Kerry/Edwards 2004!!!

[Jason T.]

It's official! Isn't it great? I would of gone with Hillary myself, but this is okay. :cool:

[estranged4life]

I like Sen.Edwards so this "may" finally help me to decide on who to vote for and who NOT to vote for.

[dissention]

Anyone see the New York Post today?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No surprise that it's a newspaper owned by Fox News. ;)

As for the new ticket, I'm thrilled. Edwards just might give Cheney his 5th heart attack. I'm glad he didn't go with Clark, he would've had a lot of **** to deal with. As for the critics who complain about Edwards because "he has no foreign experience," that never stopped you from voting for George W. Bush. What was his foreign experience? He had none. :wavey:

[dissention]

It's already on eBay! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1439&item=2255369744&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

[Jason T.]

It's already on eBay! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I had to save that picture.

I can't believe the Republicans are using the McCain 1st-choice thing; it is just sick and wrong. It makes sense though, they have absolutely nothing else to work off... :laugh:

[Patti]

Great news! I like Edwards and he is who I was hoping Kerry would choose. I really think Edwards will appeal to some of the swing voters in a way Kerry could not.

Patti

[dissention]

I had to save that picture.

I can't believe the Republicans are using the McCain 1st-choice thing; it is just sick and wrong. It makes sense though, they have absolutely nothing else to work off... :laugh:

Those McCain statements simply have no basis in fact. How do they know he was the first choice? They don't, they're just playing politics. Just because someone was courted, it doesn't mean they were the first choice. However, if that's how they want to play it, we might as well say that Clark, Vilsack, and Gephardt were Kerry's first choices, too. :rolleyes:

Turn on MSNBC, Mitt Romney is on talking about how Cheney has more character and moral fiber than Edwards. *puke*

Again, what foreign experience did Bush have? NONE. They're such hypocrtical douchebags.

[Jason T.]

...Mitt Romney is on talking about how Cheney has more character and moral fiber than Edwards. *puke*

Again, what foreign experience did Bush have? NONE. They're such hypocrtical douchebags.

Ha! I for some reason can't recall the last time John Edwards had to have his speeches bleeped out for inappropriate content. As for Bush having foreign experience -- what the (to quote Cheney) f***?

[Jason T.]

Did y'all see that part in Kerry's speech today when John nearly took out Teresa with his arm? She just kept backing away...she's so awesome! :D

[dissention]

Did y'all see that part in Kerry's speech today when John nearly took out Teresa with his arm? She just kept backing away...she's so awesome! :D

:nod:

Personally, I would've loved to see him pick his wife as the VP. :laugh: I totally love that woman. She says what she feels and is always brutally honest and warm. LOVE Teresa!

[strandinthewind]

Again, what foreign experience did Bush have? NONE. They're such hypocrtical douchebags.

As Gov. of Texas, W routinely dealt with Mexico and to a lesser degree Central America. Those are foreign nations. So, W had experience dealing with foreign nations prior to becoming President. So, you are incorrect ( :eek: ) when you say W had "none." The correct assertion should have been, Gov. W's foreign experience with dealing with Mexico and Central America did not prepare him for dealing with the rest of the world because [insert reasons here] - :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Caveat - I dislike Bush, but he had foreign experience. Interestingly, Cheney had tons of it.

[strandinthewind]

I think Edwards is a good choice. He is a candidate that is far more human in the way the public perceives him than Kerry. So, hopefully, he will sway the needed voters in the five or so swing states. Also, he may be able to swing the voters in the panhandle of Florida, which is very Southernesq. in its population as opposed to South Florida.

[strandinthewind]

Those McCain statements simply have no basis in fact. How do they know he was the first choice? They don't, they're just playing politics. Just because someone was courted, it doesn't mean they were the first choice. However, if that's how they want to play it, we might as well say that Clark, Vilsack, and Gephardt were Kerry's first choices, too. :rolleyes:


At least four anchor persons I have seen have stated it was widely known but not officially documented that Kerry courted McCain. These would be people in the know. AND - these anchors were on CNN, so it is not like it was Fox saying it, alhough Fox did indeed say it :cool: So, I think Kerry probably did approach McCain to test the waters, but that does not mean Kerry ever said McCain was his first choice.

[dissention]

As Gov. of Texas, W routinely dealt with Mexico and to a lesser degree Central America. Those are foreign nations. So, W had experience dealing with foreign nations prior to becoming President. So, you are incorrect ( :eek: ) when you say W had "none." The correct assertion should have been, Gov. W's foreign experience with dealing with Mexico and Central America did not prepare him for dealing with the rest of the world because [insert reasons here] - :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Caveat - I dislike Bush, but he had foreign experience. Interestingly, Cheney had tons of it.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'll let that one go, I'm too elated right now that Edwards is our next VP. ;) You knew exactly what I meant when I said he had none. Yeah, having cocktails with Mexican officials makes him a real pro in foreign affairs around the world. :rolleyes: Having minor dealings with Mexico doesn't constitute having much foreign experience and you know it. That's what I meant. Interestingly, what the pundits fail to tell the people is that Edwards has had more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he sought office. For christs sake, he has a hand in drafting foreign policy.

[dissention]

At least four anchor persons I have seen have stated it was widely known but not officially documented that Kerry courted McCain. These would be people in the know. AND - these anchors were on CNN, so it is not like it was Fox saying it, alhough Fox did indeed say it :cool: So, I think Kerry probably did approach McCain to test the waters, but that does not mean Kerry ever said McCain was his first choice.

It's a fact that he courted McCain, just as it's a fact that he courted Clark and Vilsack. However, there's a big difference between courting someone to see if they'd be interested in the job and being someones #1 choice.

So, we agree, what was your point? :confused: :xoxo:

PS: I don't give a rat's ass what Faux News says, EVER. They are not a source of news, they're a source of conservative propaganda and tabloid entertainment. The fact that they aired an explicit photo of sexual penetration and their sister paper printed a front page headline saying Gephardt has been chosen for VP lends them even less credibility. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

It's a fact tha the courted McCain, just as it's a fact that he courted Clark and Vilsack. However, there's a big difference between courting someone to see if they'd be interested in the job and being someones #1 choice.

So, we agree, what was your point? :confused: :xoxo:

I was just commenting :shrug:

[dissention]

I was just commenting :shrug:

;) :wavey:

And also - if it's Judy Woodruff, Jack Cafferty, or Wolf "Leslie" Blitzer reporting on CNN, it isn't reliable. :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, what the pundits fail to tell the people is that Edwards has had more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he sought office. For christs sake, he has a hand in drafting foreign policy.

Edwards, I am sure, will make no bones about telling that fact himself :nod: :nod:

If we accept the generalyl well accepted principle that the VP is the "attack dog" of the Pres. candidate in that the VP's role traditionally is to dirty himself in a way that the Pres. candidate cannot, then Edwards is a very clever choice. He will debate Cheney. In that debate, Edwards will come across as warm as he historically does. Although he did in the debate against Lieberman, Cheney has not come across warm in years and is seen as bitter and gruf these days. So, although they are both smart men and both capable of holding their own, Edwards will win it if he maintains that charm. Edwards also is a savy trial lawyer, so that will help rebut Cheney's uncsupported conclusions that he asserts with a straight face as facts. I think Cheney will look like a rabid and deluded attack dog, while Edwards will be the charming one that people like. That will make all of the difference in the world IMO. It will be interesting to see.

[GypsySorcerer]

I called this one. :) It definitely was a smart move by the Kerry campaign to pick a Southerner.

[GypsySorcerer]

Edwards, I am sure, will make no bones about telling that fact himself :nod: :nod:

If we accept the generalyl well accepted principle that the VP is the "attack dog" of the Pres. candidate in that the VP's role traditionally is to dirty himself in a way that the Pres. candidate cannot, then Edwards is a very clever choice. He will debate Cheney. In that debate, Edwards will come across as warm as he historically does. Although he did in the debate against Lieberman, Cheney has not come across warm in years and is seen as bitter and gruf these days. So, although they are both smart men and both capable of holding their own, Edwards will win it if he maintains that charm. Edwards also is a savy trial lawyer, so that will help rebut Cheney's uncsupported conclusions that he asserts with a straight face as facts. I think Cheney will look like a rabid and deluded attack dog, while Edwards will be the charming one that people like. That will make all of the difference in the world IMO. It will be interesting to see.

