Kerry Will Probably Run in 2008 (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

While I am still a Bush basher, at this time I am taking a softer line on the Republican party itself. This is for two reasons.

1) One of them the fact that the Neocon parasites are losing their influence, and undoubtedly will be nothing more than a bad memory in 2008. This means that Conservative values will most likely prevail once again in the Republican Party.

2) The other reason has to do more with a poll taken which shows Kerry decisively beating Bush if the 2004 election were held today. This is a danger signal for America.

While Kerry heavily criticized Bush during the 2004 campaign, his own platform was pretty much the same as Bush's. This means that, if Kerry wins in 2008, nothing will change. I have been very much against George Bush due to his betrayal of Conservative values, and also feel that the 2004 election was a complete farce. Kerry and Bush were 2 peas in a pod, and the American people really had no choice in the election of 2004 because of that. Kerry and Bush are also distant cousins. Bush and Kerry are also both members of Skull and Bones, and put their allegiance to that organization instead of the United States.

If Kerry wins in 2008, we will NOT see any return to Conservative values. Sure, the Neocons will be gone, but the Neocons were much like Democrats to begin with. In fact, William Kristol, the father of Neoconservatism, stated that he would support a Liberal hawk over the Conservative in an election. This should tell you what will happen to our nation if Kerry wins. It might not be Neocons, per se, in office, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... It is still a Neocon, maybe not in name, but in principle, where it counts. Make no mistake about it. The Democrats are committed to the New World Order every bit as much as the Neocons were.

The best move that the Republican party can make it to replace Dick Cheney. No, not because Cheney is a Neocon (although I believe that to be a good reason myself), but to put someone in the Vice Presidency who can be groomed for the 2008 elections. With Conservatism finally beginning to return to the Republican party, we cannot afford to allow the Democrats carry on the same disasterous policies (or possibly even worse) we have seen under Bush.

2008 will truly be a battle for the soul of America. If the trend of returning to Conservatism continues, and if the Neocon parasites are truly cleansed from the GOP, I will be voting Republican in 2008. It wont be because I am deserting the Libertarian party, but because we need to put our Conservative ideology to practical use, and fight as hard as we can to take our country back. If we can do that, then a long nightmare lasting more than 15 years will finally be over.

Based on this article. Note that Kerry says he will only give a run at the presidency a hard thought. That means he will be running.

 

[Kandahar]

1) One of them the fact that the Neocon parasites are losing their influence, and undoubtedly will be nothing more than a bad memory in 2008. This means that Conservative values will most likely prevail once again in the Republican Party.

Don't count on it. Mitt Romney and George Allen are both Bush-clones. McCain is the only Republican candidate with a shot at the nomination who ISN'T what I'd call a neocon.

2) The other reason has to do more with a poll taken which shows Kerry decisively beating Bush if the 2004 election were held today. This is a danger signal for America.

Why? You said yourself that Bush isn't a conservative, so what do you care which of those two would win in a head-to-head matchup? Bush isn't running in 2008 anyway.

While Kerry heavily criticized Bush during the 2004 campaign, his own platform was pretty much the same as Bush's. This means that, if Kerry wins in 2008, nothing will change. I have been very much against George Bush due to his betrayal of Conservative values, and also feel that the 2004 election was a complete farce. Kerry and Bush were 2 peas in a pod, and the American people really had no choice in the election of 2004 because of that.

Agreed. There were a few differences but they both made me want to puke.

Kerry and Bush are also distant cousins. Bush and Kerry are also both members of Skull and Bones, and put their allegiance to that organization instead of the United States.

You have GOT to be kidding. You don't actually believe this, do you?

If Kerry wins in 2008, we will NOT see any return to Conservative values.

But Kerry won't win in 2008, so what on earth are you worried about? When have the Democratic Party primary voters ever been kind to losers? In the last century, only William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson have been given a second chance by the Dems...and I don't see their faces on Mount Rushmore.

Make no mistake about it. The Democrats are committed to the New World Order every bit as much as the Neocons were.

LOL
I can't believe I took you seriously at one point.

The best move that the Republican party can make it to replace Dick Cheney. No, not because Cheney is a Neocon (although I believe that to be a good reason myself), but to put someone in the Vice Presidency who can be groomed for the 2008 elections.

And what makes you think that Dick Cheney will just resign the office he was elected to?

With Conservatism finally beginning to return to the Republican party, we cannot afford to allow the Democrats carry on the same disasterous policies (or possibly even worse) we have seen under Bush.

What evidence do you have that "conservatism is finally beginning to return to the Republican Party"? A few congressmen fighting (and losing) a battle against their leadership is hardly sufficient.

Note that Kerry says he will only give a run at the presidency a hard thought. That means he will be running.

He can run all he wants. He won't win the primary, let alone the general.

 

[manthe]

While I am still a Bush basher, at this time I am taking a softer line on the Republican party itself. This is for two reasons.

