And the Iowa winner is................

[greatdarkwing]

Well, no results yet...just building anticipation, lol:D :laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

I will post the winner here though...:)

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I was like - already?

[dissention]

Want to make any predictions?

I say it's between Kerry and Edwards! Gephardt doesn't stand a chance and Dean is waning in popularity!

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Want to make any predictions?

I say it's between Kerry and Edwards! Gephardt doesn't stand a chance and Dean is waning in popularity!

:wavey:

I say Dean still has a good chance. But, at this point, based on what I read, it is a toss up between Kerry and Dean.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
Want to make any predictions?

I say it's between Kerry and Edwards! Gephardt doesn't stand a chance and Dean is waning in popularity!

:wavey:

Can't I vote Bush?!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Fine...fine....

I'll just pick Buchanan

~Alex:laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I say Dean still has a good chance. But, at this point, based on what I read, it is a toss up between Kerry and Dean.

I think Kerry will come out on top. I've been watching all the coverage of the caucuses all day and the one thing I've been hearing constantly is the fact that Kerry is beginning to get all of the undecided voters on his side and the newly registered voters. They've been talking about how most of his rallies are made up of young voters (18-24), women, and veterans. Also, they've been talking about the ads and how Kerry's has been the most effective because he doesn't mudsling and he talks about his service days. They were talking about how the candidates were holding up with their past being brought to light and some of their past mistakes, and they said that Kerry has done amazingly well because they can't dig up one bad thing about him.

And that reunion on Saturday can guarantee him more votes. :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Can't I vote Bush?!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Fine...fine....

I'll just pick Buchanan

~Alex:laugh:

Where's that bitchslapping icon?!?!?!

:laugh:

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat."

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Can't I vote Bush?!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Fine...fine....

I'll just pick Buchanan

~Alex:laugh: Speaking of which, I saw Bychanan this weekend on some show lambasting the Bush Admin. for trying to spend $1.5 billion to support marriage. He clearly thinks W is a free spending liberal in this regard. Oh politics and bed fellows!!!!

:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Currently on CNN's homepage ( www.cnn.com )

"Although analysts warn that polls ahead of the Iowa caucuses are unreliable, surveys show Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt in a dead heat to claim the first contest to select the Democratic nominee for president. "

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
Where's that bitchslapping icon?!?!?!

:laugh:

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat."

Everyone over 80 in Palm Beach County on election day in 2000.....

"Hmmmm....I'd like to vote for Gore.....this arrow is pointing to this punch hole.....but do i have to punch that hole? there are other arrows on this ballot...which arrow do i follow? I really should have taken my spoon full of metamucil this morning....i'm just reallly confused.....i'll just vote Buchanan.." lmao!!!!:laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Everyone over 80 in Palm Beach County on election day.....

"Hmmmm....I'd like to vote for Gore.....this arrow is pointing to this punch hole.....but do i have to punch that hole? there are other arrows on this ballot...which arrow do i follow? I really should have taken my spoon full of metamucil this morning....i'm just reallly confused.....i'll just vote Buchanan.." lmao!!!!:laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

All of their frustrated children...

"Godammit! Why do I even waste my money! Start taking the damn gingko!"

:laugh:

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
All of their frustrated children...

"Godammit! Why do I even waste my money! Start taking the damn gingko!"

:laugh:

LMAO!!!!

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

"This looks like a hanging chad.....but is it really hanging? Is that a dimple? Could be a crumb...wait, its moving, could be lice....wait, no, wait,....still could go either way....chad...dimple....crumb...lice...."

:laugh:

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Everyone over 80 in Palm Beach County on election day in 2000.....

"Hmmmm....I'd like to vote for Gore.....this arrow is pointing to this punch hole.....but do i have to punch that hole? there are other arrows on this ballot...which arrow do i follow? I really should have taken my spoon full of metamucil this morning....i'm just reallly confused.....i'll just vote Buchanan.." lmao!!!!:laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

"My instincts tell me I'm an 80 year old Liberal, but the hole next to the nazi-conservative is really calling my attention....wait...i have a thought coming....nevermind, just gas."

~Alex:laugh: :eek:

[Mad4stevie]

Oh my God! Dissention - that quote is pretty funny!

"We do not want 8 years of America run by a Colon, a Bush and a Dick."

:eek: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Oh my God! Dissention - that quote is pretty funny!

"We do not want 8 years of America run by a Colon, a Bush and a Dick."

:eek: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:laugh: ;) :wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
"This looks like a hanging chad.....but is it really hanging? Is that a dimple? Could be a crumb...wait, its moving, could be lice....wait, no, wait,....still could go either way....chad...dimple....crumb...lice...."

:laugh:

~Alex

:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Speaking of which, I saw Bychanan this weekend on some show lambasting the Bush Admin. for trying to spend $1.5 billion to support marriage. He clearly thinks W is a free spending liberal in this regard. Oh politics and bed fellows!!!!

:laugh:

Go Pat Go is on the warpath with W.

[gldstwmn]

Winner=John Kerry.:)

[strandinthewind]

From foxnews.com just now:

"Entrance polls show early support for Kerry with Edwards, Dean and Gephardt following"

[greatdarkwing]

WOW....51 percent of the tally in and Kerry is winning...

Kerry 37%
Edwards 33%

Dean 18%--------WOW....This seems to be the most interesting result of the night

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Dean 18%--------WOW....This seems to be the most interesting result of the night

What did you say about Dean, Strandie? :laugh:

I told y'all he would go down faster than the Titanic, but no one listened. :laugh: j/k And Gephardt's campaign is officially over.

I am ecstatic about Kerry!!! But I don't want to jinx it, so I'll shut my mouth.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
WOW....51 percent of the tally in and Kerry is winning...

Kerry 37%
Edwards 33%

Dean 18%--------WOW....This seems to be the most interesting result of the night

~Alex

I know - 18% is seemingly low, even with only 51%, for the front runner of the past month. But, these are not elections and the voting is different (see story at http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.main/index.html ) AND Clark and Lieberman skipped this one - so the effect of their presence on Kerry's lead cannot be determined.

In any event - WTF with Edwards in second place?

[greatdarkwing]

Props to Kerry and Edwards for swinging the undecideds

~Alex

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention


I told y'all he would go down faster than the Titanic, but no one listened. :laugh:

His heart will go on:distress:

:laugh:

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
His heart will go on:distress:

:laugh:

~Alex

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

LMAO!

[gldstwmn]

Woohoo!:] CNN is reporting TWICE as many Dems voted in the caucuses than in 2000. And that fabulous southern gentleman, John Edwards is second. That guy is going places.
Bye Howard.:wavey:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Woohoo!:] CNN is reporting TWICE as many Dems voted in the caucuses than in 2000. And that fabulous southern gentleman, John Edwards is second. That guy is going places.
Bye Howard.:wavey:

Wave goodbye to that Clark banner already! :laugh: :wavey:

According to Larry King, Gephardt was scheduled to appear tonight on his show, but refused to go on two minutes before it went on. He's throwing in the towel. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Woohoo!:] CNN is reporting TWICE as many Dems voted in the caucuses than in 2000. And that fabulous southern gentleman, John Edwards is second. That guy is going places.
Bye Howard.:wavey:

I like Edwards. I had tickets to go to a very small fundraiser (about 50 people) for him at a friend's house about this time last year. I get a sinus infection and could not go. I would have liked to have met him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Wave goodbye to that Clark banner already! :laugh: :wavey:

According to Larry King, Gephardt was scheduled to appear tonight on his show, but refused to go on two minutes before it went on. He's throwing in the towel. :nod:

Well, this is just Iowa and much larger fish are out there to fry. But Iowa was a big deal for G. Ashame really because basically he is well liked by all politicians and is considered an honest person.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Wave goodbye to that Clark banner already! :laugh: :wavey:



If Kerry wins NH, I'll take it down. You have my word. He's got to pick Edwards as his running mate though.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, this is just Iowa and much larger fish are out there to fry. But Iowa was a big deal for G. Ashame really because basically he is well liked by all politicians and is considered an honest person.

Yeah, I like Gep. He's been in it a good long time though.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If Kerry wins NH, I'll take it down. You have my word. He's got to pick Edwards as his running mate though.

I don't want Edwards, I want Kucinich and his pie charts. :nod: :wavey: And a nice cabinet appointment to Braun.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If Kerry wins NH, I'll take it down. You have my word. He's got to pick Edwards as his running mate though.

I agree, Edwards would make a good running mate as he is popular in the South and Kerry is not in comparison. Interestingly, Dean would make a good running mate for no one.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah, I like Gep. He's been in it a good long time though.

Who do you think he'll endorse?

~Alex

[dissention]

Actually, Kerry has been slowly going up in New Hampshire. Can't wait to see what'll happen. :D

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, Dean would make a good running mate for no one.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I just spit out my soda!

:laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Who do you think he'll endorse?

~Alex

I think he will stay in through NH and then endorse Kerry. I mean they work together for goodness sake and are both elderstatesmen.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, this is just Iowa and much larger fish are out there to fry.

Not really, IMO. I think Iowa is the biggest "get." The political climate in Iowa pretty much speaks for the rest of the country. But if Kerry can get NH, too, he's golden. :D

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I just spit out my soda!

:laugh: :laugh:

~Alex

When you live by the sword . . . . :laugh:

I still maintain, however, that although this certainly does not help him, Dean is far from out of the national race.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I still maintain, however, that although this certainly does not help him, Dean is far from out of the national race.

He's not out yet, but he will be soon. If he doesn't win NH, he's gone.

[dissention]

I find what Howard Dean did last night on Larry King rather humorous. He congratulated Kerry and Edwards for first and second place, then said he believed he'd be third. But I'm sure he didn't think he'd be as low as he is now (and that's pretty damn low).

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
He's not out yet, but he will be soon. If he doesn't win NH, he's gone.

I agree. Actually, how many primaries are there in the next two weeks?

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
(and that's pretty damn low).

Pretty damn sad...

[greatdarkwing]

Am I the only Republican on The Ledge? lol:laugh:

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree. Actually, how many primaries are there in the next two weeks?

