Democrats and the '04 Election

[Navy Pride]

The Republicans have a wonderfully well-oiled machine to win elections. Too bad they can't govern.

Combine that with the right wing noise machine Rush, Fox, Think Tanks , American Heritage, Cato, Coors, Scaife, Olin etc. etc. and Dems start 50 yards back in a 100 yard dash. It's amazing that Dems occasionally win one.

BTW
Bush is at 34% approval. The 30% came from the % of people that support Bush's Iraq policy. (It's actually 29%.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Yeah hips but the last time I checked GWB is not running again......How are McCain's and Juliani's approval ratings? They are who you better worry about especially McCain...........

 

[hipsterdufus]

"grossly incompetent" is an opinion. It doesn't mean anything, other than to those who are desperaely looking to bash. Again I say, and have said for months now, what is the democratic plan? Who is the viable candidate? Hating Bush isn't going to get you a democratic president or a shift in the power of checks and balances. You need to stop losing elections. You need a solution and time is running out.

I can and have listed countless examples of this administrations gross incompetence. You can put lipstick on that pig however you want, but the facts speak for themselves.

What I'd like my party to do if they win is to the stop the bleeding, both figuratively and literally. We are playing defense more than offense because so much harm has been done.

Time is running out?

What does that mean? What happens in 06 is not as important as looking at the big picture for Dems. Dem's are in the process of entirely rebuilding the party from the ground up and returning the power to where it belongs - the people.

Kerry's loss actually sped up the process. The new 50 state strategy has been the best move the Dem's have made in years. The new groups that have been created are not special interest groups, but broad-based organizations.

It's a fight with the fat cat Dems in DC and the consultants who lose election after election yet keep getting rehired. Prime example 0-8 Bob Shrum - why he is on MSN-BS all the time is beyond me. The man is a total loser as a political strategist.

 

[afr0byte]

Yeah hips but the last time I checked GWB is not running again......How are McCain's and Juliani's approval ratings? They are who you better worry about especially McCain...........

Way to change the subject. However, hip's comments were valid since we're talking about the President that was elected in 2004 (the topic of this thread).

 

[hipsterdufus]

Yeah hips but the last time I checked GWB is not running again......How are McCain's and Juliani's approval ratings? They are who you better worry about especially McCain...........

I like McCain and Juliani, and would be happy if either were the GOP nominee.
Rudy's got too much baggage though, and he's cleaning up $$$ in the private sector these days. Why would he want the hassle?

Call me crazy, but I'd like to be able to pick from 2 viable candidates. That's a win/win for the country.

 

[Navy Pride]

I like McCain and Juliani, and would be happy if either were the GOP nominee.
Rudy's got too much baggage though, and he's cleaning up $$$ in the private sector these days. Why would he want the hassle?

Call me crazy, but I'd like to be able to pick from 2 viable candidates. That's a win/win for the country.

I would not count Rudy out........You like McCain..........He is a total opposite of Kerry, Hillary and Dean.....R U going to switch to the Republican Party?

 

[afr0byte]

I would not count Rudy out........You like McCain..........He is a total opposite of Kerry, Hillary and Dean.....R U going to switch to the Republican Party?

McCain isn't a total opposite.

 

[Navy Pride]

Way to change the subject. However, hip's comments were valid since we're talking about the President that was elected in 2004 (the topic of this thread).

And we are also talking about 2006 and 2008.........2000 and 2004 are ancient history...Unlike you hips and I know that........We live in the present...........

 

[Navy Pride]

McCain isn't a total opposite.

McCain Huge Hawk on the war, the Patriot Act, Voted for both Roberts and Alito, Pro Life, Pro Death Penalty, Pro fiscal responsibility, Pro Gun, anti Gay marriage, etc, etc.....Do you want me to go on?

 

[afr0byte]

And we are also talking about 2006 and 2008.........2000 and 2004 are ancient history...Unlike you hips and I know that........We live in the present...........

Oh, I very much live in the present.

 

[Navy Pride]

Oh, I very much live in the present.

Hell you could not even vote in those elections.......:rofl

 

[afr0byte]

Hell you could not even vote in those elections.......:rofl

The 2000 election, you're correct.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

look out for Newt...I bet he comes out of nowhere & takes the GOP nomination & McCain (always a bridesmaid & never a bride) will likely become his running mate (primarily because the dems like him so much).

Joe Biden will be the dem nominee & Edwards will be the other bridesmaid again - Hilary won't even be a factor.

GOP wins the biggest landslide in history.

CAN'T WAIT 'TIL 2008

 

[hipsterdufus]

I would not count Rudy out........You like McCain..........He is a total opposite of Kerry, Hillary and Dean.....R U going to switch to the Republican Party?