1) One of them the fact that the Neocon parasites are losing their influence, and undoubtedly will be nothing more than a bad memory in 2008. This means that Conservative values will most likely prevail once again in the Republican Party.

2) The other reason has to do more with a poll taken which shows Kerry decisively beating Bush if the 2004 election were held today. This is a danger signal for America.

While Kerry heavily criticized Bush during the 2004 campaign, his own platform was pretty much the same as Bush's. This means that, if Kerry wins in 2008, nothing will change. I have been very much against George Bush due to his betrayal of Conservative values, and also feel that the 2004 election was a complete farce. Kerry and Bush were 2 peas in a pod, and the American people really had no choice in the election of 2004 because of that. Kerry and Bush are also distant cousins. Bush and Kerry are also both members of Skull and Bones, and put their allegiance to that organization instead of the United States.

If Kerry wins in 2008, we will NOT see any return to Conservative values. Sure, the Neocons will be gone, but the Neocons were much like Democrats to begin with. In fact, William Kristol, the father of Neoconservatism, stated that he would support a Liberal hawk over the Conservative in an election. This should tell you what will happen to our nation if Kerry wins. It might not be Neocons, per se, in office, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......... It is still a Neocon, maybe not in name, but in principle, where it counts. Make no mistake about it. The Democrats are committed to the New World Order every bit as much as the Neocons were.

The best move that the Republican party can make it to replace Dick Cheney. No, not because Cheney is a Neocon (although I believe that to be a good reason myself), but to put someone in the Vice Presidency who can be groomed for the 2008 elections. With Conservatism finally beginning to return to the Republican party, we cannot afford to allow the Democrats carry on the same disasterous policies (or possibly even worse) we have seen under Bush.

2008 will truly be a battle for the soul of America. If the trend of returning to Conservatism continues, and if the Neocon parasites are truly cleansed from the GOP, I will be voting Republican in 2008. It wont be because I am deserting the Libertarian party, but because we need to put our Conservative ideology to practical use, and fight as hard as we can to take our country back. If we can do that, then a long nightmare lasting more than 15 years will finally be over.

Based on this article. Note that Kerry says he will only give a run at the presidency a hard thought. That means he will be running.

Amen...to all of it.

 

[MSgt]

If Kerry or Hillary run, the Republican Party has the edge.

 

[danarhea]

If Kerry or Hillary run, the Republican Party has the edge.

Depends on who the Republicans run against either one, but if they play their cards right, I would say that you are correct.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Depends on who the Republicans run against either one, but if they play their cards right, I would say that you are correct.

If its John Mcain, then its a win for the dems.

 

[MSgt]

If its John Mcain, then its a win for the dems.

I'd look hard at McCaine.

 

[scottyz]

I think it would be a mistake for the Democrats to run Kerry. I don't think America would elect Hillary or any other female that ran. I also think it would be a mistake for the Republicans to run Frist. I thought McCain would be a good candidate, but he seems unstable and is contantly changing his position on issues.

 

[MSgt]

I think it would be a mistake for the Democrats to run Kerry. I don't think America would elect Hillary or any other female that ran. I also think it would be a mistake for the Republicans to run Frist. I thought McCain would be a good candidate, but he seems unstable and is contantly changing his position on issues.

That's because he shows signs of non-partisanship. He's thinking "militarily." It's what this country needs.

 

[scottyz]

That's because he shows signs of non-partisanship. He's thinking "militarily." It's what this country needs.

He seems to change his positions based on what will get him on the good side of certain people within his party. He wants the nomination and maybe it's all just an act to help him get it.

 

[MSgt]

He seems to change his positions based on what will get him on the good side of certain people within his party. He wants the nomination and maybe it's all just an act to help him get it.

Oh, you mean that way. I have been unable to really pay attention to the seperate issues of the politicians over the last few. If history continues to repeat itself, we will see many politicians all of a sudden take more middle ground stances on issues leading up to the Presidency.

.....and then they will turn into the normal *** clowns they usually are.

 

[jfuh]

That's because he shows signs of non-partisanship. He's thinking "militarily." It's what this country needs.

Military Industrial complex? no thanks.
McCain doesn't think militarily, he thinks diplomatically. That is what this nation needs a diplomat that understands when to negotiate and when to push head on.
He's environmental, pro-science and supports a NHC system. That's enough for my vote.

 

[MSgt]

Military Industrial complex? no thanks.
McCain doesn't think militarily, he thinks diplomatically. That is what this nation needs a diplomat that understands when to negotiate and when to push head on.
He's environmental, pro-science and supports a NHC system. That's enough for my vote.

Well, there's a diference between what you are suggesting with what would occur. An individual that thinks "militarily" does not necessarily mean a regimented train of thought nor does it mean a "military industrial complex." It means a more logical stance and less of an emotion or traditional view.

