|
02 Mar 04 - 09:48 PM (#1128144) Subject: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobert Well danged. Looks like John Kerry has wrapped up the Democratic nomination for President and now must start thinking about the bottom of the ticket... You know, the other guy... Any choices or opinions? Bobert |
|
02 Mar 04 - 09:58 PM (#1128149) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: CarolC Kucinich for president!!! ;-) |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:14 PM (#1128154) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bill D everyone has been speculating for several weeks that Edwards is an obvious choice, and no one has tried to deny it....it will come down to negetiations and best guesses as to practicality. |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:16 PM (#1128156) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Amos Kerry should tap Colin Powell for VP. It would unsettle them Publicands something fierce. Whic they richly deserve. A |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:21 PM (#1128161) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobert Now that is one righteously wicked idea, Amos... You come up with that? Yo, CarolC, fir a gal who a few months ago was gonna possibly vote fir Bush, I am totally impressed with yer backing Kucinich. I love Dennis... He's definately make the best president. But this is about the Veep.... Sorry.... I really am.... Bobert |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:33 PM (#1128168) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bill D sorry, Bobert (and Carol)...but Kucinich couldn't even get Larry King to recognize him when he raised his hand! Having some good ideas is useless if you can't be a 'presence'- and always get seated at the far end of the table. He can still make waves if he goes about it right, but he will never be thought of as 'presidential' by any appreciable number. (and that is NOT meant to belittle him...I know many men & women who can think ..and have fine ideas.. who should NOT be in charge of a country...me & thee, for example...*grin*) |
|
02 Mar 04 - 10:35 PM (#1128171) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Alaska Mike I agree CaroleC, Kucinich for President. I will vote for Kerry if he is the final candidate, but there are lots of others who I'd rather have had a chance to vote for. It pisses me off that the decision is already made and I haven't even had a chance to vote in a primary or caucus or anything. Why don't the Parties have a general election for the candidate when all of them are still in the running. I'm tired of being left out of the process. Of course, I also wish we were able to have a popular vote for President instead of this stupid Electoral College. Oh well, its probably not going to change in my lifetime. Mike |
|
02 Mar 04 - 11:02 PM (#1128192) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobert Gotta agree with both my friend, Bill D and my frined, Alaska Mike.... Bobert |
|
02 Mar 04 - 11:13 PM (#1128195) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Alaska Mike Now I'm worried, what exactly is a "frined"? LOL |
|
03 Mar 04 - 01:01 PM (#1128510) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John MacKenzie I want to like Kerry but can't, he seems to stand for lots of things I agree wiith, although not all. G W Shrub will be a hard man to shift, and I'm not sure Kerry can hack it, I think it depends on his running mate, and no I don't think he should choose Howard. I was on holiday in the US when the 9/11 tragedy struck, and I watched Shrub's congressional speech in the aftermath, and thought he came over so well, I couldn't believe it was the same guy. If his draft dodging, and his love of capital punishment don't shift him, then perhaps the Iraqui problem will sink his boat, but I think he might prove to be the unsinkable George Bush, unfortunately. John |
|
03 Mar 04 - 01:01 PM (#1128511) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: SueB I'm going to bet that Kerry's not going to pick any of the people who've been running against him in the primaries. I think it's someone waiting quietly in the wings, staying out of the limelight, keeping his/her mouth shut. Not Hilary, although that at least would give Kerry some insurance against being assassinated while in office. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 01:21 PM (#1128527) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Mrrzy I like the idea of Powell, but I bet if nominated, he would run AWAY, he has that much sense... Hee hee SueB, so right! I still like the idea of Edwards or Clark; but the bottom line for me is, I just don't want to see Dubya elected for a first time. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 01:29 PM (#1128538) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST,Bran Unsure whether I like the idea of Powell. Anyone who pronounces his first name like a rude part of your anatomy is worrying. You'll end up with Bush again - his brother fixed it the first time - he'll fix it again. Which war will he start in his next term? |
|
03 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM (#1128552) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: CarolC Iran and Syria, Bran. Not necessarily in that order. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 03:01 PM (#1128605) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST How about Ralph? DougR |
|
03 Mar 04 - 03:11 PM (#1128613) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: katlaughing Here's what some news agencies are reporting, fwiw: Jim Johnson, a prominent Washington Democrat, heads the list of potential candidates to lead Kerry's selection process. Johnson, vice president of a merchant banking firm, once worked for former Vice President Walter Mondale. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 03:15 PM (#1128620) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST Hmmm. I'm going to try again. How about Ralph? DougR |
|
03 Mar 04 - 03:41 PM (#1128635) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow If he was sneaky he'd have Bill Clinton. (There's nothing in your constitution to stop it, or to stop him succeeding as President if need be, for that matter.) |
|
03 Mar 04 - 03:50 PM (#1128645) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: beadie I'm intrigued by (and need more information on) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richards. A former ambassador to the UN (good foreign policy experience), of Hispanic descent (good demographic), not a New England "liberal" (good political diversity), and not a Senator (last time a two-Senator ticket won was in 1960). Tell me more, if anyone knows about Mr. Richards. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 04:03 PM (#1128649) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Big Mick And now you see the problem in the Democratic Party. I love Dennis Kucinich, but despite what folks that think like us folkies believe, it hasn't got much to do with who we like the best. It is about who the great middle likes the best. Folks that are perceived to be too far right (Buchanan) or too far left (Kucinich, Harkin) will never get the nod. They bring a small group with them, but drive far too many others to the other side. Folks can live with some defection from their core values, but not too much. That is why it is so very important to craft a platform, and a ticket, that appeals to the center. I hate it, but in our society, that is how it is. If I could choose a President today, it would be hard to beat Tom Harkin. But, for the reasons stated above, he would never get elected. All the best, Mick |
|