I agree. Unfortunately, in this era of politics, it's not the content of what one says that matters, it's how that content is delivered.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I like Sen.Edwards so this "may" finally help me to decide on who to vote for and who NOT to vote for.


Myself too...I always said if John Edwards were running against Bush I would vote for Edwards, and if it were Kerry vs. Bush I would pick Bush... so this may help me decide things myself....I do like John Edwards a GREAT DEAL..
Chris

[darklinensuit]

As Gov. of Texas, W routinely dealt with Mexico and to a lesser degree Central America. Those are foreign nations.

To folks down here, every place outside of Texas is a foreign nation. ;)

- Jake

[Jason T.]

To folks down here, every place outside of Texas is a foreign nation. ;)

I agree. :thumbsup:

[dissention]

Myself too...I always said if John Edwards were running against Bush I would vote for Edwards, and if it were Kerry vs. Bush I would pick Bush... so this may help me decide things myself....I do like John Edwards a GREAT DEAL..
Chris

I know it must seem like I'm always calling you out on this one particular point ( :laugh: :lol: ), but I just don't understand that. How do you go from supporting John Edwards, a liberal just like John Kerry, to supporting an ultra-conservative right-winger like Bush? The only point in which Kerry and Edwards disagree is free trade, that's it. To go from supproting a liberal to a scary neocon is just unfathomable. I just do not understand it and probably never will. :laugh:

[Merf]

I'm so relieved he chose Edwards because it would have been a MAJOR letdown if he didn't.

Hopefully this will push some undecided voters over to voting for Kerry now. I think this bodes very well for November. :nod:

Oh, and he's the senator from my home state, which is awesome too :)

GO JOHN/JOHN! :blob1:

[GypsySorcerer]

The only point in which Kerry and Edwards disagree is free trade

They also disagree on the death penalty. ;)

[dissention]

Hopefully this will push some undecided voters over to voting for Kerry now. I think this bodes very well for November. :nod:

Well, we already have Chris voting Kerry-Edwards in November! ;) :laugh:

[dissention]

They also disagree on the death penalty. ;)

I read an article back in January where Edwards said he had changed his mind on the death penalty and was now anti-capital punsihment. Who knows, it was probably just a ploy to get us lefties to vote for him. In any case, I don't foresee him being in a position of having any say when it comes to the death penalty for years. If he still supports it when he runs for president in 2012, he won't get my vote. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I read an article back in January where Edwards said he had changed his mind on the death penalty and was now anti-capital punsihment. Who knows, it was probably just a ploy to get us lefties to vote for him. In any case, I don't foresee him being in a position of having any say when it comes to the death penalty for years. If he still supports it when he runs for president in 2012, he won't get my vote. ;)

Kerry is for the death penalty for terrorists. I see no difference. Either you are for it or you are not. I think Kkerry changed his mind to draw in voters and to get on the anti-terrorist bandwagon America is on. Such is politics :cool:

I think people do not like Kerry because he is somber looking, he is seen as an elitist and wealthy man, and unlike W (who is also very wealthy) Kerry is hard to relate to for a lot of people. I am not saying it is right, I am just repeating what the medica has picked up on and what many people I know have said. So, maybe Edwards, who is very personable, will help that part of Kerry's campaign.

I also think, although I like her, Kerry's wife will not play that well in the Midwest and the South. She is very, very wealthy and a comparably outspoken foreigner. The latter in particular will go against her. I do not think that is fair, but I think many will look at it that way.

I am not trying to bring Kerry down. I am just addessing you question of why people can jump from Kerry to Edwards so easily but not support Kerry alone. People do not always vote on the issues. Personality has a lot to do with many peoples' votes. I know you hate him, but many people like W and many people who would not vote for him find him personable. I know you do not, but many do. I think Kerry has the opposite problem. People are turned off by his energy and what they perceive as his cold nature - he appears stiff. I think John Edwards can only help that.

Food for thought. :cool:

[dissention]

Kerry is for the death penalty for terrorists. I see no difference. Either you are for it or you are not. I think Kkerry changed his mind to draw in voters and to get on the anti-terrorist bandwagon America is on. Such is politics :cool:

Hmmmm. And don't you remember when I second-guessed my support of John Kerry because of that very issue? Methinks you don't. I don't agree with the execution of anyone, even Saddam, but the chances of a terrorist being executed on Kerry's watch are slim to none, and Slim just left town. I also think that there is a big difference between supporting the execution of convicted terrorists and supporting the execution of every murderer; Edwards falls into the latter.

As for your analysis of how people vote based on personality, the people who do vote that way should have their rights to vote stripped from them. If they're going to use their votes so haphazardly and in such a trivial manner, they should lose that right.

[strandinthewind]

Hmmmm. And don't you remember when I second-guessed my support of John Kerry because of that very issue? Methinks you don't. I don't agree with the execution of anyone, even Saddam, but the chances of a terrorist being executed on Kerry's watch are slim to none, and Slim just left town. I also think that there is a big difference between supporting the execution of convicted terrorists and supporting the execution of every murderer; Edwards falls into the latter.

No - I remember - But like me, you are settling on the candidate most likely to unseat W. I do not like Kerry that much, but I will vote for him and anyone else in a second if they have the chance to rid us of W and his company and their lathspell and fell deeds.

I think that position on the death penalty is hypocritical because taking of a life is taking of a life. When people start saying well this murder was worse . . . so you get the death penalty, I think that is when the trouble starts :laugh: But, if that works for you - who am I to keep you down. Hopefully, Kerry's stradled position (imagine that :laugh: ) on the DP will not prevent others from voting for him.


As for your analysis of how people vote based on personality, the people who do vote that way should have their rights to vote stripped from them. If they're going to use their votes so haphazardly and in such a trivial manner, they should lose that right.

Is this the great liberal being an elitist :laugh: Personality is just as good as anything to many people. In fat, many people do not even listen to the rhetoric on the issues because politicians have a tendancy to say one thing and do the opposite :shrug:

No one has the right to take anyway anyone's right to vote unless they are in jail or something like that. That is why it is up to you and me and everyone else who thinks issues are more important to educate people :laugh: Plus, if people want to vote for Kerry based on his or Edwards' personality I am all for it because that is one less vote W will get.

[dissention]

I think that position on the death penalty is hypocritical because taking of a life is taking of a life. When people start saying well this murder was worse . . . so you get the death penalty, I think that is when the trouble starts :laugh: But, if that works for you - who am I to keep you down. Hopefully, Kerry's stradled position (imagine that :laugh: ) on the DP will not prevent others from voting for him.

If anything, that position could hurt him when it comes to people like me. There are a lot of far-lefties out there who refuse to vote for anyone who supports any from of capital punishment. :nod:

Is this the great liberal being an elitist :laugh:

Bet your ass.

Personality is just as good as anything. No one has the right to take anyway anyone's right to vote unless they are in jail or something like that. That is why it is up to you and me and everyone else who thinks issues are more important to educate people :laugh:

Personality should be the furthest thing from your mind when you cast a vote for the person you want to lead this country. To say it's as good as anything else is absurd. Vote for the person who supports your stances, not the person who you'd rather have a Bud with. :rolleyes: It's irresponsible voting. We try to educate, but the fact is, people are stubborn. You could tell them the sky is blue, but if they say it's purple, you're 100% in the wrong. People are just assholes, Jason, especially when it comes to politics. :laugh:

As for not ebing able to vote if you're in jail, how in the hell do think the '00 election was stolen from us? Partly because they purged thousands upon thousands of votes for Gore cast by EX-convicts.

[dissention]

Plus, if people want to vote for Kerry based on his or Edwards' personality I am all for it because that is one less vote W will get.

It's still irresponsible and, dare I say, un-American.

[strandinthewind]

Personality should be the furthest thing from your mind when you cast a vote for the person you want to lead this country. To say it's as good as anything else is absurd. Vote for the person who supports your stances, not the person who you'd rather have a Bud with. :rolleyes: It's irresponsible voting. We try to educate, but the fact is, people are stubborn. You could tell them the sky is blue, but if they say it's purple, you're 100% in the wrong. People are just assholes, Jason, especially when it comes to politics. :laugh:

I agree, but many do not see it that way and nothing says they have to :shrug: Its that whole "I can tell a man by his handshake and he looked me in the eye" kind of thing. While I think that is important to a certain extent, I ALWAYS vote for someone based on their voting record, if they have one - nothing else. Because they can say what they want, but they cannot deny the way they voted.

