Vote Democrat!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Because they're not happy until YOU'RE not happy!

[Bottomfeeder 244]

LOL! That's priceless.

[otterinbham 0]

I really wish that the Democratic Party actually did represent a palatable alternative to the Republicans. Unfortunately, they continue to cling to discredited Keynsian economics (Of course, George Bush seems to, as well) and have a foreign policy that seems completely out of touch with the world. Yes, I'm not happy about Bush's statecraft either, but at least the US has more options. Personally, I think Gore would have been a disaster in the Oval Office when 9/11 hit.

[Tigermike 3,050]

Personally, I think Gore would have been a disaster in the Oval Office when 9/11 hit.

226003[/snapback]

Get ready for a strong run by Gore in the next election, he is trying to position himself as the candidate for the angry left. Which is a little strange when you think back to his last run, he positioned and portrayed himself as a centrist.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Personally, I think Gore would have been a disaster in the Oval Office when 9/11 hit.

226003[/snapback]

Get ready for a strong run by Gore in the next election, he is trying to position himself as the candidate for the angry left. Which is a little strange when you think back to his last run, he positioned and portrayed himself as a centrist.

226038[/snapback]

You're right on the money as usual, my friend.

The road to the democrat convention will be bloodier than any in history I believe. Hillary, Kerry, and Gore will be throwing knives to get the nod, and that lunatic Howie Dean running the party guarantees it will be a circus sideshow. Have the popcorn ready because this is going to get ugly.

Will they ever get their crap together and come up with a platform other than, "Bush is evil"?

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Personally, I think Gore would have been a disaster in the Oval Office when 9/11 hit.

226003[/snapback]

Get ready for a strong run by Gore in the next election, he is trying to position himself as the candidate for the angry left. Which is a little strange when you think back to his last run, he positioned and portrayed himself as a centrist.

226038[/snapback]

He actually ran more as a populist in 2000. The "angry left" wasn't as large or as angry, and voted for Nader.

[Tigermike 3,050]

Personally, I think Gore would have been a disaster in the Oval Office when 9/11 hit.

226003[/snapback]

Get ready for a strong run by Gore in the next election, he is trying to position himself as the candidate for the angry left. Which is a little strange when you think back to his last run, he positioned and portrayed himself as a centrist.

226038[/snapback]

He actually ran more as a populist in 2000. The "angry left" wasn't as large or as angry, and voted for Nader.

226056[/snapback]

Ok so he ran as a populist who tried to position and portrayed himself as a centrist.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's the intrinsic problem with the Democratic Party.

Let's just set aside the tired Right/Left argument for a minute. Quite frankly, I think Bush has utterly sold conservative principles down the river with his wanton fiscal recklessness.

More to the point, the Democratic Party has lost a lot of presidential elections over the past few decades for a simple reason: They nominate technocrats rather than leader.

If you look at the Democratic presidents who were elected since 1960, you get Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Kennedy and Clinton were true leaders, regardless of what you think of their individual policies. Both were able to connect with the voters. On the other hand Johnson and Carter defeated very weak opponents in Goldwater and Gerald Ford.

Meanwhile, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry might have all been competent policy wonks. However, nobody would ever have trusted them to lead the country when the guns began to shoot. Ultimately, that remains the key deciding factor, and the Democrats don't seem to understand that. Personally, I think Lieberman would make an excellent candidiate, but he would not survive the Iowa caucus.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Here's the intrinsic problem with the Democratic Party.

Let's just set aside the tired Right/Left argument for a minute. Quite frankly, I think Bush has utterly sold conservative principles down the river with his wanton fiscal recklessness.

More to the point, the Democratic Party has lost a lot of presidential elections over the past few decades for a simple reason: They nominate technocrats rather than leader.

If you look at the Democratic presidents who were elected since 1960, you get Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Kennedy and Clinton were true leaders, regardless of what you think of their individual policies. Both were able to connect with the voters. On the other hand Johnson and Carter defeated very weak opponents in Goldwater and Gerald Ford.

Meanwhile, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry might have all been competent policy wonks. However, nobody would ever have trusted them to lead the country when the guns began to shoot. Ultimately, that remains the key deciding factor, and the Democrats don't seem to understand that. Personally, I think Lieberman would make an excellent candidiate, but he would not survive the Iowa caucus.