I believe, if you count NH, it's 11. But I could be wrong, the number 8 is popping into my head, too, so...:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Here is what I mean by the voting in these C's is convoluted:

Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have struck a deal to support each other should one candidate fail to draw the minimum support needed to compete in Monday night's Iowa caucuses, Edwards campaign sources said.

The decision could give Edwards, a U.S. senator from North Carolina, a boost in the convoluted caucuses, the first major Democratic contest of the election year. An Iowa poll published over the weekend shows Edwards is in a tight race with the four front-runners. The same poll has Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, drawing the support of just 3 percent of likely caucus-goers.

"Both of us believe in a lot of the same things, and we like each other very much," Edwards said. "But both of us also recognize at the end of the day, caucus-goers will have to make their own decisions about this."

In the first round of Iowa's Democratic precinct caucuses, starting Monday at 6:30 p.m. CT, voters divide into groups to register their support for a particular candidate. A candidate's group must have at least 15 percent of the people in attendance for the candidate to be considered "viable." Supporters of candidates who are not considered viable must join another group.

Edwards and Kucinich have agreed that in any Iowa precinct where either candidate fails to garner the minimum needed to survive the first round, their supporters are urged to line up for the other candidate, Kucinich spokesman David Swanson said.

"They both have a positive approach, and they both have an optimistic vision," Swanson said. "Where we need 15 percent, we've got 9 and he's got 6, they'll come to us, and where he's got 9 and we've got 6, we'll go to him."

The two candidates reached the arrangement even though Kucinich and Edwards differ on the war in Iraq, a major issue in the Democratic contests. Edwards voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, while Kucinich opposed it.

Edwards and Kucinich have become friends during the campaign, sources in both campaigns said.

The deal was finalized Sunday, and Edwards and Kucinich spoke to each other about the arrangement several days ago, Edwards campaign sources said.

But a spokeswoman for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of Edwards' leading rivals in the Iowa contest, said the pact is a sign of weakness on Edwards' part.

"We are planning on being viable in all the precincts. We have no strategy to coordinate with another campaign," said Sarah Leonard, communications director for the Dean campaign in Iowa.

"It just says something about Senator Edwards' organization that he's needing to rely on Congressman Kucinich's support in order to be viable in some precincts."

And Stephanie Cutter, Sen. John Kerry's press secretary, said the Massachusetts senator "has broad support across the state."

"If we aren't viable, we will reach out to all campaigns," Cutter said. "Because this is not about cutting secret deals, this is about beating George Bush."




Here is the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
I believe, if you count NH, it's 11. But I could be wrong, the number 8 is popping into my head, too, so...:laugh:

You've got a golden ticket!!!!! Straight to the looney bin!!

~Alex:laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Am I the only Republican on The Ledge? lol:laugh:

~Alex

No, the others are away at a Bush prayer dinner, then they'll be off to visit inner-city crack dens to push their faith-based initiatives. :D

Just kidding! :laugh:

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
No, the others are away at a Bush prayer dinner, then they'll be off to visit inner-city crack dens to push their faith-based initiatives. :D



I KNEW I HAD SOMETHING TO DO TODAY!

~Alex:laugh:

[dissention]

This just in:

Gephardt is dropping out at a news conference tomorrow!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Am I the only Republican on The Ledge? lol:laugh:

~Alex

No there are a few. Personally, I like no party over the other. I vote based on the candidate.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
This just in:

Gephardt is dropping out at a news conference tomorrow!

Wow, hes not even trying NH....interesting....quite a night..
~Alex

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
I KNEW I HAD SOMETHING TO DO TODAY!

~Alex:laugh:

There are crack whores in need of the lord and you're here posting?!?! My word, just join us liberals! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
This just in:

Gephardt is dropping out at a news conference tomorrow!

\Very interesting. I though he'd at least see what happens in the next 8 (thank you :cool: ) or so primaries in the next two weeks. Don't you know W and gang are pissed Dean made such a bad showing. I think they will be scared of Kerry of Clark.

[dissention]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Wow, hes not even trying NH....interesting....quite a night..
~Alex

If history is any example, Kerry will win in NH anyways.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
There are crack whores in need of the lord and you're here posting?!?!

Im converting a few now....:eek:

~Alex

[GypsySorcerer]

Am I the only Republican on The Ledge?


Well, there's at least two of us. LOL


I am surprised at how low Dean's numbers were, though. Oh, well -- that guy's a disaster anyway.
:laugh:


~Krista

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
There are crack whores in need of the lord and you're here posting?!?! My word, just join us liberals! :laugh:

Alex - you need to visit www.bettybowers.com and see what you are doing wrong and why the crack whore ministries are so important!!! :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Who do you think he'll endorse?

~Alex

Good question. I don't think it'll be HoDe but either Senators Edwards or Kerry.:)

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer



Oh, well -- that guy's a disaster anyway.
:laugh:


~Krista

I know.....I wanted him to train wreck on Nov. 2nd!!! :laugh:

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
\Very interesting. I though he'd at least see what happens in the next 8 (thank you :cool: ) or so primaries in the next two weeks. Don't you know W and gang are pissed Dean made such a bad showing. I think they will be scared of Kerry of Clark.

Kerry and Clark will slay that schlub.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Good question. I don't think it'll be HoDe but either Senators Edwards or Kerry.:)

I think the thinking will be all bets on endorsing anyone are off at least until this weekend. I mean Dean has already gotten huge endorsements from major politicians. If they all have to endorse more than once, that just looks bad, although it certainly has happened before.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by dissention
Kerry and Clark will slay that schlub.

Swallow my what?!

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Interesting - Kerry is the onlt elderstatesman in the race now.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interesting - Kerry is the onlt elderstatesman in the race now.

35% of voters ages 17-24 voted for Kerry. :D

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
35% of voters ages 17-24 voted for Kerry. :D

Cool - I wonder is this demographic will stick with him? Dean initially had that Demographic.

[greatdarkwing]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
ROTFLMFAO!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I almost had a heart attack when a friend sent me that site. I think it is hysterical. I mean if you can't laugh at that I submit you are lacking in a sense of humor!! :laugh:

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean if you can't laugh at that I submit you are lacking in a sense of humor!! :laugh:

So, true

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Susan E (I LOVE HER) was just explaining to Brit Hume that Dean's angry message of "WE HAVE TO TAKE BACK AMERICA" and his vehement anti-war stance hit a wall in Iowa - she though the 19% indicated the voters did not want to hear that and did not respond favorably to it. She also said that Dean has changed all of his ads for NH to essentially "I am the politically mild gov. from next door." That does not sound too good to me, esp. considering he is in Kerry Country.

[Merf]

Originally posted by dissention
Kerry and Clark will slay that schlub.

RIGHT ON, SISTER!!!!

I, for one, am ecstatic about the results! It shows that Democrats want someone who can slay Bush... clearly, Dean is not that candidate! I guess we will see what happens in New Hampshire.... I still am in shock that Dean had such a poor showing. And woot for John Edwards! I am not a supporter per say, but he is from my state and I am proud of him. He definitely made a VERY strong showing!

Gephardt dropping out? It was only a matter of time. The polls showed it was a 4 way race (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Gephardt) where the results showed it was only a two-way race (Kerry and Edwards). Throw Clark in the mix, and this will be a great race! I have confidence in Kerry, Clark or Edwards for a strong Democratic ticket... and that's what it's all about!!!

< / excited Democratic rant >

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Merf
RIGHT ON, SISTER!!!!

I, for one, am ecstatic about the results! It shows that Democrats want someone who can slay Bush... clearly, Dean is not that candidate! I guess we will see what happens in New Hampshire.... I still am in shock that Dean had such a poor showing. And woot for John Edwards! I am not a supporter per say, but he is from my state and I am proud of him. He definitely made a VERY strong showing!

Gephardt dropping out? It was only a matter of time. The polls showed it was a 4 way race (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Gephardt) where the results showed it was only a two-way race (Kerry and Edwards). Throw Clark in the mix, and this will be a great race! I have confidence in Kerry, Clark or Edwards for a strong Democratic ticket... and that's what it's all about!!!

< / excited Democratic rant >

OMG - this is the second WOOT in an hour on the ledge (Marissa just gave one in the Rumors forum" Sheebus!!!!! Someone find Scotticus kplzthks !!! :cool:

[greatdarkwing]

MSNBC is now declaring Kerry the winner

~Alex

[Merf]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
OMG - this is the second WOOT in an hour on the ledge (Marissa just gave one in the Rumors forum" Sheebus!!!!! Someone find Scotticus kplzthks !!! :cool:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sorry, when Wootian Gods get excited, they woot!

I'll give Scotticus your regards! kplzthnx. :D

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Merf
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sorry, when Wootian Gods get excited, they woot!

I'll give Scotticus your regards! kplzthnx. :D

Pls do!!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

State of the Union from www.foxnews.com

Few details have so far been revealed about the speech, but former Bush political adviser Karen Hughes (search), who spent the weekend with Bush at Camp David as he fine-tuned his speech, said the president would discuss ways to improve the health care system without giving the government a bigger role in it. Congress has already approved a 10-year, $400 billion prescription drug addition to Medicare, the health care entitlement to seniors.

"I think what you'll hear is a very different vision of what health care should be than what you've been hearing from the Democratic candidates. They're touting a government-run system, which I always remind people, well, you kind of think about the income tax system or the post office. If that's what you want your health care system to be like, I think most Americans don't," said Hughes.

Hughes, who helped the president prepare for his delivery and is expected to be in attendance at the annual address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. EST, said Bush will also defend the war in Iraq by saying that without the war, Saddam Hussein would still be in power instead of in prison.

Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108899,00.html

Also re: "Bush will also defend the war in Iraq by saying that without the war, Saddam Hussein would still be in power instead of in prison." Well DUH - but how does that justify lying to enhance the case for going to war?

[Merf]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also re: "Bush will also defend the war in Iraq by saying that without the war, Saddam Hussein would still be in power instead of in prison." Well DUH - but how does that justify lying to enhance the case for going to war?