03 Mar 04 - 04:24 PM (#1128666) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: CarolC DougR, I don't see Ralph being willing to take second place, for one thing. And also, (I figured you'd be swooning over this one... ) he's already declared that he'll be running for president as a third party candidate. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 06:58 PM (#1128724) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: freightdawg Sen. Kerry has one huge problem in choosing a veep. Anyone whom he names will automatically have more personality and charisma than Kerry. This will be the first ticket in history where the vp is going to be more interesting and have more draw than the head man. Sen. Edwards has steadfastly said he does not want to be veep. And for good reason - it is a dead end job. You get no glory. When it comes time for you to run as "your own person," people have so connected you to #1 that you are just his shadow (see exhibit, "Al Gore"). Beadie, I live in New Mexico and can tell you that Gov. Richardson is truly a mixed bag. He is pro business, and has cut NM taxes in a way that made Pres. Bush brag on him on one of his NM visits. He seems to be working hard to improve NM's standard of living, and boost its economy. However, Gov. Richardson is an absolute cutthroat politician. His heavy handed use of the governorship here has alarmed even the staunchest democrats, and they have moved in this past session to limit some of the authority Gov. Richardson discovered in the office to ram through some of his pet policies (he makes all of his appointees file a letter of resignation, so he can accept it on his whim, he spent a ton of money on the governor's power of "discretion", he crammed through a constitutional amendment that opened up a reserve fund that was earmarked solely for education, among other things such as using the state police helicopter to buzz around the state). He has violated no laws (at least, any that anyone can nail him on), but he truly is one of the most activist governors that we have seen in a long time (republican or democrat). Since he has not been in office long enough for the "chickens to come home to roost" the long term verdict is still out. As chairman of the democratic party, (or at least of the upcoming convention, I forget which) Gov. Richardson has repeatedly said he would not accept the nomination, which is only proper. Only time will tell if he decides to change his mind. Getting back to the original question, only one name really makes sense: Dick Gephardt. It's a long shot (he has been rejected repeatedly in his runs for president), and he definitely would come across and the more aggressive and ambitious of the two, but who is Kerry going to pick that is more bland than he is? Of course, then there is the long shot name I heard on tv - John McCain. Freightdawg |
|
03 Mar 04 - 07:20 PM (#1128743) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobert Well, freighdawg, back in the old days the VP was a deadend job and then, then... along came Cheney.... Awww, jus' mseein' wid ya......kinda? Hey, I hadn't heard of McCain but........ Hmmmmmmmm? Bobert |
|
03 Mar 04 - 07:48 PM (#1128763) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow Whatever, he'd look better with a beard, the same way Lincoln did. |
|
03 Mar 04 - 11:34 PM (#1128832) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: katlaughing IMO, it would be a big mistake if he picks Gephardt. Too much of an insider like Kerry and would lose many who want some fresh, new energy such as Dean brought to the table. Of course, the main thing on peoples' minds is getting the shrub out, so it may not make that much difference who he picks as long as they are not too controversial and that is exactly what sucks about our political system these days! |
|
03 Mar 04 - 11:38 PM (#1128835) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Stilly River Sage Let's see if this will work: David Horsey March 4 cartoon. It's connected to an active server page (asp) so might not keep working. The Seattle P.I. runs his cartoons here. Look out, everyone! SRS |
|
03 Mar 04 - 11:55 PM (#1128842) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: katlaughing ...emphasis will placed on the possibility of naming a southerner, a prerequisite for Democratic victories over the past 60 years. The last time Democrats won the White House without a southerner on the ticket was 1944: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (of Missouri). |
|
04 Mar 04 - 12:35 AM (#1128855) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Amos Southerner or Sooner, Kerry has to convince the business world that he can take care of business. This does not require the callous asininity that characterizes the incumbent, but it does mean a strong sense of how to keep the wheels of business turning over (which means economic survival for all concerned). If his VP gets behind that, all the better. A |
|
04 Mar 04 - 03:25 AM (#1128896) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John MacKenzie Martha Stewart? John |
|
04 Mar 04 - 08:31 AM (#1129008) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST It wasn't that long ago since a vice president won the White House--George H.W. Bush in 1988. 1988 is the year everyone keeps comparing this race too, because that year there were record turnouts also for the Democratic primaries. Jesse Jackson is the candidate who was mobilizing the Democrats that year, when the party told the left wing of the party they will unelectable and picked guess who from Massachusetts? I am, once again, extremely sceptical about the so-called "electability" of John Kerry. I am, however, certain that Kerry is the choice because he is the candidate the DLC feels most comfortable with, and therefore doesn't represent the grassroots of the Democratic party at all. And last time I checked, nobody was winning national elections by only winning the independent centrists. The Democratic nominee needs the support of the Democratic grassroots in order to get elected. While the conventional pundits all keep walking around saying that there is great unity in the Democratic party, there isn't. The party has simply turned it's back on it's left wing and grassroots constituencies, just as it did in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000. We'll see whether Kerry is progressive enough to keep the Democratic party together in what is bound to be a very contentious race. And just to cheer up all you Democratic types, I predict that Kerry will choose a Southerner from one of the battleground states for his vice president. Bob Graham stands a very good chance, and would be a strategically good move for capturing Florida for the Dems. Although there are other choices I'm sure Kerry is capable of making that will alienate the left and grassroots even more, possibly resulting in many Democrats either staying home as so many have been doing for years, or voting for Nader again. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 11:26 AM (#1129118) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: maire-aine I think I'd be real happy with a Bob Graham as the running mate. I was planning on supporting Graham until he decided not to run. M |
|
04 Mar 04 - 11:43 AM (#1129131) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Stilly River Sage I'll second that. I've also heard very good things about Bob Graham. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 12:41 PM (#1129157) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John Hardly Evan Byah sould be our next Vice President. Alas, it will prolly be Edwards. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 12:44 PM (#1129162) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobert You sound as if a Bush defeat is emminant, John. This ain't like you one danged bit... Bobert |
|
