|
Post by GSC Admin on May 16, 2003 21:10:57 GMT -5
Senator John F. Kerrywww.johnkerry.com/John Kerry was born on December 11, 1943 at Fitzsimons Military Hospital in Denver, Colorado, where his father, Richard, who had volunteered to fly DC-3's in the Army Air Corps in World War II, was recovering from a bout with tuberculosis. Not long after Sen. Kerry's birth, his family returned home to Massachusetts. John Kerry was raised in the Catholic faith and continues to be an active member of the Catholic church. A graduate of Yale University, John Kerry entered the Navy after graduation, becoming a Swift Boat officer, serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat. By the time Senator Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he felt compelled to question decisions he believed were being made to protect those in positions of authority in Washington at the expense of the soldiers carrying on the fighting in Vietnam. Kerry was a co-founder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and became a spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- Morley Safer would describe him as "a veteran whose articulate call to reason rather than anarchy seemed to bridge the gap between Abbie Hoffman and Mr. Agnew's so-called 'Silent Majority.'" In April 1971, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he asked the question of his fellow citizens, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Sen. Claiborne Pell, (D-R.I.) thanked Kerry, then 27, for testifying before the committee, expressing his hope that Kerry "might one day be a colleague of ours in this body." Fourteen years later, John Kerry would have the opportunity to fulfill those hopes - serving side by side with Sen. Pell as a Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But in the intervening years, Kerry graduated from Boston College Law School and found different ways to fight for those things in which he believed. Time and again, Kerry fought to hold the political system accountable and to do what he believed was right. As a top prosecutor in Middlesex County, Kerry took on organized crime and put the Number Two mob boss in New England behind bars. He modernized the District Attorney's office, creating an innovative rape crisis crime unit, and as a lawyer in private practice he worked long and hard to prove the innocence of a man wrongly given a life sentence for a murder he did not commit. In 1984, after winning election as Lieutenant Governor in 1982, Kerry ran and was elected to serve in the United States Senate, running and winning a successful PAC-free Senate race and defeating a Republican opponent buoyed by Ronald Reagan's reelection coattails. Like his predecessor, the irreplaceable Paul Tsongas, Kerry came to the Senate with a reputation for independence -- and reinforced it by making tough choices on difficult issues: breaking with many in his own Party to support Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction; taking on corporate welfare and government waste; pushing for campaign finance reform; holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; working with John McCain in the search for the truth about Vietnam veterans declared POW/MIA; and insisting on accountability, investment, and excellence in public education. Sen. Kerry was re-elected in 1990, again in 1996, defeating the popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country, and in 2002. Now serving his fourth term, Kerry has worked to reform public education, address children's issues, strengthen the economy and encourage the growth of the high tech New Economy, protect the environment, and advance America's foreign policy interests around the globe. John Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry. He has two daughters, Alexandra and Vanessa. Teresa has three sons, John, Andre, and Christopher. Senator Kerry lives in Boston. * Provided by John Kerry 2004
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Jul 3, 2003 12:14:24 GMT -5
seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/129019_joel02.htmlWednesday, July 2, 2003 In The Northwest: Vietnam vet Kerry braves fire on White House trail By JOEL CONNELLY SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST JOHN KERRY ... snip He is impatient with Democratic oratory about the "stolen" election. "Stop crying in your teacups," he told one audience. "It isn't going to change. Get over it."