226189[/snapback]

So how do you view Nixon, Bush I, Dole and Bush II?

[otterinbham 0]

Nixon was a pretty mediocre candidate in 1968. If George Wallace hadn't organized a third party, Humphrey probably would have won the presidency. However, Nixon showed flashes of inspiration by going to China. Too bad he had such a clumsy domestic policy. Nixonomics was just a God-awful piece of economic policy. However, his triumph in China showed a lot of courage and leadership, which is why he routed McGovern.

Bush I beat the snot out of Dukakis. Quite frankly, however, he could not articulate a clear vision to the country. After leading the US to triumph in Gulf War I, he floundered. Then the American people turned to Clinton who--despite his liabilities--more successfully communicated leadership.

Dole? Hard to say. A hardscrabble, uncharismatic politico going up against Clinton when the economy was humming. That would have been a tough challenge for anybody. Actually, I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

Bush II? Barely squeaked past Gore, even though the VP had the personality of a doorstop. Quite frankly, Dick Cheney is the one who saved Bush's campaign. Anybody remember Cheney's debate with Lieberman? Cheney crushed Lieberman. Before Cheney signed on, I think Gore would have won in a walk.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I don't think people realize how close this election actually was. There was a huge chunk of the country who could not make up their minds until they actually walked into the voting booth. Why? Because neither candidate was very strong. The American public really didn't trust Kerry as a person of substance, and that awful first debate exposed Bush as a fumbling nincompoop. I watched the first debate as a Bush partisan and became very quickly demorallized by his total lack of coherence. I think that, ultimately, the country reluctantly reelected Bush because they realized that we were in deep doodoo in Iraq and that a wholesale change in leadership would have proven disastrous.

My personal decision in the 2004 campaign camed down to one question: "If the President ate a bullet, who would be in the Oval Office?" I looked at Cheney, I looked at Edwards, and knew I only had one choice.

Personally, in the next election, I like these four candidates the best...as long as they survive our truly corrupt primary system:

Giuliani -- Now there's a man with cojones

McCain -- A lot more integrity than Bush. Plus anybody who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton and didn't break will probably be able to sweat it during a grave national crisis

Lieberman -- Political courage and integrity

Bayh -- Another Democrat with an actual grasp on reality. Sadly, they're getting fewer and farther between.

Essentially, if two of these four are running against each other in November, 2008, I will breathe more easily. Now here are the ones I pray don't win the election.

Gore -- Robotic. So much so that he needed an adviser to appear more human. Plus he's spent his time in political exile pandering to every fringe group he can find.

Hillary -- More baggage than the lost luggage outlet in Boaz. No convictions whatsoever. Plus I suspect the American people really don't want to go 28 years with only Bushes or Clintons in the White House. Which is why Jeb Bush really oughta stop putting out feelers.

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Edwards -- I don't think so. Zero experience. Zero depth. Zero understanding of anything outside of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of plaintiff's law. If he's elected, the Republic is doomed.

Frist -- Another non-entity.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Otter, you amaze me with your spot on insights...They mirror mine. BTW< no truer words were ever spoken about Kerry. If he didnt marry money he would have been a tennis pro humping the old rich broads at a bad country club somewhere. Face it, the man has no compass, no integrity, and really no taste in women either. But he can find money in a crowded country club ballroom.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Nixon was a pretty mediocre candidate in 1968. If George Wallace hadn't organized a third party, Humphrey probably would have won the presidency. However, Nixon showed flashes of inspiration by going to China. Too bad he had such a clumsy domestic policy. Nixonomics was just a God-awful piece of economic policy. However, his triumph in China showed a lot of courage and leadership, which is why he routed McGovern.

Bush I beat the snot out of Dukakis. Quite frankly, however, he could not articulate a clear vision to the country. After leading the US to triumph in Gulf War I, he floundered. Then the American people turned to Clinton who--despite his liabilities--more successfully communicated leadership.