DING DING DING!!!! that's what I want to know!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Merf
DING DING DING!!!! that's what I want to know!!!! Don't hold you breath for an answer to that question because every time he has been asked he has replied "the intelligence showed SH had WMD." While this is true and the world agreed it was true, it is not the answer to the question. I mean even if you hold as true that SH had WMD and that he was the worst person in the history of people, why didn't W just use those reasons as justification - the answer is he knew Congress would never go for it because those reasons were not exigent enough. Instead, W said SH was actively seeking the materials to make a nuclear bomb and would soon have one. When he said it, his administration, and therefore HE, knew it was false. Personally, I think he also knew it was false. I cannot believe he has not been impeached on this act. I mean Clinton onstructed justice when he lied about a BJ (which was wrong I agree) and he got impeached. Bush lied and now thousands are dead. Hmmmmm

[gldstwmn]

I wonder how many postal worker's votes Karen Hughes just lost with that little gem.:laugh: It's okay I guess, they're in a union and vote democratic anyway. Who really trusts this pos to follow through on his word? If it's not soicalized medicine, I don't want to hear about it.

[gldstwmn]

I'm wathcing HoDe's speech on CNN and either he's going to cry or he's had a few, I can't tell. I think this is truly a shock to him.

[Merf]

My fave quote of the night?

It's from Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY)

"Howard Dean looked like a prairie dog on speed!"

-referring to HoDe's maniacal shouting during his concession speech.

:laugh: :laugh:

way to go, old man!

[darklinensuit]

Howard Dean sounded like a professional wrestler last night - in both the tone of his voice and the prepare-for-a-fight rhetoric. All he needed was a mask.

- Jake

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Am I the only Republican on The Ledge? lol:laugh:

~Alex

No, lol, I am one too, but I get tired after a few pages, because I notice most people simply start repeating the same rhetoric, and so I haven't gotten too involved in political debate.

I will say that even I respect Kerry. But perhaps that's just because Dean is such a prick.

As for your earlier comment about chads - should Republicans be blamed if such a large portion of the Democratic constituency is feeble-minded? lol!

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
Am I the only Republican on The Ledge? lol:laugh:

~Alex

Nope. I am registered Republican, but vote based on the person, not the party.

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
No, lol, I am one too, but I get tired after a few pages, because I notice most people simply start repeating the same rhetoric, and so I haven't gotten too involved in political debate.

I will say that even I respect Kerry. But perhaps that's just because Dean is such a prick.

As for your earlier comment about chads - should Republicans be blamed if such a large portion of the Democratic constituency is feeble-minded? lol!

Nancy--

Don't take everything so seriously! ;)

[dissention]

Did anyone see Kerry's wife last night during Kerry's winning speech? She cracked me up! She laughed at random, walked back and forth behind her husband, grabbed him every two minutes, and the two of them started making out twice. :laugh:

Before his speech, they had video clips of various caucuses. One was being held at an elderly lady's home and she told the cameraman that she had gotten four Bush phone calls, asking for her support. As she told about it, the phone rang and it turned out to be *another* Bush solicitation. She answered and said "NO! We don't like Bush at all, WE'RE DEMOCRATS!" and hung up. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Merf
My fave quote of the night?

It's from Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY)

"Howard Dean looked like a prairie dog on speed!"

-referring to HoDe's maniacal shouting during his concession speech.

:laugh: :laugh:

way to go, old man!

:nod: :nod: :nod: Dean looked very unpresidential. He's done. His 15 minutes are up.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Did anyone see Kerry's wife last night during Kerry's winning speech? She cracked me up! She laughed at random, walked back and forth behind her husband, grabbed him every two minutes, and the two of them started making out twice. :laugh:

Before his speech, they had video clips of various caucuses. One was being held at an elderly lady's home and she told the cameraman that she had gotten four Bush phone calls, asking for her support. As she told about it, the phone rang and it turned out to be *another* Bush solicitation. She answered and said "NO! We don't like Bush at all, WE'RE DEMOCRATS!" and hung up. :laugh:

She was a riot! She said "We have to do one more thing before we can have wine." Sounds like a fun caucus.
On another note, it did my heart good to see Teddy Kennedy and Max Cleland on that stage with him. Teresa was fab.:)

[gldstwmn]

Pat Buchanan calls for Bush's resignation:

Journalist turned Republican presidential candidate John Buchanan has issued a challenge to George W. Bush: either re-write the State of the Union address to acknowledge his administration's advance knowledge of the threat of a September 11th-style attacks on the United States, or resign the presidency, effective immediately.

Buchanan, speaking from the campaign trail in New Hampshire, announced a last minute campaign to flood the White House with phone calls and emails demanding that Bush re-write or resign.

He has carried the challenge to talk radio in 9 states and has enlisted the help of progressive web sites to get the message out.

Buchanan urges you to phone the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 or send an email to [email protected]. Deliver the simple message to George W. Bush: 'Re-write or resign!'

[dissention]

I just want to say that I admire Gephardt for his continued strength in running and I wish him the best in whatever endeavor he embarks on when he retires. He fought a good fight and emerged with his dignity intact. Kudos to him! :nod: :D

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

:nod: :nod:

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
:nod: :nod: :nod: Dean looked very unpresidential. He's done. His 15 minutes are up.

I'm no fan of Dean's, but what's the big deal here? So he got a little passionate. He should be passionate about what he believes in. Does acting "presidential" mean showing no emotion? He needed to rally the troops after such a loss, and he did. Why are people saying this hurts him? If I were an undecided Democrat, I would appreciate his enthusiasm and not turn my nose up at him for it.

I rolled my eyes when he was asked to comment on it during last night's debate. PUH-LEEZE. Yeah, that's a really important campaign issue FOR SURE.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I'm no fan of Dean's, but what's the big deal here? So he got a little passionate. He should be passionate about what he believes in. Does acting "presidential" mean showing no emotion? He needed to rally the troops after such a loss, and he did. Why are people saying this hurts him? If I were an undecided Democrat, I would appreciate his enthusiasm and not turn my nose up at him for it.

I rolled my eyes when he was asked to comment on it during last night's debate. PUH-LEEZE. Yeah, that's a really important campaign issue FOR SURE.

I would hope that the president would have a modicum of decorum. I'm assuming you saw the whole performance. I agree with Senator Simpspon's assessment of "a prarie dog on speed." Someone else mentioned professional wrestling. Yeah.

[gldstwmn]

One more reason not to support Dean:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/23/news/economy/election_dean_greenspan.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Dean: Greenspan should be replaced

Democratic presidential contender says Fed chairman was 'too political' in supporting tax cuts.
January 23, 2004: 10:36 AM EST


LONDONDERRY, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean said Friday that he thought Alan Greenspan had become too political and should be replaced as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

"I think Alan Greenspan has become too political. If he lacks the political courage to criticize the deficits, if he was foolish enough -- and he's not a foolish man -- to support the outrageous tax cuts that George Bush put through, then he has become too political and we need a new chairman of the Federal Reserve," Dean said in response to a question from an audience at a town hall meeting in Londonderry."

[Rob67]

An interesting look at Kennedy and his recent statements....

Rob:cool:

______________________________________

Responding To Irrationality

American Daily
Raymond Green,
01/22/04

If one needs to be convinced that Democrats ought not to hold significant power within our government, one need only look at how they behave when they lose the power they did have. Like a hysterical adolescent mildly punished for already inappropriate behavior, Democrats are screaming irrationalities and inaccuracies because they’ve been asked – by the voters – to step aside and let Republicans handle the war on terrorism and the economy. These demented irrationalities are almost so illogical that some believe they need no response – almost.

For instance, on January 14 Ted Kennedy spoke out. He stated that the president violated the “founding ideals” by failing to “protect the fundamental trust between the government and the people.” Let us be clear right off, the founding ideals of our country included a fundamental distrust between government and the people – hence the Constitution, House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court in addition to the Executive branch to all check each other. Our Founders struggled to enact the existence of a federal government at all. Needless to say a “fundamental trust” was born and held only by naïve progressives from the beginning. On the other hand, even if there were a trust between the two, one must ask why, if Kennedy does indeed trust the people, he advocates an ever expanding government to remedy problems people can handle themselves.

He went on to label the war in Iraq a “political product” that “has made America more hated in the world…And it has made our people more vulnerable to attacks both here and overseas.” Logically evaluated, the statement contradicts itself. We would have to believe that Bush created a political product in order to be more hated in the world and leave our country more vulnerable to attacks. The war itself is a political liability, not a political benefit. As a calculated risk, there was more to be lost than there was to be gained by the administration. The probability of sustained failure was much higher than the probability of a prompt success. In other words, the odds were against Bush in most every aspect.

There are other aspects of the “political product” theory that are unclear. For example, if Iraq was a political product, was it also a political product when the United Nations passed at least 17 related resolutions condemning Iraq for repressing the Iraqi population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security ” and for Iraq’s “clear violations ” of previous UN resolutions? Was it a political product when Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114 (H.J.Res. 114) authorizing military force to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”? Giving such scenarios much consideration for plausibility is incredibly ridiculous because in order to devise such a scheme, one would have to be a genuine mastermind and Democrats have made it clear that Bush doesn’t possess those abilities.

Furthermore, Kennedy fails to elaborate on one very critical point: The terrorist attack we experienced on 9/11 was a direct result of the prior administrations defense and intelligence policies – which Kennedy himself supported. 9/11 gave Bush an opportunity to revamp, revise, and reform those policies towards a more proactive approach (what Republicans had been advocating for a number of years prior to 9/11). Since those policies have been allowed to take effect, America is indeed less vulnerable than it was before. To intelligently dispute this, one must be prepared to provide evidence that our homeland has been more susceptible to attack because of Bush’s policies. There is no such evidence because no terrorist attacks have occurred on our homeland since Bush’s policies have taken effect. The absence of terrorist attacks on our homeland serves not only as proof that we are safer, but also brings to light how the truth tends to be little more than an obstacle for Democrats like Kennedy to overcome and suppress.