04 Mar 04 - 02:08 PM (#1129209) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham I've seen Kerry in person. I didn't find him to be boring at all. He spoke with passion, eloquence and stayed with the issues. He eschewed the use of labels and name-calling although he did land on the so-called job that Bush is doing with both feet. On the issue of how this administration is doing it's job, Kerry will not pull any punches. Nader is about to be a spoiler again. As to the Democratic Party, it didn't influence me one way or another. Seeing Kerry in person did. He was great with the public and listened closely to what people had to say. He responded to their concerns with respect and sincerity. There wasn't any trace of a party machine present but he embraced those whom he has admired such as Representative John Lewis of Georgia, Shirley Franklyn, the mayor of Atlanta, and Max Cleland, a veteran and parapalegic patriot who was savaged by the ruthless ads put out by the Republicans in Georgia who got a do-nothing senator Saxby Chambliss to take his place. The ads BTW showed Max Cleland alongside of Osama bin Laden and intimated that he was a traitor. This man lost his limbs as a veteran which shows you how low the Republican National Committee will go to destroy someone. I hope Democrats won't shoot themselves in the foot again by tearing Kerry down. Frank |
|
04 Mar 04 - 02:53 PM (#1129233) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST I think it more likely that the Democrats have committed political suicide again, because the nominee chosen isn't electable in the eyes of the party's rank and file--like the grassroots activists who do the grunt work getting the vote out year after year, and get kicked in the teeth by the party machine year after year. Seems to me that way too many Democrats are just plain slow learners. Hint: we got into this fine mess because the Democratic leadership abandoned it's political base within the party, just to get Clinton elected. Clinton represents the old southern conservative Democratic party--the party of Strom Thurmond, and the Democrats who voted for Reagan. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 03:02 PM (#1129243) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Amos I disagree, Nameless One. I think the rank and file is voting for him and that is why he is iwnning the noimination; and they are voting for him because they believe he IS electable. Compared to Bush he looks like John Kennedy. A |
|
04 Mar 04 - 03:07 PM (#1129246) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST,Larry K I agree with George Will on this one. Wills thinks the VP will be Evan Bayh. The only thing a VP gives you in a campaign is 5 points in his home state. 5 points won't help Kerry in North Carolina. Kerry is going to lose that no matter what. The key state is Ohio. Remember when Tim Russert held up that sign that said Florida. In 2004 I think it will be OHio. A repuplican has ever won in the last 50 years without carrying Ohio. In addition Ohio has been very hard hit by jobs loss making it in play for 2004. Unfortunately, there is no democrat worth a damn in Ohio. I love Jim Traficant, but unfortunately he is in jail. (but still plans to run for his seat next year- from jail) The next closeset thing to Ohio is Evan Bayh in Indiana. Kerry has a much better chance of getting Ohio and Indiana with Bayh, than he does getting the south with Edwards I can't see Hillary playing 2nd banana to Theresa Hines. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 03:20 PM (#1129254) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bill D "I love Jim Traficant, but unfortunately he is in jail." ummmm...why would ANYONE love a reprobate like Traficant? Even without his conviction, he would not have been a viable candidate for VP........wait...I take it back..Spiro Agnew got in.*grin* |
|
04 Mar 04 - 04:02 PM (#1129276) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: beadie Freightdawg: Thanks for the first-person review. This kind of info on your Gov. helps clarify the picture. Mucho Appreciado. |
|
04 Mar 04 - 05:07 PM (#1129311) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Charley Noble "I predict that Kerry will choose a Southerner from one of the battleground states for his vice president." I'd add "Midwest" to that. That is probably the geographical and political strategy. And the bigger the state, the bigger the bang. We're talking Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. I don't think Edwards will make the cut although he would be an asset to the campaign, just not a big enough one. Haven't heard anything against Graham and it would remind Democrats of the Florida voting fiasco in 2000. Don't know nothing about the governor of PA. Any women worth mentioning in the "battleground" states? Charley Noble |
|
04 Mar 04 - 08:37 PM (#1129467) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bill D it's funny about Graham...I hear LOTS of nice things about him, but the few news clips I've seen make me think of Boris Yeltsin after a couple shots of vodka.(he was singing in one) What am I missing? |
|
04 Mar 04 - 08:49 PM (#1129471) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: jaze I love McGrath's diabolical idea with Bill Clinton! Wouldn't that XXXX the military indusrial complex off no end! |
|
04 Mar 04 - 08:58 PM (#1129477) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Alice I think Kerry will ask John Edwards to be his running mate. Edwards is fresh in people's minds (voters have short attention span) and he made a positive impression in his campaign. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 01:18 AM (#1129571) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: DougR For once I support Big Mick's point of view politically. No candidate that is too far right, or too far left, has a shot at being elected. DougR |
|
05 Mar 04 - 06:56 AM (#1129679) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: kendall Kerry could never carry the redneck vote. He must have a southerner. Kucinich is the nicest one in the bunch, but, not electable. I think it will be Edwards, and, I have never seen the democrat party so united before. ANYBODY but Bush. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 08:04 AM (#1129695) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST Republicans have been electing far right candidates since Reagan. Nader is now polling at 6% to Bush's 46% and Kerry's 45%. |
|
05 Mar 04 - 04:58 PM (#1130040) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham The evidence about Kerry's operative pattern is that he will not move impulsively in the selection of a running mate. It will probably not be solely on the basis of who can take the South. He has a pattern of loyalty to those in his life. Many are veterans who have seen the horror of war. I wonder if it will be Max Cleland or General Clark? It will probably be someone Kerry has known for a long time and has a close working relationship with them. Frank |
|
05 Mar 04 - 05:47 PM (#1130072) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: dianavan amos - Compared to Bush he looks like John Kennedy. Isn't that exactly what the democratic, political machine is hoping for? Is it true? Of course not. If the dems want to oust Bush, they better start explaining who Kerry really is and stop trying to fool the public with a "Kennedy stand-in". Real change is needed and people are getting sick of media images. Its time for Kerry to tell the public who he really is and where he stands on domestic issues. d |
|
05 Mar 04 - 07:45 PM (#1130137) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow "No candidate that is too far right, or too far left, has a shot at being elected. But the Supreme Court was able to sort that one out last time... |
|
05 Mar 04 - 11:09 PM (#1130190) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: LadyJean Fellow Pennsylvania Democrats! Dean is on the PA ballot. (I took enough personal abuse taking around that petition, he'd better be!) Kerry has the nomination. But if you vote for Dean's delegates on April 27, they will bring his policies to Boston, and get them on the Democratic platform. WE STILL HAVE A CHOICE, after a fashion. |
|
06 Mar 04 - 05:01 AM (#1130262) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John MacKenzie I hate his hairstyle/cut, I feel like screaming 'get it cut' every time I see him. John |
|
06 Mar 04 - 05:42 PM (#1130551) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow Isn't it a wig? |
|