Dole? Hard to say. A hardscrabble, uncharismatic politico going up against Clinton when the economy was humming. That would have been a tough challenge for anybody. Actually, I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

Bush II? Barely squeaked past Gore, even though the VP had the personality of a doorstop. Quite frankly, Dick Cheney is the one who saved Bush's campaign. Anybody remember Cheney's debate with Lieberman? Cheney crushed Lieberman. Before Cheney signed on, I think Gore would have won in a walk.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I don't think people realize how close this election actually was. There was a huge chunk of the country who could not make up their minds until they actually walked into the voting booth.  Why? Because neither candidate was very strong. The American public really didn't trust Kerry as a person of substance, and that awful first debate exposed Bush as a fumbling nincompoop. I watched the first debate as a Bush partisan and became very quickly demorallized by his total lack of coherence. I think that, ultimately, the country reluctantly reelected Bush because they realized that we were in deep doodoo in Iraq and that a wholesale change in leadership would have proven disastrous.

My personal decision in the 2004 campaign camed down to one question: "If the President ate a bullet, who would be in the Oval Office?" I looked at Cheney, I looked at Edwards, and knew I only had one choice.

Personally, in the next election, I like these four candidates the best...as long as they survive our truly corrupt primary system:

Giuliani -- Now there's a man with cojones

McCain -- A lot more integrity than Bush. Plus anybody who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton and didn't break will probably be able to sweat it during a grave national crisis

Lieberman -- Political courage and integrity

Bayh -- Another Democrat with an actual grasp on reality. Sadly, they're getting fewer and farther between.

Essentially, if two of these four are running against each other in November, 2008, I will breathe more easily. Now here are the ones I pray don't win the election.

Gore -- Robotic. So much so that he needed an adviser to appear more human. Plus he's spent his time in political exile pandering to every fringe group he can find.

Hillary -- More baggage than the lost luggage outlet in Boaz. No convictions whatsoever. Plus I suspect the American people really don't want to go 28 years with only Bushes or Clintons in the White House. Which is why Jeb Bush really oughta stop putting out feelers.

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Edwards -- I don't think so. Zero experience. Zero depth. Zero understanding of anything outside of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of plaintiff's law. If he's elected, the Republic is doomed.

Frist -- Another non-entity.

226346[/snapback]

I concur on many of your assessments, disagree on a few others, but most of that is opinion. Despite your exciting my fact-challenged friend David with your assessment of Kerry, he was actually a Lt. Governor and a Senator long BEFORE marrying the ketchup heiress, so the tennis pro thing hardly qualifies as "truer words", except in those irrational Kerry haters like David. Fault him for mind numbing verbosity and the inability to articulate why he should be President and the inability to beat a man exposed as a "fumbling nincompoop"-- which is bad enough, really, but Theresa has probably been more liability than asset to him politically.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Nixon was a pretty mediocre candidate in 1968. If George Wallace hadn't organized a third party, Humphrey probably would have won the presidency. However, Nixon showed flashes of inspiration by going to China. Too bad he had such a clumsy domestic policy. Nixonomics was just a God-awful piece of economic policy. However, his triumph in China showed a lot of courage and leadership, which is why he routed McGovern.

Bush I beat the snot out of Dukakis. Quite frankly, however, he could not articulate a clear vision to the country. After leading the US to triumph in Gulf War I, he floundered. Then the American people turned to Clinton who--despite his liabilities--more successfully communicated leadership.

Dole? Hard to say. A hardscrabble, uncharismatic politico going up against Clinton when the economy was humming. That would have been a tough challenge for anybody. Actually, I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

Bush II? Barely squeaked past Gore, even though the VP had the personality of a doorstop. Quite frankly, Dick Cheney is the one who saved Bush's campaign. Anybody remember Cheney's debate with Lieberman? Cheney crushed Lieberman. Before Cheney signed on, I think Gore would have won in a walk.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I don't think people realize how close this election actually was. There was a huge chunk of the country who could not make up their minds until they actually walked into the voting booth.  Why? Because neither candidate was very strong. The American public really didn't trust Kerry as a person of substance, and that awful first debate exposed Bush as a fumbling nincompoop. I watched the first debate as a Bush partisan and became very quickly demorallized by his total lack of coherence. I think that, ultimately, the country reluctantly reelected Bush because they realized that we were in deep doodoo in Iraq and that a wholesale change in leadership would have proven disastrous.

My personal decision in the 2004 campaign camed down to one question: "If the President ate a bullet, who would be in the Oval Office?" I looked at Cheney, I looked at Edwards, and knew I only had one choice.

