NationStates Jolt Archive

Hear me out--this is posted on my blog (http://incertus.blogspot.com) with a slightly more colorful title.

I want my money back. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20041117/ap_on_re_us/democrats_kerry)

Someone explain this to me--if Kerry really believed that this was the most important election of a generation, that there was no length to which he was not willing to go in order to beat George W. Bush, then why the fuck does he still have $15 million in campaign funds left over?

Here's my notice: I didn't give you much, John Fucking Kerry, but what I gave, I want back. And I want you to deliver it personally, so I can kick you in the balls--you owe me that much. I didn't like you in the primaries, and I didn't like defending your sorry ass in the whole general campaign, but I did it because I allowed myself to believe that you were serious about winning this thing. Obviously, I was wrong. You owe us that money, John Kerry, so pay up.

Now, for a little addendum. I'm not leaving the Democratic party (no matter what my signature says), but I'm intent on reforming it, and if the insiders currently in control of the party continue to control it, then the DNC won't get another penny from me, they won't get another drop of sweat from me, they won't get another word of mine written in support of them. I'll put my money and my efforts into the 527s and other Democratic party reform groups like Democracy for America and the New Democratic Network.

So there--I've vented. If anyone wants to take a shot, now's the time.

They should've gone with Wesley Clark. *nod*

Hear me out--this is posted on my blog (http://incertus.blogspot.com) with a slightly more colorful title.



Now, for a little addendum. I'm not leaving the Democratic party (no matter what my signature says), but I'm intent on reforming it, and if the insiders currently in control of the party continue to control it, then the DNC won't get another penny from me, they won't get another drop of sweat from me, they won't get another word of mine written in support of them. I'll put my money and my efforts into the 527s and other Democratic party reform groups like Democracy for America and the New Democratic Network.

So there--I've vented. If anyone wants to take a shot, now's the time.




As a democrat and "blue" american i can well understand your frustration with the party in the last election.

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.

Well, to be blunt - Sir, you are an idiot.

Consider this - Many, many other people donated to his cause. He has $15 million left, not the whole thing. $15 million isn't anywhere near the full amount of money donated to his campaign, and as such he couldn't physically pay your money back, you whiny dolt.

Secondly, it's not as if he guranteed you he'd win. Donating money to a political party is not a purchase, nor is it an investment, nor is it a sure thing. You gambled, and what happens in vegas when a slot machine user demands his quarter back is that he gets his ass chucked out on the sidewalk.

Personally, I liked John Kerry - And not just because he wasn't Bush. But I'm not here to whine about something that doesn't matter anymore, so I guess I'll shut up about that.

What does matter is that Kerry is considering another run next year - And when/if he does that cash will certainly come in useful. If he doesn't, I very much doubt he'll keep the money for himself.

Edit: And as for the deal about him having money left over, I don't think there was much more he could have -done.- There isn't any evidence that Kerry didn't take the election seriously, and in fact he put one hell of alot of time and energy into it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't see anyone nominating you for president. :)

The presidential candidates don't personally spend the campaign money... the national committee does that for them. But you're right... he didn't seem to be putting the effort in that he seemed to believe the election warranted.

They should've gone with Wesley Clark. *nod*

LOL, he came to my college to speak at my opening convocation. Speech was so bloody confusing and full of doublespeak it's no small wonder he never made it.

What gives you the feeling that he wasn't putting effort in? He didn't seem to be slacking to me.

The presidential candidates don't personally spend the campaign money... the national committee does that for them. But you're right... he didn't seem to be putting the effort in that he seemed to believe the election warranted.Sorry, but that's incorrect. The candidate's campaign spends their own money, and the national committee raises and spends its own money. There is some coordination allowed, but the two groups are independent in both fundraising and expenditures.

LOL, he came to my college to speak at my opening convocation. Speech was so bloody confusing and full of doublespeak it's no small wonder he never made it.

Hmm. Seems to me that's a qualification, not a flaw. Hehehe.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The candidate's campaign spends their own money, and the national committee raises and spends its own money. There is some coordination allowed, but the two groups are independent in both fundraising and expenditures.

Oh, sorry. I was taught that the national committee raises funds for the campaign and manages the campaign, which is the significance of the national convention playing a part in the election of the national committee's members: they get to choose the candidate and the committee that will run their campaign.

As a democrat and "blue" american i can well understand your frustration with the party in the last election.

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.
The Democratic party failed on so many levels. Can you name one way in which it succeeded?

The Democratic party failed on so many levels. Can you name one way in which it succeeded?
Several important swing states shifted our direction, even as Bush did better overall than he did in 2000, including Oregon, Ohio, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, Washington, New Hampshire, and Maine. Even Wisconsin moved a little bit our way.

That's something you don't see reported much.

I'll tell you how I saw it fail.

-It focused on non-issues like Kerry's and Bush's Vietnam record and either ignored some issues (freedom for homosexuals) or just dropped the ball on others (failing to point out the lies of the Republican ads).

-It did NOT have a clear and consise platform that the 'average Joe' could understand or agree with (I know of a few DEMOCRATS who voted for Bush because tehy really couldn't understand Kerry's message).

-It did not uphold it's base (the cities) while it undermined it's own ideology to try to (unsucessfully) reach the 'salt of the earth' people (isn't salt a type of DIRT?)

-It generally REACTED to Republican claims and ads, it never once (that I saw) took the initiative in anything.

We LOST roughly 10% of our Democratic base this election. We LOST those guys. Now we have to find out HOW so we can fix it. The Democratic party DID fail (I admit to my OWn failure in this aspect as well), but pointing fingers or trying simple one-hit-fixes is NOT going to solve the issue. Lets not point fingers, lets find a solution and put it into gear.

Geez . . .

I believe the total amount in his coffer is somewhere close to $45 million... he's got a paultry $7-10M in his "post-election legal fund" alone. Some of it was accepted as federal aid, however, so that will be given back.

He shouldn't give it back, no, but he really honestly did run the worst campaign that I can recall. A major problem with it, however, was that 49% of the people that were likely to vote for him said they would classify their vote as, "Against Bush" rather than, "For Kerry". When you cannot ignite the passions of your own supporters, it's hard to rally them to the finish line.

Personally, I studied international business management, financial economics, and business admin. at a top 25 US University... and I can't vote (dual citizen). Based upon my knowledge of economics, the psyche of political leaders through time, and just plain-old trust... I'd have voted for Bush. We elect someone based on their principles, not based upon their ability to kowtow to our every misguided and uneducated whim. As Churchill said, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head". I personally would rather be accused of being heartless than torpid.

G

If Kerry wanted to win, all he had to do was have that clip of Bush laughing at a clip of himself looking under the oval office desk saying "nope, no WMD there," and play it over and over and over in Ohio...

Fuck Bush and Fuck Kerry, I told all of you assholes last year that they were on the same side.

Okay... I am not an American. But i gotta wonder? what the fuck do you people think in voting for bush!!? I mean the guy has broken basicly every international law ever written. He´s goverment has absolutely no respect to even your own costitutional rights!! He is a murdering cristian fanatic who just happens to be the leader of the so called "land of the free where religion should not have anything to do with politics". Am i the only one who sees the paradox here! :headbang: Congratiolatios your leaders are turning your once so great land into a shit kicking corporate police state... having fun raping every thing you people once held dear.
I MUST ASK WHY!?!? is it so funny to live your lifes black and white.

okay. i am sorry. if my opinions are uncorrecct. sew me. :mp5:

I believe the total amount in his coffer is somewhere close to $45 million... he's got a paultry $7-10M in his "post-election legal fund" alone. Some of it was accepted as federal aid, however, so that will be given back.

He shouldn't give it back, no, but he really honestly did run the worst campaign that I can recall. A major problem with it, however, was that 49% of the people that were likely to vote for him said they would classify their vote as, "Against Bush" rather than, "For Kerry". When you cannot ignite the passions of your own supporters, it's hard to rally them to the finish line.

Personally, I studied international business management, financial economics, and business admin. at a top 25 US University... and I can't vote (dual citizen). Based upon my knowledge of economics, the psyche of political leaders through time, and just plain-old trust... I'd have voted for Bush. We elect someone based on their principles, not based upon their ability to kowtow to our every misguided and uneducated whim. As Churchill said, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head". I personally would rather be accused of being heartless than torpid.

G

Actually, Churchill never said that, it was just some random quote chalked up to him probebly because he's smart and dead :p

Okay... I am not an American. But i gotta wonder? what the fuck do you people think in voting for bush!!? I mean the guy has broken basicly every international law ever written. He´s goverment has absolutely no respect to even your own costitutional rights!! He is a murdering cristian fanatic who just happens to be the leader of the so called "land of the free where religion should not have anything to do with politics". Am i the only one who sees the paradox here! :headbang: Congratiolatios your leaders are turning your once so great land into a shit kicking corporate police state... having fun raping every thing you people once held dear.
I MUST ASK WHY!?!? is it so funny to live your lifes black and white.

okay. i am sorry. if my opinions are uncorrecct. sew me. :mp5:

He fooled people into thinking little baby Jesus was on his side.

As Churchill said, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head". I personally would rather be accused of being heartless than torpid.

G

And just like Bush, Churchill had no problem with imposing imperialism on the middle east.

fuck that alcoholic prick, Churchill was just as bad as Stalin.

The Democratic party also fails in the southeastern US in national elections but remains competitive in state and local\municipal elections in the southeast. Why? I think it is largely because on a national level and through those who speak out for the Democrats they consistantly ignore or ridicule not only the southeast but much of the mid-west as well. If Democrats can't change this I fear they will have little chance in future elections.

The Democratic party failed on so many levels. Can you name one way in which it succeeded?
Well, for one thing, the Democratic party took careful aim, breathed regularly, carefully squeezed the trigger . . . and promptly blew its own foot to hell and gone in this past election. The Democratic Convention this year came off as more of some kind of weird "coronation" rather than the kickoff to what had to be realistically viewed as a tough -- and brutal -- campaign in "the most important election in our lifetimes." Sure Bush was vulnerable, but that wasn't a white flag he was waving -- it was his middle finger, for crying out loud!

