Reply
Tue 27 Apr, 2004 05:42 pm
No problem. Bush is a post turtle.
If the Dems would nominate Zell Miller, I'd sign up as a volunteer to help campaign. I'd give some consideration to Joe Lieberman.
But Howard Dean vs John Kerry? That's a toughie.
"If the Dems would nominate Zell Miller, I'd sign up as a volunteer to help campaign. I'd give some consideration to Joe Lieberman."
Blecch.
It's not to late for repugs to nominate a real republican, either!
Makes no difference who runs against him. Bush is a post turtle.
Bush is a post turtle.
And a whistle-ass.
W
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
- Bush (1994) About the Vietnam war.
You know, I felt exactly the same way when the GOP scooped the bottom of the river and came up with Lord Bush. His record in Texas as governor was frightening and I feared he and his cronies would try to do the same thing to the whole country.
But I was wrong.
What Lord Bush has done is far worse. The war in Iraq, started with faulty intelligence, wishy-washy facts, and out right lies, is truly criminal.
Where are the qualified and honest Republicans? Maybe there aren't any?
I suspect this writer thinks his piece delightfully witty and just jammed-full of tricks. I suspect he's really a hoot at neighborhood barbecues or while sitting in the barber's chair. I suspect his barber doesn't agree.
I think I heard a program someplace that if Hillary ran, she would beat both Bush and Kerry.
hi blatham- Anymore I think the national elections are little more than expensive staged events where the similarities between the candidates outnumber the differences. Howard Dean actually had something to say and he brought millions of young people to the franchise, which in Deecup's opinion, scared the hell out of the establishment.
That's why he had to be crucified.
If Oprah ran, she'd beat them all.
Interesting? but i think you meant to post it elsewhere ci.
Centroles, Ofcoarse you're absolutely correct! Just one of many senior moments - which becomes more frequent every day.
I have to wonder here folks that the article prompted a great deal more Bush bashing, but not one of you has made even a lame attempt to defend Kerry as a good choice by the Dems? Is it that you agree with the writer?
I won't lie, Foxfyre.
I was rooting for Dean. Edwards was my second choice. Both energized me as candidates more. But that had to do with their personalities.
But I honestly don't have anything against Kerry.
I like the guy and am convinced he will do a great job.
In fact I think he would do a better job than either Dean (not good at getting bipartisan support IMO) or Edwards (too close to the lawyers to support law suit caps).
Kerry has more experience and better policies.
He just never captivated me during the primaries.
And I hated the fact that he was a main force in bringing down Dean.
Kerry doesn't have kareesma.
fox
It's not a serious piece. Take sentence one..."With the air gushing out of Kerry's balloon..."
That's a black-PR line with a completely transparent intent...suggest it is so and folks might believe it. Suggest that the fellow needs defending because....his wife is wealthy? How many people in high level American politics are not wealthy beyond what you and I might ever dream of becoming? That's a relevant question, but not anything that differentiates Kerry and Bush.
And he tosses in "Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmicry" to what end? To forward a connection to satan/clinton, while suggesting he's tricky. This is a PR technique called 'negative positioning'.
The rest of the piece follows in like manner. It really isn't worthy of contestation.