Personally, in the next election, I like these four candidates the best...as long as they survive our truly corrupt primary system:

Giuliani -- Now there's a man with cojones

McCain -- A lot more integrity than Bush. Plus anybody who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton and didn't break will probably be able to sweat it during a grave national crisis

Lieberman -- Political courage and integrity

Bayh -- Another Democrat with an actual grasp on reality. Sadly, they're getting fewer and farther between.

Essentially, if two of these four are running against each other in November, 2008, I will breathe more easily. Now here are the ones I pray don't win the election.

Gore -- Robotic. So much so that he needed an adviser to appear more human. Plus he's spent his time in political exile pandering to every fringe group he can find.

Hillary -- More baggage than the lost luggage outlet in Boaz. No convictions whatsoever. Plus I suspect the American people really don't want to go 28 years with only Bushes or Clintons in the White House. Which is why Jeb Bush really oughta stop putting out feelers.

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Edwards -- I don't think so. Zero experience. Zero depth. Zero understanding of anything outside of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of plaintiff's law. If he's elected, the Republic is doomed.

Frist -- Another non-entity.

226346[/snapback]

I concur on many of your assessments, disagree on a few others, but most of that is opinion. Despite your exciting my fact-challenged friend David with your assessment of Kerry, he was actually a Lt. Governor and a Senator long BEFORE marrying the ketchup heiress, so the tennis pro thing hardly qualifies as "truer words", except in those irrational Kerry haters like David. Fault him for mind numbing verbosity and the inability to articulate why he should be President and the inability to beat a man exposed as a "fumbling nincompoop"-- which is bad enough, really, but Theresa has probably been more liability than asset to him politically.

226373[/snapback]

And all these things were accomplished with money from:

1) His Brahman family.

2) His first wife.

3) His second wife Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

(Kerry, between his first and second marriage had a negative $135K net worth. Owned only a Ducatti bike for transportation, and lived at a townhouse donated to him from a political friend and campaign contributor.)

Therefore I stand correct, and you Sir, as usual, are wwwrrrrr...wwrr....wrrrrr.... wrong!

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Nixon was a pretty mediocre candidate in 1968. If George Wallace hadn't organized a third party, Humphrey probably would have won the presidency. However, Nixon showed flashes of inspiration by going to China. Too bad he had such a clumsy domestic policy. Nixonomics was just a God-awful piece of economic policy. However, his triumph in China showed a lot of courage and leadership, which is why he routed McGovern.

Bush I beat the snot out of Dukakis. Quite frankly, however, he could not articulate a clear vision to the country. After leading the US to triumph in Gulf War I, he floundered. Then the American people turned to Clinton who--despite his liabilities--more successfully communicated leadership.

Dole? Hard to say. A hardscrabble, uncharismatic politico going up against Clinton when the economy was humming. That would have been a tough challenge for anybody. Actually, I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

Bush II? Barely squeaked past Gore, even though the VP had the personality of a doorstop. Quite frankly, Dick Cheney is the one who saved Bush's campaign. Anybody remember Cheney's debate with Lieberman? Cheney crushed Lieberman. Before Cheney signed on, I think Gore would have won in a walk.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I don't think people realize how close this election actually was. There was a huge chunk of the country who could not make up their minds until they actually walked into the voting booth.  Why? Because neither candidate was very strong. The American public really didn't trust Kerry as a person of substance, and that awful first debate exposed Bush as a fumbling nincompoop. I watched the first debate as a Bush partisan and became very quickly demorallized by his total lack of coherence. I think that, ultimately, the country reluctantly reelected Bush because they realized that we were in deep doodoo in Iraq and that a wholesale change in leadership would have proven disastrous.

My personal decision in the 2004 campaign camed down to one question: "If the President ate a bullet, who would be in the Oval Office?" I looked at Cheney, I looked at Edwards, and knew I only had one choice.

Personally, in the next election, I like these four candidates the best...as long as they survive our truly corrupt primary system:

Giuliani -- Now there's a man with cojones

McCain -- A lot more integrity than Bush. Plus anybody who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton and didn't break will probably be able to sweat it during a grave national crisis

Lieberman -- Political courage and integrity

Bayh -- Another Democrat with an actual grasp on reality. Sadly, they're getting fewer and farther between.