06 Mar 04 - 07:04 PM (#1130581) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham If you really want to know Kerry, pay close attention to what he is saying. He is not John Kennedy. He is his own man. Some of you may not believe this but then there is no politician that anyone can say they really know including Dean. The fact that Kerry is running as a Democrat with the backing of the Democratic Party does not necessarilly mean that he is somehow corrupted by a Democratic machine. It may mean that people who are Democrats happen to think he's more qualified. They may like the fact that he is an insider and frankly, I believe that is one reason why he can beat Bush. As to sartorial appearance, I guess it's as good as any reason offered here to select a candidate for president. Frank |
|
07 Mar 04 - 05:05 AM (#1130752) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John MacKenzie From this side of the pond it seems that the main reason people get chosen to stand in presidential elections, is because they have, or have access to, loads of bucks. John |
|
07 Mar 04 - 09:56 AM (#1130840) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Greg F. Got it in one, John. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 10:14 AM (#1130850) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century. Politics in the US is a millionaires' game, with the citizenry the losers every time. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 10:23 AM (#1130855) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Amos I dunno -- I wouldn't mind having a poor person in office, but I don't know how he would handle the budget. I wouldn't want someone leading the country who was unable to deal with wealth. That doesn't mean he would have to have a lot, just that he wouldn't be inept about it. I don't know that it is much of a criterion otherwise. A |
|
07 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM (#1130912) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST The wealthy don't have a very good track record of dealing with wealth, though. Their track record is that they horde it for themselves, at the expense of the common good. And who is saying that we need to elect a poor person president (and I assume you presume the poor person is also poorly educated)? I for one would be happy with a highly intelligent middle or working class person as president, senator (let us not forget that the US Senate, and more often than not, the House as well) is a club for white male millionares. I am not saying a wealthy white male can't make a good president. I am saying I think we need to open our government up to make it more representative of our citizenry. Remember, our government is supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION, not of corporations and capitalists. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 12:03 PM (#1130923) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John Hardly "You sound as if a Bush defeat is emminant, John. This ain't like you one danged bit..." Bobert au contrere. I have maintained (without a swerve) since the summer of '03 that Bush would lose no matter who the opposition put up against him. The math is simple. The Democrats won the popular majority in '00. The Democrats will lose no voters by '04 -- all the same voters will still be voting Democrat. ---BUT---- they will gain additional voters because 1) Nader will not take so large a piece of pie this time 'round (lessons learned). 2) The hatred of Bush is a frenzied mass of new voters (the anti war rhetoric has been largely successful and, while still USA/self loathing in its soul, has been able to walk the rhetorical tightrope to seem less anti-american than it seemed in its earlier inicarnation as anti-vietnam war USA haters). Meanwhile, I suspect that Bush has already lost a HUGE portion of voters from his base. Few conservatives that share my POV are excited to vote for him on a Lesser-of-two-evils basis (as they held their noses and did in '00 -- easy to forget that Conservatives have never cared deeply for Bush jr--every conservative rag from Wall St Journal to National Review warned that Bush was unprincipled as a business man and would likely fold (as had Bush Sr) at the slightest pressure from Democrats, especially as he has showed no signs of understanding conservative economic principles.....much less acting upon such. His spending policy in order to try to make himself popular with his enemies has alienated what few political friends on the right he did use to help him get elected in '00, and proven the worst fears of the tentative voters he once had from the right. Bush is toast. I reiterate.......watch for Bayh. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 12:28 PM (#1130950) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST As a leftist, I agree that Bush is toast. I am not concerned about him being re-elected, because I just don't think he has the votes now, nor do I think he'll have the votes in November. So, since I believe the Democratic party can easily take care of getting their man elected in November, what are the issues I would like to see brought to the forefront this election year? Well, the economy is at the top of the list, but in a tie. My other number one issue is cost of and access to health care. Followed by a closely by affordable housing, affordable child care, and affordable transportation. The basics, in other words, that neither party is addressing this year. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 12:29 PM (#1130952) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST Oops, I forgot to add affordable education to my list. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 01:00 PM (#1130968) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow "If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century" Isn't it Kerry's wife who has the money? Does that really mean it belongs to Kerry? I thought you got rid of that kind of property law back in the 19th century. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM (#1130977) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST McGrath, according to law in most US states, unless there is a prenuptial agreement/allocation of assets prior to marriage, the assets of both parties in a marriage is still considered joint/community property. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM (#1130991) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth "If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century." That's quite an assertion, GUEST. Can we see some figures and documentation on that? Don Firth |
|
07 Mar 04 - 02:15 PM (#1131007) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST You could try here, at forbes.com: Kerry Would Be Third-Richest U.S. President Dan Ackman, 02.13.04, 7:00 AM ET The Richest US Presidents If you wish to know more about the selling of the presidency in 2004, try the Center for Public Integrity's very interesting website, which is touting the book "The Buying of the Pesident 2004" by Charles Lewis (one of their own) here: Center for Public Integrity Are those sources credible enough for you Don, or do you need more "proof"? |
|
07 Mar 04 - 02:54 PM (#1131033) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth GUEST, you're showing a tendency toward some pretty wild, shotgun accusations, on this thread and others. I'm just trying to keep you honest. Don Firth |
|
07 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM (#1131034) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow Anyone feel just a bit suspicious about where this particular GUEST is coming from? |
|
