Senators compromise on filibusters

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But don't you think the fact that a bumbler like Kerry almost won proves people are not so easily fooled. It clearly was Kerry's to lose and he did so, which does not mean W won on his merits. But, we shall see I guess.

Enough people were obviously fooled if we're suffering through this current bastard regime for the second time.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Enough people were obviously fooled if we're suffering through this current bastard regime for the second time.

I tend to agree.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I sort of think that too, esp. in light of his staunch support for anti-gay rights and what they can paint as a crusader against gay people, etc. But, the fact that he is from MA will never play in the South to the effect that they need.

All he has to do is play his Utah Mormon card. It could work. To what effect, I've no idea, but he can play it.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think McCain is positioning himself nicely and Frist is trying, but the heir apparent is not doing so well and who knows what they can did up on him and his crooked hospitals.

Dr. Frist will never get it. No way. Not with his hospitals.

I don't think McCain wants it, so I don't see it happening.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think they may get Jeb, who would be fairly unbeatable at this point.

You've effectively ensured me that I'll have nightmares tonight.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Enough people were obviously fooled if we're suffering through this current bastard regime for the second time.

Well, that is not exactly true - my point was people looked at Kerry and his perceived double talk and thought W was the lesser of two evils. They thought although W is an idiot who got us into a BS war (against Arabs who most Americans I submit could care a less about) but Kerry cannot be trusted. Those "lesser of two evil" voters were, as always IMO, the ones that elect Presidents. Again, it was Kerry's to lose, not Bush's to win.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

i think it will be either Mccain or Guiliani for the republicans in 08

and Kerry or Clinton for Dems

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, that is not exactly true - my point was people looked at Kerry and his perceived double talk and thought W was the lesser of two evils. They thought although W is an idiot who got us into a BS war (against Arabs who most Americans I submit could care a less about) but Kerry cannot be trusted. Those "lesser of two evil" voters were, as always IMO, the ones that elect Presidents. Again, it was Kerry's to lose, not Bush's to win.

You're right...my mom said today..she wouldve voted for Edwards, but she felt like Kerry lied, and wasnt honest about issues...so she voted for Bush who she felt was "honest" atleast...well of course I disagree with that, if she only knew how HONEST he is lol
Chris

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . You've effectively ensured me that I'll have nightmares tonight.

I am sorry darling

THe real question is who will the D's put up. It most certainly is Hillary's if she wants it. Other than Hillary, I can see John Breaux, who is very moderate and well liked and from the South. He has been out of politics for awhile now - so who knows. It is widely rumored Clark will run again - in fact my friends who had dinner with him not that long ago implied as such. Dean is just too nuts, though I like him. I think if the D's put up a ball breaker like Dean, they may have a chance, but it is still too early to tell.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I dont think Dean will run again, he seems to be liking his DNC Chair job..and promised if he ran for DNC Chair he wouldnt run for Pres in 08

Chris

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, that is not exactly true - my point was people looked at Kerry and his perceived double talk and thought W was the lesser of two evils.

Which is exactly how they were fooled. They bought into that "lesser of two evils" **** when comparing the two. Anyone with half a f*cking brain would realize that Kerry was a dip****, but that he was a God compared to Shrub. One of the big elements of the Bush campaign was to push Bush as the lesser of two evils to the moderates and undecideds by pointing out Kerry's doublespeak. And it worked, because the voters were obviously fooled into believing it.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

They thought although W is an idiot who got us into a BS war (against Arabs who most Americans I submit could care a less about) but Kerry cannot be trusted. Those "lesser of two evil" voters were, as always IMO, the ones that elect Presidents. Again, it was Kerry's to lose, not Bush's to win.

Yes, Jason. I'm sure that's exactly what they thought.

"Bush got us into a bull**** war, but the one that can't be trusted is John Forbes Kerry."

Kind of shows you how f*cked up ther logic and reasoning skills are.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am sorry darling

It's okay, I've had the same nightmares before, so I know how to deal.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

THe real question is who will the D's put up. It most certainly is Hillary's if she wants it. Other than Hillary, I can see John Breaux, who is very moderate and well liked and from the South. He has been out of politics for awhile now - so who knows. It is widely rumored Clark will run again - in fact my friends who had dinner with him not that long ago implied as such. Dean is just too nuts, though I like him. I think if the D's put up a ball breaker like Dean, they may have a chance, but it is still too early to tell.

If they want to lose, they'll nominate Hillary.

Clark would be a fool to run again. He'd have as much success as Braun, bless her heart because I love her dearly. Clark is the man who said marriage was an "art" and that intelligence was a "gray goo." Wouldn't even get my vote and they'd play that clip of him and Michael Moore 24/7 on the tittytainment news channels.

I wonder if they'll dare to nominate Obama, actually.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . Yes, Jason. I'm sure that's exactly what they thought.

"Bush got us into a bull**** war, but the one that can't be trusted is John Forbes Kerry."

Kind of shows you how f*cked up ther logic and reasoning skills are.

I think so too. But, Kerry just looked like a bafoon next to W and the Rove machine. They ate his lunch - period. And - I willingly admit that is hard to do as Kerry is a VERY smart man. I also have to wonder on what level him having a foreign born wife played into it. I heard from soooooo many people that she was just an awful woman, blah blah blah. But, speculation regarding why aside, he still lost and it was his to lose. I truly think if he had done as Clinton suggested and address every single attack within hours of it and hammer away at the non truth of it, he would have done better. But, he did not - such is history.

I will say this though, Rove will have met his match in Hillary. She has some of Bill's teflon and the fact that Bill will actively stump for he cannot hurt her.

It shall be a very very interesting next year

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by dissention

If they want to lose, they'll nominate Hillary.

Maybe Barbara Boxer then? lol

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . I wonder if they'll dare to nominate Obama, actually.

As VP maybe - but not as Pres. because ignoring the obvious racial issue (which is sad) he will perhaps correctly be considered inexperienced. He would, however, make a GREAT VP to Hillary's Pres. He would and could bring much of the black vote that went to the R's due to the gay marriage red herring. I think Hillary could win, depending on the R's candidate. Against, Rudy, she would most likely lose because NY would then be up for grabs. Against Frist or some other hardline right winger, she would would do better because she is seen as moderate, which in fact she is though the right paint her as horribly liberal.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think so too. But, Kerry just looked like a bafoon next to W and the Rove machine. They ate his lunch - period. And - I willingly admit that is hard to do as Kerry is a VERY smart man. I also have to wonder on what level him having a foreign born wife played into it. I heard from soooooo many people that she was just an awful woman, blah blah blah. But, speculation regarding why aside, he still lost and it was his to lose. I truly think if he had done as Clinton suggested and address every single attack within hours of it and hammer away at the non truth of it, he would have done better. But, he did not - such is history.

Kerry's smart when he doesn't speak. Once he opens his mouth, he f*cks it up. If it isn't a scripted and heavily vetted line, he lays waste to himself. Mary beth Cahill ran the most incompetent campaign I've ever seen. I mean, it was horrendous. The way they hid from the Swift Boat Vets was unbelievable. I think that the American public wanted to see him come out and attack their claims, but were letdown when he didn't and they saw that as a big sign of weakness. It really hurt him.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I will say this though, Rove will have met his match in Hillary. She has some of Bill's teflon and the fact that Bill will actively stump for he cannot hurt her.

It shall be a very very interesting next year

I just find it implausible that Hil would run. If she does, it will certainly be the best presidential race in history.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Maybe Barbara Boxer then? lol

Chris

I spray my shorts at the thought. Gawd, I love her. She's got a hefty pair of brass balls.