Essentially, if two of these four are running against each other in November, 2008, I will breathe more easily. Now here are the ones I pray don't win the election.

Gore -- Robotic. So much so that he needed an adviser to appear more human. Plus he's spent his time in political exile pandering to every fringe group he can find.

Hillary -- More baggage than the lost luggage outlet in Boaz. No convictions whatsoever. Plus I suspect the American people really don't want to go 28 years with only Bushes or Clintons in the White House. Which is why Jeb Bush really oughta stop putting out feelers.

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Edwards -- I don't think so. Zero experience. Zero depth. Zero understanding of anything outside of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of plaintiff's law. If he's elected, the Republic is doomed.

Frist -- Another non-entity.

226346[/snapback]

I concur on many of your assessments, disagree on a few others, but most of that is opinion. Despite your exciting my fact-challenged friend David with your assessment of Kerry, he was actually a Lt. Governor and a Senator long BEFORE marrying the ketchup heiress, so the tennis pro thing hardly qualifies as "truer words", except in those irrational Kerry haters like David. Fault him for mind numbing verbosity and the inability to articulate why he should be President and the inability to beat a man exposed as a "fumbling nincompoop"-- which is bad enough, really, but Theresa has probably been more liability than asset to him politically.

226373[/snapback]

And all these theings were accomplished with money from:

1) His Brahman family.

2) His first wife.

3) His second wife Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

(Kerry, between his first and second marriage had a negative $135K net worth. Owned only a Ducatti bike for transportation, and lived at a townhouse donated to him from a political friend and campaign contributor.)

Therefore I stand correct, and you Sir, as usual, are wwwrrrrr...wwrr....wrrrrr.... wrong!

226385[/snapback]

You, as usual, didn't show that any of his accomplishments were due to their money. Funny, though, your hero Bush, the "nincompoop", clearly accomplished nothing in his life that wasn't directly tied to Daddy's friends and Daddy's name. But you don't see that, do you?

[DKW 86 7,440]

Nixon was a pretty mediocre candidate in 1968. If George Wallace hadn't organized a third party, Humphrey probably would have won the presidency. However, Nixon showed flashes of inspiration by going to China. Too bad he had such a clumsy domestic policy. Nixonomics was just a God-awful piece of economic policy. However, his triumph in China showed a lot of courage and leadership, which is why he routed McGovern.

Bush I beat the snot out of Dukakis. Quite frankly, however, he could not articulate a clear vision to the country. After leading the US to triumph in Gulf War I, he floundered. Then the American people turned to Clinton who--despite his liabilities--more successfully communicated leadership.

Dole? Hard to say. A hardscrabble, uncharismatic politico going up against Clinton when the economy was humming. That would have been a tough challenge for anybody. Actually, I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

Bush II? Barely squeaked past Gore, even though the VP had the personality of a doorstop. Quite frankly, Dick Cheney is the one who saved Bush's campaign. Anybody remember Cheney's debate with Lieberman? Cheney crushed Lieberman. Before Cheney signed on, I think Gore would have won in a walk.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I don't think people realize how close this election actually was. There was a huge chunk of the country who could not make up their minds until they actually walked into the voting booth.  Why? Because neither candidate was very strong. The American public really didn't trust Kerry as a person of substance, and that awful first debate exposed Bush as a fumbling nincompoop. I watched the first debate as a Bush partisan and became very quickly demorallized by his total lack of coherence. I think that, ultimately, the country reluctantly reelected Bush because they realized that we were in deep doodoo in Iraq and that a wholesale change in leadership would have proven disastrous.

My personal decision in the 2004 campaign camed down to one question: "If the President ate a bullet, who would be in the Oval Office?" I looked at Cheney, I looked at Edwards, and knew I only had one choice.

Personally, in the next election, I like these four candidates the best...as long as they survive our truly corrupt primary system:

Giuliani -- Now there's a man with cojones

McCain -- A lot more integrity than Bush. Plus anybody who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton and didn't break will probably be able to sweat it during a grave national crisis

Lieberman -- Political courage and integrity

Bayh -- Another Democrat with an actual grasp on reality. Sadly, they're getting fewer and farther between.

Essentially, if two of these four are running against each other in November, 2008, I will breathe more easily. Now here are the ones I pray don't win the election.

