Kerry Quit
- Thread starter D_Barbi_Queue
- Start date
lacsap1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 200
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 37
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 154
- Points
- 383
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Sexuality
- Non-Binary
- Gender
- Male
Perhaps for the best, the public will really have there noise full after 4 more years of Bush jr.
Let Bush jr clean-up this own mess, if he can !?
Goodluck everybody...
[post=262226]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]You get the government you deserve.
I do stand corrected. That was a very poor choice of words on my behalf. Thank you.
*bends over for the spanking* ^_^
*bends over for the spanking* ^_^
lacsap1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 200
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 37
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Place your bets,
Euronews is already looking for next election democratic candidates;
Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York is very high in the Euro - poll.
Sen. Clinton's not-so-secret target is 2008. President Bush, afters his second term, will be leaving office. The presidential contest in both parties should be wide open. A popular senator from a large state, re-elected to a second term in 2006 and supported by the dominant wing of her party, would have a shot.
Is the US ready for a lady president after the "4 more years" man ?
Euronews is already looking for next election democratic candidates;
Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York is very high in the Euro - poll.
Sen. Clinton's not-so-secret target is 2008. President Bush, afters his second term, will be leaving office. The presidential contest in both parties should be wide open. A popular senator from a large state, re-elected to a second term in 2006 and supported by the dominant wing of her party, would have a shot.
Is the US ready for a lady president after the "4 more years" man ?
By 2008 we will probably be so repressed, conservative and controlled that it will be impossible. The "evangelicals" wouldn't allow it and lets face it, they are now in control. Control of the white house, senate and house. They can now really drive their agenda of exclusion and hate down our throats, and the rest of the worlds as well. The right HATES the Clintons. They hate progress and change and want it to be 1950 all over again. 3 Supreme Court appointments on the way. sigh.
PS: I wouldn't be any happier with Democrats controlling all three either. Balance of power? Gone.
Interestingly, though, most states allow constitutionally ineligible candidates on the ballot if they meet the filing requirements. As a specific example, the Socialist Workers Party, which appeared on the ballot in 13 states, plus DC, nominated a resident alien (Róger Calero) for President and a 28-year-old (Arrin Hawkins) for Vice President.
hey, if Marilyn Chambers can run for VP, why can't Clay? ^_^
As far as the next Dem, no idea for me. But for Repub, my guess is McCain.
As far as the next Dem, no idea for me. But for Repub, my guess is McCain.
If the Democrats think that Hillary will win when Kerry failed, I think they're greatly mistaken. She's not a candidate that can win over swing voters. There's already a huge portion of the electorate that can't stand her. It would be a gift to the GOP to make her the nominee.
Winning swing voters, sadly, doesn't seem to be the correct strategy for Democrats. I had hoped, as Dean, Kucinich, Brown, and Sharpton fell by the wayside in the primaries that maybe it would work this time, but pandering to the middle doesn't work.
The GOP is willing to scare moderates by demonizing the other side: If you vote for Kerry, he will force you to gay-marry Michael Moore! Instead of standing up to this demonizing, Kerry took ambiguous positions such as the have-it-both-ways civil unions and not marriage crap, so as not to alienate the middle. While he may not have alienated many people, he obviously didn't motivate enough people. Our candidate needs to do more motivating.
I don't think Hillary Clinton is the right candidate for 2008, because she's a wolf's in wolf's clothing -- a liberal who's got such a reputation for being liberal that many voters will tune out her message before even giving it a chance to sink in. A message pre-emptively tuned out won't be of any use.
What will work, I believe, is a relatively unknown candidate who can advance a decisively liberal platform -- one that is sufficiently different from the GOP's usual monkey business to force a discussion on these differences, and one that's unambiguously optimistic and hopeful for the future. The candidate's relative prior obscurity will mean that he (or she) has little previous record to attack. And the candidate should be able to talk about liberal issues without shrillness -- so as to excite and motivate voters instead of merely pandering to them.
Doug Wilder pulled this off in the 1989 gubernatorial race in Virginia. Wes Clark might have been able to this year -- his military record would have meant no one would expect him to be liberal. I believe someone could make it happen in 2008, but at this point, the likely candidates I hear being discussed aren't the ones who can make it happen.
In the meantime, I'd like to see Michael Moore run for the House in 2006.
lacsap1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 200
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 37
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 48
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
It doesn't suprice me at all esspecially since we are thinking that again the exit polls aren't correct.....now we know......again stolen elections....what's new?
[post=262437]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]If possible, could you send me the immigration requirements for Holland? The EU? We may very well be forced to leave the US.
3XL: Well I expect I'll get scorched here, but I'm part of the popular majority that re-elected Bush.
However, I think the Democrats really screwed up in thier Primary. If Howard Dean had emerged victor this close race would have gone to the democrats. Hell!I would have switched my vote.
Consider that when Dean was running, he was the only one pointing out the error of the Iraq war. (which I agree is a major error of Bush's) After Dean got out, it became Kerry's issue.
So consider what would have happened if the party had adopted Dean's issues in time to nominate him as thier candidate.
Also, with all due respect to my gay friends on this site, you have to admit that the gay agenda was a liabilty in this campaign. The evidence is clear form all of the states that ratified 'natural' marriage, and how it synergistically rallied support for the conservative in those states. Kerry comming from a state that had legalized gay marriage was just too much for the public to swallow in 2004.
You've got to boil the pot slower if you want to push the public that far to the left.
Now if the Dems are stupid enough to put Hillary on the ticket next time, and the economy recovers -as it naturally will regardless of Bush's policies- The Republicans will win and the Democrats will be finished for the better part of this century.
However, I think the Democrats really screwed up in thier Primary. If Howard Dean had emerged victor this close race would have gone to the democrats. Hell!I would have switched my vote.
Consider that when Dean was running, he was the only one pointing out the error of the Iraq war. (which I agree is a major error of Bush's) After Dean got out, it became Kerry's issue.
So consider what would have happened if the party had adopted Dean's issues in time to nominate him as thier candidate.
Also, with all due respect to my gay friends on this site, you have to admit that the gay agenda was a liabilty in this campaign. The evidence is clear form all of the states that ratified 'natural' marriage, and how it synergistically rallied support for the conservative in those states. Kerry comming from a state that had legalized gay marriage was just too much for the public to swallow in 2004.
You've got to boil the pot slower if you want to push the public that far to the left.
Now if the Dems are stupid enough to put Hillary on the ticket next time, and the economy recovers -as it naturally will regardless of Bush's policies- The Republicans will win and the Democrats will be finished for the better part of this century.
Similar threads