Did Kerry even want to be President? Then why did he allow Bush to set the agenda during the entire campaign? Why did he "duck and cover" when those Swift Boat ads hit the airwaves? Why did he allow Bush to turn any debate over the Iraq war into a referendum on support for the troops? He kept aiming for a posture of statesmanship when LEADERSHIP was what voters were looking for.

America isn't a good enough country to elect decent leaders? Hell, Kerry never gave America a believable alternative!

He fooled people into thinking little baby Jesus was on his side.

War makes baby Jesus cry. Enough said.

He fooled people into thinking little baby Jesus was on his side.

jeah... i got that point. but...THat should not have got anything to do with politics. Well... actually...i am being quite naive. in your "free to any religion" land you pay even your grosseries with money marked "in god we trust".
These days one can not even say wich is the worst evil...islamic fundamentalism or american cristian fundamentalism. cause they both commit crimes just the same. :headbang:

The Democratic party failed on so many levels. Can you name one way in which it succeeded?


It fielded a candidate who was better than george bush in every respect.

Actually, Churchill never said that, it was just some random quote chalked up to him probebly because he's smart and dead :p

True. My apologies. Its fabled origin does not belie its truth, however.

Regardless-- can we actually break this issue apart and discuss it, or will we just be slinging poop back and forth?

G

It fielded a candidate who was better than george bush in every respect.
Then how did this supreme being fall flat on his ass?

Then how did this supreme being fall flat on his ass?


Because americans arent good people.

It fielded a candidate who was better than george bush in every respect.

except he had no balls...

they should have gone with Dean.

Then how did this supreme being fall flat on his ass?


take one part in being a fool, then ad concervative cristians and then mix together with bunch of bad campaings and no strong opinions. :gundge:

Because americans arent good people.
Who are these 'good' people?

Who are these 'good' people?


Reasonable people.
Thoughtful people.
Decent people.
People with correct morals, etc etc.

Not the brain-rot mob that turned out 3 million extra votes on 2 nov.

Because americans arent good people.

But of course. They're all evil. And the French are all rude, Britons all have bad teeth, Germans are all genocidal, Japanese people all have small penes, Russians are all drunks... shall I go on?

Get over it. Educate yourself. I'm not even a citizen, though I live here, and I've got to say that they're not all that bad. I lived in Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Brazil, and England. Now here. Spend some time out of a shell and open up to new possibilities.

G

But of course. They're all evil. And the French are all rude, Britons all have bad teeth, Germans are all genocidal, Japanese people all have small penes, Russians are all drunks... shall I go on?

Get over it. Educate yourself. I'm not even a citizen, though I live here, and I've got to say that they're not all that bad. I lived in Italy, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Brazil, and England. Now here. Spend some time out of a shell and open up to new possibilities.

G


You are fortunate not to have been made to suffer the realization on black wednesday that your once beloved country had in reality gone to hell and been lost to its most base elements.

The best comparison I can make is realizing your relationship with a girlfriend is over.

It wasnt fun.

Reasonable people.
Thoughtful people.
Decent people.
People with correct morals, etc etc.

Not the brain-rot mob that turned out 3 million extra votes on 2 nov.
You do realise all of those things vary in the opinion of every person that you would ask to define them, right? As far as the 'brain-rot mob' shit is concerned, continue to underestimate your opposition and they will continue to defeat you.

It's a matter of perspective. Take this as an opportunity.

G

You do realise all of those things vary in the opinion of every person that you would ask to define them, right? As far as the 'brain-rot mob' shit is concerned, continue to underestimate your opposition and they will continue to defeat you.



The nazis believed they were right, but they werent.

So dont give me your moral relativist trash.

Also, I dont have an opposition, I've outright left the fray.

You do realise all of those things vary in the opinion of every person that you would ask to define them, right? As far as the 'brain-rot mob' shit is concerned, continue to underestimate your opposition and they will continue to defeat you.

This last line is why Democrats have utterly failed to carry the South in recent elections. Underestimate and belittle, and you'll quickly learn that you've alienated a laaarge part of what you're trying to serve.

G

The nazis believed they were right, but they werent.

I've got to admit that this kind of discourse really just belittle's your argument. And the amount of time I'll dedicate to bumbling with the ignorant is only slightly less than my tolerance for said group. With that- I'm out.

G

If Kerry wanted to win, all he had to do was have that clip of Bush laughing at a clip of himself looking under the oval office desk saying "nope, no WMD there," and play it over and over and over in Ohio...
Huh. That would have been an effective ad. (I don't want to say good, but effective)

Something that needs to be examined: The ability to control the discourse-how is that happening and are we willing to fight on that level. This election should have been about George W. Bush and whether he deserves to keep his job, but they managed to control the discourse. It became about Kerry's Vietnam (and don't you dare lay that all over Kerry-if you truly believe that someone who fought in and then protested the Vietnam war ran for president wouldn't have that come up unless he brought it up, you need to get out of the pool. I don't feel like re-writing that sentence, so you might have to take a second with it.)

They controlled the discussion. It was never about Bush and always about Kerry (who wanted to take all your taxes and give it gay married abortion doctors who support terrorism. And would go back in time and surrender to Vietnam, again...)

We need to look at how that was done and if we are willing to do what it takes to compete. (I may not be.)

The nazis believed they were right, but they werent.

So dont give me your moral relativist trash.

Also, I dont have an opposition, I've outright left the fray.
Given up? That partially explains the hateful bile that you constantly spew forth. And morals aren't relative, are they? Anyone who disagrees with you is evil, right? They are pagan savages, right? They're all going to... I think you can see where this is heading. Do you know you sound exactly like the 'brain-rot mob'?

Yeah, in the end the democrats just really fucked up big time. Or at least Kerry did. Or at least whoever was running his campaign did.

This last line is why Democrats have utterly failed to carry the South in recent elections. Underestimate and belittle, and you'll quickly learn that you've alienated a laaarge part of what you're trying to serve.

G
The Republicans fail to carry the Northeast. It's mutual.

This last line is why Democrats have utterly failed to carry the South in recent elections. Underestimate and belittle, and you'll quickly learn that you've alienated a laaarge part of what you're trying to serve.

G

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Enjoy :p

Given up? That partially explains the hateful bile that you constantly spew forth. And morals aren't relative, are they? Anyone who disagrees with you is evil, right? They are pagan savages, right? They're all going to... I think you can see where this is heading. Do you know you sound exactly like the 'brain-rot mob'?



Lying to invade a country, massacre people and steal things is wrong by any reasonable measure.

It is the blatant obviousness of the tragically lethal corruption of the bush mob that disqualifies somone who voted for bush from being considered a good person.

If people genuinely couldnt see through the pathetic smoke screen the government put up, they are beyond help.

Ergo, out of the fray.

The Republicans fail to carry the Northeast. It's mutual.

My proposed responses:

a) ...but hey, they keep winning. Know where to place your bets.

b) Let's discuss population density for a second.

c) Electoral College 101: Why it was instituted, why it works, and why voting straight population would devestate our economy.

I'll be a gentleman and let you choose.

G

Huh. That would have been an effective ad. (I don't want to say good, but effective)


it would have won him the presidency, which is why he didn't use it... which is why he didn't protest the use of diebold voting machines even after the president of Diebold said he'd "deliver Ohio to Bush" -- he didn't want to win.

Lying to invade a country, massacre people and steal things is wrong by any reasonable measure.

I know I promised not to respond to you re: this issue (outside of it, I've not got a problem :) ), however:

AAAAGGGGGHHHH! You are so woefully ignorant about this it hurts my brain! I implore you to please, please, PLEASE pick up about 6-7 papers a day and just read. Go read commission reports. Like the discovery of 50T of VX gas in Iraq shortly after the invasion.

May I recomment the Oil For Food report as an amuse bouche? You know, the one that implicates Saddam in doling $21B to suicide bombers, and shows that France, Germany, and Russia were the top three benefactors of "free trade" money? C'mon, just do a little homework. It won't kill you.

G

My proposed responses:

a) ...but hey, they keep winning. Know where to place your bets.

b) Let's discuss population density for a second.

c) Electoral College 101: Why it was instituted, why it works, and why voting straight population would devestate our economy.

I'll be a gentleman and let you choose.

G

Once again, the south votes for republican because that's why they've been lied into believing little baby Jesus wants.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Enjoy :p
That's a useful attitude to have, if you want to go on losing elections. The fact is you can't ignore and ridicule 35 states and win a US Presidential election.

That's a useful attitude to have, if you want to go on losing elections. The fact is you can't ignore and ridicule 35 states and win a US Presidential election.

Did you even read the website?

I don't care about how people see me, because I'm not a member of any political party.

The south can go fuck itself. Read the website; aside from the usual verbal attacks, there's actually quite a bit of fact in there.

I know I promised not to respond to you re: this issue (outside of it, I've not got a problem :) ), however:

AAAAGGGGGHHHH! You are so woefully ignorant about this it hurts my brain! I implore you to please, please, PLEASE pick up about 6-7 papers a day and just read. Go read commission reports. Like the discovery of 50T of VX gas in Iraq shortly after the invasion.

May I recomment the Oil For Food report as an amuse bouche? You know, the one that implicates Saddam in doling $21B to suicide bombers, and shows that France, Germany, and Russia were the top three benefactors of "free trade" money? C'mon, just do a little homework. It won't kill you.

G



Silly lad, you may want to start with the Duelfer report.

You can find it on the website of the Central Intelligence Agency.

And there are really only two newspapers worth reading daily. I'll let you guess which those are.
If you're right, i'll give you a candy bar.

And as for the oil for food program... political corrpution is not grounds for invasion and occupation.

Did you even read the website?

