "hired help".
I've seen it many times where those who donate money to liberal causes and polish their image as "just like anyone else" will rant and rave about the maid not doing her job or how they were kept waiting by the doorman.

and as I mentioned.... the criticism on Gore? mostly of his own making. His own bumbling ways and his overwhelming reliance on his advisors (Gore changed personalities for each of the three debated with WBush. It was like watching Sybill debate W!) were responsible.

and Gore is the son of a legendary senator from TN. He grew up in DC, going to school at STA. (Just like his son) and was a senator, then a Veep. you trying to tell me that Gore didn't expect to be "picked on"? puh-leeze! Girl!

[ May 14, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

You know...

Ya'all need to look at this from the common man's approach. The beer drinking, pick-up truck driving, everyday guy approach instead of the "i'm smarter than everyone else" way.

You can sit there and break down kerry's whatever or where ever he was or did and say he's not a rich spoiled brat.

FACT IS, that is W's appeal.

huh? what are you talking about? what is W's appeal again?

I mean... they're both spoiled rich brats! Don't try to come in here and tell us that WBush is a common everyday, earning $30,000/year, watchin his 401K go in the toilet kind of man. Cuz he ain't!

But he plays one in public and some people are just stupid enough to believe it...no offense PhillyFan. wink

I'd rather our President be a man of privilege who acknowldges that fact, rather than a man of privilege with an idiot facade of beer drinkin', pick-up truck drivin', and plain speakin'.

PF, George W is nothing but a facade, and you know it! Okay, maybe he really is dumb and unable to speak in proper sentences, but that image is nurtured by his "handlers" and advisors. It's all an image conjured up to get him elected, first as guv of TX and then president. Read the book "Fraud" by Paul Waldman, which details the carefully-constructed image of W. Or "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush" by Kevin Phillips. From reviews of that book:

It is hard to tell what offends Phillips the most: the Bushes' systematic deceit and secrecy, their shady business dealings, their cronyism, or their family philosophy that privileges the very wealthy and utterly dismisses all the rest.
...
The Bushes are the family nobody really knows...
This popular lack of acquaintance—nurtured by gauzy imagery of Maine summer cottages, gray-haired national grandmothers, July Fourth sparklers, and cowboy boots—has let national politics create a dynasticized presidency that would have horrified America’s founding fathers.
...
By uncovering relationships and connecting facts with new clarity, Phillips comes to a stunning conclusion: The Bush family has systematically used its financial and social empire—its "aristocracy"—to gain the White House, thereby subverting the very core of American democracy. In their ambition, the Bushes ultimately reinvented themselves with brilliant timing, twisting and turning from silver spoon Yankees to born-again evangelical Texans.

[ May 14, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

Okay, St. Paul's is obviously not P122, ung, but come on--W WENT TO ANDOVER! That school has an art museum with more extensive holdings than some countries! The overwhelming majority of its graduates go right on to the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke, the elite small colleges, and so on. It's not like W was at Midland High--he went to a boarding school too. And then Yale. And then Harvard, for chrissakes.

Fako-phony has never had a position in business in which he wasn't bailed out by his daddy or wealthy supporters. And he even got rich at the taxpayers' expense, which is more than can be said for Kerry or Gore. We have never gotten a realistic discussion of the state in which he left Texas after his governorship? I mean, was it flourishing? That at least you could say for Kerry's Lt. Governor stint with Dukakis, or the US after the end of Clinton's and Gore's two terms. And now we've got Fako-Phony acting the populist in the White House, praising Jesus to the high heavens and all that, and yet this is the same person who was boozing and cruising on a yacht at Kennebunkport just a few years ago.

Do you think HE's kind to the help? I don't just mean the zealots around him--but the people who clean up after him and Laura and those two gals of his? Yeah, I know, Compassionate Conman probably speaks to his ranch hands in Spanish: "Mi casa es su casa blah blah blah."

Perhaps as Lincoln--another one who was born dirt-poor--was right: you can fool some of the people all of the time. But really, are Americans so thick that that many of us actually BUY W's act? Do people not realize he's the son of HW? Because HW oozed old wealth, even with his pork-rinds and jabberwocky chatter.

Hogwash! Unless the VP candidate is a real weirdo, VP selections are meaningless and will not affect the outcome of the election.

I have this friend who knows this guy who heard somebody on the Metro say that they heard on the news that John Kerry sucks as a candidate.

And since you're such a staunch anti rumor monger, you must be convinced that he's an excellent candidate.

MIB, in this case, I don't think it's total 'hogwash'....

If he does end up with McCain as a running mate, that makes this election TOTALLY different and would have a huge impact.

If he chooses Edwards, it obviously helps him out in the southern states. If he chooses a guy like Clark, it appeals to more people.

Now, I don't think Chaney really does anything for Bush. And that can be a good thing....he was a rather neutral figure where people really didn't have an opinion or were swayed by him. But Kerry can be greatly affected by his choice as a running mate. Now, are all of his choices going to make an impact? No! There are some names on that list that would be similar to Dick Chaney....it wouldn't be a big news/big name.

But Kerry definitely has the chance to stir up the pot with his VP choice. He's got some big name potentials.

Still no word on your candidate I see, didnt think so.

Carry on.

Hogwash! There is no way on God's green earth McCain would be Kerry's running mate. Just where DO these ridiculous things come up? (The media)

Edwards has NO effect on the southern states, trust me. Why didn't Edwards do better in the primaries, BTW? He bombed in the southern primaries. Edwards won't win or lose any state for Kerry.

As far as General Clark, considering he was installed by the Clinton and McCauliffe team, he would do nothing for Kerry. I'd even go as far as saying Clark as a VP, IF it had any effect, would hurt Kerry and help Bush.

Cheney's effect on the ticket is as insignificant as would be a Guilianni or Condi Rice. Historically speaking, VP candidates have had no real positive impact upon a presidential race. In fact, any effect they have had is usually more negative than anything else, and this is regardless of the party.

People just don't vote for the VP when they cast their vote for president.

I am looking for Kerry to most likely end up with Gephardt as his Veep choice. I think this is a good one. Gephardt would be eminently qualified in my eyes to take over if something were to happen to Kerry. God forbid. But I still would like him to select Graham, another extremely qualified choice who comes from a huge, huge battleground state. I would love nothing more than to see Jeb squirm if Graham were picked for V.P. In both instances I see both men as having a very large impact on Kerry.

Kerry 51%
Bush 46%

Kerry's sucking all the way to the White House. CNN wink

Gephardt is whiny and couldn't even carry the Midwestern states in the primaries. Graham I think is a better choice, but the GOP have labeled him kooky for keeping his runny diary, and he's not a good off-the-cuff speaker. A better choice from Florida would be its other U.S. Senator, Bill Nelson, whom I've seen on TV several times now. He's folksy, with a Southern accent, and he really lit into Gin Rummy's silly or evasive responses. Supposedly Kerry is looking at Bill Richardson, who's latino and a hoot; Janet Napolitano, who's about as tough a woman as you could get; Mary Landrieu, who might help win Louisiana and more Catholic voters; and the well-known suspects, Clark and Edwards.

Whoever it is, the person will have to be strong enough to take it hard to Cheney, who mopped up the floor with Lieberman last time around. Lieberman was so pathetic I wanted to reach through the screen and shake him! Edwards could talk rings around any of them, and I could see Richardson challenging Cheney to 1) a fistfight and 2) a drink-off. Those would be my top two choices, though I also like the idea of a woman VP. Napolitano's pretty butch, BTW....

Theresis - kudos on your post. All of your points make a great deal of sense -- even to the person who started the "When will kerry drop out" thread...