Interestingly, I know people that think my way is just wrong and that the mojo of the candidate is the only way or the party platform is the only way, etc. I think they are wrong as well. Such is politics :laugh:

[dissention]

And you were saying what about his foreign policy experience? :laugh:

Text of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's interview with Andy Hiller,
political correspondent for WHDH-TV in Boston.

Hiller: "Can you name the president of Chechnya?"

Bush: "No, can you?"

Hiller: "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"

Bush: "Yeah, Lee."

Hiller: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Bush: "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots."

Bush: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected--not elected,
this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring
stability to the country and I think that's good news for the
subcontinent."

Hiller: "Can you name him?"

Bush: "General. I can't name the general. General."

Hiller: "And the prime minister of India?"

Bush: "The new prime minister of India is . No. Can you name the
foreign minister of Mexico?"

Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for
president."

Bush: "What I'm suggesting to you is, if you can't name the foreign
minister of Mexico, therefore, you know, you're not capable about what
you do. But the truth of the matter is you are, whether you can or
not."

[strandinthewind]

And you were saying what about his foreign policy experience? :laugh:

Text of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's interview with Andy Hiller,
political correspondent for WHDH-TV in Boston.

Hiller: "Can you name the president of Chechnya?"

Bush: "No, can you?"

Hiller: "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"

Bush: "Yeah, Lee."

Hiller: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"

Bush: "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"

Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots."

Bush: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected--not elected,
this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring
stability to the country and I think that's good news for the
subcontinent."

Hiller: "Can you name him?"

Bush: "General. I can't name the general. General."

Hiller: "And the prime minister of India?"

Bush: "The new prime minister of India is . No. Can you name the
foreign minister of Mexico?"

Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for
president."

Bush: "What I'm suggesting to you is, if you can't name the foreign
minister of Mexico, therefore, you know, you're not capable about what
you do. But the truth of the matter is you are, whether you can or
not."

All I am saying is he had some dealing with Mexico and Central America - I am not saying he was in any way proficient. I was just saying you were wrong (which you know I LOVE doing :woohoo: :laugh: :p ) when you said he had "none" - I knew what you meant, I was just yanking your chain :cool:

[estranged4life]

ya left out the ending of this exchange:

Hiller: "Can you name your VP?"

Bush: "Yeah, He's (a) Dick."


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Btw, I saw Cheney was at the latest Yankees/Red Sox saga, He was wearing the ever popular NY hat, Probably yelling "F--k you" to those pesky Red Sox (I know I would...) :lol: :laugh: :lol:

[dissention]

All I am saying is he had some dealing with Mexico and Central America - I am not saying he was in any way proficient. I was just saying you were wrong (which you know I LOVE doing :woohoo: :laugh: :p ) when you said he had "none" - I knew what you meant, I was just yanking your chain :cool:

So, he had dealings with Mexico and didn't even know who the foreign minister was? :lol:

****, even I know that. Should I post the interview where he didn't know who the Canadian prime minister was, then someone on his staff told him Paul Martin, and he referred to him as Martini thorughout the interview? Good christ.

[dissention]

Oh, and I simply can't wait for the Bush camp and all the pundits to attack Edwards over his history as a trial lawyer:

http://www.dailykos.net/images/mccain_praise.gif

(from the back of Edwards' book "Four Trials")

On another note, McCain's Chief of Staff publicly stated today that McCain was never offered the VP slot.

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Here we go - didn't take Rove long did it :laugh: - I love the whole W is too good to get in the mud to sling it with the RNC :rolleyes: Of course, it is the same way on the D side. Also, to be fair, this is just one article on Fox. The main page has many about Kerry and some are positive - fair and balanced you know :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124844,00.html

GOP Labels Edwards 'Disingenuous'

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) said Tuesday he welcomed John Edwards (search) as John Kerry's (search) running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, even as Bush's party sharply criticized the North Carolina senator.

"I look forward to a good, spirited contest," the president said. But his re-election campaign and his party immediately cranked up their criticism of the North Carolina Democrat, calling him "disingenuous" and "unaccomplished."

Bush spoke with reporters in the Oval Office during a photo opportunity with the prime minister of Iceland, David Oddsson. He said Vice President Dick Cheney (search) had called Edwards to say he welcomed him to the race, "as do I."

Cheney placed the call just after 10 a.m. EDT to congratulate him, said Cheney's spokesman, Kevin Kellems.

"He thought it was the appropriate thing to do, and recalled the president having phoned Senator Kerry at a similar juncture, when it was clear he would be the nominee," Kellems said. He described the conversation as "brief and cordial."

"The vice president said that he looked forward to their debate, and a spirited campaign that he hopes will reflect credit on the process," Kellems said.

Cheney and Edwards are scheduled to debate in Cleveland on Oct. 5.

Bush sidestepped a reporter's question about whether he agreed with the Republican National Committee's charge that Edwards was "disingenuous." But his chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, did not disavow the characterization.

"Is there something in there that you're disputing?" McClellan said. "It's perfectly reasonable to talk about the differences on the issues and to talk about the record."

Bush travels to Edwards' home state Wednesday to meet with judicial nominees whom he says Senate Democrats have blocked from being confirmed.

[dissention]

Anyone catch Bush's reaction to the announcement that Edwards was picked as VP?

http://www.davidicke.net/theylive/humor/gwparty.gif

...he hit Karen Hughes up for some blow a few minutes later, but Cheney had already snorted it all. ;)

[strandinthewind]

So, he had dealings with Mexico and didn't even know who the foreign minister was? :lol:

Actually, W asked the reporter if the reporter knew who the foreign minister on Mexico was. W was not asked that question :wavey: :D :angel: :woohoo:

[Patti]

I am LOL at the line that the Republican party and Bush's election campaign saying EDWARDS is unaccomplished--HELLO? Was Dubya the poster child for accomplishments before he took office? Hell, I can't think of too many accomplishments since then. Oh well, good for a chuckle anyway.

Patti

[dissention]

But his re-election campaign and his party immediately cranked up their criticism, calling him "disingenuous" and "unaccomplished."

Why are they badmouthing their own candidate like that? Doesn't bode well for their campaign. Surely they can't be talking about Edwards. Not the man who went from a poor, middle-class background to law school to become one of the most successful trial lawyers in America to the Senate to then become a vice presidential candidate. Not to mention that he helps draft foreign policies, economic policies, and domestic policies. Surely they can't call him "unaccomplished."

They must be talking about the little rich boy who dodged Vietnam, got involved with cocaine, deserted the Natioanl Guard, became an alcoholic, was arrested for drunk driving, had his license suspended, oversaw numerous oil companies that went belly up, lied on his jury duty papers, cut veteran funding a whopping 30%, refuses to fund stem cell research, let bin Laden escape, launched an unjust war on a poor nation, killed hundreds upon hundreds of our men and women, killed thousands of Iraqi men, women and children, wants to outlaw abortion, and who wants to write hate into the Constitution. We all know he's accomplished.

[dissention]

Actually, W asked the reporter if the reporter knew who the foreign minister on Mexico was. W was not asked that question :wavey: :D :angel: :woohoo:

I see, my mistake. :wavey:

He's still an idiot, though. :D

[strandinthewind]

I see, my mistake. :wavey:

He's still an idiot, though. :D

He is that!!!!!!!!

[Tango]

It's official! Isn't it great? I would of gone with Hillary myself, but this is okay. :cool:

Not Gephardt, not McCain (that was one of the funniest jokes ever, although I like McCain), not "the other" Clinton. They totally skipped Michael Moore?! LOL! One positive aspect of Edwards is that he brings a bit of youthful vitality to the ticket. Cheney isn't exactly bringing vigor or votes to Bush. It will be interesting to see the polls in a few weeks.

[Patti]

It will be interesting to see the polls in a few weeks.

Reportedly, the Bush campaign is expecting Kerry to get a 15% bounce from his announcement of a VP. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens.

Patti

[Tango]

Reportedly, the Bush campaign is expecting Kerry to get a 15% bounce from his announcement of a VP. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens.

Patti

Makes me wonder if Bush might seek to replace Cheney (or if Cheney will "step down") and Bush seek to get McCain. Although McCain has openly criticized Bush on a laundry list of items (air pollution, the war, etc), McCain has publicly stated he will be supporting the re-election of the President. I did read of McCain's endorsement of Edwards literally on Edward's book jacket. It is definitely more interesting now!