I don't care about how people see me, because I'm not a member of any political party.

The south can go fuck itself. Read the website; aside from the usual verbal attacks, there's actually quite a bit of fact in there.
Yea, I read it. Maybe the South can go fuck itsself but it fucks itsself in so in The White House. And will until Democrats can at leaste show a bit of respesct for them. Agree with them or not, noone is going to vote for a party that shits on them every chance it gets.

That's a useful attitude to have, if you want to go on losing elections. The fact is you can't ignore and ridicule 35 states and win a US Presidential election.
Those 35 states don't have all the electoral votes now do they? If Kerry had taken Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico, we'd be talking about the utter failure of the Republicans to make inroads into the Northeast, how they are out of touch with the American mainstream, how they can't continue to nominate southerners, how they need to diversify, move to the left, yada yada.

Those 35 states don't have all the electoral votes now do they? If Kerry had taken Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico, we'd be talking about the utter failure of the Republicans to make inroads into the Northeast, how they are out of touch with the American mainstream, how they can't continue to nominate southerners, how they need to diversify, move to the left, yada yada.
Those thirty five states have enough electoral votes to make it neccesary for a Democratic candidate to win every state that is 'undecided'. Painting yourself into a corner is never wise, on either side. There is a difference however, Democrats are competitive in state and local elections in the southeast. It doesn't seem to be the parties ideas but the party national leadership that fails there.

Those thirty five states have enough electoral votes to make it neccesary for a Democratic candidate to win every state that is 'undecided'. Painting yourself into a corner is never wise, on either side. There is a difference however, Democrats are competitive in state and local elections in the southeast. It doesn't seem to be the parties ideas but the party national leadership that fails there.
Oh, by the way, Bush took 31 states this year. 4 of them were tossups (Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio). Florida and Colorado are going to be in play 2008 as well. Only 25 solid Bush states, which you probably meant to say. Those 25 states add up to 213 electoral votes.

And you're correct about local Democrat strength in the South. Just as New England regularly elects Republicans to state office and sends them to Congress, so does the South similarly with Democrats. On the national level, it gets more partisan.

I still say we let them seceed. Well, again.

Yea, I read it. Maybe the South can go fuck itsself but it fucks itsself in so in The White House. And will until Democrats can at leaste show a bit of respesct for them. Agree with them or not, noone is going to vote for a party that shits on them every chance it gets.
Just remember--if one state, Ohio, had gone the other way, (and could conceivably still do so in a recount)--we're talking about a President Kerry here. The south is not enough to win an election, just as the combination of the northeast and the pacific seaboard isn't enough. And don't you think that the population centers in those areas get a little tired of being called effete or ungodly or limp-wristed liberals by those in the big red swath that runs from Florida to Wyoming?

Just remember--if one state, Ohio, had gone the other way, (and could conceivably still do so in a recount)--we're talking about a President Kerry here. The south is not enough to win an election, just as the combination of the northeast and the pacific seaboard isn't enough. And don't you think that the population centers in those areas get a little tired of being called effete or ungodly or limp-wristed liberals by those in the big red swath that runs from Florida to Wyoming?
Yeah, I've been saying, the 2008 election will be decided in the upper midwest. If we run a centrist from that region we're unbeatable. My pick is Evan Bayh (he would bring Indiana over as well). The Northeast has moved further in our direction as has the west coast. We just need to solidify the rust belt and we've got an electoral majority.

And there's always the Southwest, Colorado, and Florida to consider.

Hear me out--this is posted on my blog (http://incertus.blogspot.com) with a slightly more colorful title.



Now, for a little addendum. I'm not leaving the Democratic party (no matter what my signature says), but I'm intent on reforming it, and if the insiders currently in control of the party continue to control it, then the DNC won't get another penny from me, they won't get another drop of sweat from me, they won't get another word of mine written in support of them. I'll put my money and my efforts into the 527s and other Democratic party reform groups like Democracy for America and the New Democratic Network.

So there--I've vented. If anyone wants to take a shot, now's the time.
The bastard. 15 million? Does he not think you can change the minds of 12,000 people with 15 MILLION dollars???

That really pisses me off. I went all out for this one, I stayed up til 6am to watch it pan out, and he keeps back money that could have changed minds and swung the election.

Somebody has some explaining to do.

Just remember--if one state, Ohio, had gone the other way, (and could conceivably still do so in a recount)--we're talking about a President Kerry here.

I highly doubt that. The recount, that is.

Hear me out--this is posted on my blog (http://incertus.blogspot.com) with a slightly more colorful title.



Now, for a little addendum. I'm not leaving the Democratic party (no matter what my signature says), but I'm intent on reforming it, and if the insiders currently in control of the party continue to control it, then the DNC won't get another penny from me, they won't get another drop of sweat from me, they won't get another word of mine written in support of them. I'll put my money and my efforts into the 527s and other Democratic party reform groups like Democracy for America and the New Democratic Network.

So there--I've vented. If anyone wants to take a shot, now's the time.at least theyre dumping Terry McAuliffe

That's a useful attitude to have, if you want to go on losing elections. The fact is you can't ignore and ridicule 35 states and win a US Presidential election.Hmm, obviously it would be difficult, but lets just check to see if its impossible. Here are the big states:

California: 55
New York: 31
Florida: 27
Texas: 34
Ohio: 20
Pennsylvania: 21
Michegan 17
Illinois 21
Georgia 15
North Carolina 15
New Jersey 15


55+31+27+34+20+21+17+21+15+15+15
Add them together and it equals 271 and you've won the election. How many states did you carry? 11.

It seems you can ignore 35 states and win a presidential election. In fact, you can ignore 39. But not ALL the southern states, so you were partially correct

Republicans and Democrats are both dirty bastards. This is news?

Republicans and Democrats are both dirty bastards. This is news?
true but democrats throw the people more bones

I'm totally blown away by what I am hearing. It's almost as if you watch television, accept it, and don't give it another thought. You miss all the real stuff and don't even bother coming to your own conclusions (I'm speaking generally, not specifically at anyone, and, indeed, I only read a smattering of words in regards to this topic.)

You argue right vs left, democrats vs republicans, but, you don't even live in the real world, it's like you are all trying to live in "tv land". Tv Land is where floors smell lemony fresh, everyone has a bungalow and a nice car and a green lawn... Thats not the real world.

Kerry had some good points. I watched his 1970's Veterans against the Vietnam War senate hearing, he was a man, and he stood by the courage of his convictions. I can appriciate that, at least he wasn't drumming for more money. That's character. You don't get that from just anywhere.

In the end, Black Tuesday represents the prevailing Republican propaganda mastermind, Rupert "Grobbles" Murdock and this Christian-Nazi NWO which the Bushes (All the way to Nazi collaborator, and grandfather of GW, Prescott Bush) keep espousing.
You no longer have meaningful elections (The UN was removed from judging their fairness) and you no longer have any true civil liberties... The government now has the right to ignore them without due process without court order or even a judge to say yeah or nay. You can be pulled away and interrogated ( Or shipped to Syria for torture as many have) for as long as they so wish.

You basically exist in a police/totalitarian state, where those who have money control, marginalize and exploit those without. I mean, did you not notice that you had a Coup de'tat attempt when Clinton was Impeached under false pretenses. Yes, Coup. The last one of those that was attempted was after FDR's assassination attempt in 1933 by Corporate interests. They even hired a general to raise an army to march on Washington. Luckily they have propoganda, which is much more effective, and generally bloodless.

So, you no longer live free, you no longer democratically decide the actions of your government, and you have little to no effect on the grossly distrubing amount of private power in the hands of several rich corporations. Corporations which control what you see and what you hear, almost in an all prevasive manner.

You can continue to talk about the land of the free, but unless you really begin to look at what history has shown (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Coup, Bush) There is a definate plan of subverting these very rights that your forefathers died for.

Your dictator will not likely give up power now, and I am afraid that the other democracies are getting pretty sick of hearing "Democracy Freedom are the way" when all that is done with it is "We want what you have and if you try and stop us you will be killed". 87 billion dollars, I mean, you know what you could have done, you could have just given it to Bush and said "please distribute to all of your friends". Then it would not have caused 100,000 (UN figures) some odd deaths in Iraq.

I recommend you don't choose which side of rich people you will side with, I recommend you change the very foundations of your government to more accurate reflect your constitution and the let me assure you, the intention was not to have lawyers barter away your very rights. Unfortunately, it's your country, and I hope you fix it, before your country attacks one which is predominately white, and welcome to WWIII... The US is very powerful, with the most fearsome war machine known to man, but so was Hitlers, and when you are threatening to take over the world and commit atrocities, then the world will fight you, and you will lose.

Flame me if you would like, but don't take my word for it, google it up. And hopefully, think more outside of the box you have been put into.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Neil

I'm totally blown away by what I am hearing. It's almost as if you watch television, accept it, and don't give it another thought. You miss all the real stuff and don't even bother coming to your own conclusions (I'm speaking generally, not specifically at anyone, and, indeed, I only read a smattering of words in regards to this topic.)

You argue right vs left, democrats vs republicans, but, you don't even live in the real world, it's like you are all trying to live in "tv land". Tv Land is where floors smell lemony fresh, everyone has a bungalow and a nice car and a green lawn... Thats not the real world.

Kerry had some good points. I watched his 1970's Veterans against the Vietnam War senate hearing, he was a man, and he stood by the courage of his convictions. I can appriciate that, at least he wasn't drumming for more money. That's character. You don't get that from just anywhere.

In the end, Black Tuesday represents the prevailing Republican propaganda mastermind, Rupert "Grobbles" Murdock and this Christian-Nazi NWO which the Bushes (All the way to Nazi collaborator, and grandfather of GW, Prescott Bush) keep espousing.
You no longer have meaningful elections (The UN was removed from judging their fairness) and you no longer have any true civil liberties... The government now has the right to ignore them without due process without court order or even a judge to say yeah or nay. You can be pulled away and interrogated ( Or shipped to Syria for torture as many have) for as long as they so wish.