What are you talking about? If Kerry had his way, McCain would have been the VP choice. That would have went a long way towards healing our divided nation.

I think McCain is the best the GOP has to offer, so I would welcome his nomination.

 

[hipsterdufus]

look out for Newt...I bet he comes out of nowhere & takes the GOP nomination & McCain (always a bridesmaid & never a bride) will likely become his running mate (primarily because the dems like him so much).

Joe Biden will be the dem nominee & Edwards will be the other bridesmaid again - Hilary won't even be a factor.

GOP wins the biggest landslide in history.

CAN'T WAIT 'TIL 2008

Newt has way too much baggage. In 5+ years of total GOP control the Rep can't get the agenda of the Contract with America passed. (Thank goodness!)

The following is Newt's Death Knoll - he'll never overcome this hypocrysy.

Gingrich: Do as I Say, Not as I Do
By Robert Scheer
Published August 17, 1999 in the Los Angeles Times

The news that Newt Gingrich is headed for his second messy divorce, allegedly involving a longtime affair with a House of Representatives employee, has been largely ignored by news media that have not always been as sensitive to the privacy needs of major politicians.
It's true that Gingrich is no longer in Congress, where he orchestrated the impeachment of the president of the United States over charges rising from Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances. But Gingrich, through his many public appearances, remains a self-appointed definer of the Republican Revolution, which counted family values at its core. These very values are called into question if the married speaker of the House was having an affair with a much-younger congressional employee who ultimately reported to him.

Critics of Gingrich have long made much of the insensitivity he demonstrated in serving his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Nor did news of his efforts to cut life insurance coverage for the mother of his children always endear Gingrich to his family values supporters, but it was generally assumed that his marital errors were in the past.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/99_columns/081799.htm

Biden? You have to be f'in kidding me. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in HEII to win. Just because he's on the Sunday talk shows all the time, doesn't mean he knows a dam thing about being a democrat.

I think Hillary will run, but my guess is that she won't win one primary, no matter how much money she spends. The media loves to put her out there as the annointed candidate, she does have a lot of DC fat cats backing her, but she has next to no grassroots support from the people.

08 is light years away, 06 is more pressing, but if I were pressed to pick from a field of nominees I would list the following as viable candidates for the 08 nomination:

Bayh, Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Richardson, Vilsack and Warner

 

[Navy Pride]

What are you talking about? If Kerry had his way, McCain would have been the VP choice. That would have went a long way towards healing our divided nation.

I think McCain is the best the GOP has to offer, so I would welcome his nomination.

McCain is a Conservative Republican, a maverick for sure but still a Conservative.........Kerry is the biggest liberal in the U.S. Senate....That VP thing was all smoke and mirrors...........If McCain ever ran against Kerry he would beat him by 10,000,000 votes......


So you would change all your political views?

 

[afr0byte]

McCain is a Conservative Republican, a maverick for sure but still a Conservative.........Kerry is the biggest liberal in the U.S. Senate....That VP thing was all smoke and mirrors...........If McCain ever ran against Kerry he would beat him by 10,000,000 votes......


So you would change all your political views?

I disagree, Kerry is more of a moderate.

 

[Hoot]

REcounts...Not counts...REcounts...

If a vote is in dispute because people differ on the intent of the voter due to inadaquacies in the ballot itself, a standard MUST be established beforehand to decide how the ballot would be recounted...That did not happen...

If votes are treated equally within each county then there is no violation of the equal protection clause. Equal protection is basically defined as discriminating against a voter with intent. Where's the harm in making sure every valid vote counts, even if differing standards are used within different counties, the candidates are treated equally. Whether or not they are recounts has nothing to do with it.

In fact, a candidate could actually LOSE votes because the person(and monitors) recounting the ballot interpret it differently than the way the voter originally intended it...

With reps from both parties, and election officials and the media present, I hardly think any vote would be counted UNLESS the intent of the voter was crystal clear.

If you remember correctly, Gore wanted recounts in ONLY four counties...Wanna guess on the political affiliations of those four?...Would you call that fair?...

That was within Gores rights...he originally offered to have every county recounted, but, of course, Bush wanted nothing to do with that, yet he always campaigned on his slogan of "I'm for the people." Then how is an election stolen by letting every valid vote of the people be counted?

That's why GWB lawyers trumped it and got ALL counties to be recounted...and I'm sure you would agree...

Bush's lawyers had nothing to do with it. Under FL Election Code 102.141 a difference of less then one half of one percent demands an automatic machine recount...a recount that dropped Bush's lead from 1,784 votes to 327 votes.

In the Flordia laws, there is a certain date that the state MUST certify the count as official on that date...There is nothing in there that exempts them from it...