Gore -- Robotic. So much so that he needed an adviser to appear more human. Plus he's spent his time in political exile pandering to every fringe group he can find.

Hillary -- More baggage than the lost luggage outlet in Boaz. No convictions whatsoever. Plus I suspect the American people really don't want to go 28 years with only Bushes or Clintons in the White House. Which is why Jeb Bush really oughta stop putting out feelers.

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Edwards -- I don't think so. Zero experience. Zero depth. Zero understanding of anything outside of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of plaintiff's law. If he's elected, the Republic is doomed.

Frist -- Another non-entity.

226346[/snapback]

I concur on many of your assessments, disagree on a few others, but most of that is opinion. Despite your exciting my fact-challenged friend David with your assessment of Kerry, he was actually a Lt. Governor and a Senator long BEFORE marrying the ketchup heiress, so the tennis pro thing hardly qualifies as "truer words", except in those irrational Kerry haters like David. Fault him for mind numbing verbosity and the inability to articulate why he should be President and the inability to beat a man exposed as a "fumbling nincompoop"-- which is bad enough, really, but Theresa has probably been more liability than asset to him politically.

226373[/snapback]

And all these theings were accomplished with money from:

1) His Brahman family.

2) His first wife.

3) His second wife Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

(Kerry, between his first and second marriage had a negative $135K net worth. Owned only a Ducatti bike for transportation, and lived at a townhouse donated to him from a political friend and campaign contributor.)

Therefore I stand correct, and you Sir, as usual, are wwwrrrrr...wwrr....wrrrrr.... wrong!

226385[/snapback]

You, as usual, didn't show that any of his accomplishments were due to their money. Funny, though, your hero Bush, the "nincompoop", clearly accomplished nothing in his life that wasn't directly tied to Daddy's friends and Daddy's name. But you don't see that, do you?

226394[/snapback]

Tex, political campaigns need money. Trips to Harvard need money. Kerry never worked more than the short DA stint at anything other than politics and has been supported strongly by political friends and his wives.

Funny, though, your hero Bush, the "nincompoop", clearly accomplished nothing in his life that wasn't directly tied to Daddy's friends and Daddy's name.

Tex, please read the board from time to time. I have criticized Bush 41 and Bush 43 loudly of late. I never voted for 41 and have admitted that I only voted against the last two Dem politiclowns, not FOR 43. The only thing keeping me from voting Dem right now is the totally clueless boobs they chose to run for office. If Sam Nunn ran, I would support him, no problem.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Nixon was a pretty mediocre candidate in 1968. If George Wallace hadn't organized a third party, Humphrey probably would have won the presidency. However, Nixon showed flashes of inspiration by going to China. Too bad he had such a clumsy domestic policy. Nixonomics was just a God-awful piece of economic policy. However, his triumph in China showed a lot of courage and leadership, which is why he routed McGovern.

Bush I beat the snot out of Dukakis. Quite frankly, however, he could not articulate a clear vision to the country. After leading the US to triumph in Gulf War I, he floundered. Then the American people turned to Clinton who--despite his liabilities--more successfully communicated leadership.

Dole? Hard to say. A hardscrabble, uncharismatic politico going up against Clinton when the economy was humming. That would have been a tough challenge for anybody. Actually, I would have voted for Elizabeth Dole.

Bush II? Barely squeaked past Gore, even though the VP had the personality of a doorstop. Quite frankly, Dick Cheney is the one who saved Bush's campaign. Anybody remember Cheney's debate with Lieberman? Cheney crushed Lieberman. Before Cheney signed on, I think Gore would have won in a walk.

Bush II vs. Kerry? I don't think people realize how close this election actually was. There was a huge chunk of the country who could not make up their minds until they actually walked into the voting booth.  Why? Because neither candidate was very strong. The American public really didn't trust Kerry as a person of substance, and that awful first debate exposed Bush as a fumbling nincompoop. I watched the first debate as a Bush partisan and became very quickly demorallized by his total lack of coherence. I think that, ultimately, the country reluctantly reelected Bush because they realized that we were in deep doodoo in Iraq and that a wholesale change in leadership would have proven disastrous.

My personal decision in the 2004 campaign camed down to one question: "If the President ate a bullet, who would be in the Oval Office?" I looked at Cheney, I looked at Edwards, and knew I only had one choice.