You basically exist in a police/totalitarian state, where those who have money control, marginalize and exploit those without. I mean, did you not notice that you had a Coup de'tat attempt when Clinton was Impeached under false pretenses. Yes, Coup. The last one of those that was attempted was after FDR's assassination attempt in 1933 by Corporate interests. They even hired a general to raise an army to march on Washington. Luckily they have propoganda, which is much more effective, and generally bloodless.

So, you no longer live free, you no longer democratically decide the actions of your government, and you have little to no effect on the grossly distrubing amount of private power in the hands of several rich corporations. Corporations which control what you see and what you hear, almost in an all prevasive manner.

You can continue to talk about the land of the free, but unless you really begin to look at what history has shown (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Coup, Bush) There is a definate plan of subverting these very rights that your forefathers died for.

Your dictator will not likely give up power now, and I am afraid that the other democracies are getting pretty sick of hearing "Democracy Freedom are the way" when all that is done with it is "We want what you have and if you try and stop us you will be killed". 87 billion dollars, I mean, you know what you could have done, you could have just given it to Bush and said "please distribute to all of your friends". Then it would not have caused 100,000 (UN figures) some odd deaths in Iraq.

I recommend you don't choose which side of rich people you will side with, I recommend you change the very foundations of your government to more accurate reflect your constitution and the let me assure you, the intention was not to have lawyers barter away your very rights. Unfortunately, it's your country, and I hope you fix it, before your country attacks one which is predominately white, and welcome to WWIII... The US is very powerful, with the most fearsome war machine known to man, but so was Hitlers, and when you are threatening to take over the world and commit atrocities, then the world will fight you, and you will lose.

Flame me if you would like, but don't take my word for it, google it up. And hopefully, think more outside of the box you have been put into.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

NeilI nominate this to be the post of the millenium

Too damn bad, Kerry won lost, Al Gore should have been there winning his RE-ELECTION but he didnt Bush cheated, the first time it counted more, he has been a horrible leader, and very likely a terrorist in disguise.

Too damn bad, Kerry won lost, Al Gore should have been there winning his RE-ELECTION but he didnt Bush cheated, the first time it counted more, he has been a horrible leader, and very likely a terrorist in disguise.
America lost its democracy

As a democrat and "blue" american i can well understand your frustration with the party in the last election.

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.


I hate when people lose an election cry out AMERICA OR DEMOCRACY has failed. Kerry lost the election because he did not address one of the most major issues on the heart of the majority of Americans.. I'm sorry to say it but it's Values.

It's been far too long that Democrats/liberals/Media Elite have looked down upon Evangelicals and those who hold values as an important issue. They refer to them as stupid and ignorant. Instead of reaching out to this base they reject this base and the numbers show that they gave up a HUGE voting block by doing so. Which rises a question, if values and morality is an important issue that one of the largest voting blocks (evangelicals) take up, then why didn't the democrats go after that block? Which raises another question, who's ignorant and stupid now?

I hate when people lose an election cry out AMERICA OR DEMOCRACY has failed. Kerry lost the election because he did not address one of the most major issues on the heart of the majority of Americans.. I'm sorry to say it but it's Values.

It's been far too long that Democrats/liberals/Media Elite have looked down upon Evangelicals and those who hold values as an important issue. They refer to them as stupid and ignorant. Instead of reaching out to this base they reject this base and the numbers show that they gave up a HUGE voting block by doing so. Which rises a question, if values and morality is an important issue that one of the largest voting blocks (evangelicals) take up, then why didn't the democrats go after that block? Which raises another question, who's ignorant and stupid now?
you are--this is pure rightwing propaganda and has nothing to do with why Bush won the election at all--Bush was packaged and advertised better by the corporate neocon controlled media

Yea, I read it. Maybe the South can go fuck itsself but it fucks itsself in so in The White House. And will until Democrats can at leaste show a bit of respesct for them. Agree with them or not, noone is going to vote for a party that shits on them every chance it gets.

AMEN!

This last line is why Democrats have utterly failed to carry the South in recent elections. Underestimate and belittle, and you'll quickly learn that you've alienated a large part of what you're trying to serve.
But wait, didn't Republicans belittle people from the Northeast? It appears to work both ways.

Oh. Hell. No.

He didn't even spend his entire campaign fund? These are the DEMOCRATS, they had their convention earlier, they should have run themselves clean out, especially with GWB's freaking presidency ripe for the picking.

Between this and that concession crap... I mean, I know Bush won Ohio anyway, but that was NOT COOL.

In 2008 when I can vote, my primary ballot is going to the southern governor. It worked with Clinton, it'll work again. My dad has noticed, and I agree, that usually the governors win and the senators don't. "Kerry is more electable" MY ASS, what's electable is a governor from the opposite region.

But wait, didn't Republicans belittle people from the Northeast? It appears to work both ways.
Bush ran his entire campaign based on smears not issues--republicans are the ones who invented the politics of personal destruction

But wait, didn't Republicans belittle people from the Northeast? It appears to work both ways.
That's the funny thing. Republicans used to carry New York, Maine, New Hampshire, etc, and now that they don't, we get all this "liberal New England limp-wristed elitism"...

I've said this far too many times, it goes both ways, ALWAYS.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Enjoy :p

I read the webpage.. It seems like the person who wrote is as old as AMERICA. He claims that what the forefathers stood for back then is what democrats/liberals stand for today...

THINGS CHANGE!!! I read that webpage and whoever wrote was an utter idiot. Basing his arguement that the Northeast Liberals were the orginal view of the forefathers BECAUSE THEY LIVED THERE! Can I say ASS?

I believe if the forefathers were alive today a lot of them would be appalled by what is going on in America today. I believe we have misinterpreted the orginal intent of the forefathers and in return defined what we THINK their orginal intent was. This is what I think.

But i have to say the person who put up that webpage.. You're an Ass.

you are--this is pure rightwing propaganda and has nothing to do with why Bush won the election at all--Bush was packaged and advertised better by the corporate neocon controlled media

neocon Controlled Media... EHHHHH.. HELLO!!! The media is controlled by liberals. Do you not understand that the major media sources (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NEW YORK TIME, LA TIMES) are all in blue states and are very bias in their covering.. It has been a known fact that these major Media networks have all leaned towards the Left. I might agree with you that Bush was packaged to that base, but not better.. THAT base had no other choice because kerry's camp didn't even present him to that base.. Didn't even reach out to that base..

So let me repeat my earlier question. WHO's Stupid now for not even presenting Kerry to the Evangelicals? For ignoring that major block and not reaching out.. It's all propaganda... RIGHT!

PS.. are you even from the US!

neocon Controlled Media... EHHHHH.. HELLO!!! The media is controlled by liberals. Do you not understand that the major media sources (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NEW YORK TIME, LA TIMES) are all in blue states and are very bias in their covering.. It has been a known fact that these major Media networks have all leaned towards the Left. I might agree with you that Bush was packaged to that base, but not better.. THAT base had no other choice because kerry's camp didn't even present him to that base.. Didn't even reach out to that base..
blah blah blah FOX NEWS ROBERT MURDOCH OMG!!!

neocon Controlled Media... EHHHHH.. HELLO!!! The media is controlled by liberals. Do you not understand that the major media sources (ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, NEW YORK TIME, LA TIMES) are all in blue states and are very bias in their covering.. It has been a known fact that these major Media networks have all leaned towards the Left. I might agree with you that Bush was packaged to that base, but not better.. THAT base had no other choice because kerry's camp didn't even present him to that base.. Didn't even reach out to that base..

So let me repeat my earlier question. WHO's Stupid now for not even presenting Kerry to the Evangelicals? For ignoring that major block and not reaching out.. It's all propaganda... RIGHT!

PS.. are you even from the US!
yeah--I live in the liberated state of NY

As a democrat and "blue" american i can well understand your frustration with the party in the last election.

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.
You gave the American public John Kerry as a presidential candidate. the fault lies entirely on your shoulders.

You gave the American public John Kerry as a presidential candidate. the fault lies entirely on your shoulders.
the corporate controlled neocon media assassinated Deans candidacy cause they saw he would win it and wasnt part of the skull establishment

You gave the American public John Kerry as a presidential candidate. the fault lies entirely on your shoulders.


That's incorrect.

The democratic party fielded a candidate who was superior to George Bush in every important respect.

That's incorrect.

The democratic party fielded a candidate who was superior to George Bush in every important respect.
? :D Of course. This explains why almost everyone I know who voted Dem said their reason for voting was because they disliked Bush. When asked about Kerry's stances on issues they were completely clueless. Love your distance from reality.

John Kerry lost because he failed to offer anything better. There's only one respect in which I really believe this is a conservative country, and this is it: America will not respond to the argument that "things are bad, so you'd better make a change." America, as a whole, will never vote for change just for the sake of change. Kerry successfully showed America that Bush in the White House is a bad thing. He utterly failed to show America that Kerry in the White House is a good thing. And that's why he lost.

? :D Of course. This explains why almost everyone I know who voted Dem said their reason for voting was because they disliked Bush. When asked about Kerry's stances on issues they were completely clueless. Love your distance from reality.
as if Bush had any issues other then in demonizing Kerry

John Kerry lost because he failed to offer anything better. There's only one respect in which I really believe this is a conservative country, and this is it: America will not respond to the argument that "things are bad, so you'd better make a change." America, as a whole, will never vote for change just for the sake of change. Kerry successfully showed America that Bush in the White House is a bad thing. He utterly failed to show America that Kerry in the White House is a good thing. And that's why he lost.
this I agree with--Kerry defined Bush well enuf the problem is he never defined himself

If Kerry wanted to win, all he had to do was have that clip of Bush laughing at a clip of himself looking under the oval office desk saying "nope, no WMD there," and play it over and over and over in Ohio...

Fuck Bush and Fuck Kerry, I told all of you assholes last year that they were on the same side.