[Patti]

[QUOTE=Tango]Makes me wonder if Bush might seek to replace Cheney (or if Cheney will "step down") and Bush seek to get McCain. QUOTE]

I sure hope McCain wouldn't join the ticket. That would make me very nervous! Even if that scenario played out I can't see McCain agreeing to be on the ticket. He does NOT like Bush and McCain is pretty much of a rogue character in a lot of ways. While I think it would be a popular choice, I don't see it happening (wiping sweat from her brow) - WHEW!

Patti

[Tango]

I sure hope McCain wouldn't join the ticket. That would make me very nervous! Even if that scenario played out I can't see McCain agreeing to be on the ticket. He does NOT like Bush and McCain is pretty much of a rogue character in a lot of ways. While I think it would be a popular choice, I don't see it happening (wiping sweat from her brow) - WHEW!

Patti

I'd actually enjoy that scenario. It would totally shake up the election - and with less heart ache than Carne's draft! :shocked:

[dissention]

Makes me wonder if Bush might seek to replace Cheney (or if Cheney will "step down") and Bush seek to get McCain. Although McCain has openly criticized Bush on a laundry list of items (air pollution, the war, etc), McCain has publicly stated he will be supporting the re-election of the President. I did read of McCain's endorsement of Edwards literally on Edward's book jacket. It is definitely more interesting now!

There's quite a sharp contrast between how McCain publicly speaks of Bush and how he really feels about him when there isn't a camera in front of him. It's a pretty well-known fact that McCain despises Bush and that he won't even vote for him come November. One look at how Bush viciously and sadistically attacked him with such venom and glee will tell you everything you need to know about their relatioship; it's a hate-hate one.

[gldstwmn]

I know it must seem like I'm always calling you out on this one particular point ( :laugh: :lol: ), but I just don't understand that. How do you go from supporting John Edwards, a liberal just like John Kerry, to supporting an ultra-conservative right-winger like Bush? The only point in which Kerry and Edwards disagree is free trade, that's it. To go from supproting a liberal to a scary neocon is just unfathomable. I just do not understand it and probably never will. :laugh:

Because Kerry is a Yankee, Brahmin, fancy pants elitist liberal, darling. It's all in the phrasing and the accent or the lack thereof. ;)

[Tango]

There's quite a sharp contrast between how McCain publicly speaks of Bush and how he really feels about him when there isn't a camera in front of him. It's a pretty well-known fact that McCain despises Bush and that he won't even vote for him come November. One look at how Bush viciously and sadistically attacked him with such venom and glee will tell you everything you need to know about their relatioship; it's a hate-hate one.

Kennedy/Johnson. It's all politics.

[dissention]

Because Kerry is a Yankee, Brahmin, fancy pants elitist liberal, darling. It's all in the phrasing and the accent or the lack thereof. ;)

;) :wavey:

I love how Southerners look down upon Yankee politicians, it cracks me up. Watch twenty minutes of Washington Journal and you'll hear the most hateful and venomous calls come in from the South. :laugh:

[dissention]

Kennedy/Johnson. It's all politics.

It is politics, but McCain would never accept a VP slot from Bush. Not only does he despise the man, but he knows that if he wanted to, he could strike out on his own with better numbers than Bush EVER had.

[estranged4life]

;) :wavey:

I love how Southerners look down upon Yankee politicians, it cracks me up. Watch twenty minutes of Washington Journal and you'll hear the most hateful and venomous calls come in from the South. :laugh:

some Southerners still think the Civil War hasnt ended yet, And most have absolute hatred for anything remotely related to those who are considered "Yankees".

[strandinthewind]

;) :wavey:

I love how Southerners look down upon Yankee politicians, it cracks me up. Watch twenty minutes of Washington Journal and you'll hear the most hateful and venomous calls come in from the South. :laugh:

. . . and the horse face rude carpet bagger Yankees do not look down on the majority of us as illiterate red neck hicks who have to take off our shoes to count above ten :mad:

That sword cuts both ways :laugh:

Seriously, it would be hard for a granite faced very rich Mass. Teddy Kennedyesq. liberal with a foreign wife to win in the South. Edwards will go a LONG way toward making that more of a reality. But, W will still win the majority of the Southern States because of the Southern Baptists and Kerry's pro-choice position. I have heard reports of MANY Southern Baptist preachers saying W is the only way to vote because Kerry supports the going to hell homo's and the abortionists and W is ridding us of the turbanheaded (they are all the same you know :rolleyes: ) terrrorists. That is all the vast majority of those congregations need to hear and they are the vast majority of the Southern voters. Sad, but true.

Edwards may, however, get Kerry the state of Florida. That is certainly a very real possibility now.

[dissention]

. . . and the horse face rude carpet bagger Yankees do not look down on the majority of us as illiterate red neck hicks who have to take off our shoes to count above ten :mad:

That sword cuts both ways :laugh:

No, we don't look down upon you, we just think you're out of touch with reality. Like Brian said, a lot of Southerners still think the Civil War is going on. :laugh: (you obviously don't fit into this, Jason, you're a Yankee at heart)

Seriously, it would be hard for a granite faced very rich Mass. Teddy Kennedyesq. liberal with a foreign wife to win in the South. Edwards will go a LONG way toward making that more of a reality. But, W will still win the majority of the Southern States because of the Southern Baptists and Kerry's pro-choice position. I have heard reports of MANY Southern Baptist preachers saying W is the only way to vote because Kerry supports the going to hell homo's and the abortionists and W is ridding us of the turbanheaded (they are all the same you know :rolleyes: ) terrrorists. That is all the vast majority of those congregations need to hear and they are the vast majority of the Southern voters. Sad, but true.

Kinda funny how the Vatican just released a statement saying that it's okay to vote for pro-choice politicians. :laugh: But you Southerners didn't get that memo, eh? :laugh: Again, the right-wingers down there are simply out of touch with reality. They live in very different world from those on the coasts.

[dissention]

some Southerners still think the Civil War hasnt ended yet, And most have absolute hatred for anything remotely related to those who are considered "Yankees".

:laugh:

I bought Cold Mountain this past weekend and couldn't help but roll my eyes at the joy of the Southerners who were so incredibly excited to go to war with us bastard Yankees. I just kept thinking, They tell us to be proud of this American history? Please. Hand me a bucket. And for textbooks to claim that the Civil War ended slavery is just the cherry on top. One of the most ridiculous and asinine things I've ever heard. :nod:

[estranged4life]

But, W will still win the majority of the Southern States because of the Southern Baptists and Kerry's pro-choice position. I have heard reports of MANY Southern Baptist preachers saying W is the only way to vote because Kerry supports the going to hell homo's and the abortionists and W is ridding us of the turbanheaded (they are all the same you know :rolleyes: ) terrrorists. That is all the vast majority of those congregations need to hear and they are the vast majority of the Southern voters. Sad, but true.


yer above comment sounds like Oklahoma to me.

My home state is 60% registered Democratic voters (Registered Demos outnumber Repubs 3-to-1), But they will not vote for Kerry/Edwards (The last time a Democrat carried OK in a Presidential election was in 1960, 10 years before I was born)...

OK Democrats are usually middle aged, pro-lifers, pro-military, anti-gay Southern Baptist bible thumpers that dislike anyone who was associated with the Clinton years in office or anyone from "up North".

If these middle aged citizens werent so scared of losing their "Social Security" (Which the Demos here used to use as their main issue years back) they would nearly all be Conservatives...Liberal, they are definitely not!

[strandinthewind]

Kinda funny how the Vatican just released a statement saying that it's okay to vote for pro-choice politicians. :laugh: But you Southerners didn't get that memo, eh? :laugh: Again, the right-wingers down there are simply out of touch with reality. They live in very different world from those on the coasts.

For the record, a significant number of Southern Baptists and Pentacostals all over the country think Catholics are Mary worshipping idolaters whose true focal point of worship in the Papal king in Rome - I have heard the word Papist more the once in my life LOL :laugh:

A friend of mine's sister and brother in law moved to Albany, GA and went to what they had heard was a "moderate" Baptist church. They were looking a church in their new community. Sure enough the forst thing out of the preacher's mouth was God loves W and hates everyone else exp. that soddomite loving and abortionist Kerry. My friend's family got up in the middle of it and walked out. Good for them IMO.