The Bush administration intends on transferring sovereignty of Iraq to Iraqis this summer. According to Kennedy, this is merely a political ploy to enhance Bush’s chance of reelection in November. To clarify, Kennedy believes that Bush went into Iraq as a ploy to drum up support for Republicans and also believes that Bush is now leaving Iraq as a ploy to drum up support for Republicans. The irony is worth taking note of, but hardly worth stewing on. Instead, I pose the following question: Who cares if leaving Iraq is political? Iraq has been made a political point of contention by Democrats, not Republicans. It is Democrats attempting to seize on the failure or success in Iraq in order to take control of the White House. What would be wrong with Bush firing back by also politicizing the issue? Furthermore, Kennedy has created a catch-22 by criticizing Bush for doing precisely what Kennedy wants (and concurrently what Bush had intended on doing from the start): Withdrawing from Iraq and transferring power to the Iraqis.

The idiocy of such statements leads me to give careful consideration to two possibilities of a larger Democrat strategy: (1) That Kennedy is in bed with the engineers of the Democrat Party and is speaking out as an invincible senator during an election period to move the Party further to the left leading to an inevitable victory for Bush and setting up a 2008 run by Hillary Clinton; or (2) Kennedy is blindly pursuing radical ideology and sincerely wants the Party to move further to the left evidencing a significant divide within the Party and a family feud of sorts. In either case the results are the same: Bush wins, therefore America wins and Iraq wins.

[CarneVaca]

Rob, a piece of advice if you want to be taken seriously in a political discussion. First, use sources to back up your statement that are credible. Stick with provable facts. When you inject into the debate this kind of thing:

Originally posted by Rob67
If one needs to be convinced that Democrats ought not to hold significant power within our government...

These demented irrationalities are almost so illogical...

The idiocy of such statements...

For starters, the author of this opinion piece is immediately excluding people who disagree with him from seriously considering his argument, so he is essentially preaching to the choir. You don't generally pull people into a discussion by insulting them right off the bat. Saying Democrats should not hold significang power in government is already telling Democrats they are essentially worthless. How does a constructive discussion follow from that?

Terms such as "demented irrationalities" and "idiocy" don't contribute much to a healthy debate either.

I'll be the first one to admit that I often use hammer diplomacy in the discussions in which I participate. But if I am going to cite sources, I'm going to stick with sources that at least come across as credible.

What we have here is a very lame attempt by you to try to prove your position is the correct one. But you ain't going to prove anything by quoting Rush Limbaugh types who cannot make a rational argument without resorting to insults.

If you want to be taken seriously, try again.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I'm no fan of Dean's, but what's the big deal here? So he got a little passionate. He should be passionate about what he believes in. Does acting "presidential" mean showing no emotion? He needed to rally the troops after such a loss, and he did.

I agree. So he got carried away. Big hairy deal. Didn't the media keep knocking Al Gore for being too wooden? And before you knew it, average people were calling Al Gore too wooden in their discussions about who should be president. Now we see this same phenomenon applied to Dean.

Who cares if the guy nearly ripped a vocal chord? Was it pretty? Hell no. Does it mean he can't govern? Hell no.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16315

Joe Conason
The New York Observer
01.21.04


What's Bush hiding from 9/11 commission?
Administration doesn't want truth out before the election


In an election year, a Republican President seeking his second term can be expected to propose more tax cuts and, in this era of right-wing profligacy, considerably more spending as well. Informed critics calculate the costs of George W. Bush’s latest proposals in the trillions of dollars -- a vague yet substantial sum that will come due sometime during what budgetary jargon denotes as "the out years," meaning long after Mr. Bush has departed the White House. .



Excessive spending and tax breaks always elicit more applause than controversies over the global "Axis of Evil," Niger’s phantom yellowcake and Iraq’s weapons of mass disappearance. So do such perennially popular topics as improved health care, the protection of heterosexual marriage and, in the immortal words of the President’s father, jobs, jobs, jobs. Estimates of future deficits depend on whether the President actually tries to send astronauts to live on Mars and the moon, or abandons that vision in deference to disapproving poll numbers. In short, bread and maybe circuses.

What Mr. Bush understandably chose not to highlight, however, is his administration’s continuing determination to undermine, restrict and censor the investigation of the most significant event of his Presidency: the attacks on New York and Washington of Sept. 11, 2001.

The President is fortunate that until now, the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has received far less attention than controversies over the design for a World Trade Center memorial. At every step, from his opposition to its creation, to his abortive appointment of Henry Kissinger as its chair, to his refusal to provide it with adequate funding and cooperation, Mr. Bush has treated the commission and its essential work with contempt.

In the latest development, the President’s aides refused additional time for the 9/11 commission to complete its report. Although the original deadline in the enabling legislation is May 27, the commissioners recently asked for a few more months to ensure that their product will be "thorough and credible."

Earlier this month, Thomas Kean -- the former New Jersey governor who has chaired the commission since Mr. Kissinger recused himself -- explained why the commission needs more time. As the genial Republican told The New York Times, he is only permitted to read the most important classified documents concerning 9/11 in a little closet known as a "sensitive compartmented information facility" (or SCIF). He cannot photocopy the documents, and if he takes notes about them, he must leave the notes in the SCIF when he leaves.

Other recent statements by Mr. Kean, which he subsequently modified, suggest that the White House has ample reason to worry about what the commission’s report will say. In December, he told CBS News that he believes the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented -- and that incompetent officials were at fault for the failure to uncover and frustrate the plot.

Following the creation and staffing of the commission, many months passed before the administration agreed to let Mr. Kean look at any of those crucial documents. The commission still has hundreds of interviews to conduct, and millions of pages to examine, before its members begin to draft their conclusions.

But the President’s political advisers, concerned about the political impact of the commission’s report, are unsympathetic to its requests for additional time -- and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who would have to approve an extension, is perfectly obedient to his masters in the White House. According to Newsweek, the administration offered Mr. Kean a choice: Either keep to the May deadline, or postpone release of the report until December, when its findings cannot affect the election.

Mr. Bush doesn’t want his re-election subject to any informed judgment about the disaster that reshaped the nation and his Presidency. But why should such crucial facts be withheld from the voters? What does the President fear?

Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Kean provided a clue to the answers in his Times interview. Asked whether he thinks the disaster "did not have to happen," he replied, "Yes, there is a good chance that 9/11 could have been prevented by any number of people along the way. Everybody pretty well agrees our intelligence agencies were not set up to deal with domestic terrorism …. They were not ready for an internal attack." Then, asked whether "anyone in the Bush administration [had] any idea that an attack was being planned," he replied: "That is why we are looking at the internal papers. I can’t talk about what’s classified. [The] President’s daily briefings are classified. If I told you what was in them, I would go to jail."

But the commission’s final report may well indicate what the President was told in his daily briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, when he was sunning himself in Crawford, Tex. -- as well as the many warnings he and his associates were given by the previous administration. That kind of information could send him back to Crawford for a permanent vacation.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4DA0GEGMY5HOICRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=4199124

EX-Arms Hunter Says Iraq Had No Banned Stockpiles

Sat January 24, 2004 01:32 AM ET

By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay has concluded Iraq did not have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, which could embarrass President Bush abroad and offer ammunition to his election-year Democratic rivals at home.

Undercutting the White House's public rationale for the war on Iraq, Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post Friday that he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.

"I don't think they existed," Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," said Kay, who returned from Iraq in December and told the CIA that he would not be going back.

"I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about," Kay said.

In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday, Bush again insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous weapons programs right up to the start of the U.S.-led invasion in March.

"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

Kay's statements were certain to reopen debate in the United States -- particularly among the field of Democratic candidates vying for the right to take on Bush in November -- about the administration's motives for launching the war..."

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Rob, a piece of advice if you want to be taken seriously in a political discussion. First, use sources to back up your statement that are credible. Stick with provable facts. When you inject into the debate this kind of thing:

For starters, the author of this opinion piece is immediately excluding people who disagree with him from seriously considering his argument, so he is essentially preaching to the choir. You don't generally pull people into a discussion by insulting them right off the bat. Saying Democrats should not hold significang power in government is already telling Democrats they are essentially worthless. How does a constructive discussion follow from that?

Terms such as "demented irrationalities" and "idiocy" don't contribute much to a healthy debate either.

I'll be the first one to admit that I often use hammer diplomacy in the discussions in which I participate. But if I am going to cite sources, I'm going to stick with sources that at least come across as credible.

What we have here is a very lame attempt by you to try to prove your position is the correct one. But you ain't going to prove anything by quoting Rush Limbaugh types who cannot make a rational argument without resorting to insults.

If you want to be taken seriously, try again.

:laugh: Sorry, I am laughing too hard to respond to this seriously....

First of all, I didn't set it up as anything other then an op-ed piece. Secondly, I cited who wrote the article and where it was from. And thirdly, aside from being so offended because the guy thinks a statement was idiotic, do you disagree with his takes on Kennedy's statements? I thought he made some valid arguments.

"Terms such as "demented irrationalities" and "idiocy" don't contribute much to a healthy debate either."

You may be right...but comparing Bush to Hitler doesn't either. The ****e comes from both sides.

This isn't the first op-ed piece that has been posted on these pages and I don't think that discredits them. I felt the guy made some good points and thought I would share. Besides, I could be offended by your condescending post but I realize If yah can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, my friend!!;)

Oh yeah, and what position am I lamely trying to prove by this article again???:confused:

Rob:cool:

[gldstwmn]

I wasn't really sure why you posted it on this thread in the first place. Ted Kennedy isn't running for president. If you don't like him and you happen to live in Massachusetts, don't vote for him. Otherwise, what's the point?:shrug:

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I wasn't really sure why you posted it on this thread in the first place. Ted Kennedy isn't running for president. If you don't like him and you happen to live in Massachusetts, don't vote for him. Otherwise, what's the point?:shrug:

You know..you're right. Sorry, It was meant for the "SOTU" thread but apparently that one digressed into a discussion about whether or not Conservatives are good lovers.

Should I have perhaps posted it in "the Reagans" thread after the Haliburton article? :confused: ;) :D

Rob:cool:

PS. Well...the point is as relevant as anyone else's points in these discussions. Kennedy has made some statements criticizing Bush policies and I found them to be a little off, to be PC about it. I thought this guy gave a good critique.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
.