07 Mar 04 - 03:09 PM (#1131043) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST "GUEST, you're showing a tendency toward some pretty wild, shotgun accusations, on this thread and others." Examples, please. Making shotgun accusations that someone is making shotgun accusations is an ad hominem attack. "Anyone feel just a bit suspicious about where this particular GUEST is coming from?" And McGrath, how charming and quaint for you to pull out the old communist "if they aren't with us, they must be a plant from the right wing establishment" ploy. Or are you merely suggesting I'm from the Dean camp, which would be treated the same as if I were an FBI agent working on the COINTELPRO project for J. Edgar? Apparently, none of you read much, and you especially don't read much in the way of political discourse. There is a big debate going on in the world beyond Mudcat--within and outside the Democratic party--about just how electable John Kerry is going to be come November. But since the alpha males here seem to be supporting Kerry, it appears that no dissenter's opinions will be tolerated. So it is time to take out the big, black brush and paint over those GUEST posts that challenge the Mudcat alpha male conventional wisdom. You must be feeling very threatened by my arguments, gentleman. Two ad hominem attacks in a row means I must be hitting the mark. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 03:19 PM (#1131046) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John MacKenzie Guest. I'm not saying you're wrong about the double edged paranoia thing. Just that you're never going to get taken as genuine as long as you use the Guest handle. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just telling it like it is. Incidentally both McGrath and myself are UK based, so we don't have a vote, just our own distant observations. John :¬]> |
|
07 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM (#1131049) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST From the left leaning news weekly City Pages: 50,000,000 Kerry Fans Can't Be Wrong Can They? Many longtime Kerry watchers still insist that down deep, he's made of wood. In Boston, Kerry is a famous target of mockery for liberal and conservative columnists alike. The criticisms usually concern his imperious manner, his love of privilege, his unerring sense of what is best for John Kerry. For years his nickname among reporters was "Live Shot," a reference to Kerry's gift for turning up in front of any camera in his vicinity. If he is elected, his wife's nearly half-billion-dollar fortune will make him the wealthiest president the country has ever had... For a generation now, the Democratic Party has played me-too politics and unswervingly followed Republican leads... In the Clinton era, the Democrats became adept at drinking from the same corporate fountains as Republicans. But as Alan Murray wrote in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, "those days are over. If any Fortune 500 CEOs are backing John Kerry, they are keeping quiet about it." Thus the Democrats, for the first time in modern memory, find themselves forced to sing to the people in the cheap seats for their supper. The public has begun to see that left versus right is not the name of the game. "Left" and "right," after all, have not had a consequential public disagreement in many years. The split that is inflaming the public mood is the one between insiders and outsiders. This is the taproot of popular animus toward Bush, but it also happens to be Kerry's great weakness. The real payoff in Republican attacks on Kerry will come from taking shots not at his voting record but at who he is: a mainstay D.C. insider who can be shown, without much trouble, to have twisted with the political breezes all through his career. They will point out that although Kerry may have awakened one recent morn on the wrong side of "special interests," he is still the leading recipient of lobbyist contributions in the US Senate over the past 15 years. They will pound at the frequent and cheerful hypocrisy of Kerry's collected public utterances, the most famous being his Yes vote on the Iraq war he now condemns. But there's no shortage of examples. JK on the Patriot Act now: "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." JK on the Patriot Act then: "It reflects an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work... [I am] pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation." And they will trawl up story after story about the kind of guy Kerry is. Howie Carr, one of those Boston columnists who's made a cottage industry of mocking his state's junior senator, recently published a brief compendium of some popular yarns. It's worth quoting at some length to catch the flavor: "The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: 'Do you know who I am?' "And now he's running for president as a populist. His first wife came from a Philadelphia Main Line family worth $300 million. His second wife is a pickle-and-ketchup heiress. "Kerry lives in a mansion on Beacon Hill on which he has borrowed $6 million to finance his campaign. A fire hydrant that prevented him and his wife from parking their SUV in front of their tony digs was removed by the city of Boston at his behest. "The Kerrys ski at a spa the widow Heinz owns in Aspen, and they summer on Nantucket in a sprawling seaside 'cottage' on Hurlbert Avenue, which is so well-appointed that at a recent fundraiser, they imported porta-toilets onto the front lawn so the donors wouldn't use the inside bathrooms." Democratic partisans and Bush haters of every stripe will rightly retort that Kerry's sins are far less egregious and consequential than Bush's, but that's not the point. Karl Rove saw the numbers of "nontraditional voters" giving money to Dean at the start, and he has no doubt noticed the record numbers turning out for primaries and caucuses. He's not stupid. The eventual Republican endgame will be to stifle public interest in the whole mess and depress the number of voters that turns out in November. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 03:57 PM (#1131081) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth Well, for one thing, you're trying to convey the idea that there is no difference whatsoever between the Republicans and the Democrats; Bush and Kerry (or anyone else the Democrats might care to run, perhaps?) are philosophically and politically joined at the hip. No sale, GUEST. You seem pretty vociferous about trashing Kerry. I'm not real fond of him myself, but at this point, he's the best we've got who actually has a chance to win. And I may be "Henny Penny" as you seem to think, but I am one of those who is dead set on getting Bush and his Merry Men (rob from the poor and give to the rich) out of office. Once Kerry is in, it's a matter of leaning on him. And I'm damned sure he's more receptive to progessive ideas than Bush ever thought of being. It does make a difference, whether you think so or not. But then, I'm not at all sure that you're coming from where you say you are. Don Firth |
|
07 Mar 04 - 04:07 PM (#1131088) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST "It does make a difference, whether you think so or not." Wrong. Don Firth's opinion is that there is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats. That does not make Don Firth's opinion fact. Nor does it make the opinions of those who don't agree with Don Firth's opinion, wrong. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 04:16 PM (#1131092) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth I seem to be keeping you ping-ponging from one thread to another, GUEST. I'm through arguing with you. You're a waste of time, both mine and your own. I've run across you before. Don Firth |
|
