JOhn Kerry Doing his level Best to Energize the base

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Oggie is just being his partisan self by starting a thread over such a nonissue.

Your point being again, what??????

I believe I have been more than clear about my absolute disgust over Kerry and glee whenever he looks like an ass. (Which is pretty much anytime he opens his mouth)

The real point again is that of the OP. This has fired up the conservative base. Expect high turnouts from the mouth breathing droolers when otherwise they were destined to play parcheesi at home that night.

Go Kerry.

edit - May I please ask a favor Oerdin? It's Ogie, Og, even sometimes OO, not Oggie. For Chris sakes if I didn't know any better I'ld say you tutored those troops in the picture during your stint in Iraq.

[Winston]

Well apparently, intense pressure from other leading Democrats has made him issue a statement that apologizes to "any service member, family member or American who was offended" by the remaks.

We'll see if that is good enough. I don't think it is, he doesn't acknowledge that he was wrong to say what he did. The pressure on him to do so will keep growing, or he will have to stay completely out of the spotlight for the remainder of the campaign. None of the others want anything to do with him.

How anyone could've wanted this political and moral failure to hold the highest executive office is beyond me.

[Winston]

Cheney: "Now he says he was making a joke. I guess we didn't get the nuance. He was for the joke before he was against it."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Badumb bump. Birdshot! errrr.... Rimshot!

[Winston]

Yeah, get it right.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Cheney: Thank you thank you. You've been a kind audience. Try the quail and don't forget to tip your waiters. I'll be here until 2008 unless I have a coronary.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by rah
I wish this is all they had to talk about in Illinois.
All the negative ads, (equally bad by both sides) is really tiring. I'm good, they're evil, but most of the time it's just they're evil.
So the issues are not important because no one talks about them, unless it's to make someone look like an extremist.

It's gotten so bad here, that the dems end up calling every rep candidate a "BUSH REPUBLICAN" and attack Bush because they got nothing on the candidate except that he supported the president more than they didn't.

SO say desperation if you must, but in Illinois both sides are doing it and it equally disgusts me.

I don't consider pointing out 6 years of failure desperation. I do consider pointing out one poorly thought out remark that didn't do any actual damage desperation. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that folks in the army aren't the type to be easily offended.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Cheney: Thank you thank you. You've been a kind audience. Try the quail and don't forget to tip your waiters. I'll be here until 2008 unless I have a coronary.

"With this kind of Democratic opposition, the White House was really the safe location from the outset. God bless them, whether they want it or not. Bastards."

[rah]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I don't consider pointing out 6 years of failure desperation. I do consider pointing out one poorly thought out remark that didn't do any actual damage desperation. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that folks in the army aren't the type to be easily offended.

Not my point, which is don't vote for any republican because of bush is desperation. They got nothing on the specific candidate so just say he's in the same party as bush so you should automatically vote for their opponent. Sounds silly, petty, and partisian to me.

Hell that means no one should vote for any democrat because Ted Kennedy is scum. Find a reason to vote or not vote based on the specific candidate, not because there's a person in their party that you don't like. But I guess politics will always be partisian until we dump all the current parties.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe You apparently have me confused with someone who thinks anything the Dems stand for is worth voting for. No, the biggest protest I can muster against my disdain for Repugs is a straight ticket vote for Libertarians.

Dems would need to change in ways I just can't fathom them doing, for me to have a serious look at them.

It's great to see someone voting for someone rather than against someone. I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils" as well.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, I don't like what the Republicans have done in power. They have basically all been Yes men to the current administration. So yes, I don't want anymore republicans in power, at least for a while.

(In general I consider Republicans and Democrats about equal in badness.. not with this current administration, however)

JM

[rah]

SOme truth to that.

So let's simplify campaign ads.

'VOTE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE YOU HATE DEMOCRATS"

"VOTE DEMOCRATIC BECAUSE YOU HATE REPUBLICANS"

Save money because shorter adds and less aggravation for the viewers.

But I would miss the pictures of opponents in attack ads, you have to wonder how they found such an awful picture, or did they have to photo shop it to make them look so bad or evil. (like the horns in that one simpsons episode.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by rah


Not my point, which is don't vote for any republican because of bush is desperation. They got nothing on the specific candidate so just say he's in the same party as bush so you should automatically vote for their opponent. Sounds silly, petty, and partisian to me.

Right... I'm sure Bush caused this entire mess by himself despite the Congress's best attempts to stop him... oh... wait....

Hell that means no one should vote for any democrat because Ted Kennedy is scum. Find a reason to vote or not vote based on the specific candidate, not because there's a person in their party that you don't like. But I guess politics will always be partisian until we dump all the current parties.

Ted Kennedy isn't president. Ted Kennedy hasn't caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Telling people not to vote Republican because some random guy sucks is one thing. Telling people not to vote Republican because the president who those people support is a disaster is quite another.

It's great to see someone voting for someone rather than against someone. I refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils" as well.

I refuse to vote (or live in the country for that matter)

The truly sad thing is that a third party hasn't risen up despite all the disgust. Say what you will about the nature of the electoral system, but Canada has more than 2 parties in spite of a similar system.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Victor Galis The truly sad thing is that a third party hasn't risen up despite all the disgust. Say what you will about the nature of the electoral system, but Canada has more than 2 parties in spite of a similar system.

Canada is a rarity, some of which is caused by the anomolous situation of the Quebec party. How many more countries with first-past-the-post elections have three or more viable parties?

There have been times when third parties truly did attract support (Perot in '92, Nader in 2000), but now those are pointed to by partisans as proof that third parties are dangerous. The argument goes that Perot attracted more Republicans than Democrats and thus pushed the election to Clinton; the same type of argument is used by Democrats about Nader in 2000. If anything, people are less likely to vote third party than ever before, because both of the major parties bring out the scare stories: a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, for instance.

Beside, there's a disturbing strain in U.S. politics in which people only see black and white. You're liberal or conservative, and that's that. To many uninformed people, the Democrats are the only possible party that could represent "liberals", the Republicans are the only possible party that could represent "conservatives." They don't realize what a contradictory patchwork each party is, how full of strange bedfellows the parties are. They have no concept of the European party system.

If the U.S. had the German electoral system, we'd have at least 5 significant parties, maybe more. There's no way that Lincoln Chafee and Pat Robertson would be part of the same party in that situation.

[Dinner]

That last sentence doesn't sound like a bad thing.