Should I have perhaps posted it in "the Reagans" thread after the Haliburton article? :confused: ;) :D



Same players, different president.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
You know..you're right. Sorry, It was meant for the "SOTU" thread but apparently that one digressed into a discussion about whether or not Conservatives are good lovers.



Yeah. I did notice you were in on that one.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Same players, different president.

:eek: :eek:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So, true. Actually, some of Nixon's people are in there as well. Wasn't ole Rummy in the Nixon Administration? :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:eek: :eek:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So, true. Actually, some of Nixon's people are in there as well. Wasn't ole Rummy in the Nixon Administration? :rolleyes:

Yes. He was, although I can't rmember exactly what he did.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yes. He was, although I can't rmember exactly what he did.

Here is an intersting article/commentary - boy how things change!!!!!

Blast from the Past: Rumsfeld: Nixon's Loathesome Dove

"A new generation of American antiwar critics may decry Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's moves in Iraq. But there was a time when other critics -- such as President Richard M. Nixon and then-national security adviser Henry A. Kissinger -- saw him as an incorrigible peacenik, an annoying White House dove, according to a most interesting article in the November Atlantic Monthly by James Mann.

Using the Nixon Tapes -- the gift that will forever keep on giving -- Mann found Nixon one night fretting about "the Rumsfeld problem."

Rumsfeld, then a former congressman working on the White House domestic policy staff, was "becoming a troublesome anti-war advocate," Mann writes in this excerpt from his upcoming book "Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet."

In an April 7, 1971, chat, Nixon, Kissinger and then-Chief of Staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman talked about the war in Vietnam. "I think Rumsfeld may be not too long for this world," Nixon said, a few minutes later suggesting, "Let's dump him."

In a generally conservative administration, Rumsfeld had been on the moderate-to-liberal wing, credited by some with saving President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society anti-poverty program, the Office of Economic Opportunity. His assistants there included two young fellows, Dick Cheney and Frank Carlucci.

At a staff meeting earlier that day, Rumsfeld had pressed Kissinger on why the administration couldn't move faster to get out of Vietnam. Nixon worried later that Rumsfeld would quit.

"He's ready to jump ship," Nixon said in his meeting with Kissinger and Haldeman.

Haldeman disagreed. "I doubt if he ever would, just because [staying on] serves his interests more than not."

"He's just positioning himself to be close to The Washington Post and the New York Times," Kissinger said. (This is what the shrinks might call "projection.")

"Well then, let's dump him after this" speech to the nation that evening, Nixon said. "Good God, we're sending him . . . on a two-month holiday to Europe. . . . For what purpose?"

"To get him out of town," Kissinger said. Mann notes that Kissinger then "gently reminds his boss that Rumsfeld's 'holiday' in Europe had originally been their idea."

And when Rumsfeld returned from that trip, he brought some vague political dirt with him, saying that one U.S. ambassador "gave us a pile of bad stuff about [potential Democratic challenger Edmund S.] Muskie and his extracurricular activities." It apparently amounted to naught, however." (Al Kamen, The Washington Post, October 10, 2003)


http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Oct/950.html

[gldstwmn]

I'm sure the Nixon administration viewed anyone who differed from their prescribed policy to be the enemy.:laugh: However in reading the O'Neill book, Rummy had become an ideologue on the issue of Iraq. While I know that the previous administrations had plans to do away with the Hussein regime, this administration was actively looking for a way to implement it unilateraly in the first 10 days.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I'm sure the Nixon administration viewed anyone who differed from their prescribed policy to be the enemy.:laugh: However in reading the O'Neill book, Rummy had become an ideologue on the issue of Iraq. While I know that the previous administrations had plans to do away with the Hussein regime, this administration was actively looking for a way to implement it unilateraly in the first 10 days.

The current administration's plan for regime change is not what bothers me. What bothers me is the hatred beween the two parties caused the current administration to ignore the outgoing Clinton administrations' warning that Al-Q was the clearest and most present danger.

Here is a link to a site that is radical in its views, but contains interesting stuff for conspiracy theorists :cool:

http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911

[gldstwmn]

Thanks for the link! My belief has always been that flight 93 was shot down. They found one of the jet engines 8 miles from the crash site.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Thanks for the link! My belief has always been that flight 93 was shot down. They found one of the jet engines 8 miles from the crash site.

I kind of thought that as well. But, no one saw it, the radar doesn't support it, and the black box conversations they released, all of which I grant could have been altered :laugh: , indicate otherwise. Still, its just a little too convenient.

[gldstwmn]

Also, what, if anything, do you make of the "I hit the trifecta" comment?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Also, what, if anything, do you make of the "I hit the trifecta" comment?

I think it was his way of getting at the Social Security funds. I also think it is another example of his Dean like foot in mouth speech.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yeah. I did notice you were in on that one.

Always will challenge that claim!!:laugh:

Rob:cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
:laugh: And thirdly, aside from being so offended because the guy thinks a statement was idiotic, do you disagree with his takes on Kennedy's statements? I thought he made some valid arguments.

This isn't the first op-ed piece that has been posted on these pages and I don't think that discredits them.

Far from being offended, I just pointed out you're wasting your time if you think this kind of thing backs your position. My point wasn't to discourage people from posting op-ed pieces; rather I was trying to explain to you that hurling insults doesn't tend to get too far in persuading people of anything. So when you use a column that does just that, all you are doing is alienating the people you seem to be trying to reach. If you want to preach to the choir, which is all that type of column is good for, perhaps you're targeting the wrong audience.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:

Far from being offended, I just pointed out you're wasting your time if you think this kind of thing backs your position. My point wasn't to discourage people from posting op-ed pieces; rather I was trying to explain to you that hurling insults doesn't tend to get too far in persuading people of anything. So when you use a column that does just that, all you are doing is alienating the people you seem to be trying to reach. If you want to preach to the choir, which is all that type of column is good for, perhaps you're targeting the wrong audience.


I'm assuming(I know assume, hehe) you believe this holds true when an op-ed piece from the left is posted that hurls insults at the right too?


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Very encouraging!

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040124/nysa010a_1.html

Newsweek Poll: Campaign 2004
Saturday January 24, 11:12 am ET
Kerry Leads Dems With 30 Percent; Edwards Follows at 13 Percent; Dean Slips, Even With Clark at 12 Percent
52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not
But a Large Majority (78%) Says That it is Very Likely (40%) or Somewhat Likely (38%) That he Will Get a Second Term


NEW YORK, Jan. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Senator John Kerry has taken the lead nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters over Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the race for the Democratic nomination, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. Kerry leads the field with 30 percent, followed by Sen. John Edwards with 13 percent. Howard Dean falls to 12 percent from 24 percent in the last Newsweek Poll two weeks ago, and is even with General Wesley Clark, also at 12 percent.
Kerry also leads the pack of Democratic contenders among registered voters as the candidate who would have a better chance of beating President George W. Bush if the election were held today. A Kerry-Bush match-up would have Kerry up by 49 percent to Bush's 46 percent. A Clark and Bush match-up would be a close race, with Bush at 48 percent and Clark at 47 percent. Bush would have an edge over Edwards (49% to 46%). Yet, with a plus or minus margin of error, these match-ups result in a statistical dead heat. And the President would beat Dean (50% to 45%) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (49% to 45%).

And Democrats and Democratic learners also think Sen. John Kerry has the best chance (48%) of defeating Bush in November, and is the candidate mostly likely to do so (43%). Howard Dean follows at 26 percent (a drop from 38% in the 12/11-12/03 Newsweek Poll). Only 15 percent think Dean would most likely defeat Bush. In third is Wesley Clark at 23 percent, and John Edwards at 22 percent. Only 14 percent say Joe Lieberman has a good chance of beating George Bush.

And more registered voters (54%) and Democrats and Democratic leaners (74%) have a favorable opinion of Kerry followed by Lieberman with 48 percent of registered voters, but only 56 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners. Edwards follows with 60 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners, but only 46 percent of registered voters. However, 42 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of Howard Dean, though a 57-percent majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners has a favorable opinion of the Vermont Governor.

And the combination of Democrats considered the best ticket to beat Bush in November among Democrats and Democratic leaners would be Kerry-Edwards or Kerry-Clark, both at 21 percent, followed by Kerry-Dean (19%).

Meanwhile, a week after President Bush's State of the Union address, his approval rating has fallen to 50 percent from 54 percent in the last Newsweek Poll (1/8-9/04). Yet, a 52-percent majority of registered voters says it would not like to see him re-elected to a second term. Only 44 percent say they would like to see him re-elected, a four-point drop from the last Newsweek Poll. (Of that, 37% strongly want to see him re-elected, and 47% strongly do not). However, a large majority of voters (78%) says that it is very likely (40%) or somewhat likely (38%) that Bush will in fact be re- elected to a second term in office. Only 10 percent believe it is not too likely or not at all likely (10%).

With 52 percent of registered voters saying they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the U.S. this year, the issues that are very important in helping them determine who they will vote for are: the economy and jobs (83%); health care (75%) and education (74%); the situation in Iraq and terrorism and homeland security (70%). The least important is the appointing of new Supreme Court justices and federal judges (42%).

A 53-percent majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they are more inclined to vote for the candidate who comes closest to their way of thinking on the issues rather than the candidate with the best chance of defeating President Bush (39%). And the large majority (71%), says it's very important that the Democratic presidential nominee has clear-cut alternatives to Bush on issues like Iraq and taxes; can attract young people and other first-time voters to turn out and support the Democratic ticket (70%); understands the concerns of working families because he grew up in one (64%); has foreign policy and national defense experience (56%), and comes across as even-tempered and appeals to voters in the South (54%).

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older on January 22-23, 2004. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. This poll is part of the February 2 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, January 26).

[strandinthewind]

Cool and thanks for posting. It certainly seems like the tide is turning within the D party and out of it as well. Maybe this change can be sustained for the next ten months. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Cool and thanks for posting. It certainly seems like the tide is turning within the D party and out of it as well. Maybe this change can be sustained for the next ten months. :nod:

Let us hope so.

[jwd]

Latest poll numbers, very encouraging


Depends on how you look at it. ;) It's still a long road till November. I'm looking forward to the one on one debates between Bush and Kerry(I know I'm jumping the gun, but I think it will be Kerry). I definitely have an open mind about the election, and my vote is not yet cast. Since I don't know a whole lot about Kerry it will be interesting to take a closer look at his voting record and what his stands are on certain issues. I think once it becomes more evident that he is going to win the Democratic nomination, he'll be in the spotlight a little more intensely for the nation to scrutinize. THAT could change the poll numbers too. The Republican Party hasn't really started the counter attack on the Dems yet either. Everybody has skeletons in their closets. :laugh: Anyway it should be an interesting and close race. :)


Joe

[gldstwmn]

SENATE REPUBLICANS HACK DEMOCRATIC COMPUTER FILES

Dear WhoCountsTheVotes,

Sometimes we come across a news story so shocking that it serves to remind us that Bush's Republicans will cross any line in their pursuit of full control over the government.

You have already heard how President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed Charles Pickering -- who authored the GOP anti-abortion plank and argued for lenience for a convicted cross-burner -- to a lifetime seat on the federal bench just hours after laying a wreath at the grave of Martin Luther King, Jr.

But they're not done.

This week, the Boston Globe reported that Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly accessed computer files belonging to Democratic members over the course of the year, stealing strategic memos and leaking them to conservative media outlets.

Republicans immediately jumped on the defensive, blaming the computer glitch that allowed them to access the files. That's like a burglar blaming an unlocked door when he robs your house! You couldn't make up a better story to demonstrate the excesses and lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of their agenda. Their tactics
illustrate their willful abuse of democratic rules as they attempt to pack our courts with right-wing extremists.

They will do anything to increase their power through President Bush's right-wing extremist judicial nominees -- even illegal and unethical computer hacking.

TAKE ACTION!

Click the link below to sign our petition calling for Republicans to stand up and take responsibility for their unethical hacking and judicial power-grabbing.

http://mailer.democrats.org/rdr/002Ok06iB80001D

[strandinthewind]

Oops - I bet sadly nothing comes of this.

On another note, the rest fo this article is just the type of just untrue tripe I hate. The article states:

You have already heard how President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed Charles Pickering -- who authored the GOP anti-abortion plank and argued for lenience for a convicted cross-burner -- to a lifetime seat on the federal bench just hours after laying a wreath at the grave of Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is just not true. The article makes it sound like W suddenly invented the recess appointment power for his own use. He did not. In fact, other Presidents have used it in this exact same type of situation. President Clinton also used his executive power for recess appointments to give Roger Gregory a seat on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2000 and to give Hormel an Ambassadorship to Luxemborg when essentially Senators Ashcroft and Lott refused to let Hormel be approved because Hormel was gay. Why was it okay then but not now?

Moreover, as of 1990, Pickering is already a federal judge (99-0 approval) so he already is a judge for life. The recess appointment to the Fifth Circuit is only until next year ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108685,00.html ). Yet, did anyone get that fact from this article's statement "to a lifetime seat on the federal bench just hours after laying a wreath at the grave of Martin Luther King, Jr.?" I certainly did not.

Moreover, yes Pickering argued for a reduced sentence for a cross burner, but that implies he was wrong for doing so and gives no other facts. This is rank spin IMO. Here are some sites (not exactly neutral, but facts are facts) regarding the facts of the cross burning issue.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1291&catcode=10

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york010903b.asp

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/819644/posts

I mean why is it okay for the Clinton Dept. of Justice - Civil Rights Division to give two of three cross burners a plea bargain that included no jail time, but when Pickering decides to do the same thing, he is crucified. One person of three should do jail time? All three were guilty. So, I say that although I think they all should have done jail time, Pickering was just following the lead of the Clinton Dept. of Justice - Civil Rights Division. Yet, do we hear them being slammed in the same article - No.

This kind of stuff drives me crazy because many people will read it and think "Hmmm W is creating new powers and Pickerin is the devil."

[stefan]

There's something about these elections I never understood...
Is it true that everyone can vote there (who is entitled to vote in official elections)- I mean not only the official members of the party (in this case the Democrats)?
Uhm if I were a Republican voter then I would want the Democrats to chose the greatest possible moron among the candidates. When he wins these pre elections he would have no chance against the current president. (and vice versa if there`s a Democratic president)
Well at least it seems the democratic voters did so with Bush last time, just that they didn`t expect him to win in the end :laugh:
No but seriously: you can pick your opponents candidate? How does that work...?

[strandinthewind]

From www.foxnews.com ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109430,00.html )


Sunday, January 25, 2004

The following is an excerpt from FOX News Sunday, Jan. 25, 2004.


CHRIS WALLACE, HOST, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: So is John Kerry the Democrats' answer to reclaiming the White House? We turn now to the man who first needs to win here Tuesday.

Senator Kerry, good morning. Good to have you with us.

U.S. SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-Mass.: I'm glad to be here. I'm sorry to cut it so close. And it's great to be here in the "Fox Coop," or whatever you call it.

WALLACE: "Fox Box." Here, I'm going to give you some water if you want to drink some.

KERRY: No, I'm doing great, thank you. I appreciate that.

WALLACE: All right, I'm going to give you 30 seconds right at the top to say what you think of that Newsweek poll, which shows you now beating the president.

KERRY: Well, I'm not here to talk about polls, and I don't look at the polls. I want to talk about why I'm the best person to beat George Bush.

And I think I am because I have 35 years of experience in fighting against powerful interests to get things done, that really represent the concerns of people, real people. And because I have 35 years of experience in helping America be safer, more secure, in foreign policy, military affairs, security affairs.

I think Americans want leadership, Chris. I've shown leadership through those years, and that's what I intend to do to put America back on track.

WALLACE: All right. No doubt in tribute to your standing in the polls, Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie has begun attacking you. And on Friday, he noted the fact that the ADA, the Americans for Democratic Action, has given you a rating, the liberal group, has given you a lifetime rating of 93 percent, meaning that you have voted their way 93 percent of the time, and that Ted Kennedy only has a rating of 88 percent.

And then, Gillespie said this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Who would've guessed it? Ted Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, are you more liberal than Ted Kennedy?

KERRY: That is so funny. I almost — first of all, it's flattery. I'm complemented that they're attacking me that way.

Secondly, it proves what I'm saying, that I'm the strongest person to go against George Bush, or they wouldn't be attacking me this early.

Thirdly, as they say in the South, that dog won't hunt.

KERRY: I'm the guy who led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America. I've been a prosecutor. I've sent people to jail for the rest of their lives.

I led the fight in 1985, with Fritz Hollings and others, to reduce the deficit and be fiscally responsible with Gramm-Rudman- Hollings.

I have fought again and again against special interests that divert the taxpayers' money and put it into favored, powerful crony deals.

I fought to protect the middle class in the course of this campaign so we don't raise taxes. I voted for lower taxes. I voted to create jobs.

I don't think that's going to work.

WALLACE: All right, but let me ask you...

KERRY: I voted for welfare reform. I mean, I...

WALLACE: Let's look at some of the other issues, though.

KERRY: Sure. Happy to.

WALLACE: OK. Over the years, you have voted against banning partial-birth abortions six times. You voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union of a man and woman...

KERRY: Yes, yes.

WALLACE: ... and you have voted against the death penalty, even for terrorists who kill Americans overseas — let me finish — although I know that you later changed your mind on that.

Any second thoughts about those other votes?

KERRY: No, absolutely not, Chris. They were votes of principle, and let me explain them, and I'll be able to explain them to Americans.

I don't support marriage among gays. I've said that many times. That was not my position. But I also don't support the United States Senate being used for gay bashing, for, sort of, discriminatory efforts to try to drive wedges between the American people.

WALLACE: But, wait a minute, Senator...

KERRY: The job...

WALLACE: If I may say just say, on that one, it passed 85-14.

KERRY: Yes, because a lot of people...

WALLACE: Most Democrats voted, you know, for the bill, and Bill Clinton signed it.

KERRY: Because it's an issue that scares people. I said that I do not support marriage, but I don't support the Senate being used to drive wedge issues.

There was no issue when we voted on that. That was politics. And I think it was the politics of discrimination. And that's what I said on the floor. Go read what I said. What I said was, "I don't support marriage. But I do not support..."

WALLACE: You mean gay marriage?

KERRY: Gay marriage. I don't support gay marriage. But I also support equal protection under the law. I support not having a president who wants to drive wedges between people and try to divide Americans...

WALLACE: But that was — Bill Clinton was president then.

KERRY: Look, you have to ask him why he signed it. You have to ask others why they voted for it. I'm telling you that while I don't support marriage among, you know, for gays, I do support rights. I support equality. I support equal protection under the law.

And, you know, with respect to — what was the first...

WALLACE: You voted against banning partial-birth abortions six times.

KERRY: Yes. But I'm against partial-birth abortion, as are many people. But under the law of our land, I believe it is a constitutional right for a woman to be able to make a choice with respect to her health.

If a doctor — all we wanted to do was allow a doctor, two doctors, to be able to write a letter saying that if there were grievous bodily injury to the woman — grievous bodily injury, not just health, but grievous bodily injury — that they ought to have the right to be able to make a medical decision.

The Republicans didn't want that because they wanted, again, to drive a wedge issue. That doesn't mean — you see, these things, they're always more complicated than people think. And what we need to do in America is have an honest conversation about the future of our country.

People aren't frankly — that's not what divides America. What divides America, whether it's in the South or Southwest, North, Northwest, people want jobs, Chris. People want health care. People want schools that work. People want clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. And we're going backwards on every single one of those major issues before the country.

Now, what the Republicans want to do is divert it...

WALLACE: But...

KERRY: ... Let's have a little cultural war over here while people aren't working. Let's have a little labeling war over here while people don't have health care. Let's try to label Kerry, even those he's been strong on defense, strong on national security, strong on welfare reform...

WALLACE: Let's talk about national security.

KERRY: ... strong on jobs.