07 Mar 04 - 04:18 PM (#1131094) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham I guess it's a foregone conclusion by many rad types that if you have a lot of money you can't be on the side of the working man or woman. I don't get that. There are rich socialists, even. Kerry is his own man in my opinion. He likes part of the Patriot Act. I don't. But I see why he voted for it. But I like his straight talk. He doesn't apologize for what he believes in. He will not wear the label of "liberal" because he doesn't like labels. He says enough of what I believe in for me to volunteer for him as a president. I am in accord with most of his ideas and have learned something from him about how hard it is to get a bill through congress that does anything. I feel his integrity. Some might think that I'm being manipulated by the media but that is their short-sightedness and their agenda talking. Kerry may turn out to be a superb politician. I don't see anything wrong with that. You need to be something of a politician/statesman to be an effective president. It's part of the job description. Money doesn't always corrupt. From where I sit, I think Kerry has a vision for where the country should go. More international cooperation. Better deals for college kids and shoring up public schools. Fund those unfunded mandates. Community service as was initiated under Kennedy. (Peace corps). Reversing the reverse Robin Hood of the Bush years. Defending civil rights by dumping Ashcroft. Taking a sensible view of Iraq by not doing anything too radical but bringing in more of the international community to get us out of this quagmire. Telling the NRA where to get off. Listening to other people and what they have to say. (That's a big one for me.) Black people by in large will support him. They know he is on their side. Ask Representative John Lewis from Georgia. Frank |
|
07 Mar 04 - 04:41 PM (#1131107) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST "I guess it's a foregone conclusion by many rad types that if you have a lot of money you can't be on the side of the working man or woman." Not a foregone conclusion, simply your assumption. And considering how many wealthy people the radical left has backed over the years, including Nader and Howard Dean, I'd say you might want to re-examine your assumptions in that regard. It is entirely possible to be opposed to this particular candidate's wealth and privleged background, if we think it has unduly influenced his votes. Many leftists believe that to be the case. But it looks as if Kerry's supporters are a pretty intolerant lot when it comes to differences of opinion. Which means they are likely pretty unsure as to what exactly their man will actually do, if elected. "Reversing the reverse Robin Hood of the Bush years." Really? Where has John Kerry said that? He voted for welfare reform, after all. NAFTA ain't exactly about redistribution of wealth. "Black people by in large will support him." I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting that everyone should vote for Kerry because many black voters will vote for Kerry? What the hell kind of recommendation is that supposed to be? |
|
07 Mar 04 - 05:12 PM (#1131137) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Stephen L. Rich Let us keep something in mind. This election is no different from any other. We have a choice between crap (Bush) and more crap (Kerry). The Bush administration created the USA Patriot Act (a clear attempt to repeal the Billof Rights and create an American KGB). Senator Kerry voted for it. Neither party has your intersts in mind. They only care for thier own power. The only issue that the Democrats seem to have is the the Republicans are in power and the Democrats aren't. Stephen Lee |
|
07 Mar 04 - 05:25 PM (#1131151) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: artbrooks GUEST 10:14 AM says that "If elected president, Kerry will be the richest president the US has had in over a century." GUEST 2:15 PM provides a link that says John Kennedy was richer, and that most of the 'Kerry family' money is his wife's. I sure do wish these GUESTs would discuss their points among themselves before attempting to make them on line. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM (#1131260) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow If the cap fits, wear it. I'd say the odds are pretty overwhelming that that particular GUEST is a Bush fan trying to be cute. I imagine we'll see a lt more like that over the next few months. |
|
07 Mar 04 - 10:08 PM (#1131342) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Walking Eagle Guest, I must disagree with you on several points. Having personal money, for the most part recently, sometimes works against a candidate. It didn't work for Forbes and it didn't work for that Texas infomercial dude either. Both of these folks have accounts that reach somewhere out near Pluto. Point number two. Have you ever heard of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center? It was funded by two very rich, hard working GM execs who were out on the work floor every day! Ever heard of Cyrus Eaton? He owned Eaton Industries. They made Etonics running shoes among other things. He was a socialist in Cleveland,OH and made very big bucks for himself. His goal was to die poor, which he did. He saw to it that his workers (and Retirees!) were well cared for. If you look back in the history of steel, you'll certainly find Andrew Carneighy. He's responsible for tiny little libraries in small/large town America. Look a little further back in history and you'll find Rebecca Lukens. She was a Quaker and inherited Lukens Steel when her husband died. Quakers allowed women to inherit property, unlike the rest of America. She worked hard for her company and made sure that it survived economic down turns when other steel mills were shutting down. Have you heard of Milton S. Hershey? Of the Hershey chocolate fame? He founded Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, where no patient is ever turned away. The fund is funded by his trust and other medical research foundations. He also founded the Milton S. Hershey School for Boys. It is by far the better of Choate and all the other private hoity toity private schools. It is a little different in that the boy has to be in trouble with the law, a bit of a scoial outcast, and have no father in his family. If you meet these criterion, you're in! I could go on and on, but no sense in doing that. As Paul Harvey points out, there is always "the rest of the story." |
|
07 Mar 04 - 10:18 PM (#1131348) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Walking Eagle Point number two was meant to refute the statement that that rich poeple never do anything good with their money. There are many who certainly don't, but those that do have a far reaching good affect on society. |
|
08 Mar 04 - 10:09 AM (#1131415) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST Hey--on the wealth issue, talk to Frankham, as he is the one suggesting that too many leftists "have issues" with people of wealth. That is a tactic to discredit those who believe that John Kerry's life of privlege (not just his and/or his wife's obscene wealth) effects his thinking, his votes, and the political alliances he makes, in terms of how it effects the citizenry. In an era of millionaire politicians (just how many US senators aren't millionaires?) it is a legitimate question to ask. As to suggesting that anyone who isn't supporting Kerry is actually a Bush supporter trying to sow seeds of discontent and "steal" votes from Kerry, like I said, that is a Communist Party tactic old as the hills. Are all of you suggesting that anyone who isn't for Kerry is for Bush? I don't think this election is quite that simple, despite the simple minds here thinking that saying so makes it so. I would like to remind people that Kerry is not the official Democratic party candidate yet. He is simply the apparent nominee. Shit can and does happen between primaries and conventions, that cause the apparent nominee not to become the nominated candidate. Like plane crashes. A recurrence of cancer. Making a gaffe, or series of gaffes, that causes the nominee to become unelectable. |
|
08 Mar 04 - 12:26 PM (#1131530) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth You're living in hope that Kerry will screw it up? Let me point something out to you GUEST, in case you missed it: Kerry is the front-runner because he garnered the most primary votes and caucus delegates. I take it you feel that means nothing. Don Firth |
|