[strandinthewind]

:laugh:

I bought Cold Mountain this past weekend and couldn't help but roll my eyes at the joy of the Southerners who were so incredibly excited to go to war with us bastard Yankees. I just kept thinking, They tell us to be proud of this American history? Please. Hand me a bucket. And for textbooks to claim that the Civil War ended slavery is just the cherry on top. One of the most ridiculous and asinine things I've ever heard. :nod:

No one likes to admit it, but the Civil War was about states' rights. The states' rights in question just happened to be slavery. The taking of that right (remember we are talking 1860 here :eek: :laugh: ) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The Southern and other states were bucking a strong federal govt., which they somewhat correctly thought the U.S. Const. did not empower. They had seen it building up and growing stronger. A few other states had thought openly about suceeding on other states' rights issues. But, the South was the only section that ever did. Interestingly, there is a county in GA that has still never officially rejoined the Union :laugh: :rolleyes:

But, the war is over. The South lost. The fed. govt. went on to be far more than ever envisioned by the framers of the Const. But, that is the way it is and has been for many, many years now. People just need to get over it and accept it IMO.

[Tango]

For the record . . . God loves W and hates everyone else exp. that soddomite loving and abortionist Kerry. My friend's family got up in the middle of it and walked out. Good for them IMO.

For the record, it sounds like that minister totally missed the "for God so loved the world" verse. Interesting how folks pick and choose their "charley pitch fork verses" and miss out on the whole picture. :(

[estranged4life]

:laugh:

I bought Cold Mountain this past weekend and couldn't help but roll my eyes at the joy of the Southerners who were so incredibly excited to go to war with us bastard Yankees. I just kept thinking, They tell us to be proud of this American history? Please. Hand me a bucket. And for textbooks to claim that the Civil War ended slavery is just the cherry on top. One of the most ridiculous and asinine things I've ever heard. :nod:

I love Civil War history but all that we are taught in "US History Books" in high school, is a bunch of BS...The "Oklahoma History" books on the otherhand have a more accurate take on the truth (I loved OK History in High School).

The Cherokee Nation, The Chickasaw & Choctaw fought alongside the Confederacy with other tribes who were originally from the South and forced from their lands.

These Indian tribes had absolute hatred of the Union and fought in hopes that if the Union were indeed defeated (As the Confederacy had promised) that the Confederacy would deliver on their promise to return land the Union unlawfully stole...

But, A vengeful President Jackson remembered the tribes that were Pro-Confederate, And upon his orders had his "blue-coats" cavalaries (One lead by the infamous Gen.George Custer, Who was once based at Ft.Gibson, OK, Which is the home of my Father's family) to "pay back those damned redskins for their betrayals to the Union."

The rest is one sick history...

Oh, And for the record, Most Indian tribes, Who fought along the C.S.A. NEVER took/owned slaves (As many have claimed in the past...That would be the Plains Indians who took slaves.) they executed any prisoners they took. They fought in hopes of receiving their ancestral lands back, Nothing more.

[dissention]

Interestingly, there is a county in GA that has still never officially rejoined the Union :laugh: :rolleyes:

OMG, my county in MA is passing a petition around to secede from the state. :laugh: They are furious over how conservative the Republicans are trying to make such a liberal state. The group that is overseeing the petition released a statement saying that our rights are being taken away and that we are not being properly represented. My name is #6 on the petition, too. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

For the record, it sounds like that minister totally missed the "for God so loved the world" verse. Interesting how folks pick and choose their "charley pitch fork verses" and miss out on the whole picture. :(
These people are all about the money and power. They will never admit that Christ would be appalled if He saw them and how they twisted His words. But, if you want to fill your church, preach hate :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

OMG, my county in MA is passing a petition around to secede from the state. :laugh: They are furious over how conservative the Republicans are trying to make such a liberal state. The group that is overseeing the petition released a statement saying that our rights are being taken away and that we are not being properly represented. My name is #6 on the petition, too. :laugh:

This action makes you a states rights Southern rebel at heart - you realize this don't you :laugh: :cool: :wavey:

[dissention]

These people are all about the money and power. They will never admit that Christ would be appalled if He saw them and how they twisted His words. But, if you want to fill your church, preach hate :shrug:

I would've liked to have seen a Kerry/Christ ticket, myself. :wavey:

[dissention]

This action makes you a states rights Southern rebel at heart - you realize this don't you :laugh: :cool: :wavey:

:laugh:

Nope, I'm for citizens rights, doll. And we're losing them as we speak, all around the country. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I would've liked to have seen a Kerry/Christ ticket, myself. :wavey:

He is busy running as the third on the Bush Cheney ticket :laugh: PUUHHLLEEXZZZZZZZEEEEEE

[Jason T.]

Christ is an independent... :p

[darklinensuit]

I would've liked to have seen a Kerry/Christ ticket, myself. :wavey:

Some nut would kill Kerry just to get Jesus moved from V.P. to Pres. ;)

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

. . . and the horse face rude carpet bagger Yankees do not look down on the majority of us as illiterate red neck hicks who have to take off our shoes to count above ten :mad:

That sword cuts both ways :laugh:

See, Jason, this Yankee gives you more credit than that. :nod:

(I just figured you took off your pants to count higher than ten. :p )

[Johnny Stew]

By the way, in regards to the discussion of Bush's support from the Southern Baptists, here's an interesting article.
Though somehow I doubt even this will show them what kind of administration he's really running....

Baptists angry at Bush campaign tactics
NASHVILLE (AP) — The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination closely aligned with President Bush, said it was offended by the Bush-Cheney campaign's effort to use church rosters for campaign purposes.
"I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," he said. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way."

The Bush campaign defended a memo in which it sought to mobilize church members by providing church directories to the campaign, arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives, and talking to various religious groups about the campaign.

Other religious organizations also criticized the document as inappropriate, suggesting that it could jeopardize churches' tax-exempt status by involving them in partisan politics.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the document, distributed to campaign staff, was well within the law.

"People of faith have a right to take part in the political process, and we're reaching out to every supporter of President Bush to become involved in the campaign," Stanzel said.

One section of the document lists 22 "coalition coordinator" duties and lays out a timeline for various activities targeting religious voters. By July 31, for example, the coordinator is to:

_Send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney '04 headquarters or give to a BC04 field representative.

_Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

_Recruit 5 people in your church to help with the voter registration project.

_Talk to your pastor about holding a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the effort "is a shameless attempt to misuse and abuse churches for partisan political ends." Lynn said his organization would be "watching closely to see how this plays out in the pews."

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group that has been critical of the Christian right, said the document was "totally inappropriate."

"We are alarmed that this initiative by the Bush-Cheney campaign could lure religious organizations and religious leaders into dangerous territory where they risk losing their tax-exempt status and could be violating the law," Gaddy said.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said "efforts aimed at transforming houses of worship into political campaign offices stink to high heaven."

None of those groups, however, has been as supportive of the Bush administration as the Nashville-based Southern Baptists.

Bush spoke to the Southern Baptists' recent national convention, by video link, for the third year in a row. Outgoing SBC President Jack Graham called the president "a man of personal faith whose leadership is great for America."

On Friday, Land said: "It's one thing for a church member motivated by exhortations to exercise his Christian citizenship to go out and decide to work on the Bush campaign or the Kerry campaign. It's another and totally inappropriate thing for a political campaign to ask workers who may be church members to provide church member information through the use of directories to solicit partisan support."

[strandinthewind]

See, Jason, this Yankee gives you more credit than that. :nod:

(I just figured you took off your pants to count higher than ten. :p )

and I do not have to use my fingers or toes to get there! :woohoo: :eek: :p :laugh:

BTW - are people from the midwest Yankees?

[GypsySorcerer]

yer above comment sounds like Oklahoma to me.

My home state is 60% registered Democratic voters (Registered Demos outnumber Repubs 3-to-1), But they will not vote for Kerry/Edwards (The last time a Democrat carried OK in a Presidential election was in 1960, 10 years before I was born)...

OK Democrats are usually middle aged, pro-lifers, pro-military, anti-gay Southern Baptist bible thumpers that dislike anyone who was associated with the Clinton years in office or anyone from "up North".

If these middle aged citizens werent so scared of losing their "Social Security" (Which the Demos here used to use as their main issue years back) they would nearly all be Conservatives...Liberal, they are definitely not!


Sounds a lot like KY. Here, the majority of voters are registered Democrats, but many are social conservatives.

[dissention]

Christ is an independent... :p

If Christ ever existed, he was the ultimate liberal. :nod: But the religious right would never believe that...

[dissention]

Sounds a lot like KY. Here, the majority of voters are registered Democrats, but many are social conservatives.

