Kerry/Edwards 2004!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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 But, if that works for you - who am I to keep you down. Hopefully, Kerry's stradled position (imagine that ) on the DP will not prevent others from voting for him.

Originally Posted by dissention

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 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

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 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 But, if that works for you - who am I to keep you down. Hopefully, Kerry's stradled position (imagine that ) 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.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Is this the great liberal being an elitist

Bet your ass.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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. 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.

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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. 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.

I agree, but many do not see it that way and nothing says they have to 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

[dissention]

And you were saying what about his foreign policy experience?

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

And you were saying what about his foreign policy experience?

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 ) when you said he had "none" - I knew what you meant, I was just yanking your chain

[estranged4life]

ya left out the ending of this exchange:

Hiller: "Can you name your VP?"

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




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...)

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 ) when you said he had "none" - I knew what you meant, I was just yanking your chain

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

****, 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:



(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.

[strandinthewind]

Here we go - didn't take Rove long did it - I love the whole W is too good to get in the mud to sling it with the RNC 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

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?



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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

Actually, W asked the reporter if the reporter knew who the foreign minister on Mexico was. W was not asked that question

[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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, W asked the reporter if the reporter knew who the foreign minister on Mexico was. W was not asked that question

I see, my mistake.

He's still an idiot, though.