08 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM (#1131571) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST I take it you are assuming that because Kerry won the primaries, that all Democrats and independents are now magically lined up in lock step with the Democratic party's apparent nominee. I think you are a bit premature, not to mention naive. The party has made absolutely no overtures to the Dean camp, or the Nader camp. If they don't do something to remedy that soon, they will have likely blown yet another presidential election, because everyone isn't lined up behind Kerry, period. It doesn't matter how often or vociferously you keep trying to shout down the dissenters. You aren't changing our minds, and you most certainly are alienating your most reliable allies--but of course, you don't give a shit about us allies, you just want our votes, and then have us shut up and go away. |
|
08 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM (#1131578) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: McGrath of Harlow "...most reliable allies" ??????????????? |
|
08 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM (#1131627) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth Okay, let's talk about "naïve." I am not dedicated to Kerry. Nor, as I have said before, am I a Democrat. As I have also said before, my primary aim in the coming election is to get Bush out. I believe that any one of the Democratic candidates would be better for the country, and for the world, than another four years of George W. Bush. My actual preference is for Dennis Kucinich because of his policies (Ten Key Points), but unfortunately Kucinich has something of a charisma deficit and I'm not so naïve that I think he could actually win against Bush. This is a pathetic state of affairs, but unfortunately these things seem to matter to the electorate. I would also vote for Nader if I thought he had the best chance of defeating Bush, but due to his lack of foreign policy experience (non-existent, to be precise) I seriously doubt that Nader would make a very good president, nor am I not naïve enough to believe he could actually win. Independents and third parties have never done well in this country. Read your history. I would like to see this country join the rest of the civilized world in terms of progressive programs such as universal health care, a solid and unassailable Social Security program, guaranteed high-quality education, workers rights (such as a livable minimum wage, overtime pay, and a maximum number of hours that someone can be required to work), curbs put on the excesses of corporate greed, a fire lit under the Securities and Exchange Commission to make them do their job, rational attention paid to environmental issues, full restoration of the Bill of Rights, genuine separation of church and state (and keeping the government the bloody hell out of people's bedrooms), start abiding by our treaties, support the United Nations—and I especially like Kucinich's intention to establish a "cabinet-level Department of Peace, to establish non-violence as an organizing principle in both domestic and international affairs." I am not so naïve, however, that I believe that any candidate put forth by the Democratic Party (or any other party, for that matter) will—or can—bring all of this about, except through hard struggle and over a period of time. Because of the forces at work, the country will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming. But the Democratic Party has historically leaned in this direction, still at least pays lip-service to some of these principles, and would offer less resistance to being pushed in this direction than the Republican Party. And if you seriously believe that Nader has the chance of a snowball in a blast furnace, then I ask, who is the naïve one here? And as to accusing me, or anyone for that matter, of "vociferously . . . trying to shout down the dissenters," in the light of the tantrums you keep throwing, you, sir or madam, verge on the ridiculous! Don Firth |
|
08 Mar 04 - 03:32 PM (#1131681) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham Another Guest who won't reveal their name. It may be a Republican National Commitee operative who attempts to use a worn-out radical line to stir up the waters. "discredit those who believe that John Kerry's life of privlege (not just his and/or his wife's obscene wealth) effects his thinking, his votes, and the political alliances he makes, in terms of how it effects the citizenry" There is no discredit since this thesis can't be proved one way or another. It's strictly an opinion that I don't share with this hidden Guest. FDR was a president of privilege and accomplished quite a lot for working-class people. The tactic by the anonymous Guest is an attempt to stir up dissension amoung Democrats. It's a conquer and divide tactic. That's what makes me think that this Guest is disingenuous. Frank |
|
08 Mar 04 - 05:06 PM (#1131749) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth I agree. I expect to hear all the same arguments against Kerry that GUEST uses coming from the Bush campaign. This is going to be a real mud-slinger, and GUEST is off to an early start. Don Firth |
|
08 Mar 04 - 05:16 PM (#1131751) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Walking Eagle Guest. I'm mearly pointing out that folks (which sometimes includes me) that make broad brushed statements should be prepared to: 1. Learn something. 2. Be prepared to back up their statements with some facts and logic. Do you know for a fact that no overtures have been made to the Dean camp? If so, please let us know. 3. Keep things clean by not trying to make others feel inferior. But, how can I ask this of one who is trolling? |
|
09 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM (#1132240) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST Not much point in my participating in a conversation where I've been reduced by the tyrannical majority to a troll and a Bush operative, now is there? And once more, the world is safe for the status quo. Pathetic, really. |
|
09 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM (#1132284) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Donuel Kerry has not gone untouched by my "pen" Kerry has a curb your enthusiasm momment when he said he would like to be the second black president after CLinton... http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerryblk.jpg http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerrylib.jpg http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerryfree.jpg http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerry2.jpg http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerryair.jpg |
|
09 Mar 04 - 03:53 PM (#1132374) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth Yup, GUEST, that's right. We're all a bunch of tyrants, and we're hell-bent on whipping you into line. But we can hardly stuff a gag in your mouth or hold a gun at your head in the voting booth, so we're hardly infringing on your civil liberties. Rave on if you wish. I can only speak for myself (although I believe this holds for many others here as well), but the source of my profound wisdom, grasshopper, is first of all, my inherent brilliance, second, my vast store of knowledge gained by living a long and varied life as a keen observer of the human condition, and third, that when I research history and read material from web sites and various other sources, I keep an open mind (being aware, of course, of the biases of the various writers, including those with whom I tend to agree), read critically, and try to learn as much as I can. I do not do this research with the object of selectively gathering facts—or pseudo-facts—in support of a pre-formed argument so I can use them to bludgeon others with in a feeble attempt to "prove" my point. Nader and others have some very good ideas, but the way to convert these ideas into practical realities is not to attempt to scuttle the forthcoming (we hope!) regime change in 2004. You want everyone to vote for Nader (and if a sufficient number of people voted for him, that would be fine, but you and I both know that ain't gonna happen), so you go to considerable lengths to try find material that you think you can use to trash Kerry. If you're successful in persuading a bunch of people to follow you're ill-advised lead, I hope you can be happy with another four years of Bush. This strikes me as not a very practical way of advancing the progressive viewpoint you claim to hold. It may have be Machiavelli who said, "Do not spend too much time examining what appears to be foolishness. Ask yourself what it accomplishes." Don Firth |