Correction: they're Republicans who haven't officially switched parties. :xoxo:

[dissention]

Wow. This comes directly from the co-founder of The Carlyle Group:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html

...And if Bush wants to compare his pre-government experience to John Edwards', he may not want to ask David Rubenstein to be a character witness. This is how the co-founder and managing director of the Carlyle Group remembered his first meeting with the man who would be president in a speech last year:

"But when we were putting the board together, somebody came to me and said, look there is a guy who would like to be on the board. He's kind of down on his luck a bit. Needs a job. Needs a board position. Needs some board positions. Could you put him on the board? Pay him a salary and he'll be a good board member and be a loyal vote for the management and so forth.

"I said well we're not usually in that business. But okay, let me meet the guy. I met the guy. I said I don't think he adds that much value. We'll put him on the board because -- you know -- we'll do a favor for this guy; he's done a favor for us. We put him on the board and spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years -- you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company. He said, well I think I'm getting out of this business anyway. And I don't really like it that much. So I'm probably going to resign from the board.

"And I said, thanks -- didn't think I'd ever see him again. His name is George W. Bush. He became President of the United States. So you know if you said to me, name 25 million people who would maybe be President of the United States, he wouldn't have been in that category. So you never know. Anyway, I haven't been invited to the White House for any things."

[GypsySorcerer]

Correction: they're Republicans who haven't officially switched parties. :xoxo:

Well, they're fiscally liberal and socially conservative, if that makes any sense. :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

As for your analysis of how people vote based on personality, the people who do vote that way should have their rights to vote stripped from them. If they're going to use their votes so haphazardly and in such a trivial manner, they should lose that right.


Sure you can say that...but when a voter agrees with points on both parties...it is hard to decide...I'm almost to the point to where I would just like to see who wins, and hope for the best...I've debated this before, and now you will never understand probably why I flip flop...I dont either really...Possibly I always lean to the republicans because my whole family are republicans to the bone (my mom has a Bush/Cheney sign in our yard), and you hear so much from each side...I dunno....It's really just a matter for me of doing some more research (not anti bush research or anti kerry research) simply factual standpoints on the issues (unfortunately all the candidates seem to want to discuss is Iraq)...and make a decision soon...I've already expressed my dissatisfaction with some of Kerry's points, as well as Bush's...so that's that..from watching the Democratic debates during the Primaries and really closely following that election I just seemed to like Edwards better than Kerry, in the debates he made valid points, and seemed to in ways distinquish himself from Kerry in ways...
I really don't know why I'm drawn to Bush a lot, maybe I like his personality, I dunno...I need some time to think about this I guess

Chris

[strandinthewind]

BTW - here is the letter Kerry sent via email to announce the VP selection.

Dear Jason,

In just a few minutes, I will announce that Senator John Edwards will join me as my running-mate on the Democratic ticket as a candidate for vice president of the United States. Teresa and I could not be more excited that John and Elizabeth Edwards will be our partners in our journey to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

You are the heart and soul of our campaign. You've shattered records and expectations every step of the way. Every time someone said you couldn't do it, you proved them wrong. Because of your incredible grassroots energy and commitment, I wanted to make the first official announcement of my decision to you -- more than one million online supporters at johnkerry.com.

I want you to know why I'm excited about running for president with John Edwards by my side. John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class. In the Senate, he worked to reform our intelligence, to combat bioterrorism, and keep our military strong. John reaches across party lines and speaks to the heart of America -- hope and optimism. Throughout his own campaign for President, John spoke about the great divide in this country -- the "Two Americas" -- that exists between those who are doing well today and those who are struggling to make it from day to day. And I am so proud that we're going to build one America together.

In the next 120 days and in the administration that follows, John Edwards and I will be fighting for the America we love. We'll be fighting to give the middle class a voice by providing good paying jobs and affordable health care. We'll be fighting to make America energy independent. We'll be fighting to build a strong military and lead strong alliances, so young Americans are never put in harm's way because we insisted on going it alone.

I can't tell you how proud I am to have John Edwards on my team, or how eager I am for the day this fall when he stands up for our vision and goes toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney.

This is the most important election of our lifetime, and a defining moment in our history. With you by our side every day of this campaign, John and I will lead the most spirited presidential campaign America has ever seen, and fight to lead our nation in a new and better direction.

Thank you,


John Kerry

To contact John Kerry for President, please click here. Please do not reply to this message.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

One thing I have researched about Kerry is his issue with college and tuition, which I really think is a good idea...here's what he wants to do, in a summary :

As part of his “State Tax Relief and Education Fund” Kerry will help states struggling to bridge deficits resulting from Bush’s economic policies with $25 billion to stop the education cuts and tuition increases across the country.

"Too many young people in America are either not planning to go to college or are not prepared when they get there. Many grow up believing that a college education is out of reach. John Kerry is proposing a new ‘I Have a Dream’ scholarship that provides an additional $1,000 for students to participate in early intervention programs to prepare for college."

"John Kerry’s “College Opportunity Tax Credit” will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees at a public college or university. Kerry’s tax credit will be refundable for our most economically vulnerable students and for those who receive other credits. "


As a college student that pays a lot out myself, I must say these sound like fantastic ideas..

Chris

[Rob67]

Well, they're fiscally liberal and socially conservative, if that makes any sense. :laugh:


Now THAT is a strange combination.... :)

Rob :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Christ is an independent... :p

Not gonna touch that one... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

See, Jason, this Yankee gives you more credit than that. :nod:

(I just figured you took off your pants to count higher than ten. :p )

Oh my! It really is getting deep in here. :shocked: :lol:

[Johnny Stew]

BTW - are people from the midwest Yankees?

Some people consider PA to be "midwest," but I definitely don't.

Funny anecdote... a gentleman from Connecticut called the library recently, looking for some info in regards to genealogical research he's doing.
Apparently he's tracked down a great-grandmother who must have lived in this area, but he doesn't have an exact town name.
He checked a map, and we seemed to be the closest to the general area in question, so he called our library.

Anyway, he wanted me to call him back if I found any useful info... and he asked me (twice) what time-zone we were in.
I have to admit that I was a little surprised, and told him that we're in the same timezone as he, to which he replied, "Oh, I thought PA was a lot more towards the midwest than that." :shocked:
But I guess it might seem that way if you're in Connecticut! :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

Some people consider PA to be "midwest," but I definitely don't.

Funny anecdote... a gentleman from Connecticut called the library recently, looking for some info in regards to genealogical research he's doing.
Apparently he's tracked down a great-grandmother who must have lived in this area, but he doesn't have an exact town name.
He checked a map, and we seemed to be the closest to the general area in question, so he called our library.

Anyway, he wanted me to call him back if I found any useful info... and he asked me (twice) what time-zone we were in.
I have to admit that I was a little surprised, and told him that we're in the same timezone as he, to which he replied, "Oh, I thought PA was a lot more towards the midwest than that." :shocked:
But I guess it might seem that way if you're in Connecticut! :laugh:

Pennsylvania is not a midwestern state. Ohio is.

- Jake

[BrokenWing]

... and he asked me (twice) what time-zone we were in.
I have to admit that I was a little surprised, and told him that we're in the same timezone as he, to which he replied, "Oh, I thought PA was a lot more towards the midwest than that." :shocked:
But I guess it might seem that way if you're in Connecticut! :laugh:

Good grief! That seems particularly sad when you consider that here in eastern PA, we're only a couple hours from the ocean! :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, though, PA may not be as solidly blue as it seems:

Bush Surprisingly Competitive in Pa.

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press

SCRANTON, Pa. - By nearly all accounts, Pennsylvania should be ensconced in John Kerry's column. Yet, President Bush has made this battleground state - and its 21 electoral votes, the nation's fifth-largest prize on Election Day - highly competitive.

The Republican incumbent has spent $7.5 million on campaign ads in the state and has visited 29 times since taking office, with plans to return Friday on a bus tour. Vice President Dick Cheney was in Pittsburgh and Altoona on Sunday. The Bush-Cheney campaign, which opened its state headquarters in Harrisburg in April, claims to have signed up 37,000 volunteers to rally support down to neighborhood precincts.

Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 400,000, Al Gore won the state by 5 percentage points in 2000 and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, hands out millions of dollars through foundations in Pittsburgh.

But voters say they don't know very much about Kerry - even though the four-term Massachusetts senator has spent at least $5.5 million on ads in the state - and will likely base their ballots on whether they support Bush.