They are on the same side: America. Get your head out of your ass and realize that this is about leading a country...not pleasing half of it.

the corporate controlled neocon media assassinated Deans candidacy cause they saw he would win it and wasnt part of the skull establishment

No. Dean, and Kerry as well, was too goddamned liberal to win. This is no conspiracy. Dean would have went down faster and harder than Kerry ever did. What the Democratic party needs is more of a centrist figure. This is why Clinton won and Gore and Kerry lost. Clinton appealed to far more "undecideds."

Why did he do that?

The 15 million was the money his campaign had raised (actually some reports peg that number as high as 40 million) and not spent. When Kerry accepted national funding, which he had to after he accepted the Democratic Nomination, those remaining funds were frozen, thereby that is why he still has them.


Honestly man, don't be stupid.

Ok people I don't see the point to bitching and moaning over the elections since nothing we say or do will change a damn thing. And for Kerinica who said something about Kerry running again next year.. Well that's not going to happen since the elections are every 4 years not every single year. I'd also like to point out that if anyone noticed Kerry conceded before the final results even came in, This in itself tells me Kerry isn't likely a very trustworthy president. If he were serious I think he should have at least hung on until everything was said and done and not quit. :sniper:

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.
Amen. Black Tuesday just proves to me that my great uncle was right all along. The Soviets really did spray stuff into our air that made Americans go crazy.

I'd also like to point out that if anyone noticed Kerry conceded before the final results even came in, This in itself tells me Kerry isn't likely a very trustworthy president. If he were serious I think he should have at least hung on until everything was said and done and not quit. :sniper:

No, that was just Kerry doing what was in America's best interest for the first time in his life. The country didn't need another drawn out bullshit trial. Kerry knew this...thankfully...

No. Dean, and Kerry as well, was too goddamned liberal to win. This is no conspiracy. Dean would have went down faster and harder than Kerry ever did. What the Democratic party needs is more of a centrist figure. This is why Clinton won and Gore and Kerry lost. Clinton appealed to far more "undecideds."

A clark edwards platform was where it was at if they wanted to win

A clark edwards platform was where it was at if they wanted to win

I don't know...edwards was a weird guy. He seemed a little too...well...gay...to me.

I don't know...edwards was a weird guy. He seemed a little too...well...gay...to me.

a gay with a wife and kids who wont support gay marriage. i thought he was a better vice candidate than cheney, hes from the south so they can pick up some of the southern vote and when he was born he was dirt poor so hes not lofty like kerry

The 15 million was the money his campaign had raised (actually some reports peg that number as high as 40 million) and not spent. When Kerry accepted national funding, which he had to after he accepted the Democratic Nomination, those remaining funds were frozen, thereby that is why he still has them.


Honestly man, don't be stupid.
I'm not being stupid--that was money he couldn't use in his own campaign. There was no rule that said he couldn't pass it along to, say, Inez Tenenbaum in South Carolina or Erskine Bowles in North Carolina or any of the other Senate and House races where the Democrats got their asses kicked in the end because they didn't have the money to compete. Instead, it's in the fucking bank, and I have every reason to be pissed about it.

I'm really sick of this "intellectual elite" term so-called "Evangelicals" and "regular people" use like it is some sort of weapon. Since when is having an education and being aware of the world an an INSULT? It's disturbing to me that Kerry by being "lofty" makes him somehow less eligible to be President. What I find particularly irritating by this nomiker is that BUSH is from a far more elite family, AND has a Yale and Harvard education (though it hardly shows -- he squeaked through school on his family name.) Has anyone noticed, or is he just so stupid no one would even consider his background and education before spouting off this nonsense?

I've got news for you folks: there is a reason that a large number of presidents, senators, and other high-level officials have been educated at the likes of Harvard and Yale, and it has nothing to do with being "lofty." It has to do with the resources these schools have that given their students access to networks, powerful people, and education that PREPARES them for a life on the world stage. Lacking that education or failing in it (as Bush practically did) creates a less-prepared, ignorant politician who really can't see the big picture (another fault of Bush, whose view is so narrow it's frightening.) We are a WORLD POWER, we NEED leaders with vision, diplomacy, and poise. How isloated are Americans willing to become? Have you noticed what our tax cuts and isolationist economic policies are doing to our economy, which BTW is on the verge of collapse? Did you care so much if two gays got married or not that you let more and more of our soldiers die in a war they can't get out of? Did you consider that they may be dying for a Evangelical notion of a holy war against Muslims?

Did it occur to you that this "leader" of ours makes policy based on "instinct?" What instincts are those? Easy certainty usually spells disaster, and that is what this President offered us. His Ivy League education SHOULD have taught him that an easy answer is usually NOT the right one. If he hadn't been hung over in most of his classes, he might have recalled that.

George W. Bush appeals to worst aspects of the American spirit, and undermines the intelligence of the people. He should have used his education to learn something instead of coast through life on his family's money. The man is a failure at everything he's tried except one thing: appealing to the lowest values, opinions, and intelligence of the American people. Like the idiots they've proven to the world they are, half the country fell for it. It's an embarassment. At least Kerry is willing to ADMIT to his Ivy League education, own it, and show it did something for him other than give him a fancy piece of paper to hang with his arrest warrants!

Ge-Ren (an Ivy-League educated Kerry supporter, proud to be "lofty" if it means to be smart!)

I'm really sick of this "intellectual elite" term so-called "Evangelicals" and "regular people" use like it is some sort of weapon. Since when is having an education and being aware of the world an an INSULT? It's disturbing to me that Kerry by being "lofty" makes him somehow less eligible to be President. What I find particularly irritating by this nomiker is that BUSH is from a far more elite family, AND has a Yale and Harvard education (though it hardly shows -- he squeaked through school on his family name.) Has anyone noticed, or is he just so stupid no one would even consider his background and education before spouting off this nonsense?

I've got news for you folks: there is a reason that a large number of presidents, senators, and other high-level officials have been educated at the likes of Harvard and Yale, and it has nothing to do with being "lofty." It has to do with the resources these schools have that given their students access to networks, powerful people, and education that PREPARES them for a life on the world stage. Lacking that education or failing in it (as Bush practically did) creates a less-prepared, ignorant politician who really can't see the big picture (another fault of Bush, whose view is so narrow it's frightening.) We are a WORLD POWER, we NEED leaders with vision, diplomacy, and poise. How isloated are Americans willing to become? Have you noticed what our tax cuts and isolationist economic policies are doing to our economy, which BTW is on the verge of collapse? Did you care so much if two gays got married or not that you let more and more of our soldiers die in a war they can't get out of? Did you consider that they may be dying for a Evangelical notion of a holy war against Muslims?

Did it occur to you that this "leader" of ours makes policy based on "instinct?" What instincts are those? Easy certainty usually spells disaster, and that is what this President offered us. His Ivy League education SHOULD have taught him that an easy answer is usually NOT the right one. If he hadn't been hung over in most of his classes, he might have recalled that.

George W. Bush appeals to worst aspects of the American spirit, and undermines the intelligence of the people. He should have used his education to learn something instead of coast through life on his family's money. The man is a failure at everything he's tried except one thing: appealing to the lowest values, opinions, and intelligence of the American people. Like the idiots they've proven to the world they are, half the country fell for it. It's an embarassment. At least Kerry is willing to ADMIT to his Ivy League education, own it, and show it did something for him other than give him a fancy piece of paper to hang with his arrest warrants!

Ge-Ren (an Ivy-League educated Kerry supporter, proud to be "lofty" if it means to be smart!)
Excellent. Spectacular. :D Good points.. XD

I'm not being stupid--that was money he couldn't use in his own campaign. There was no rule that said he couldn't pass it along to, say, Inex Tenenbaum in South Carolina or Erskine Bowles in North Carolina or any of the other Senate and House races where the Democrats got their asses kicked in the end because they didn't have the money to compete. Instead, it's in the fucking bank, and I have every reason to be pissed about it.
No...you don't seem to understand. That money is frozen. It cannot be moved. Its stuck, as if it doesn't even exist. Funds from one campaign cannot be moved to another campaign, they just can't. Its in the law. Those funds can either wait till next election, or be paid out to members of his election team/volunteers, or however else he wants to split it. He could not move it to other campaigns. You have no reason to be pissed off, learn the laws, and realize there is a reason there is no ruccus about this remaining money.

No...you don't seem to understand. That money is frozen. It cannot be moved. Its stuck, as if it doesn't even exist. Funds from one campaign cannot be moved to another campaign, they just can't. Its in the law. Those funds can either wait till next election, or be paid out to members of his election team/volunteers, or however else he wants to split it. He could not move it to other campaigns. You have no reason to be pissed off, learn the laws, and realize there is a reason there is no ruccus about this remaining money.
I'm sorry, but you're very much mistaken about that. Kerry did in fact move about $32 million in funds to the DNC after he accepted the public financing for the general election post-convention, so that money obviously wasn't frozen. The general suspicion--and it's a suspicion because Kerry won't tell anyone why he did it--is that he wanted it as seed money for a 2008 run, presumably as an incumbent. He apparently forgot that you have to win the first time to win as an incumbent the second time.

Kerry to give Dems campaign cash (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/democrats.kerry.ap/index.html)

Kerry to give Dems campaign cash (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/democrats.kerry.ap/index.html)
It's a little late.

It's a little late.

Don't worry, I'm sure his failure to try to win the Presidency or even fight against Diebold voting machines doesn't have anything to do with his Skull and Bones affiliation...

Don't worry, I'm sure his failure to try to win the Presidency or even fight against Diebold voting machines doesn't have anything to do with his Skull and Bones affiliation...
You know something, Texastambul? As a member of a secret society myself, I'd be willing to bet that even though you're being sarcastic, your statement is still completely correct.

You know something, Texastambul? As a member of a secret society myself, I'd be willing to bet that even though you're being sarcastic, your statement is still completely correct.

I knew it!!! You're a member of the Flat Earth Society!

I knew it!!! You're a member of the Flat Earth Society!
:D

Hear me out--this is posted on my blog (http://incertus.blogspot.com) with a slightly more colorful title.



Now, for a little addendum. I'm not leaving the Democratic party (no matter what my signature says), but I'm intent on reforming it, and if the insiders currently in control of the party continue to control it, then the DNC won't get another penny from me, they won't get another drop of sweat from me, they won't get another word of mine written in support of them. I'll put my money and my efforts into the 527s and other Democratic party reform groups like Democracy for America and the New Democratic Network.

So there--I've vented. If anyone wants to take a shot, now's the time.

He needs the $15 million for utilities (5 mansions, to avoid THK), and for gas (SUVs, yachts, private jets). He'll be OK, because he pays a lower tax rate than active US soldiers in Iraq. BUT, start sending your pennies to Hillary.

It fielded a candidate who was better than george bush in every respect.

and they lost seats in the HOUSE and the SENATE

The democratic party is a miserable failure. heads should roll. terry mcaulife should be publicly castigated. i think spending an afternoon on the Hill in locks would be quite appropriate punishment for him.

The senate minority leader lost reeclection. four veteran texas reps lost.

What is wrong with the party that they can't win campaigns?

it starts with their MESSAGE. they haven't got one these days other than "we're not bush"

when they do come up with a message, it is unintelligible. they don't know how to frame their arguments. they get battered by republican rhetoric the way mice get batted about by my cat.

what they need are good marketing people. and good candidates.

they also have to realize in this age a north-eastern candidate simply WILL NOT WIN the presidency.

No president since JFK has hailed from the north. (Not to mention he is also the last one who was a senator while running for office. out of the gate two strikes against kerry. the political operatives should be doing some trend analysis before fielding candidates)

LBJ - Texas
Nixon - California
Ford - was not elected
Carter - Georgia
Reagan - California
Bush I - Texas
Clinton - Arkansas
Bush II - Texas

Frankly, I don't think Kerry has a chance in hell of being elected in 2008. he should focus on being a senator.

another issue - edwards as VEEP. Nice to look at, but too nice to be the VP candidate in this race. It really needed to be someone who could - and would - be the ticket's attack dog. Like cheney is for bush.

I think Clark would have been a better VP choice. It's fine if the VP is sometimes a bit obtuse in conversation. I also think it would have been near impossible for the republicans to claim lack of foreign affairs knowledge when the former NATO commander is on the ticket.

i could continue to rant to hours, but really, i have some work to get done now...

The senate minority leader lost reeclection.
He was in a tough state fighting the national fundraising power of the Republican Party.

We got beat in the Senate because this year 5 Southern Democrats suddenly decided to retire. If 5 Northeastern Republicans had suddenly retired, we'd be looking at our own 4 seat pickup.

four veteran texas reps lost.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay switched the districts around last year, among LOTS of controversy, and now is in danger of being indicted for reasons related to that. He threw the Texas 5, as they were called, into heavy Republican districts, or even campaigning against other Republican incumbents! It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now, and had that not happened, the DEMOCRATS would have picked up a seat. Hah.

they also have to realize in this age a north-eastern candidate simply WILL NOT WIN the presidency.
Depends on the candidates.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay switched the districts around last year, among LOTS of controversy, and now is in danger of being indicted for reasons related to that. He threw the Texas 5, as they were called, into heavy Republican districts, or even campaigning against other Republican incumbents! It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now, and had that not happened, the DEMOCRATS would have picked up a seat. Hah.
Whats really bullshit is the old electoral map which produced more Democratic Congressmen from Texas than Republican ones.

As a democrat and "blue" american i can well understand your frustration with the party in the last election.

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.
Yeah, sure, right. And it was all bin Laden's fault, too.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html
The dems just don't get it. It was their ideas that were rejected on November 2, not their candidate. They are in complete denial. I feel sorry for them.

Yeah, sure, right. And it was all bin Laden's fault, too.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139060,00.html
The dems just don't get it. It was their ideas that were rejected on November 2, not their candidate. They are in complete denial. I feel sorry for them.

Yeah, those fucking democrats! Don't they realize people don't want equal rights, a good economy, and peace?

Yeah, those fucking democrats! Don't they realize people don't want equal rights, a good economy, and peace?
You're wrong. People do want those things. The democrats just weren't offering them.

Because americans arent good people.

That's pretty dim commentary.

You're wrong. People do want those things. The democrats just weren't offering them.

I call bullshit.

Equal rights: gay marrige
Good economy: Fucking huge deficit, outsourcing, job loses
Peace: do I even fucking NEED to comment here?

That's pretty dim commentary.
Par for the course on this forum. Americans are ignorant, stupid, uncultured, warmongering, imperialist rubes. How else could we have re-elected President Bush? Why don't Americans wake up and recognize the inherent superiority of the euro-snobs and canucks? ;)

I call bullshit.

Equal rights: gay marrige
Good economy: Fucking huge deficit, outsourcing, job loses
Peace: do I even fucking NEED to comment here?
Call anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

The voters didn't see it your way.

Call anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

The voters didn't see it your way.

Ok, let's try another game, it's called "Actually Comment on What I Said, Instead of Just Saying 'Well, That's Not How it is.'"

Ready? Go!

Ok, let's try another game, it's called "Actually Comment on What I Said, Instead of Just Saying 'Well, That's Not How it is.'"

Ready? Go!
This is what I mean about denial. The truth of reality doesn't matter to these people; they always have some excuse. The truth is: their ideas were rejected by the American electorate. Liberal ideology got bitch-slapped on November 2, 2004, and they're emotionally incapable of dealing with it.

This is what I mean about denial. The truth of reality doesn't matter to these people; they always have some excuse. The truth is: their ideas were rejected by the American electorate. Liberal ideology got bitch-slapped on November 2, 2004, and they're emotionally incapable of dealing with it.
You make it sound like there was some landslide against the Democrats. :p

Whats really bullshit is the old electoral map which produced more Democratic Congressmen from Texas than Republican ones.
Hmm. Interesting point. Should we stabilize every state to ensure that proportional amount of Democrats and Republicans are elected to coincide with their presidential vote?

You make it sound like there was some landslide against the Democrats. :p
Not a landslide, but a clear, convincing, undeniable rejection of liberal ideology. They lost the Presidential race, lost seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate, and lost almost every liberal-backed state ballot initiative.

You know something, Texastambul? As a member of a secret society myself, I'd be willing to bet that even though you're being sarcastic, your statement is still completely correct.

Is your secret society comprised of CFR members, high ranking Pentagon Officials, the owners of the US media, Senators and the tops of the influetial Think Tanks?

you know, Skull and Bones ain't the Boy Scouts.

This is what I mean about denial. The truth of reality doesn't matter to these people; they always have some excuse. The truth is: their ideas were rejected by the American electorate. Liberal ideology got bitch-slapped on November 2, 2004, and they're emotionally incapable of dealing with it.

Bitch slapped?

You one of those "OMG MANDATE!ONEONE!" idiots, arn't you?

In case you haven't read what I've posted earlier, it's simple: the truth is, a lot of people are against a good economy, peace, and equal rights. And in my eyes, that makes them worthless little shits.

Not a landslide, but a clear, convincing, undeniable rejection of liberal ideology. They lost the Presidential race, lost seats in the House, lost seats in the Senate, and lost almost every liberal-backed state ballot initiative.
As I've pointed out, a 51%-48% popular vote, 286-252 electoral vote presidential race is one of the closest in American history. Not counting 2000, this is the first year neither candidate got 300 electoral votes since 1916.

The Senate? 5 Southern Democrats decided to retire. Bad luck for us. If 5 New England Republicans had retired, WE would have picked up seats.

The House? Tom DeLay gerrymandered the districts to beat 4 Texas Democrats. Incidentally, the Republicans only picked up 4 seats nationwide. hah.

Ballot initiative? Montana approved a medical marijuana bill. California approved a stem cell research bill. California also rejected a new three strikes law. Alaska, home of the most hardcore Republicans in America, almost decriminalized marijuana for 21+ year olds!!! Yes, we got beat on gay marriage. But those amendments will come under lawsuits because they also ban civil unions, homosexual AND heterosexual.

There was no national "rejection" of liberalism.

LBJ - Texas
Nixon - California
Ford - was not elected
Carter - Georgia
Reagan - California
Bush I - Texas
Clinton - Arkansas
Bush II - Texas


Bush I was not a Texan... he was from the north -- you are pawned.

Bush I was not a Texan... he was from the north -- you are pawned.
He was a Congressman from Texas. If you go by birthplace, John Kerry is from Colorado, both Bushes are from Connecticut, and Reagan is from Illinois...

I'll tell you how I saw it fail.

-It focused on non-issues like Kerry's and Bush's Vietnam record and either ignored some issues (freedom for homosexuals) or just dropped the ball on others (failing to point out the lies of the Republican ads).

-It did NOT have a clear and consise platform that the 'average Joe' could understand or agree with (I know of a few DEMOCRATS who voted for Bush because tehy really couldn't understand Kerry's message).

-It did not uphold it's base (the cities) while it undermined it's own ideology to try to (unsucessfully) reach the 'salt of the earth' people (isn't salt a type of DIRT?)

-It generally REACTED to Republican claims and ads, it never once (that I saw) took the initiative in anything.

We LOST roughly 10% of our Democratic base this election. We LOST those guys. Now we have to find out HOW so we can fix it. The Democratic party DID fail (I admit to my OWn failure in this aspect as well), but pointing fingers or trying simple one-hit-fixes is NOT going to solve the issue. Lets not point fingers, lets find a solution and put it into gear.

Geez . . .

There is the problem you don't see. You see people, that don't live in those huge ugly cities, as dirt. If you can't see the problem with that, republicans will keep winning.

No, that was just Kerry doing what was in America's best interest for the first time in his life.
Can you say "par-ti-san-ship"?

I have become roughly failiar with Kerry's life story. It's not perfect, but it appears that he has done many patriotic things. For example: fighting in Vietnam, opposing the Vietnam war, exposing the Iran-Contra scandal.

I'm really sick of this "intellectual elite" term so-called "Evangelicals" and "regular people" use like it is some sort of weapon. Since when is having an education and being aware of the world an an INSULT? It's disturbing to me that Kerry by being "lofty" makes him somehow less eligible to be President. What I find particularly irritating by this nomiker is that BUSH is from a far more elite family, AND has a Yale and Harvard education (though it hardly shows -- he squeaked through school on his family name.) Has anyone noticed, or is he just so stupid no one would even consider his background and education before spouting off this nonsense?

Bush's campaign team appealed to anti-intellectualism in the voters. He was cast as a populist, getting rid of the "liberal elites". The sad fact appears to be that too many Americans vote based on who they would rather go and have a beer with. Not enough of them sit down and think who would better lead America in the world.

This is what I mean about denial. The truth of reality doesn't matter to these people; they always have some excuse. The truth is: their ideas were rejected by the American electorate. Liberal ideology got bitch-slapped on November 2, 2004, and they're emotionally incapable of dealing with it.
What so John Kerry = Liberal ideology now?

You still didn't answer his points. Obviously the actual issues don't matter to you. It's the neocons "let's go Rambo on the world cuz we are teh INVINCIBLE!!!" who live outside reality.

As I've pointed out, a 51%-48% popular vote, 286-252 electoral vote presidential race is one of the closest in American history. Not counting 2000, this is the first year neither candidate got 300 electoral votes since 1916.

The Senate? 5 Southern Democrats decided to retire. Bad luck for us. If 5 New England Republicans had retired, WE would have picked up seats.

The House? Tom DeLay gerrymandered the districts to beat 4 Texas Democrats. Incidentally, the Republicans only picked up 4 seats nationwide. hah.

Ballot initiative? Montana approved a medical marijuana bill. California approved a stem cell research bill. California also rejected a new three strikes law. Alaska, home of the most hardcore Republicans in America, almost decriminalized marijuana for 21+ year olds!!! Yes, we got beat on gay marriage. But those amendments will come under lawsuits because they also ban civil unions, homosexual AND heterosexual.

There was no national "rejection" of liberalism.
Both parties support gerrymandering to the extreme. Look at Illinois.

Yes, we got beat on gay marriage.
Almost all those amendments were in conservative states anyway.

There is the problem you don't see. You see people, that don't live in those huge ugly cities, as dirt. If you can't see the problem with that, republicans will keep winning.
Care to find a comment by John Kerry or Edwards insulting rural people? Because I'm sure I can find a quote from Bush laying into Massachusetts liberals.

Here's why the Dems lost.

THEY PUT TWO LAWYERS ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is only one group of people middle America hates more, and we're currently engaging them in combat.

Almost all those amendments were in conservative states anyway.


Care to find a comment by John Kerry or Edwards insulting rural people? Because I'm sure I can find a quote from Bush laying into Massachusetts liberals.


I wasn't talking about Kerry or Edwards, I was talking about that Idiot who made the post I was replying to.

None of you get it!!! Bush is death, he thinking of bringing back conscription which means you all have to go out and fight for two years, it wont be long before Blair follows his lead and sends us all into Iraq doing his dirty work. People think that election in America meant nothing over in The UK, but let me tell you, if Blair does this conscription over here, I can kiss my ass goodbye, anf so can most of you other men aged 18-30.

None of you get it!!! Bush is death, he thinking of bringing back conscription which means you all have to go out and fight for two years, it wont be long before Blair follows his lead and sends us all into Iraq doing his dirty work. People think that election meant nothing over in The UK, but let me tell you, if Blair does this conscription over here, I can kiss my ass goodbye, anf so can most of you other men aged 18-30.


Wow, that is stupid. Bush never said he would bring conscription in to the US. Notice I didn't say " bring back conscription", maybe you mean the draft. But he said he wouldn't start a draft either. Take a look at the US Military today. We are not hurting for troops. We are at the highest level since the 90's cutbacks.

None of you get it!!! Bush is death, he thinking of bringing back conscription which means you all have to go out and fight for two years, it wont be long before Blair follows his lead and sends us all into Iraq doing his dirty work. People think that election in America meant nothing over in The UK, but let me tell you, if Blair does this conscription over here, I can kiss my ass goodbye, anf so can most of you other men aged 18-30.
If Blair attepted conscription I would not be surprised if there was a coup attempt against him! He is already unpopular enough, so it would obviously be political suicide.

jeah... i got that point. but...THat should not have got anything to do with politics. Well... actually...i am being quite naive. in your "free to any religion" land you pay even your grosseries with money marked "in god we trust".
These days one can not even say wich is the worst evil...islamic fundamentalism or american cristian fundamentalism. cause they both commit crimes just the same. :headbang:


Yep. Cause I see all of our religious leaders saying that it is perfectly all right to strap fifty pounds of explosives on yourself and detonate yourself in the middle of a bunch of schoolchildren.

Yes but look, Bush went into a war which he knew what he wanted out of it, oil, and yet the Americans are so stupid that they will believe he went to hunt for WMD when it is so obvious he didnt. So aslong as he puts down a good enough reason as to wh ythe draft should be brought back, he is laughing. America's military strength is high now, but look at the way troops are falling and look how far America and the UK are getting. more and more good troops are lost all the time.
The UK will attempt to follow anything America instructs it.

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Enjoy :p

That's hilarious. Unfounded and assholish, but hilarious all the same.

And just like Bush, Churchill had no problem with imposing imperialism on the middle east.

fuck that alcoholic prick, Churchill was just as bad as Stalin.

What the hell!!??

May I remind you that British Imperialism and the new American Imperialism are not identical. The Bristish took control of places themselves, governed them efficiently and invested in them far more than the U.S. does today, and had it not been for American pressure for the British to "bunk out" of places such as the middle east the situation today might not be as difficult.

Churchill was a fine leader who saved the allies during the second world war, while Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people, not to mention people from other countries. Remember that mass grave of the thousands of Polish officers? That wasn't Churchill's doing!

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

Then I humbly suggest that y'all move to Canada or Europe and leave us indecent folks alone. Seriously, your attitude reminds of Stalinist East German government which, after crushing an anti-Communist uprising on June 17, 1953 said that the people had lost the trust of the government. Bertold Brecht replied that the government then should disband its people and elect a new one.

None of you get it!!! Bush is death, he thinking of bringing back conscription which means you all have to go out and fight for two years, it wont be long before Blair follows his lead and sends us all into Iraq doing his dirty work. People think that election in America meant nothing over in The UK, but let me tell you, if Blair does this conscription over here, I can kiss my ass goodbye, anf so can most of you other men aged 18-30.

Saying that conscription might take place in the UK is ludicrous. Blair is trying to cut the number of fighting soldiers in the British Army to by 6,000, not increase its size. There will be a greater number of people involved in logistics but you don't conscript people for that.

Okay... I am not an American. But i gotta wonder? what the fuck do you people think in voting for bush!!? I mean the guy has broken basicly every international law ever written. He´s goverment has absolutely no respect to even your own costitutional rights!! He is a murdering cristian fanatic who just happens to be the leader of the so called "land of the free where religion should not have anything to do with politics". Am i the only one who sees the paradox here! :headbang: Congratiolatios your leaders are turning your once so great land into a shit kicking corporate police state... having fun raping every thing you people once held dear.
I MUST ASK WHY!?!? is it so funny to live your lifes black and white.

okay. i am sorry. if my opinions are uncorrecct. sew me. :mp5:
To paraphrase that bumper sticker that comes out after every election, don't blame me--I voted for Kerry!

except he had no balls...

they should have gone with Dean.
Wesley Clark was the right choice, but people were too hung up on the idea that he's not a "real Democrat," whatever that means.

Yep. Cause I see all of our religious leaders saying that it is perfectly all right to strap fifty pounds of explosives on yourself and detonate yourself in the middle of a bunch of schoolchildren.

You know I wouldn't be surprised if they did stop doing that if they thought it would stop homosexuality. And, Bush would be the first one to step up and propose a constitutional amendment saying "all homosexuals must be blown up in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" if he thought he could get away with it. And, now that we no longer have a checks in balances in our country he probably can.

Wesley Clark was the right choice, but people were too hung up on the idea that he's not a "real Democrat," whatever that means.

That stuff about Clark not being a real dem was all hype. I didn't vote for him because he didn't have any political experience and he didn't stand for anything but defense. Defending our country is important but I figured we needed a leader strong on domestic issues as well. That's why I voted for Dean

*And because Dean has the greatest pair of balls to ever hit the democratic party.

Hindsight sure is 20/20 isn't it? I wasn't hearing any of these criticisms of Kerry's campaign before the election. Kerry did fine, he won all three debates remember? People always talk about how Bush was so vulenerable, however, he was the incumbant during a time of war, which gave him a big advantage.

Perhaps the Democratic party does need to reform to be competitive, but it's stupid to look back and talk about how Kerry was an idiot or should have done this or that. Let's face it, people say that because they're bitter and they are still sore about losing a race that many thought was in the bag. It's amazing how people are so insightful once the race is over...

For those cursing the "stupid", "dumb", "redneck christians" for costing you the election, maybe you should think again. You'll likely need more of their vote next election to win and I don't think that alienating them and calling them names will really help with get you those votes.

Speaking of which, for all those who think that Bush got the "stupid people vote", I recommend looking at this page, which shows that the vote was split pretty evenly among all levels of education (and also shows many other statistics).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

As a democrat and "blue" american i can well understand your frustration with the party in the last election.

Problem is, it isnt the fault of the democrats that america isnt a good enough country to elect decent leaders.

The democratic party didnt fail on black tuesday, america did.

it isnt americas fault the democrats cant put up a candidate worth the effort it takes to go vote for..kerry please..he is the ultra-rich elitist liar everyone claims bush to be..

please recognize your own parties shortcoming before blaming everyone else

You know I wouldn't be surprised if they did stop doing that if they thought it would stop homosexuality. And, Bush would be the first one to step up and propose a constitutional amendment saying "all homosexuals must be blown up in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" if he thought he could get away with it. And, now that we no longer have a checks in balances in our country he probably can.

you sir or madam or cur..are a sensationalizing moron,,please this is so stupid..dont you see how stupid a quote that is...

it isnt americas fault the democrats cant put up a candidate worth the effort it takes to go vote for..kerry please..he is the ultra-rich elitist liar everyone claims bush to be..
Surely you noticed that both candidates were ultra-rich elitist liars? They were American politicians.

It fielded a candidate who was better than george bush in every respect.Still Kerry had important flaws...

Wesley Clark was the right choice, but people were too hung up on the idea that he's not a "real Democrat," whatever that means.Clark is a moron.

Well, the Democrats voted to nominate him. If John Kerry lost because of who he was, you guys have no one but yourselves to blame.

Well, the Democrats voted to nominate him. If John Kerry lost because of who he was, you guys have no one but yourselves to blame.
hmmm....how many democrats voted to nominate Kerry?

hmmm....how many democrats voted to nominate Kerry?
To be honest, I don't know. But he did win the nomination, so quite a few must have.

By the time we had are primaries here in Nebraska he was the only canidate left so we didn't have much of a choice.

I would like to tell all of you who think John Kerry can go to hell you all can go to hell John Kerry should be President right now

I would like to tell all of you who think John Kerry can go to hell you all can go to hell John Kerry should be President right now
Why? Because he got fewer votes? I'm confused...

I'm not leaving the Democratic party (no matter what my signature says), but I'm intent on reforming it, and if the insiders currently in control of the party continue to control it, then the DNC won't get another penny from me, they won't get another drop of sweat from me, they won't get another word of mine written in support of them.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Incertonia! The Democratic Party needs to reform itself, which is easier said than done, but I support your efforts as they're mine as well.

Okay... I am not an American. But i gotta wonder? what the fuck do you people think in voting for bush!!? I mean the guy has broken basicly every international law ever written. He´s goverment has absolutely no respect to even your own costitutional rights!! He is a murdering cristian fanatic who just happens to be the leader of the so called "land of the free where religion should not have anything to do with politics". Am i the only one who sees the paradox here! :headbang: Congratiolatios your leaders are turning your once so great land into a shit kicking corporate police state... having fun raping every thing you people once held dear.
I MUST ASK WHY!?!? is it so funny to live your lifes black and white.

okay. i am sorry. if my opinions are uncorrecct. sew me. :mp5:


Bush is not a Christian..... he was & is play acting as one so uninformed
Christians would vote for him. The Ten Commandments dictatates that
mankind is not to murder each other. Most everything bush is doing is
bringing the end of the world events described in the Bible closer to
actual reality. Check It Out for your selves in the Revelation if you don't
believe me.

By the way the separation of church and state rule originally was meant to
stop the government from forming a church that would be under state control
with mandatory attendence from everyone.

I do agree with you that bush has broken basicly every international law ever written and has absolutely no respect for our costitutional rights or for
anyone's rights except his own and his friends.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Incertonia! The Democratic Party needs to reform itself, which is easier said than done, but I support your efforts as they're mine as well.
I look at myself as a Reform Democrat now, plain and simple. The move toward the center that the party started in the early nineties with the rise of the DLC has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. All we've gotten out of it was Clinton--a two-term President who never got anything near 50% of the vote and who was able mainly to keep the wingnuts at bay, a hell of an accomplishment to be sure, and a testament to his personal political skill, but certainly not a blueprint from which to build future success. I look at Clinton as Wayne Gretzky--a political superstar who forced everyone around him to react to him, but who didn't change the game itself in any significant way.

And I think history proves that analysis out to some extent. I'm not advocating that the Democratic party return to the party it was in the sixties, but it can't continue to be the party the Republicans want us to be either, which is what it seems the DLC is at its core. I get so frustrated when I hear people saying that for the Democrats to win the Presidency, they need a centrist governor from the south or the midwest. That's crap--we're reacting to the rules the Republicans have laid down if we start thinking like that. We have to change the terms of the fight if we're going to win, get the Republicans reacting to us instead of the other way around.

In the short term, we'll be helped--and it pains me to say this because I'll likely be one of the people very affected by it--by the inevitable economic and military breakdown that's looming. Whether they want to admit it or not, the Republicans own the current situation--they've owned it completely for the last two years--and when it goes to shit, if the Democrats have been warning the public that it's going to happen and that we can't stop it, then we'll be in a position to start the cleanup and rebuilding efforts. We'll also be helped by the purge that has already started in the Republican party to remove their moderate element--they'll wind up in our camp, and I for one will welcome them.

But none of that addresses the long term goals of the party and the reform that needs to happen. So that's where people like us come in--we have to become the future leadership of the party, and we have to kick the current leadership in the gonads as hard as we can to shove them out of the way if necessary. I've got my steel-toed boots on--you with me? :D

Someone explain this to me--if Kerry really believed that this was the most important election of a generation, that there was no length to which he was not willing to go in order to beat George W. Bush, then why the fuck does he still have $15 million in campaign funds left over?

Here's my notice: I didn't give you much, John Fucking Kerry, but what I gave, I want back. And I want you to deliver it personally, so I can kick you in the balls--you owe me that much. I didn't like you in the primaries, and I didn't like defending your sorry ass in the whole general campaign, but I did it because I allowed myself to believe that you were serious about winning this thing. Obviously, I was wrong. You owe us that money, John Kerry, so pay up. :) You get what you deserve.

Incertonia, grow up.

Incertonia, grow up.
Salchicho, bite my shiny metal ass. Don't like my opinions? Put me on your ignore list. I won't lose any sleep over it, I promise you.

Some people say we need to move to the right, other people say we need to move to the left.

More than anything, we just need a strong candidate.

What makes a strong candidate is not necessarily their place on the political spectrum. It's more how they communicate it. How they appeal to the people.

Not every voter is as politically aware as us. They are more swayed by the candidate than the candidate's positions. We need someone who just appeals to the people, not someone who seems aloof and humorless.

If we move to the center, we lose the support of the wing. If we move to the left, we lose the support of the moderates. We need someone who can bring them all together.

So that's where people like us come in--we have to become the future leadership of the party, and we have to kick the current leadership in the gonads as hard as we can to shove them out of the way if necessary. I've got my steel-toed boots on--you with me? :D
Yes, I was recently reading a TIME article about "What next for the Democrats?" The author said that he expected an internal party struggle between the Republican-lites of the inner Washington leadership of the party, and the true liberals that make up the grassroots support across America.

If we're still alive to hold the '08 elections, I'm rooting for m'man Al Sharpton.

None of you get it!!! Bush is death, he thinking of bringing back conscription which means you all have to go out and fight for two years, it wont be long before Blair follows his lead and sends us all into Iraq doing his dirty work. People think that election in America meant nothing over in The UK, but let me tell you, if Blair does this conscription over here, I can kiss my ass goodbye, anf so can most of you other men aged 18-30.
Those were ultra-left Democrats that tried to get the draft back, not Bush, not Republicans.

War makes baby Jesus cry. Enough said.

Yeah, lets all hold hands and dance.

Yes, I was recently reading a TIME article about "What next for the Democrats?" The author said that he expected an internal party struggle between the Republican-lites of the inner Washington leadership of the party, and the true liberals that make up the grassroots support across America.

Don't think we're the only ones; if not next election, then very soon the republican party will be having their OWN problems.

If we're still alive to hold the '08 elections, I'm rooting for m'man Al Sharpton.

Oh god, I can only hope

Salchicho, bite my shiny metal ass. Don't like my opinions? Put me on your ignore list. I won't lose any sleep over it, I promise you.
Once again, feel free to act like an adult.

Once again, feel free to act like an adult.

Seriously, this is starting to bug. Find a better comeback already. You can be an idiot, that's allowed. But being an idiot who isn't funny is just plain irritating.

http://www.jayfiedlersucks.com/avretard.gif
?????

No one is talking to you.

Those were ultra-left Democrats that tried to get the draft back, not Bush, not Republicans.
Yeah, but you know why that is, right? Cos some of the left are thinking that the people in the army (mostly coming from places like Charles Rangel's (http://rangel.house.gov/) district) might have a slightly better life expectancy if their futures were a little more closely tied to the kids of privledge, the kids of the people who contribute lots of money to large political parties.

Don't think we're the only ones; if not next election, then very soon the republican party will be having their OWN problems.

Yes, the Republicans are by no means unified. However, I think their struggle will be between the moderate conservatives (John McCain) + the libertarian Republicans (e.g. Ron Paul) and the uber-right wing religious authoritarians + neocons.

I would like for the moderates to win, but I don't think they will. The latter group has the Bush administration on its side.

But where would the moderates go after they're forced out of the Reps? It would be cool to go to the Libertarians, to create the rise of a third party. But I think they would go to the Democrats, just like the progressive Republicans a century ago. The Democrats are already moving in the moderate conservative direction anyway.

I don't know if the social radicals will completely succeed in chasing the moderates out of the Republican party, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. After all, their brand of old-time religion doesn't allow for compromise, and now that they think they've got control of the country--and let's be frank, they do--they're going to start purging those they think are unworthy.

They've already gone after Lincoln Chaffee, and it won't surprise me if he bolts before he runs for re-election in 2006. He certainly won't have a leadership position in the Senate, so moving to the minority party won't affect his prospects much. They'll probably go after Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine after that, and if they're not careful, they'll find themselves back in that power sharing situation in the Senate, if not in the minority again.

Ideological purity can really bite you in the ass.