Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Sir_Die_alot]

Yeah like that's news. :lol:

Seriously what does everyone (especially if you live in the US and are of voting age) think of this guy? I read somewhere he had the most liberal voting record of the year (I googled it I think they may be referring to National Journal's congressional vote rankings, though I couldn't find a direct link to the article), and he is from Massachusetts of all places. Unless he pulls out a running mate from the DEEP south I can't see him taking those states from Bush which, historically, is a sure fire loss. Just a few months ago wasn't his poll rating down with Al Sharpton's? Yet I recall a CNN website (which, unlike most issues, I actually have a little trust this one's results) most people were voting for him because "he can win". :blink:

[WarLocke]

I think O'neill should blow him away.

Oh wait, wrong Kerry...

[Assur]

Hi

Of voting age, but not from the US :) Kerry will carry the Northeast, but doesn't stand a chance in the South. Ideally he should try for the Southwest and the West (not forgetting the Middlewest). It will be really interesting whom he choses as a VP-candidate, even though basically everybody is more appealling than Cheney!

good hunting

[Count Duckula]

Is it possible for a presidential candidate to pull a former presidential nominee from his party as VP running mate? (Not concerned about the likelihood of such an event, just wondering if it can happen at all.)

[Sir_Die_alot]

I don't see why not. Although most politicians have too much vanity to play second when they were once the nominee (not to mention they are now seen as a "loser"). The only person I can think of who ran twice was Nixon. However I don't think we will be seeing Gore, especially after he endorsed Dean.

On the Cheney comment I can't agree more. Bush would be better off with just about anyone else in his administration taking the VP job; especially while campaigning. <_<

[eppie]

Is it possible for a presidential candidate to pull a former presidential nominee from his party as VP running mate? (Not concerned about the likelihood of such an event, just wondering if it can happen at all.)

You mean with presidential nominee somebody like Al Gore, or somebody who was trying to be the democratic candidate this year?. Here (NL) they think he will take John Edwards (I hope this is the correct one, after two weeks I already forgot some of their names, I mean one of those who had been campagning almost till the end)

And to sir die a lot: I think Cheney is important for Bush for the contacts in industry, and making sure there will be enough campaign money. Plus if he chooses another running mate now, that would not exactly be positive for the campaign I think, it wouyld cost him a lot of votes.

Anyway I hope that Kerry wins, I'd rather not see the end of Bush' "destroy the planet in 8 years" scheme. :D

[whereagles]

Anyway I hope that Kerry wins, I'd rather not see the end of Bush' "destroy the planet in 8 years" scheme. :D

I couldn't have put it better myself ;)

[Occhidiangela]

How lame that you continue to ride along on the "__________'s all America's/Bush's" fault bandwagon. Just fill in the blank on what it is that's bugging you.

Here is a concept: Come up with an original thought. Your posting history shows you are certainly smart enough.

As to candidates, I for one wish Ralph Nader had a larger political support base. What a breath of fresh air it would be to see a sincere activist as a leader. Like him or not, Nader has never been afraid to tilt at windmills and bar-b-q sacred cows as he smashes rice bowls. (OK, the Corvair crash was a set up.)

[kandrathe]

At this point a candidate now needs to look at electoral votes. If the candidate takes the state(meaning he has a majority popular votes within that state), he gets the electoral votes from that state. New York, Florida, Texas, and California have the largest populations, and therefore electoral votes. The sum of the rest is significant, and some medium sized states like Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, and many of the southern states have a big influence as well. If Bush were broadly popular, then I'd say he would be re-elected. The incumbent has an advantage historically, but I sense a huge anger among liberal democrats. Yet, I saw that same polarized anger against Ronald Reagan, and he seemed to have no trouble getting re-elected. You need to look then at large constituencies, like the elderly, the working class, etc. and sense where they might be leaning.

Kerry also has some baggage to distance himself from if he can;
Veterans Against Kerry Ad

[Sir_Die_alot]

I see it as you do kandrathe. However nobody has commented on Kerry being chosen because "he can win". Personaly I think he will have a real struggle to catch Bush once the campaign gets going. Not because of Bush's popularity, but his own liberalism alienating conservatives. If you wanted a democrat who "could win" Lieberman (despite having a voice as boring as Ben Stein) is conservative enough that he could siphon off enough discontent conservative votes (and I think there are plenty) to give Bush a real problem for re-election. Hell, the more interviews I saw of him made me want to vote for him. :P Kerry rallys the base almost as well as Dean but I haven't seen a reason to vote for him, he is the not-Bush cantidate. Great for people who live like life Occhi's "__________'s all America's/Bush's" fault, but that isn't enough to get him elected. Not even close.

[kandrathe]

The democrats have a history of choosing this type of candidate, and then scrambling to cover for the candidates obvious short comings. I would point to former President Bill Clinton, and the pre-election Gennifer Flowers allegations -- quickly dismissed as an underhanded attack by Republicans. By the time I saw six allegations of sexual harrassment against Clinton prior to the election, I was pretty certain that the man at least had a character flaw in regards to his predation of women. Clinton was smarter than say, Gary Hart in that he kept his zipper closed for the election. Personally, I'd say that if a man wants to carry on serial sexual relationships while married that is his own business, but it does reflect poorly on a man's ability to remain true to his promises. But, let's say that Bill and Hillary have an arrangement (a sham to their mutual political benefit), but that also smacks of falsity in pretending to have a blissful coexistence.

Here is what Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah of the Syrian Hezbollah wrote:

"The resistance movement [against the U.S. in Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from Iraq within a year, but it will be able to remove Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist friends, from the White House," Nasrallah assured his listeners. Nasrallah's scenario requires no deep understanding: Suicide attacks and sabotage operations against the American forces in Iraq will cause American public opinion to turn against the president and not re-elect him, thus bringing about the disappearance of this group of leaders from the White House.

Nasrallah pulls no punches

A conservative columnist (Jay Reding) wrote:

The Democrats have always been more concerned with who someone is rather than what they think - appearances do matter, but Kerry's war service does not, nor should it, insulate him from criticism for years of weakening the US military. Kerry voted against nearly every weapons system that won the wars in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He voted against the first Gulf War, an act that shows a fundamental weakness on defense issues. His record belies his supposed strength on defense.

[eppie]

I see it as you do kandrathe. However nobody has commented on Kerry being chosen because "he can win". Personaly I think he will have a real struggle to catch Bush once the campaign gets going. Not because of Bush's popularity, but his own liberalism alienating conservatives. If you wanted a democrat who "could win" Lieberman (despite having a voice as boring as Ben Stein) is conservative enough that he could siphon off enough discontent conservative votes (and I think there are plenty) to give Bush a real problem for re-election. Hell, the more interviews I saw of him made me want to vote for him. :P Kerry rallys the base almost as well as Dean but I haven't seen a reason to vote for him, he is the not-Bush cantidate. Great for people who live like life Occhi's "__________'s all America's/Bush's" fault, but that isn't enough to get him elected. Not even close.

Do you mean that you (maybe not "you you" but "you in general) vote for somebody because he looks like the other candidate or something?. I see that kind of voting also a lot here (NL) and I always get a bit despondent from that. (we have more political parties bij the way) So let's say you you like far right, but you see that left might win the elections, so you decide to vote moderate right, I think that is "cheating democracy". Mind you in the US presidential elections you vote for one person, so I can imagine a bit you do it, but we vote for the members of parliament, and people still do it. (yes I'm holland bashing now)

And what do you mean that Kerry is the "not Bush" candidate, to me he seemde like an okay guy, who wants some real changes.

And occhi: I agree with you that Nader is a better option. And it is also true that I blame Bush for a lot of things. Well untill somebody can tell me some positive things about this guy, how do you expect me to change opinion? :D

[Occhidiangela]

My own voting preferences since 1980:

Against Carter
Against Mondale
For Bush (sr)
For Bush (sr)
Against Clinton
Against Gore

In state and local voting, I have trended about 50-60% Republican, about 30% Democrat, a few Libertarians when I feel a protest vote is appropriate, and some votes, with only one person on the ballot, really don't count.

The only guy with a resume that made him close to qualified for the Presidency since Richard Nixon ran for the office was . . . George Bush. (Sr) I do not count incumbents in that. Anyone who has already served for 4 years has all the experience he needs to do it for 4 more years, regardless of party, if he has the heart to do it and the organization to win the election. Winning an election is no guarantee of excellence in office. U.S. Grant comes to mind . . . :P

My motivations in Presidential elections were more often against someone than for someone. "Who do I distrust less? Who are the folks behind the candidate who I distrust least?" In American politics, you have to look at "the man behind the curtain." There are many in this country who are leary of the "folks behind" the current President.

Gov. Jesse Ventura won based on a whole lot of votes against Dems and Reps. Ross Perot disrupted an election with a whole bunch of "votes against." It has been argued that Mr Nader's run last time was also relying on votes "against."

The same factor is what makes Mr Nader's current attempt so Quixotic. Behind him may be many Americans of good heart with a core set of principles, but that set of principles has no real parallel in Washington, nor in most state capitals. So, an activist president would likely be a lame duck, in that his requirement to compromise would leave his agenda at considerable risk, make his vetoes powerless, and leave his budgets in shambles, more so than a President with a party behind him.

So, why voting against?

It is a case of "lesser of two evils" which is what politics is, a necessary evil.

When there is someone out there to really vote for, I find it easy to vote "for" them.

My mom worked in John Anderson's Third Party campaign in 1980. She had someone that time around she could vote FOR. (He got, IIRC, about 5% of the vote, it may have been a bit more.)

[kandrathe]

Well untill somebody can tell me some positive things about this guy, how do you expect me to change opinion?

I think part of the problem is the press, and in particular the US press. I listen to the radio on my hour commute in the morning, and I heard Juan Williams actually ask our Secretary of State something to the effects of "Have the hawks in the Bush administration kept you out of the loop on world events?" This was in regard to the US response to unrest in Haiti. Powell proceeded to iterate a litany of items for Mr. Williams that he and the President were currently working on, besides Haiti and Iraq. All which were being solved without military intervention. Anyway, to answer your challenge I would say that there are a myriad of things that have changed in the US because of Bush, (ie. No Child Left Behind Act), which some applaud and some despise. But what is true, as I see it, is that there is little objective reporting on anything positive that any part of our federal government does.

I think people need to look at the entire picture of what the US is doing in the world before condemning the US for one or a handful of particular actions that they might disagree with. I think also that to the very cultured members of western society, the methods of the US are at times heavy handed. Of course, I would reflect that in contrast to many of the tactics used by our enemies, our response is cultured and appropriate. It is an age old argument of "Do the ends justify the means?" Ethically and morally, one must say "no". But, we all know (and Europe certainly) that if one refuses to take a strong stance against tyrannts, that the consequences of ignoring them or appeasing them can be dire. I would think that the world will be a better place without men like Saddam Hussain, Kim Chong-il, or Osama Bin Laden. One must look beyond the symptoms as well, as these men merely indicate some illness to the peace and prosperity to the world. Large nations like the US, Russia, China, Germany, France, etc. can take their share of blame, for the complicity and greed of governments and companies in promoting the means of warfare rather than the means of prosperity. I think we as world citizens, should be concerned anytime a nation forwards an ideology at the expense of the personal prosperity of those they seek to help. Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, nor democracy are going to help an impoverished nation of parents to educate, feed or clothe their children.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Eppie I think you misunderstand the president. While we can have plenty of far lefties and far righties in the legislative branch. The executive (president) to be effective at his job has to represent the American people, which means being at least to some degree a centrist. Kerry by his voting record appears to be from the far left which means he isn't likely to represent the plurality of America.

And what do you mean that Kerry is the "not Bush" candidate, to me he seemde like an okay guy,who wants some real changes.

Before you visit his site try naming one Kerry issue. His first issue is a not-bush issue. The rest are decade old Democrat running points. The few that are actually his, are irresponsible at best. Check Iraq. That alone makes me ask if he is even qualified for the job. :blink:

Play some immature games with his site's search using words not allowed on the LL forums. Would you consider a figurehead who allows that language on his site "an okay guy"? :ph34r:

[Professor Frink]

Play some immature games with his site's search using words not allowed on the LL forums. Would you consider a figurehead who allows that language on his site "an okay guy"?&nbsp; :ph34r:

I don't know what words are not allowed here, but using the seven words "that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and maybe, even bring us, God help us, peace without honor" i get:

4, 3, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0

All quotes from various published articles about Kerry the campaigin has up on the site, although three of them are quoting Kerry himself directly.

Can anybody get reputable quotes of Bush using any ancient four letter words? The lets-keep-things-clean vote may hinge on that!

Unreliable source, but I own this shirt so I thought I'd link to it.

-- frink

[Life]

Simply put I think its insane if anyone is thinking of seriously reelecting Bush.

Just check what people in the rest of the world think of his foreign policy. I can not quote this but I don't think its over simplyfying to say that this guy and his group are more than likely the single most destablizing energy in the world today.

If they are not directly involved in the destablization they are a rallying point for some sort of cause to get rid of them. If I were a U.S. citizen I would be looking at any an all possible legal ways to identify how this guy and his group have affected the American people and ensure that he does not get re elected. The media is great for identifying any kind of sexual oversight but man where are they on the real issues that affect the your lives and damnit the lives of millions of other people in the world. Please I'd love to see at least one thing pointed out that George Bush (jr) and his group have done that is in real terms a wonderful boon to the American people.

The littany of things he has done that are not in the best interest of the american people... (note I said people not industry.. etc.) is extensive and well documented. Why would anyone even if you are an avowed republican want to have such a situation continue is beyond understanding from my part.

I run out of words... sorry for the minor rant there. Good luck in your politcal endevours I feel the rest of the world would appreciate a reconsideration of George Bush for another term.


Life

[Occhidiangela]

Wow, is this old timer's week, or what? :D

this guy and his group are more than likely the single most destablizing energy in the world today.

1. He had no aspirations to do a great deal foreign policy wise until 9-11, 2001. his aim was to, as I understand it, work a series of economic reforms and issues. He got forced into an "act or be a wimp role." (Now, I can't comment on what some of the infamous "Cheney Cabal" wanted in re Iraq. I also know that dumping Saddam was a US foreign policy goal starting about 1998. You do the math.)

2. The most destabalizing forces in the world today are

a. Globalization of the world economy
b. State sponsored terror.

When he was in Europe around the time of the great Iraq debate, he signed with Pres Putin the protocol that reduces both nations' nuke arms by two thirds. Guess you missed that one. As someone who has been following nuke arms issues since about 1978, I consider that a significant step forward.

He called North Korean bluff on Nukes that they were "supposedly not building" after the 1994 deal.
No blackmail.

Muhumar quit being as much of a toad as usual. (hint: that's handy for Europe, or did you forget the 1985 murders at the Rome Airport? Did you forget Lockerbee? I didn't.) For that matter, why don't you check out the last three years of foreign policy decisions that had nothing to do with Iraq, or that silly Kyoto thing, and you might be very surprised. You just aren't paying attention to anything but the negative noise.


Why anyone in America would care what Europeans think about American Foreign policy is beyond me. A sneer from the incompetent is not really an insult, it is nuisance noise.

This sneer from the folks who were too lame to gang up on Serbia, at about 15 to 1, but were happy to do so if America played. This from the folks who, absent the Brits (whose stand at Gorazde was "don't cross this line") allowed the Serbs and Bosinan Serbs to make a mockery of the UN "peace keeping ops" in Bosnia from 1992 until 1995.

Paper tigers when Uncle Sam won't add backbone to the mix. Go fish. Credibility problems. And

"It's not the critic who counts."

Not sure where you get your perspective, but I understand that where you sit determines what you see.