"Unfortunately, it's one of those situations where I dislike the president more than I like the current Democratic candidate," said Democratic voter Peter Evans, 46, an actor and self-described "full-time dad" from Philadelphia who was touring Scranton's steam locomotive museum last week with his son, Jamie.

"Do I know a lot about Kerry?" Evans asked. "Not as much as I want to before I actually cast my vote."

Pennsylvania's gritty, industrial cities, its farmlands and its once-thriving anthracite coal towns give both candidates a perfect backdrop to talk about the issues on which they focus nationally: the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.

The state lost a net 31,400 jobs since 2000 and has one of the highest medical malpractice insurance rates in the country, forcing doctors to open practices elsewhere. At least 46 Pennsylvania soldiers have died in Iraq - the third-highest casualty total for any state in the country.

Though a Quinnipiac University survey last month showed Kerry leading Bush in Pennsylvania, 49-43 percent, the race would tighten considerably if independent hopeful Ralph Nader qualifies for the ballot. A three-way contest has Kerry and Bush running neck-and-neck, at 44 percent and 43 percent, respectively, with Nader taking 7 percent, the poll showed. By comparison, Bush and Gore were tied in a poll of Pennsylvania voters at this point in 2000.

Pollster Clay Richards said Kerry's message and campaign issues "haven't really struck home."

Pennsylvanians "don't know much about Kerry going in, other than the fact that he's a senator from New England and has a patrician style," Richards said. "So they haven't really warmed up to him, and he may not be an easy guy to warm up to to begin with."

Kerry's state campaign manager, Tony Podesta, predicted voters will gravitate to the Democrat after he is nominated at his party's convention later this month. He compared Kerry's situation to that of Bill Clinton, in 1992 a little-known governor also trying to oust a Bush from the White House.

"Bush is a very well-known commodity, and they barely know who John Kerry is," Podesta said. "Kerry will do well at the convention and during the debates, and that's where he closes the sale."

Kerry has visited Pennsylvania 10 times since 2003. He kicked off a campaign swing Monday in Pittsburgh, where his wife lives and basically serves as a local matriarch. She is heir to the Heinz ketchup fortune and was married to Pennsylvania Republican Sen. H. John Heinz III when he died in a 1991 plane crash.

Along with Kerry's ads, liberal groups seeking to defeat Bush have spent $4 million.

Pennsylvania is the president's top opportunity to win a state he lost in 2000, said Guy Ciarrocchi, Bush campaign's state executive director. Bush lost by 200,000 votes to Gore in 2000. Two other major battleground states this year, Florida and Ohio, both went for Bush in 2000.

Aware of the strong anti-Bush sentiment among state Democrats, Ciarrocchi said Kerry has run such a lackluster campaign in Pennsylvania that voters have no choice but to base their ballots on Bush.

"The president is identified as being someone of conviction," Ciarrocchi said. "You know he has a vision. Whereas, with Senator Kerry, it's not clear yet what he stands for or what his campaign is going to be about. When you run that kind of campaign, it's hard to attract that kind of passion."

Mary Lee Kerr, of State College, who writes grant applications for nonprofit groups, supported former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean during the Democratic primaries before turning to Kerry. She's hosted house parties for Kerry supporters but is still looking for a defining moment for her candidate.

"I feel like he's got a wide range of issues that he's good on, but he hasn't got that, you know, brand issue quite yet," said Kerr, 42.

"I guess I'm driven by the desire to get rid of Bush, more than the desire to elect Kerry," she said. "But the more I read about him, the more I think he's a pretty good guy."

----------

Hmm, oddly enough, the story sounds a little more hopeful now than when I read it in our paper Tuesday. (I'm assuming it was written before Kerry announced Edwards would be his running mate.) This copy was taken from a California paper's Web site, but I could swear the version that ran in the Scranton Times quoted more undecided voters leaning toward Dubya. :shrug:

The old joke about Pennsylvania is that it's basically Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. This description doesn't account for other eastern cities like Allentown and Scranton, which also tend to be Democrat, and I'm not sure where Erie fits into the mix. But the point is that we basically have some Democratic urban pockets, suburbs that could probably go in either direction, and a lot of rural spaces (and a few cities) that are very red. And getting redder; moderate Republican Arlen Specter barely hung onto his Senate seat in a primary challenge by an ultraconservative. (shudder) It's bad enough that John Heinz's death led to the rise of the odious Rick Santorum as our junior senator. (Now there's a guy we really need to send packing back to Pittsburgh in 2006 :mad: )

At least this time around we have a Democratic governor who will endorse Kerry and counterbalance the two Republican senators who will endorse Dubya. It may be a good sign that Gore managed to carry the state with the two Republican senators AND with Homeland Insecurity guy Tom Ridge still in Harrisburg at the time.

Eileen

[darklinensuit]

The old joke about Pennsylvania is that it's basically Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.

Eileen

Haven't heard this in some time. :lol: So that's how I avoided the Pennsylvania southern accent. :cool:

- Jake From Philly

[strandinthewind]

Here it is from the horse's mouth - BTW I LOVE him for the tax code simplification plan - were it only true :cool:

Transcript: McCain on Kerry

Thursday, July 08, 2004

WASHINGTON — This is a partial transcript of The Tony Snow Show, FOX News Radio, July 7, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.

TONY SNOW, HOST: Welcome back, friends. I’m joined now on the line by Senator John McCain of Arizona. Senator McCain, thanks for joining us.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, R-ARIZ.: Thanks, Tony. Good to be with you.

SNOW: You know Senators Edwards and Kerry. Do you think that these guys naturally have a chemistry?

McCAIN: I’ve never seen them together, you know. I’ve known each one of them separately, because we’ve dealt together on separate issues, but I think they have very different personalities, perhaps they’re complimentary.

SNOW: Well, it’s going to be interesting to see how it blends.

McCAIN: Yes, you know, I think one is obviously from Seneca, South Carolina, the other one is from Boston. I think they have a very different upbringing. But you know, we’ll see, we’ll see. Clinton and Gore had different upbringings. At least to some degree, well maybe not as much as this one.

SNOW: Well, you’re absolutely right though, it’s going to be fun to see. Now John Kerry, is it true that John Kerry asked you to be his vice president?

McCAIN: Uh, no. No, it was never offered.

SNOW: It was never offered. So, it may have been discussed elliptically, but never flat out request.

McCAIN: Never was an offer, no.

SNOW: When you had conversations, did you think it was a little weird that he’d be calling you, even in general terms about this sort of thing?

McCAIN: Well, he and I have been friends for a number of years because of our efforts on POWs and MIAs which was a very hot issue back in the early 90’s, a lot of people have forgotten about it, but it was a- and we worked together to try to resolve that issue and I appreciate the work that he did on it. And, so it’s not unusual for us to have conversations.

SNOW: Right. But, so- I want to just lay to rest once and for all: never approached you, never hinted that he wanted to talk to you about being vice president. All that kind of stuff was made up.

McCAIN: Well, I cannot attest to that. All I can tell you is my conversations with him were private conversations, but he never offered it.

SNOW: OK. Now, there’s also a bit of controversy as well about the fact that you are now- you are the most loved man of politics right now. I don’t think that there’s any body in America that has an ad that you don’t appear in.

McCAIN: I gotta say, it’s gotten a bit bizarre, a bit bizarre. To say the least. Different ads and different ads, and I would say, Tony, that I have not, as you know, attacked John Kerry because he is a friend of mine, and I would hope that in return that the Kerry campaign would not use me to attack Bush who I am supporting for reelection. In other words, of course things were said in the primary that I- President Bush and I were engaged in four years ago, because we had different views, but to dredge those up from a campaign four years ago to someway attack President Bush I think is inappropriate, and I that hope the Kerry campaign will not do that.

SNOW: Senator, I think that train may have left the station.

McCAIN: Yeah, oh yeah, but I don’t want them to do that. And I don’t think it’s appropriate. There are differences voiced between Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards when they were running against each other in the primary.

SNOW: I have a feeling those will get aired out by the Bush campaign Let me ask you a more serious question. You have talked about the President’s moral clarity since Sept. 11, 2001. Do you think you perceive equivalent moral clarity on the part of John Edwards and John Kerry?

McCAIN: No, because they haven’t been in the position to excersize it. I’m not saying they wouldn’t. I’m saying the President of the United States did. Only he President of the United States is in a position in a time of national crisis, which Sept. 11th was and is to this day, and the President of the United States rallied the American people in a very, very traumatic time, and I would argue in some ways more traumatic than December 7th, although in other ways, not so. But certainly one of the crucial times in American history.