 

[scottyz]

I would like to see Clark capture the nomination of the Democratic party. IMO he is the guy the Dems should have been running in '04. Clark vs. McCain wouldn't be too bad me thinks.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I think that both Kerry and McCain will run for President.
2. I also think that neither will get the nomination.
3. I hope Kerry gets the nomination, :lol:
4. And I pray McCain does not, both he and Kerry seem like twins to me separated at birth.
5. I will tell later who I think will run and win the Presidency in 2008.
6. Stay tuned to DP.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[jfuh]

Well, there's a diference between what you are suggesting with what would occur. An individual that thinks "militarily" does not necessarily mean a regimented train of thought nor does it mean a "military industrial complex." It means a more logical stance and less of an emotion or traditional view.

THat's really where the delima is though isn't it, a view on what? There are very few issues that require militaristic thought. The only one that I can concieve of would that be of diplomacy. Nothing else requires "militaristic" rational, certainly not domestic issues.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sorry bout that,

1. I think that both Kerry and McCain will run for President.
2. I also think that neither will get the nomination.
3. I hope Kerry gets the nomination, :lol:
4. And I pray McCain does not, both he and Kerry seem like twins to me separated at birth.
5. I will tell later who I think will run and win the Presidency in 2008.
6. Stay tuned to DP.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I have a flash for you..........Kerry and McCain are political opposites........McCain is a Conservative and Kerry is a Liberal........

 

[jfuh]

I have a flash for you..........Kerry and McCain are political opposites........McCain is a Conservative and Kerry is a Liberal........

Kerry's a liberal? :lamo

 

[danarhea]

I have a flash for you..........Kerry and McCain are political opposites........McCain is a Conservative and Kerry is a Liberal........

Well, actually, McCain is more of a moderate, although he has been catering to the Conservative GOP base as of late. Kerry is a bit left of center, so the 2 could be considered somewhat opposite. However, it is difficult to tell with Kerry, since he changes positions quite a lot. Hmm, so does McCain, so in that way, both are a bit alike. To be more accurate, so are most politicians. Want to find an honest one in 2008? Good luck.

 

[KCConservative]

I hope Hillary and Kerry dook it out in the primary. Either one can be the nominee and I won't mind a bit.

 

[Navy Pride]

Kerry's a liberal? :lamo

Prior to the last presidential election Kerry's voting record in the Senate was investigated by a non partisan organization and was found to be the most liberal in the Senate. He voted 96.5 percent of the time liberal even to the left of "Fats" Kennedy..........I am shocked you did not know that...You are really losing creditability when it comes to your knowledge of politics my left wing friend..........

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, actually, McCain is more of a moderate, although he has been catering to the Conservative GOP base as of late. Kerry is a bit left of center, so the 2 could be considered somewhat opposite. However, it is difficult to tell with Kerry, since he changes positions quite a lot. Hmm, so does McCain, so in that way, both are a bit alike. To be more accurate, so are most politicians. Want to find an honest one in 2008? Good luck.

Prior to the last presidential election Kerry's voting record in the Senate was investigated by a non partisan organization and was found to be the most liberal in the Senate. He voted 96.5 percent of the time liberal even to the left of "Fats" Kennedy.....

 

[jfuh]

Prior to the last presidential election Kerry's voting record in the Senate was investigated by a non partisan organization and was found to be the most liberal in the Senate. He voted 96.5 percent of the time liberal even to the left of "Fats" Kennedy..........I am shocked you did not know that...You are really losing creditability when it comes to your knowledge of politics my left wing friend..........

Sorry but my standard of left liberalism is that of the 60's not this 90's quasi liberal left. As is my standard of the conservative right, not this neocon religious fanaticism.
Kerry is very much a left leaning centrist.
:fyi: I'm a centrist by all academic standards. If you see me as far left, well that only says something about how far right you are.
Finally I'd just want to point out that you're claim of a non-partisan study found Kerry to be far left. What's interesting is that you provide no such study or source for this "fact".

 

[Navy Pride]

Sorry but my standard of left liberalism is that of the 60's not this 90's quasi liberal left. As is my standard of the conservative right, not this neocon religious fanaticism.
Kerry is very much a left leaning centrist.
:fyi: I'm a centrist by all academic standards. If you see me as far left, well that only says something about how far right you are.
Finally I'd just want to point out that you're claim of a non-partisan study found Kerry to be far left. What's interesting is that you provide no such study or source for this "fact".

Hey the difference between you and I is I admit I am very Conservative and proud of it...........Like you most Liberals are ashamed to admit that they are far left............

Oh and how do you explain what that non biased organization said the Kerry is the biggest Liberal in the Senate?

 

[Iriemon]

Hey the difference between you and I is I admit I am very Conservative and proud of it...........Like you most Liberals are ashamed to admit that they are far left............

Oh and how do you explain what that non biased organization said the Kerry is the biggest Liberal in the Senate?

I'm proud to be a liberal. Who would want to be a big-debt, pass the buck, warmongering, holier-than-thou intolerant fundamentalist conservative? Yuck.