The Florida Supreme Court tried to circumvent that by allowing the recount to proceed, which obviously would have gone past that date...Making the Florida State law useless...

Sorry, but you should get your info from another source. This simply isn't correct.

In 1960, Hawaii didn't choose their "electors: until January 4th, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines of December 12th and 18th. 3 USC/5 is not a federal deadline of December 12th and there is NO state statute in FL for December 12th being a cutoff date for the counting of votes.

Kinvin Wroth, dean of Vermont Law School and an expert on the electoral college said that a 'recount could've gone on right up to the last day of Congress' joint session on Janurary 6, when the electoral votes are counted in Congress.

Suffice it to say, there is no date in law that is set in stone.

Is that how you want courts to decide things?...By overruling their own established laws that are not unconstitutional?

And exactly what laws did FL overrule? ( I'll answer that for you...none.)

Nope...The USSC said, "The Judicial Branch of the state cannot usurp the power of the Legislative Branch...If they have a law that says the ballots have to be certified by a certain date, no one has the power to change that except for the Legislative Branch itself."They didn't actually say that...I'm paraphrasing...

I'm glad you paraphrased that, because no way did the USSC ever say anything of the sort.

The date you're referring to is simply called "Safe Harbor," which basically means once the electors are chosen by this date, then congress cannot contest the results, but there is no date for the cutting off of counting of votes, or undervotes... it simply doesn't exist except for where I indicated above. There was ample time to have recounts and still have everything within both federal and FL election law.

Here's a better gist of it...

Thanks, but if this is where you're getting your info from, I think I'll pass.

 

[Navy Pride]

I disagree, Kerry is more of a moderate.

I don't know what planet you live on...........There was and independent group that did research on Kerry's voting record last year and they said that kerry voted over 96% of the time liberal even to the left of Kennedy......


With all due respect you really need to do your homework.........

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm


On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer (91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.

 

[afr0byte]

I don't know what planet you live on...........There was and independent group that did research on Kerry's voting record last year and they said that kerry voted over 96% of the time liberal even to the left of Kennedy......


With all due respect you really need to do your homework.........

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm


On a scale that ranges from 0 to 100, Mr. Kerry compiled a composite liberal score for 2003 of 96.5, the highest in the Senate. He eclipsed proud liberals like Paul Sarbanes (94.7) of Maryland, Barbara Boxer (91.2) of California, Tom Harkin (89.3) of Iowa and the Senate's liberal lion, Edward Kennedy (88.3), his Massachusetts colleague. It was the fourth time in his 20-year Senate career that Mr. Kerry compiled a composite voting record that was unsurpassed in its liberalism by any of the other 99 members of the Senate.

Yeah, but being the most liberal in this senate isn't saying much.

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah, but being the most liberal in this senate isn't saying much.

Is that right..........Do you know who makes the laws in this country?

 

[afr0byte]

Is that right..........Do you know who makes the laws in this country?

What I was implying is that while Kerry may be liberal relative to other senators, he's not too far left in general.

 

[Navy Pride]

What I was implying is that while Kerry may be liberal relative to other senators, he's not too far left in general.

Kerry votes on laws that affect this country....His liberal beliefs along with the other liberals in the senate can destroy this country......What part of that do you not understand?

 

[afr0byte]

Kerry votes on laws that affect this country....His liberal beliefs along with the other liberals in the senate can destroy this country......What part of that do you not understand?

First, that's just your opinion. Second, the only point I was making in my original post is that in general Kerry isn't extremely liberal (only relative to other senators).

 

[Navy Pride]

First, that's just your opinion. Second, the only point I was making in my original post is that in general Kerry isn't extremely liberal (only relative to other senators).

Grrrrrrr......Its not just my opinion...Do you even read the links that people post? 96.5% liberal voting record......What part of that do you not understand?

I don't care if Joe Smith in ten buck two is a flaming liberal........He is not a senator in the U.S.Senate..........Liberals by their voting in the Senate try and take this country dowm.......

I give up man/woman, your to dense........Have a nice evening........

 

[afr0byte]

Grrrrrrr......Its not just my opinion...Do you even read the links that people post? 96.5% liberal voting record......What part of that do you not understand?

I don't care if Joe Smith in ten buck two is a flaming liberal........He is not a senator in the U.S.Senate..........Liberals by their voting in the Senate try and take this country dowm.......

I give up man/woman, your to dense........Have a nice evening........

I was saying that it's just your (a conservative) opinion that the liberals are taking the country down. Besides, from my perspective it's your ilk (very conservative) that are bringing this country down, but that's just my opinion as well. And, are you trying to insult me by saying "man/woman"?