SNOW: Do you think, do you think if these guys were elected, they would behave in substantially the same ways as the President?

McCAIN: You know, I don’t know, because they are untested and unproven. The President has been tested. The President has had the incredible obligation of rallying the nation, of beginning to assemble a counter attack against the war on terrorism. He did exactly the right thing by going to Afghanistan first and taking out the Taliban. If there’s one thing I know, and that be living in a border state, you’re never going to build borders and secure our borders, you’ve got to go after terrorism where it resides, and in this case initially it was Afghanistan. He did exactly the right thing.

SNOW: Do you think the war on terror should be the central issue this year?

McCAIN: Yeah, I think obviously the economy and jobs are a central issue, but the very security of the United States is involved here, and no one believes that we have won the war on terror. I will say the fact that we have not experienced an attack- another attack since Sept. 11 -- is evidence that we have had some success. Most people after Sept. 11 believed there would be another attack within -- on, inside the United States since Sept. 11. Remember? And we’ve been able to prevent that. Now I’m not going to say that we’re not going to have an attack tomorrow. But I am saying that the record so far after Sept. 11 has been, has been good.

SNOW: Senator, what do you make- there are a lot of Democrats out there, I dare say there are a lot of people listening to this show who believe the President has lied. What do you tell them?

McCAIN: I don’t- I’m on a commission appointed by the President as far as weapons of mass destruction is concerned. I think the President of the United States was given bad intelligence information, and and we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Colin Powell believes that. I’m sure that the evidence shows that it was not the immediate threat that the President believed there was, but I would quickly add, I also believe that if Saddam Hussein were still in power today he would attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and if he had the opportunity, he would use them. Which to me, justifies our entry into Iraq.

SNOW: Senator, Dick Cheney has become the focus of a lot of controversy now. In fact, there’s talk now of his being taken off the ticket.

McCAIN: I doubt that seriously. I think he enjoys a relationship with the President that is almost unique, and I think they are literally a team, which not- which is very unusual in American political history.

SNOW: Do you think he is a good Vice President?

McCAIN: Sure, sure. Sure I do.

SNOW: Now, as you look forward to the campaign this year, it looks as if this thing is going to get fairly personal.

McCAIN: Yep.

SNOW: You have been trying, and God bless you for it, to try to get both sides to calm down a little bit and at least behave in a civil manner toward one another.

McCAIN: Well, I wish they would, because it’s a disservice to the American people. The American people are not particularly interested in who did or did not serve honorably in Vietnam. I think I think the President served honorably, I think John Kerry served honorably. They’re far more interested in the war in Iraq. They’re far more interested in the war on terror. They’re far more interested in saving social security, medicare, etc. I think we’ve got to ask our candidates to project a vision for the future of this country, rather than look back at a war that ended more than 30 years ago.

SNOW: Good idea. Also, one of the other developments now, appears that the Iranians are being caught red handed in Iraq with weapons.

McCAIN: As disturbing as that is their continuing development of nuclear weapons. I don’t think there’s any doubt that they have played a shell game with the IAEA and have avoided the inspections and are on the road to developing a nuclear capability which could be very disabling to the Middle East, no to say- not to mention the reaction the Israelis would have to such an eventuality.

SNOW: What should the U.S. do?

McCAIN: Well, first of all, I think we’ve got to try all of the usual measures, through the U.N., the Security Council, etc. and then obviously we have to examine every other option we have. I would not rule out a military option, ever, under any situation, but I think we’ve got to go through all of the other efforts, but we’ve got to get serious and I think the administration is serious. But when- what the Iranians are trying to do is reach a certain stage of development and then just opt out, and say we’re free to do whatever we want to do as far as development of these weapons is concerned. I don’t think there’s any doubt that they and Syria are exporting fighters, into- as well as from Saudi Arabia, into Iraq, which is a very destabilizing feature.

SNOW: Senator, on the domestic front. The President is known on the domestic side as having pushed for tax cuts. Would you like to see the administration come up with a political long ball, something big and visionary, whether it be taking on social security, or one of these other problems you’ve mentioned, so they have an agenda for a second term?

McCAIN: I’d love to see that, and social security is a prime item. I’ll tell you another one, Tony, and that is a simplification of the tax code. No American understands the tax code, and every American now is totally scared when they send in their tax returns for getting an audit. No one can comprehend the tax code. And I think simplification of the tax code would be something that would resonate as it did way back in- I think it was 1986 when we last made that effort. But I would say, yeah, social security reform, because it’s fairly simple, you’ve got a certain amount of money going in, and a certain amount of money going out. Medicare is far more complex and hard to understand. I think the American people would understand that kind of plan and that frankly, would entail the use of individual retirement accounts, where people can be assured that their tax dollars, if you’re marked for their retirement, goes into their account that has their name on it, that can be used with certain limitations, for certain kinds of investments.

SNOW: Oh man, you’re talking my language. One of the last things I want to attack, would you even go so far as to propose a flat tax?

McCAIN: Absolutely, anything, anything is better than what we’ve got. Maybe not totally flat, but maybe like three tiers. Something like that. But tax simplification would go over enormously well.

SNOW: You better believe it. Senator John McCain, always a privelege.

McCAIN: Thanks, Tony.

SNOW: Hey, will you be my Vice President if I run sometime?

McCAIN: Anytime. Yours, I would. Anybody else, no. You, yes.

SNOW: Senator John McCain, thank you very much.

McCAIN: Bye bye.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,124970,00.html

[dissention]

Well, they're fiscally liberal and socially conservative, if that makes any sense. :laugh:

It doesn't. :laugh:

[dissention]

Sure you can say that...but when a voter agrees with points on both parties...it is hard to decide...I'm almost to the point to where I would just like to see who wins, and hope for the best...I've debated this before, and now you will never understand probably why I flip flop...I dont either really...Possibly I always lean to the republicans because my whole family are republicans to the bone (my mom has a Bush/Cheney sign in our yard), and you hear so much from each side...I dunno....It's really just a matter for me of doing some more research (not anti bush research or anti kerry research) simply factual standpoints on the issues (unfortunately all the candidates seem to want to discuss is Iraq)...and make a decision soon...I've already expressed my dissatisfaction with some of Kerry's points, as well as Bush's...so that's that..from watching the Democratic debates during the Primaries and really closely following that election I just seemed to like Edwards better than Kerry, in the debates he made valid points, and seemed to in ways distinquish himself from Kerry in ways...
I really don't know why I'm drawn to Bush a lot, maybe I like his personality, I dunno...I need some time to think about this I guess

Chris

:lol: I have six Kerry signs in my yard and a laminated "Stop Bush" 8x10 taped to my door. :lol:

[Jason T.]

OMG, my county in MA is passing a petition around to secede from the state. :laugh: They are furious over how conservative the Republicans are trying to make such a liberal state. The group that is overseeing the petition released a statement saying that our rights are being taken away and that we are not being properly represented. My name is #6 on the petition, too. :laugh:

That is so cool! I'm without doubt moving to MA. :D

[Jason T.]

On a sidenote, as long as we are talking politically...I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 with a friend of mine. About five minutes into the doc, right at the part where it shows the election of 2000 being fixed (like we needed a doc to tell us that), a finger goes over the screen from the monitor in the back and the film goes blurred.

Now, I'm not one to be paranoid -- most of the time -- but the fact that we live in Amarillo TX gave me the impression that the incident wasn't exactly an accident. The people in the audience started making jokes about how a Republican must have been running the film upstairs. I just found the entire thing funny...yeah, when I first started typing this up I thought it might be interesting for y'all to hear, but now that I read it over I see the error in that assumption. Hell, at least we all got free movie passes. ;)

[Jason T.]

Well, they're fiscally liberal and socially conservative, if that makes any sense. :laugh:

Yeah, I have parents like that... :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

That is so cool! I'm without doubt moving to MA. :D

And here I thought I had you convinced to move to PA.! ;) :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

I just found the entire thing funny...yeah, when I first started typing this up I thought it might be interesting for y'all to hear, but now that I read it over I see the error in that assumption.

Nah, that was a funny anecdote... definitely.

And remember, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you! :eek:

[Jason T.]

And here I thought I had you convinced to move to PA.!

I guess I'll just have to visit both places to see which one can best handle my extreme liberalism... :cool:


And remember, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you! :eek:

:eek: :laugh: