Race for 2008

[Missouri Mule]

Ok, let me see if I can decipher this...

Let's see here....."traditional" according to who, exactly? What I hold as traditional may not be what you hold traditional, and I'm not talking about holidays, either. And who dictates "normal" family life? There is no clear, one-size-fits-all standard for normal. What is classified as "clean and wholesome" entertainment? Do you really think the government should mandate what EVERYONE watches? Hardly. Don't even get me started on that one.

And why did you have to throw in the partisan crap? That's not the issue.

I may live in a red state, but I'm no red stater. Values should not be dictated by the government - that's between you, your family, and your church (if you have one). Apparently, abortion and gay issues AREN'T "nonsense", you yourself have been doing your own fair share of debating those issues.

As far as Kerry's voting record....I believe it was something more along the lines of he was for it to begin with, and then voted against it....probably because something was changed, something was added that he didn't agree with, or something was omitted that he wanted....there are a myriad of reasons as to why a Senator would vote against a particular bill, it is not necessarily a vote against the bill as a whole.

Just out of curiosity....what is "bulloney"? Is it kinda like bologna/baloney, but made out of bull meat? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, I don't think too many Americans were seriously concerned over national security until Bush and Co. started their scare tactics after 9/11. I certainly wasn't, and it still doesn't scare me, because I have a mind of my own, and am smart enough to realize that short of putting up some super tough bubble over the entire country (mind you, it'd have to be bullet proof, nuke proof, etc), there isn't a whole lot we can do defense wise that a terrorist couldn't eventually find their way around. If someone is THAT determined to attack us, they WILL find a way. Why worry about it? Life's short enough as it is.

Traditional values are what typical red-blooded patriotic and tax paying Americans believe in. The loonie left wack jobs do not embody those ideals. It's quite simple, really.

You'll sing a different tune when it comes time to dispose of a million dead and decomposing American bodies if Al Queda succeeds in getting the bomb.

"Bulloney" would be a cross between bullshit and baloney -- both of which are commonly perceived as bunk.

 

[Stace]

Traditional values are what typical red-blooded patriotic and tax paying Americans believe in. The loonie left wack jobs do not embody those ideals. It's quite simple, really.

You'll sing a different tune when it comes time to dispose of a million dead and decomposing American bodies if Al Queda succeeds in getting the bomb.

"Bulloney" would be a cross between bullshit and baloney -- both of which are commonly perceived as bunk.

I really don't think the looney right wack jobs embody your idea of traditional values, either. Like I said, there's no traditional values that are set in stone, no traditional values that are one size fits all.

The rest of your post....I'm not even going to bother because it's just ridiculous.

 

[Missouri Mule]

What? It happens all the time. Cheney flew back early from Iraq just a few days ago to be the tiebreaker vote in a budget bill. And it will not happen. Under any circumstances, especially the current political atmosphere.

And if McCain wins in 2008 you don't think he'll run again? Or you somehow thing that the GOP will just say "Hey, we had 12 great years of the presidency, let's just let the dems have it now?" Either the 08-12 admin will be great, which will keep it in GOP hands, or it will go poorly, which will reflect badly on Lieberman. There's no way he will ever be president.

What on earth would compel you to vote for Lieberman over Bush? Oh, that's right, the PTC.

Because Liberman is a much better extemporaneous speaker. He can explain himself without the need to rely on stock replies, as does Bush. That is to say, Bush can't think on his feet, while Lieberman can. That's why Clinton was successful. He could sell ice to the Eskimos, while Bush couldn't sell bread in a famine.

Lieberman embodies what I essentially believe in. I know that he is fully up to speed on foreign policy and a sound policy toward our friends and enemies. I also believe his economic policies will reflect reality in today's society.

Bush's poll numbers would be 20% higher if he could speak effectively.

 

[RightinNYC]

Because Liberman is a much better extemporaneous speaker. He can explain himself without the need to rely on stock replies, as does Bush. That is to say, Bush can't think on his feet, while Lieberman can. That's why Clinton was successful. He could sell ice to the Eskimos, while Bush couldn't sell bread in a famine.

Lieberman embodies what I essentially believe in. I know that he is fully up to speed on foreign policy and a sound policy toward our friends and enemies. I also believe his economic policies will reflect reality in today's society.

Bush's poll numbers would be 20% higher if he could speak effectively.

And that's the most important thing to you? The face that a president puts forth and how slick a speaker he is? I guess the level of discourse in this country HAS dropped...

 

[Caine]

You'll sing a different tune when it comes time to dispose of a million dead and decomposing American bodies if Al Queda succeeds in getting the bomb.

BOO!!!!

ROFL... Its the Republican Scare Tactic again!!!!!

If you vote for the Democrats, WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

 

[Missouri Mule]

And that's the most important thing to you? The face that a president puts forth and how slick a speaker he is? I guess the level of discourse in this country HAS dropped...

And where did I say it was the "most important" thing to me? I never voted for Clinton either because he was a lying con-man; some would say a psychopath. He couldn't tell the truth if it would easier than telling a lie.

I merely pointed out that Bush is a lousy communicator. FDR embodied the art of talking to the common man and that's why he was so successful; his "fireside chats" and all. Kennedy was the best I ever heard in mixing it up with the press. He would take their questions and spit them out out and make them laugh at the same time. Bush has no communicative skills worth discussing although I believe it would behoove himself to get before people more often and just speak what is on his mind. Truman was reelected in 1948 over a wooden Dewey by "giving them hell." Eisenhower would trip over his own tongue and had a terrible syntax but had his bonifides from being a wartime general who whipped the Nazis. People overlooked that deficit. Bush has no background such as this to fall back on and he is perceived to be an imbecile. The irony is that Kerry was an even bigger imbecile. His problem was that he could take the most simple idea and make it complicated. Bush takes the most complicated subject and makes it too simple and comes across as simple minded.

 

[Missouri Mule]

BOO!!!!

ROFL... Its the Republican Scare Tactic again!!!!!

If you vote for the Democrats, WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

Could be. The Democrats do have this so-called "patriotism problem" and a "weak on defense" reputation. Would any real American want to trust their future with the likes of Howard Dean and Michael Moore? I certainly wouldn't.

To them, Bush is a bigger threat than bin Laden and Al Queda. That strikes most real Americans as plainly nutty. And so they vote for Republicans with their warts and all. Better the devil they know than the one they don't.

 

[Caine]

Could be. The Democrats do have this so-called "patriotism problem" and a "weak on defense" reputation. Would any real American want to trust their future with the likes of Howard Dean and Michael Moore? I certainly wouldn't.

I was unaware that Michael Moore was an elected Democrat.
When did this happen????

And what exactly is this "patriotism problem" ???

Is this why so many Military Officers that have returned from Iraq and retired are running for Office as Democrats?
Would you consider them unpatriotic???

 

[Stace]

Could be. The Democrats do have this so-called "patriotism problem" and a "weak on defense" reputation. Would any real American want to trust their future with the likes of Howard Dean and Michael Moore? I certainly wouldn't.

To them, Bush is a bigger threat than bin Laden and Al Queda. That strikes most real Americans as plainly nutty. And so they vote for Republicans with their warts and all. Better the devil they know than the one they don't.

How do Dems have a patriotism problem? I'm Democratic by most people's standards, and I served our country. Highly doubt I have a patriotism problem.

Last time I checked, Michael Moore wasn't a politician. But if you want to go that route, I'd trust him over Ann Coulter any day.

Bush IS a bigger threat because he's a moron. It takes a smart person to plan attacks, and a smarter person to thwart them.

 

[26 X World Champs]

BOO!!!!

ROFL... Its the Republican Scare Tactic again!!!!!

If you vote for the Democrats, WERE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

EXACTLY! Republican scare tactics have been too successful so there's no way they'll stop the rhetoric until they're voted out of office.

Do you know that Tom Delay would lose reelection if the election were held today? How sweet will it be for Delay to get voted out?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Could be. The Democrats do have this so-called "patriotism problem" and a "weak on defense" reputation. Would any real American want to trust their future with the likes of Howard Dean and Michael Moore? I certainly wouldn't.

I think the Democratic Party will survive without your vote. While we want to be all-inclusive there are always exceptions :2razz:

BTW - Michael Moore...not a politician for the umpteenth time. He's a film-maker who makes documentaries. He's not even a Democrat!

To them, Bush is a bigger threat than bin Laden and Al Queda.

I love your posts, they're very interesting. You have a way with words that is indescribable. You believe that we Democrats think Bush is a bigger threat than OBL & Al Quaeda? There's a one word reply to that theory....WRONG!

From where I'm sitting I think Bush thinks / thought that Saddam Hussein was the biggest threat. Afterall he quit chasing after our sworn enemies to invade Iraq and beat up Saddam who had already had his balls cut off. Smart move!

So maybe next time the thought occurs to you to post that Dems think Bush is our greatest threat you'll reconsider and remember this post? We want OBL & Al Quaeda...Your friend George wants OIL....:roll:

 

[Missouri Mule]

I think the Democratic Party will survive without your vote. While we want to be all-inclusive there are always exceptions :2razz:

BTW - Michael Moore...not a politician for the umpteenth time. He's a film-maker who makes documentaries. He's not even a Democrat!

I love your posts, they're very interesting. You have a way with words that is indescribable. You believe that we Democrats think Bush is a bigger threat than OBL & Al Quaeda? There's a one word reply to that theory....WRONG!

From where I'm sitting I think Bush thinks / thought that Saddam Hussein was the biggest threat. Afterall he quit chasing after our sworn enemies to invade Iraq and beat up Saddam who had already had his balls cut off. Smart move!

So maybe next time the thought occurs to you to post that Dems think Bush is our greatest threat you'll reconsider and remember this post? We want OBL & Al Quaeda...Your friend George wants OIL....:roll:

Ridiculous. Almost simple minded.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Ridiculous. Almost simple minded.

Thank you! Will you go see Brokeback Mountain with me and then...

 

[Missouri Mule]

How do Dems have a patriotism problem? I'm Democratic by most people's standards, and I served our country. Highly doubt I have a patriotism problem.

Last time I checked, Michael Moore wasn't a politician. But if you want to go that route, I'd trust him over Ann Coulter any day.

Bush IS a bigger threat because he's a moron. It takes a smart person to plan attacks, and a smarter person to thwart them.

The "Patriotism Problem" is a political perception. It is not necessarily rooted in reality. There have been opinion pieces that have addressed just this subject. (You can look it up.) It comes down to this, very simply. When the voter goes into the voting booth, who do they trust to protect them? The party of Howard Dean or George Bush?

As bad as Bush may be perceived by many, more perceive the Dems as weak on defense and naive about terrorism. When the rubber meets the road, the Dems have a "patriotism problem" and a "weak on defense" problem. Even the top Democratic strategists have made mention of this problem. Until and unless they become the party of FDR, Truman and JFK once again, they will continue to be the party of Jimmah Carter and George McGovern and by extension Michael Moore. (who BTW was at the Democratic Convention.)

You all can believe what you want to believe. And you can continue to lose elections. Fine with me. Go for it. We knuckle dragging right wingers LOVE to hear Howard Dean talk. It just runs up the vote talley. Personally, I think it must have been a Karl Rove scheme to install him as party chief. Brilliant!!!

 

[Missouri Mule]

Thank you! Will you go see Brokeback Mountain with me and then...

I'll pass. I'd rather go get my finger nails pulled out first.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I was unaware that Michael Moore was an elected Democrat.
When did this happen????

And what exactly is this "patriotism problem" ???

Is this why so many Military Officers that have returned from Iraq and retired are running for Office as Democrats?
Would you consider them unpatriotic???

See above. (my answer to Stace)

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'll pass. I'd rather go get my finger nails pulled out first.

I want to thank my East Texas friend for the continuing kind words and excellent posts.

Maybe you should run for President in '08?

Since you're not into Brokeback Mountain but you're into masochism...that's hot! I'm eagerly awaiting your next great post. Please send it soon?

 

[Thorgasm]

I was checking out Politics1 (http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm) earlier this evening, and noted the following as potential candidates for 2008's Presidential election.....

• Bill Frist
• Newt Gingrich
• Mike Huckabee
• John McCain
• Rudy Guiliani
• Condi Rice
• Hillary Rodham Clinton
• John Edwards
• John Kerry
• Susan Sarandon
• Michael Badnarik
• Jesse Ventura

...among others, of course.

Even with 2008 a couple of years away yet, who's your early favorite?

If Jesse Ventura actually runs, and wins his party's nomination, I'd have to vote for him just on principal.....well, not really. But I do agree with a lot of his views concerning things like education, gun control, religion, etc.

But hey, that's just me.

I agree about Ventura. Like it or not, he tells you what he believes, not what he thinks you want to hear.

 

[Stace]

The "Patriotism Problem" is a political perception. It is not necessarily rooted in reality. There have been opinion pieces that have addressed just this subject. (You can look it up.) It comes down to this, very simply. When the voter goes into the voting booth, who do they trust to protect them? The party of Howard Dean or George Bush?

As bad as Bush may be perceived by many, more perceive the Dems as weak on defense and naive about terrorism. When the rubber meets the road, the Dems have a "patriotism problem" and a "weak on defense" problem. Even the top Democratic strategists have made mention of this problem. Until and unless they become the party of FDR, Truman and JFK once again, they will continue to be the party of Jimmah Carter and George McGovern and by extension Michael Moore. (who BTW was at the Democratic Convention.)

You all can believe what you want to believe. And you can continue to lose elections. Fine with me. Go for it. We knuckle dragging right wingers LOVE to hear Howard Dean talk. It just runs up the vote talley. Personally, I think it must have been a Karl Rove scheme to install him as party chief. Brilliant!!!

Why should I have to go look it up? If you're going to make claims like that, have some sources to back it up. As it stands right now, all of that gobbeldy gook up there is just YOUR opinion. And don't tell me that the election results say otherwise, 'cause that's hogwash. But that's another arguement for another time.

So.....you think that Michael Moore is a Democrat just because he was at the Democratic Convention? That's pretty funny. So, if I go to a Republican Convention, does that automatically make me a Republican?

 

[Stace]

I agree about Ventura. Like it or not, he tells you what he believes, not what he thinks you want to hear.

Unlike so many other politicians these days...*sigh*

Ventura needs to write a new book, about his style of politics. :mrgreen:

 

[Thorgasm]

Until and unless they become the party of FDR, Truman and JFK once again, they will continue to be the party of Jimmah Carter and George McGovern and by extension Michael Moore. (who BTW was at the Democratic Convention.)

Not that it proves anything, but Micheal Moore was also at the GOP convention.

 

[Caine]

Not that it proves anything, but Micheal Moore was also at the GOP convention.

Yeah, those Conservatives are in bed with Michael Moore, who could ever vote for them???

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Galenrox:
And if you do, it'll be while we're inaugerating the next republican president!

If that were to happen, feel free to feed me mine. I like my words with some au graten potatoes on the side.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Why should I have to go look it up? If you're going to make claims like that, have some sources to back it up. As it stands right now, all of that gobbeldy gook up there is just YOUR opinion. And don't tell me that the election results say otherwise, 'cause that's hogwash. But that's another arguement for another time.

So.....you think that Michael Moore is a Democrat just because he was at the Democratic Convention? That's pretty funny. So, if I go to a Republican Convention, does that automatically make me a Republican?

At your service:

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

The Democrats' Patriotism Problem
Whining about imagined attacks is not a winning approach.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, August 30, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

NEW YORK--President Bush may or may not get a "bounce" out of his convention here this week, but one suspects John Kerry is grateful for a respite after weeks of pounding by Vietnam veterans angry over his past antiwar activities and his present war-hero braggadocio. Before we turn our sights to the festivities at Madison Square Garden, it's worth pausing to consider how the Democrats ended up in this mess. Why did they nominate a candidate whose almost obsessive invocation of Vietnam made it all but inevitable that this decades-old war would become a central issue in the campaign?

The answer, simply put, is that the Democratic Party has a problem with patriotism, a problem that Mr. Kerry's status as a decorated Vietnam veteran was supposed to obviate.

To say that the Democrats have a problem with patriotism is not to say that they are unpatriotic. But they are awfully defensive about their patriotism. "Of course the vice president is questioning my patriotism," Michael Dukakis fumed during a 1988 presidential debate. "And I resent it." After Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia lost his 2002 re-election bid, it became part of Democratic (and journalistic) folklore that he owed his ouster to GOP attacks on his patriotism. And last month in Boston, Mr. Kerry declared: "We have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. . . . We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."...

(Snip)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545

Really, people you should just stop with all the nonsense and listen to what I have already stated. I know these things about politics. The Democrats have a problem and they won't fix it with their tired rhetoric about the Republicans.

Again, for those who haven't already seen it. The presidential candidates will be among these people and these alone. You have my personal guarantee.

Repubicans: McCain, Guilliani, and Allen. (with Lieberman as a possible VP candidate on a McCain ticket)

At this present time the betting odds are that the Republican candidate has exactly a three percentage point lead over the Democratic candidate. Forget all the polls. They are meaningless. Follow the money.

Democrats: Hillary, Warner, Bayh (with Feingold a longshot.)

You can put all the rest to bed. They will NOT be the candidates.

 

[Stace]

At your service:



http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/?id=110005545

You sure do put a lot of faith into op-eds......