Personally, in the next election, I like these four candidates the best...as long as they survive our truly corrupt primary system:

Giuliani -- Now there's a man with cojones

McCain -- A lot more integrity than Bush. Plus anybody who spent seven years at the Hanoi Hilton and didn't break will probably be able to sweat it during a grave national crisis

Lieberman -- Political courage and integrity

Bayh -- Another Democrat with an actual grasp on reality. Sadly, they're getting fewer and farther between.

Essentially, if two of these four are running against each other in November, 2008, I will breathe more easily. Now here are the ones I pray don't win the election.

Gore -- Robotic. So much so that he needed an adviser to appear more human. Plus he's spent his time in political exile pandering to every fringe group he can find.

Hillary -- More baggage than the lost luggage outlet in Boaz. No convictions whatsoever. Plus I suspect the American people really don't want to go 28 years with only Bushes or Clintons in the White House. Which is why Jeb Bush really oughta stop putting out feelers.

Kerry -- A complete nonentity. If he weren't putting the wood to a ketchup heiress, the man would have wound up a tennis pro somewhere in the Hamptons.

Edwards -- I don't think so. Zero experience. Zero depth. Zero understanding of anything outside of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of plaintiff's law. If he's elected, the Republic is doomed.

Frist -- Another non-entity.

226346[/snapback]

I concur on many of your assessments, disagree on a few others, but most of that is opinion. Despite your exciting my fact-challenged friend David with your assessment of Kerry, he was actually a Lt. Governor and a Senator long BEFORE marrying the ketchup heiress, so the tennis pro thing hardly qualifies as "truer words", except in those irrational Kerry haters like David. Fault him for mind numbing verbosity and the inability to articulate why he should be President and the inability to beat a man exposed as a "fumbling nincompoop"-- which is bad enough, really, but Theresa has probably been more liability than asset to him politically.

226373[/snapback]

And all these theings were accomplished with money from:

1) His Brahman family.

2) His first wife.

3) His second wife Theresa Heinz-Kerry.

(Kerry, between his first and second marriage had a negative $135K net worth. Owned only a Ducatti bike for transportation, and lived at a townhouse donated to him from a political friend and campaign contributor.)

Therefore I stand correct, and you Sir, as usual, are wwwrrrrr...wwrr....wrrrrr.... wrong!

226385[/snapback]

You, as usual, didn't show that any of his accomplishments were due to their money. Funny, though, your hero Bush, the "nincompoop", clearly accomplished nothing in his life that wasn't directly tied to Daddy's friends and Daddy's name. But you don't see that, do you?

226394[/snapback]

Tex, political campaigns need money. Trips to Harvard need money. Kerry never worked more than the short DA stint at anything other than politics and has been supported strongly by political friends and his wives.

226525[/snapback]

Yeah, campaigns costs money. That's why they take donations. Even in his presidential campaigning he loaned money to the campaign that was paid back when the donations came in. He was in the Navy about 4 years, was a prosecutor and then in private practice and opened a small business. When he ran for Lt. Gov. in 1982 he and his first wife separated.

Trips to Harvard costs money? Yeah, from Beacon Hill you can take the subway.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Harvard=Tuition...

He only worked about 1 year if that and ran for office. He has not had to hit a time clock anymore than Bush and saying that he wasnt born with several silver spoons in his mouth is just laughable.

Oh yeah,

"Kerry, man of the people.."

"Gore, man of the people.."

"Kennedy, man of the people.."

"Dean, man of the people.."

Well, you get the idea. All are Private school and Harvard educated, more or less Wasps, that have never had to work a day in their lives, limousine liberals. Sorry, but for me and a huge chunk of America, that means unelectable.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

He only worked about 1 year if that and ran for office.

226565[/snapback]

I sometimes wonder if you intentionally lie or are just blissfully ignorant. Then again, information is out there for those who want it, so what's the difference?

[DKW 86 7,440]

I never said there was a differnce. Bush and Kerry are both Harvard grads due to family money and it had little to do with intelligence or academic work. Kerry's grades were as bad as W's. He actually scored lower on the service exam than W. It is scary that these two are considered party leaders in the Dems and the Reps.

It is silly that we as Americans keep falling for these disconnected idiots day after day.