You may recall that it was, among other things, an effort to distance our lands from European corruption, politics., and wars that America broke loose, and tried to stay loose, from the Continent of Intramural Fratricide. Sadly, it took America, the land of Europe's Bastard Children, to provide adult supervision to Europe when the brilliant idea men of empire and socialism decided to shed blood on an industrial scale. It took America's umbrella of security to keep Europe Free for two generations.

And funnily enough, Europe and America sorta keep each other rich via trade, regardless of who is in the White House! Aint that interesting? :lol:

Since when does European opinion count for anything on the Western half of the Atlantic?

Never. Y'all do just fine with choosing honest politicians like Berlusconi and Jacques "Iraq" Chirac without any of our help. :) I daresay Mr Blair has lasted much longer than I would have predicted, which once again shows what a funny business politics is. I predicted that Gore would eat GW Bush for lunch. Wrong again.

[Life]

Well said Occhi.

I'm not sure poking points of how badly Europe has handled things changes one wit the way that the present U.S. government has handled things. Nor do I want to one moment suggest that there is anything great about Europe or their intentions in the world.

You brought up some salient points on what the U.S. has done for the world interms of their foreign aid. However one could I believe equally argue that there are many many examples of where and how the U.S. has completely bungled the operation terribly or choose not to use a velvet glove but a massive hammer too. I"m confident that you would be able to research that much better than I. The rest of the world should not care who is the next U.S. president but sadly it matters perhaps more than you or I would like. (Too much power is well... just too much for us lowly humans to handle)

When on the surface it appears that the U.S. has unilaterally decided the fate of a soverign state (regardless of who is there or incharge) what is there to suggest that spurious and possible fake facts can be made up to make a strong case for the U.S. from just invading everyone they feel needs to be invaded. If you don't think that is destablizing. Have a second thought. There are many nations that saw the invasion of Iraq as being something more scary than we've ever experienced before.

How is it that Bush could change the world's opinion of his country in less than a year from Universal sympathy for your losses in that terrible disaster at the WTC into univeral condemnation for actions that were unprecidented and with out apparent substance. (What does this say about what could be next on the adjenda... where will his gaze fall next)... Doesn't this possibility make you shudder?

I'd say that you may want to consider seriously about where you want your country to go in the future and looked at in the history books.

I've been quite rightly shown some of the correct and good things that the U.S. has done for the world. Shouldn't that continue? Wouldn't choosing an different person to lead your country give you momentum to changing what appears a direction of distruction to one of building again?

Life

[Nystul]

Hi Life. If the U.S. elections were held in Europe, Bush would lose. But they are held in the U.S., which is a completely different ball of wax. Americans tend to see our position in world politics quite a bit differently than how foreigners view the U.S., obviously.

As I see it, Bush will sweep the South and the Mountain West (fortunately for Kerry, the Mountain West is not worth too much politicallly other than looking huge on a map). Kerry will win the Northeast, Middle Atlantic, and the Northwest convincingly. Calfornia, Florida, and the Midwest will determine who wins. For Kerry to beat Bush, he has to convince voters in the Midwest that Bush is responsible for the slow economy, and that he can do more to create jobs. He has to win on that issue decisively, because IMHO Bush would win most of the Midwest (and thus, the election) if foreign policy were the only issue.

George Bush, Sr., had an approval rating of nearly 80% at the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm. He ended up losing the following election because Clinton was able to shift the debate to domestic affairs, and place blame on Bush for the struggling economy at that time. I suspect that Kerry would be wise to follow suit, because I actually don't see him winning if foreign policy or anti-terrorism becomes the focal issue of the election.

But when it comes to Die's point, I think he is right. People are voting for Kerry now, because they think he is the man. But they are basing that on his success in the early *Democratic primaries*. Those primaries only represent the more Liberal half of the country. A more Conservative Democrat (or at least one from a more moderate/conservative state) would have a better chance against Bush. But I think the realization is that Kerry probably would win the primaries, and it is better for his chances to be united behind him than to make him struggle his way through a negative campaign.