WALLACE: Let's talk about national security. In 1995, you were the only sponsor of a bill to cut $1.5 billion from intelligence spending over the next five years.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And in 1997, you said that the intelligence apparatus was too big...

KERRY: Absolutely.

WALLACE: ... there were higher priorities.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And then in 2001, after 9/11, you complained and said, "Why wasn't our intelligence better?"

KERRY: Let me tell you exactly why I did that. I went to Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. I got out of an airplane, and I looked around me, and there wasn't a light, barely, that worked in the airport. There wasn't a new truck in the parking lots.

I went to the foreign office, and there were 12 telephones on a desk. And I asked, "This guy must be really important. Why does he have 12 phones?" They said, "Because they don't know how to hook up all the phone lines into one phone."

And this was the country that we supposedly had to fear marching through Poland...

WALLACE: But the intelligence, obviously, could have helped against the...

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: Intelligence failed us, because — I was on the Intelligence Committee. What we were trying to do, some of us, was push the funding not into technical means — there was a fascination always with satellites and listening devices, not with human intelligence.

I've always been somebody who has felt that we needed human intelligence. That's our failure. That was the failure with respect to 9/11. That remains the greatest gap in our intelligence.

So I wanted to reduce some spending from the national technical means and change the culture of our intelligence gathering. I believe we need to strengthen that, obviously now, post-9/11, but I wrote a book in 1996, Chris, called "The New War," and in that book, after that vote, I wrote about how we needed to strengthen our ability to be able to fight international criminal crime, including terror. In fact, I wrote a chapter called "The Globalization of Terror," and I said, four years before New York, it'll take one megaterrorist event in one of our cities to change life as we know it in America.

I think we deserve a president who does see ahead and who knows how to allocate resources correctly.

WALLACE: Senator, let's talk about that, seeing ahead. One of the joys of being a front-runner is, you're getting hit not only by the Republicans...

KERRY: No, I like it. They're...

WALLACE: ... but also by your fellow Democrats.

KERRY: ... emptying out the wastebasket, and it's great. We're going to be able to deal with each of these, and I'm happy to.

WALLACE: All right.

KERRY: I'll answer any question.

WALLACE: Terrific.

Governor Dean yesterday said that — questioning your judgment, said, here's a guy who voted against going to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991 after he'd invaded Kuwait, but on the other hand he voted for going to war against Saddam Hussein in 2002 when it turns out there may not have been a threat.

KERRY: Well, you see, once again that's a framing of the issue that's incorrect.

But, secondly, it's interesting, you know, Governor Dean, in the last few days, after saying, two days ago, he was going to stop running a negative campaign, has attacked Alan Greenspan, attacked all of his opponents and attacked me.

Now, I wonder...

WALLACE: What does that say to you?

KERRY: Well, I wonder when he's going to stop running the negative campaign he said he was going to stop running.

Now, I'm happy to answer that. I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country.

With respect to this time, I voted to give the authority to the president to use force under a set of promises by the president as to how he would do it: build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises.

And that's why I'm the best candidate to run against him and beat him, because I knew we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but I knew how to do it the right way. President Bush did it the wrong way.

WALLACE: While we're discussing Iraq, David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, says he's now concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons before we went to war.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And now Secretary of State Powell says, you know what, Kay may be right.

What do you make of that?

KERRY: It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled — misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war.

And, again, I repeat, Colin Powell came to our committee. I personally asked him the questions, along with Paul Sarbanes. And we went down the list of 16 resolutions at the U.N. that they'd given as a reason to go to war.

He eliminated every one of them, with the exception of one. The only rationale for going to war, according to Colin Powell, who spoke for the administration, were weapons of mass destruction. That was the license he was given by the United States Senate.

Now, we had inspections going on. The U.N., Hans Blix said, "They haven't complied completely, but we'd like to inspect a little further." The president...

WALLACE: But if I may ask you...

KERRY: Let me just finish now. The president...

WALLACE: Let me just ask you specifically about this. Did...

KERRY: The president cut off that process. He chose the date to start this war. He said, the time for diplomacy is over.

I talked to Kofi Annan...

WALLACE: But you voted — in your decision to support it — I've looked at your speech on the floor of the Senate. You talked about these weapons of mass destruction. Obviously you read the intelligence.

KERRY: Yes.

WALLACE: Do you believe that Colin Powell, the president, when they were talking about this threat, were speaking in good faith and just were misled, as you were, or do you think they cooked the books?

KERRY: I don't know the answer to that. I trust Colin Powell implicitly. He's a friend of mine, and I think he's a terrific person, and I would not want to believe that...

WALLACE: Do you trust George W. Bush?

KERRY: I believe that Dick Cheney exaggerated, clearly.

When they talked about weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes, there were none.

When they talked about aerial devices that could deliver, there were none. When they talked about the linkage to Al Qaida that they've now exaggerated, but they themselves said then there was no smoking gun. They said it. Now they say there was a linkage.

I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.

And the question is still unanswered as to what Dick Cheney was doing over at the CIA personally in those weeks leading up to the war.

WALLACE: And when you see what David Kay said, do you believe that the president was part of a willful effort to mislead the American people?

KERRY: I would never suggest that about a president of the United States without adequate evidence. I don't know the answer to it. But I do know this...

WALLACE: But you're suggesting it about the vice president?

KERRY: I know the vice president either misspoke or misled the American people, but he did so in a way that gave Congress men and women, who have since said — I mean, very good people, good Americans who voted in good conscious, have stood up and said, "I was misled."

This administration has to be accountable for that. And they haven't yet accounted for it.

WALLACE: All right, Senator. We have to take a break. But when we return, I want to ask you about a lot of other questions, including your decision to put $6.5 million of your own money into your campaign.

KERRY: Sure.

WALLACE: More with John Kerry as we continue from the campus of St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, right after this break.

And welcome back to the campus of St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, where we're talking with the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Senator John Kerry.

No, don't shake your head.

KERRY: I hate the word, and I'm telling you, I'm fighting for every vote in this — I'm going door-to-door today. We're working right up to the last minute.

WALLACE: Well, you're going to really, then, hate what I'm about to ask you, which is to preview what a Bush-Kerry debate would sound like.

KERRY: I wouldn't even begin to think about it. I'm focused on New Hampshire.

WALLACE: Well, you can do it on the issues.

In the State of the Union speech this week, President Bush talked about taxes. He called for making his tax cuts permanent, and then he said this. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, don't you have a long record of voting against tax cuts?

KERRY: No. I voted — when I came to the Senate in 1985, the highest rate of tax was 72 percent. I voted to lower it to 28 percent. I have voted for capital gains tax cuts. I voted for incentives for businesses to grow.

In fact, my plan for America is to have a tax cut for business, a manufacturing tax credit to help us create manufacturing jobs. George Bush has ignored manufacturing jobs in America. We've lost 270,000 jobs in Ohio in the last few years. We've lost one-fifth of the manufacturing base in New Hampshire.

WALLACE: But if I can get back to taxes, you have voted...

KERRY: Let me just speak to what George Bush just said.

WALLACE: Well, about the taxes, though.

KERRY: Well, you just had George Bush on TV saying...

WALLACE: ... saying you're going to give a tax increase.

KERRY: But do you know what he said? Did you hear him? He
What George Bush is really fighting for, he's fighting this phantom, because I'm not saying, "Raise taxes." But I am going to roll back the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, and that's who he's trying to protect. The people at the top have gotten the most money, and we can't do health care...

WALLACE: Senator, let me ask you about that, if I may. You have voted against the marriage penalty relief at least a dozen times.
said, "Americans face a tax increase." That's misleading, that's wrong, that's not true. Rich Americans face a tax increase, because the fact is, most Americans are going to be protected under my plan because I'm not raising taxes on the middle class.

I will not roll back, like some of my opponents in the race — I don't want to get rid of the child-tax-credit increase. I want to protect people to raise their children. I'm not going to get rid of the 10 percent bracket. I don't want people taxed at 15 percent, like some of my opponents. I'm not going to put the marriage penalty back in place.

KERRY: Now, that was...

WALLACE: In 1996. Let me finish now.

KERRY: OK.

WALLACE: You voted to eliminate the $500 child tax credit, and you voted against the Bush tax cuts.

If you had your way over the years, wouldn't taxes on middle- class people be higher than they are now?

KERRY: No, because I proposed alternative tax cuts. See, that's what happens. People take one vote, but there are probably about 10 or 15 votes on the same issue, and they're different proposals.

I voted against his proposal and in favor of my proposal. And that's exactly what I'm going to propose to the American people this time.

I have a proposal. I am going to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This is what counts, what's happening now. My proposal is to roll back the wealthy tax cuts, so we can invest in health care for all Americans, and education, and keep the promise George Bush made about leaving no child behind.

He wants to protect the wealthy people, just like they did in the Medicare bill, where they are pushing seniors off of Medicare into HMOs, where, for $139 million of lobbyist fees, they created $139 billion of windfall profits to the drug companies.

WALLACE: Senator...

KERRY: Those are the things that the American people object to.

And I'm going to be fair to the middle class, but I'm not going to allow a tax cut for the wealthiest people to stand at the expense of health care for all Americans.

WALLACE: I want to get away from issues for a few moments and talk to you about this...

KERRY: Well, this campaign is about issues.

WALLACE: Well, no, it's also about your character, the odyssey, people trying to size you up.

You went through a rough patch, obviously, in this campaign, in terms of the polls, in terms of contributions. What did you learn about yourself, and what did you learn about being a candidate running for president?

KERRY: Chris, I think that I knew what I knew about myself, because I learned it a long time ago. I have been in tougher situations than this. And I knew that when you get in a tough situation, you dig down into yourself.

I also knew, from reading history and from talking to others who've run for president, that running for president is a test of your character. The American people want to see what you're made out of.

And so, I understood that I needed to go step by step, one foot in front of the other each day, to prove to people that I can deal with the tough task of leading our nation in difficult times.

I had confidence in my candidacy. You mentioned earlier I put some of my own money in. Yes, I did, because I believed in the choice that I was trying to offer America. I believe in myself and my ability to offer that.

KERRY: And ultimately, I had confidence that the moment would come where we would be able to break through and make a difference.