|
09 Mar 04 - 05:28 PM (#1132455) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Donuel The message below was removed, because it was judged by the moderators to be inappropriate. Please be aware that only one rule violation is enough to get an entire message removed. Please do not post messages that are racially insensitive. Subject: A curb your enthusiasm moment for Kerry Kerry said he would like to be second black president after Clinton. to which a black man in the audience got his 30 seconds of fame by labeling Kerry a racist advantaged white man ect.ect.ect. of cousre the clear channel screaming heads are all over this one. Well it was just like Larry David wrote it word for word. :) http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/kerryblk.jpg In order to continue participating on our message board, you must acknowledge receipt of this notification by clicking on one of these two links: I acknowledge receipt of this notification and I agree to follow the rules. I acknowledge receipt of this notification, I agree to follow the rules, and I would like to provide an explanation. |
|
09 Mar 04 - 05:39 PM (#1132461) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: John Hardly that's fascinating, Donuel. You weren't allowed political satire in the form of a link to your site because it presented a Democratic candidate as a racist? Haven't we seen Republican candidates called racist here? What's the dif? (just curious) |
|
10 Mar 04 - 03:03 AM (#1132789) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: dianavan Donuel - I suppose some might think showing a pic of Kerry in black face singing Old Man River is racially insensitive but thats only if you overlook the fact that it is intended to slur Kerry not Afro-Americans. Did Kerry really say that? If he did, that certainly reveals the nature of the beast. I'd say, Nader looks better all the time. d |
|
10 Mar 04 - 06:55 AM (#1132876) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Donuel Kerry was referring to Clinton being in some black hall of fame and hoping he might end up there too. As for the website DemoctraticUnderground, the only editorial cartoons they ever ban of mine have been those dealing with Democratic candidates: Dean Clark Kerry... The reasons are called "too violent" or as you just saw "racicist" but they only have ire for their own being lampooned. If you know the Larry David show curb your enthusiasm, then you would see how funny the Kerry incident was. |
|
10 Mar 04 - 09:05 AM (#1132953) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham There's going to be a lot of stuff now that accuse Kerry of everything. It's really important to know where it's coming from and just how accurate it really is. I don't think black people have a problem with Kerry. He has received endoresements from some leading figures in the black community and the fact that Kerry wants to be identified with the black community is a plus in my book. Frank |
|
10 Mar 04 - 09:59 AM (#1133004) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Amos I think your cartoon a bit unfair, Donuel. Meaning, it parodies the wrong things. A |
|
10 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM (#1133107) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Donuel eh you're probably right, I only spent 10 seconds thinking of some text. What I did achieve was a darn good vision of what Kerry would look like as a black man which is harder than it looks. |
|
11 Mar 04 - 06:19 AM (#1133708) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobjack Post no 100. I thank you. You have made an old guinea pig very happy. |
|
11 Mar 04 - 09:48 AM (#1133840) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham Here's the bottom line. There is a radical right wing agenda taking over the country. Gutting public schools, Medicare, Social Security, advocating more pre-emptive strikes, deposing duly elected officials and referring to their armed protectors as gun thugs (Haiti),fudging figures, defending corporate polluters, allowing the religious right-wing fundamentalists to take over government jobs, messing with the Constitution and the environment, using the UN when it serves their purpose and denigrating it when it doesnt. You think that this is an extreme position? So do so many so-called moderates. Kerry woke up. It has come to the point where you can't trust anything the Bush Administration is saying. There are demogogues there who will say anything the public wants to hear to furthur their ambitions. The press is giving them a free pass (most of the media owned by corporate conglomerates that see this in their best interest). In short, anyone that believes that Kerry and Bush are the same is living in a bubble. There is a new "subversion" taking place and it's in the executive and legislative branches of our government. Kerry has found out about it and that's what's going on. Frank |
|
11 Mar 04 - 02:04 PM (#1134041) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST If Kerry has just found about the right wing takeover of the government, I sure as shit wouldn't vote for him. That means he has been asleep at the wheel for well over two decades. Try voting for Nader instead, who has known about the right wing takeover of the government and legistlature since the day Reagan took office, and has spent his career trying to get the government and legislature to do something to stop them. |
|
11 Mar 04 - 02:13 PM (#1134044) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Don Firth Yeah, and wind up with four more years of Bush. Don Firth |
|
11 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM (#1134057) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: GUEST Not if Nader is on the ballot in all the states that matter, and can capture a majority in those states by splitting votes off from both Bush and Kerry. |
|
11 Mar 04 - 03:46 PM (#1134105) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Frankham Actually, to dispute this unknown and anonymous Ghost, in the fall of 1992,Kerry blew the whistle on Reagan's dealing with the Bank of Credit and Commerce when they financed the drug trafficking of the Contras. THe bank bilked 250,000 creditors and depositors out of billions and the CIA knew what was going on and still did business with this bank. Anyone remember Abu Nidal? He was tied into this bank. Kerry took a lot of heat from the Reagan crew over this one. He just didn't know how far the radical right would go. Again, Nader was a great Public Citizen as a consumer advocate but as a candidate, he is a spoiler and will add votes to Bush. Those advocating Nader are either Bush operatives or disgruntled rads. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush and most of the left-wing mags and pundits agree. He has been publicly asked not to run. Frank |
|
06 Jul 04 - 08:10 AM (#1219862) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Wolfgang Edwards is the running mate. Wolfgang |
|
06 Jul 04 - 01:29 PM (#1220072) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bill D I won a bet with myself...that I could find it on Mudcat before I saw it on TV..*grin*.. well, all in all, not a bad choice... |
|
06 Jul 04 - 01:40 PM (#1220077) Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???..... From: Bobert Well, if nothing else, it shows that Kerry is comfortable with his own self since Edwards is so charismatic. It remains to be seen if Edwards will outshine Kerry, which IMO, ain't a difficult thing to accomplish. Now if Kerry will just throw the progressive a few bones then maybe some of us Green-leaners will rethink our Nadar-leanings... Bobert |