WALLACE: What was that conversation like with your wife, Teresa, when you said, "Honey, I'm going to take a $6.5 million loan against our house"?

KERRY: My wife has been unbelievable and extraordinary in this effort, campaigning her heart out beyond anything that I anticipated or could have expected.

WALLACE: She didn't say, "6.5 million?"

KERRY: No, you know what she said? She said it's the right thing to do because we're not just fighting for the country, but we're also fighting for honor and for reputation and for what we believe in. And I think those are important qualities.

She has won me enormous number of votes, and I know that and I honor that. And my wife is fond of saying — you know, she's going to be, as people get to know her, they know that she's just the most straightforward, down-to-earth, nurturing, connected person on earth.

And I tell you, they're going to — they love her already. And the more they get to know her, the more they're going to have a sense that she would make a great first lady. And I think — and I look forward to people getting to see that.

WALLACE: Let's look ahead. A week from Tuesday, there are seven contests, all over the country. And the best I read, you have not had commercials in almost any of those states. You have almost no paid staff in any of those states...

KERRY: That's not true. We're in 20 states. We've been in 20 states all year. We pulled some people out at the last minute to do some work in Iowa for, obviously, you know, wise reasons, but they're back and on the ground. And we're doing very well in those states.

I think, you just watch over the course of the next week. I'm going to be campaigning vigorously in all of those states. I look forward to being there. We're going to contest. And I think you're going to see a very significant change over the course of the next week.

WALLACE: Are you going to write off South Carolina to John Edwards?

KERRY: I'm not writing off anywhere.

WALLACE: You have no ads there. You have only seven paid staff.

KERRY: I'm not writing off anywhere. We're going to contest, you know, both campaigning personally as well as on the air and other ways, in every one of those states. And I'm very excited.

Fritz Hollings, Senator Hollings, came on board and is part of my campaign. Alex Sanders, who was the Senate candidate last time, is on board and working for me. We have enormous support from members of the House and Senate there, others who have been supportive. General Steve Cheney, former commandant of the Marine Corps at Parris Island.

I'm very excited about our prospects. And we also have enormous support in Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico. We're doing very well.

And I think as we — if the voters of New Hampshire, which is what I'm focused on now — this is the place to be focused on. You take one step at a time. You take nothing for granted.

WALLACE: Senator...

KERRY: I come out of...

WALLACE: ... I do have to interrupt to ask you about one final terrible issue. It's the unkindest cut of all: the Republican sneak attack.

Please look, if you will, at the monitor, and there you can see it. There he is. Tom Brady, quarterback of your New England Patriots, in the first lady's gallery at the State of the Union speech.

Senator, has President Bush stolen Tom Brady from you?

KERRY: You'll have to ask Tom Brady. I like Tom Brady enormously. I love his football. I think what the Patriots are doing is spectacular. I'm a fan. It doesn't matter. And I...

WALLACE: Are you going to let that stand? I mean, that's terrible.

KERRY: Well, Tom will make it up, you know. Bob Kraft, the owner, is a good pal of mine, and he's supporting me.

And yesterday, I got to be out of the ice with guys like Ray Bork (ph) and Cam Neely (ph) and Kenny Hodge (ph)...

WALLACE: We should point out (inaudible) Boston Bruins...

KERRY: I'm telling you, for a kid like me, who grew up with those guys as our heroes, I'm in seventh heaven still. I'm on a high.

WALLACE: You scored two goals. Did they let you score them, sir?

KERRY: If you play with the Bruins, they make you look good.

(LAUGHTER)

WALLACE: Senator, thank you. Thanks so much for joining us, and safe travels on the campaign trail.

KERRY: Thank you very much.

WALLACE: We'll see you down the road.

KERRY: You bet.

WALLACE: Thanks a lot.

KERRY: Thank you.

[jwd]

:eek: :laugh: Like I said, it's going to be a very interesting race indeed. Thanks for posting strandie, and for the enlightening comment on "SENATE REPUBLICANS HACK DEMOCRATIC COMPUTER FILES". Now could you give us a lesson on the voting process in the U.S. I'm sure stefan would be grateful. To hell with Bush and Kerry, I say :"strandinthewind for president"! :D



Joe :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
:eek: :laugh: Like I said, it's going to be a very interesting race indeed. Thanks for posting strandie, and for the enlightening comment on "SENATE REPUBLICANS HACK DEMOCRATIC COMPUTER FILES". Now could you give us a lesson on the voting process in the U.S. I'm sure stefan would be grateful. To hell with Bush and Kerry, I say :"strandinthewind for president"! :D



Joe :wavey:

Why thank you Joe. :laugh:

If I run, Carne is my VP and gldstwmn my first lady :cool: Those two ought to be able to keep me in check!!!! :laugh:

I think, however, there are too many skeletons in my closet to run. :cool:

Stefan - in a nutshell it depends on if that particular state has open or closed primaries. Here is a link to an article explaining the primary voting process.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/kids_primaries/nomination/index.asp?article=what

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

If I run, Carne is my VP and gldstwmn my first lady Those two ought to be able to keep me in check!!!!

I think, however, there are too many skeletons in my closet to run.

Ummm, never mind. :D But I sure would like to hear about those skeletons! :laugh:


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by jwd
Ummm, never mind. :D But I sure would like to hear about those skeletons! :laugh:


Joe

Well, gldtwmn has been present for at least one wild drunken night of mine in Chicago!!! :laugh: So, she gets the first lady position as a pay off for silence!!!! :laugh:

Come to think of it, I would have to give many Ledgies positions as payback for their silence :eek: :eek: :laugh: :laugh: :nod: :nod:

[stefan]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/kids_primaries/nomination/index.asp?article=what
Strand thank you for your instant reply. In the article I found this quote concerning open primaries- it`s interesting:

"Indiana Republicans can, if they want, vote in the Indiana Democratic primary instead of the Republican primary"

That's what I meant- would be interesting to know what these voters have in mind then... Voting for the supposed best one in case he finally makes it to the White house or chosing Mr.Moron...?
Over here we have no influence in electing the candidates. Circa 500 delegates (called "Bundesparteitag") of the parties decide on their own which one has the largest chances of being elected.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
I'm assuming(I know assume, hehe) you believe this holds true when an op-ed piece from the left is posted that hurls insults at the right too?


Joe

Yes. And let me tell you, I read plenty of leftist publications but rarely do I see hateful rhetoric like that. I'm not just saying that. I read some of the rightist stuff just for balance as well.

[CarneVaca]

Strand, I accept. You're a little farther to the right than I would like, but we'll work on that.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
I'm looking forward to the one on one debates between Bush and Kerry(I know I'm jumping the gun, but I think it will be Kerry).

Oh, it'll be Kerry. He will *slay* Shrub. Shrub won't know what hit him. Ask anyone who's seen Kerry in one-on-one debates, he's fantastic. And some of his debates are routinely referred to as some of the best in political history (even some on Faux News have said so...).

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
If I run, Carne is my VP and gldstwmn my first lady :cool: Those two ought to be able to keep me in check!!!! :laugh:


So, I'm the George Stephanopolous of the bunch?! Just use me and abuse, then throw me away once you get into the White House?!

:laugh: :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by stefan
There's something about these elections I never understood...
Is it true that everyone can vote there (who is entitled to vote in official elections)- I mean not only the official members of the party (in this case the Democrats)?
Uhm if I were a Republican voter then I would want the Democrats to chose the greatest possible moron among the candidates. When he wins these pre elections he would have no chance against the current president. (and vice versa if there`s a Democratic president)
Well at least it seems the democratic voters did so with Bush last time, just that they didn`t expect him to win in the end :laugh:
No but seriously: you can pick your opponents candidate? How does that work...?

In some states there is actually "crossover voting" where regardless of your party affiliation you can vote in the primaries.

[gldstwmn]

Do I get to go shopping? I won't wear matronly clothes.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oops - I bet sadly nothing comes of this.

On another note, the rest fo this article is just the type of just untrue tripe I hate. [

Hehe. I just wanted to make sure everyone was paying attention.;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Do I get to go shopping? I won't wear matronly clothes.:)

Oh No No No - we have been shopping together and I think both know that is not true :laugh: Your inaugural gown will be Prada or, perhaps, a Tom Ford original. I am thinking something black and binding and just naughty enough to send the far religious right into an apoplectic mood :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
So, I'm the George Stephanopolous of the bunch?! Just use me and abuse, then throw me away once you get into the White House?!

:laugh: :wavey:

You will take Karen Hughes' old place and Rob will be the "Karl Rove." Your offices will be next to each other and you will both be equipped with bullhorns to make points to each other :laugh: :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oh No No No - we have been shopping together and I think both know that is not true :laugh: Your inaugural gown will be Prada or, perhaps, a Tom Ford original. I am thinking something black and binding and just naughty enough to send the far religious right into an apoplectic mood :cool:

Now, that's what I'm talking about!:laugh: Wait 'til they see my shoes.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Now, that's what I'm talking about!:laugh: Wait 'til they see my shoes. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Oh the thoughts I'm thinking!!! :cool:

[sodascouts]

Will they be as good as my shoes from Soundstage? Strand, I know you coveted those. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Will they be as good as my shoes from Soundstage? Strand, I know you coveted those. ;)

:eek: :eek: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Will they be as good as my shoes from Soundstage?

I can't remember your shoes Nancy. What were they?

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I can't remember your shoes Nancy. What were they?

No doubt you were too captivated by my beautiful face and fascinating conversation to look down. ;)

Here is a pic of the same style that I got offline. Actually, these are cheap knockoffs, lol, but I still think I looked good in them!

http://www.buckinghamnicks.net/images/myshoes.gif

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
. . . but I still think I looked good in them!

http://www.buckinghamnicks.net/images/myshoes.gif

Oh YEAH YOU DID !!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
No doubt you were too captivated by my beautiful face and fascinating conversation to look down. ;)

Here is a pic of the same style that I got offline. Actually, these are cheap knockoffs, lol, but I still think I looked good in them!

http://www.buckinghamnicks.net/images/myshoes.gif

Of course! Those look very familiar now.:)