As well, Kerry is intent on erasing a big advantage that Bush currently enjoys going into the 2004 election, public perception that Republicans are strong on national security and Democrats are not. "I bring to the party the ability to be strong, and right," Kerry said. He makes no apologies for the vote last fall to give authorization for military action against Iraq. "My vote was the right vote," he argued. "Saddam Hussein had to be held accountable for disarming." snip ... P-I columnist Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or joelconnelly@seattlepi.com ============================= Email John Kerry and tell him what you think. info@johnkerry.com
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Jul 3, 2003 14:23:50 GMT -5
I already did write to him. When are people going to realize this is not a Democratic/Republican issue? This is an event, a tragic one, that forever soiled our Democracy? What has happened to Americans? Doesn't ANYTHING matter to them anymore but their own little worlds? What have all our brave men and women who have fought in battle died for since the American Revolution? To be told to "Get over it?" Certainly we can move on as we do from all tragedies that befall us, but that in no way means we should EVER stop righting the wrongs that tragedy caused, and I for one NEVER will. >>> Mr. Kerry, Is that what you fought in Vietnam for? To tell people who are outraged over the rights you supposedly protected by going to war to GET OVER IT? To tell the blacks in Florida who were denied their right to vote because they were deliberately purged from voter rolls, TO GET OVER IT? Why? Because it wasn't you? I used to admire you, but no more. You sold out to Bush, and you gave him the authorization to attack a sovereign nation PREMPTIVELY for BECHTEL, HALLIBURTON, and a host of other companies like the CARLYLE GROUP who step over the dead to get to the bank, thus violating international law, our constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and human decency. Have you seen the pictures of the devastation? The children with no arms or legs? Was it worth YEARS MORE of hate, terrorism, war, and uncertainty for our children who will now not only have to struggle with the DEFICITS this has caused, but the division it has and will cause? Do you know what PNAC is, Mr.Kerry? Oh, and BTW, where is Saddam Hussein? I am sick and tired of Democrats selling out to the Bush regime. You have absolutely NO IDEA how many Democrats you and your DLC counterparts have aliented with your political games. That is why THERE IS NO ENERGY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOW. The people wanted and voted for Al Gore, because they KNEW what would happen under Bush. Too bad you don't seem to care now for anything but getting votes. VP Gore won that election, save for ONE VOTE, Antonin Scalia's, and it was a violation of our constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, the will of the people, and a conflict of interest. GET OVER IT? NEVER. Don't you DARE tell Americans to get over the raping of our Democracy, sir. MY FATHER fought in WW2 to protect THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND HAVE IT COUNT. The fact you fought in Vietnam to do the same and then would see it trashed is appalling, and I will remember that in 2004. <<<<<<< Jan
|
|
|
Post by GSC Admin on Jul 11, 2003 2:01:23 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91571,00.html "It's time for the president to tell the truth -- that we lack sufficient forces to do the job of reconstruction in Iraq and withdraw in a reasonable period, to tell the truth that America should not go it alone," the Massachusetts Democrat said in an abruptly called press conference on Capitol Hill. Kerry, who voted in support of a war resolution for Iraq, said that U.S. casualties continue to mount, but he did not draw any analogies between Iraq and Vietnam (search), in which he served in the Navy. He did criticize the president for failing to draw on international support for the war. "One of the reasons I'm running for president is to hold this president accountable for the lack of planning, the lack of diplomacy, the lack of strategy, the lack of commitment to multilateral institutions that have allowed America to be strong," he said. Kerry did say that if the United States is going to keep its commitment to Iraq, a few "key steps" must be taken to win the peace, including increasing overall troop strength, especially with allied troops; training Iraqi troops to carry out the job of restoring order; and laying out an immediate and clear plan for the transfer of power to the Iraqis. Since major combat ended on May 1, 70 U.S. troops have died in hostile action and accidents in Iraq. President Bush and former U.S. Central Command head Gen. Tommy Franks both said Thursday that the United States will persevere. Franks added that U.S. troops will likely be in Iraq for at least a year. But Kerry, who according to news reports hadn't planned on revving up his presidential campaign until the fall, came out swinging on Thursday. He said he wants an "open, thorough, complete and absolutely believable investigation into the quality of American intelligence," particularly intelligence that led the president to announce wrongly in his January State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger. The White House admitted this week that the intelligence, obtained from British reports, was based on forged documents. "We now know [that Bush's State of the Union address] contained information that was wrong -- and at least some in the administration knew," Kerry said. "But just because a mistake was made, we should not compound it by making further mistakes." Later in the day, Kerry addressed 3,000 members of the American Federation of Teachers, to talk about his vision for educating America's children. Billed as a major address on education, he did touch on things like his vision of smaller classes and his disdain for the idea of school vouchers, but most of his speech was again aimed at Bush. "I say to you, my friends, I cannot wait to criss-cross this country, and I will hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words, 'leave no child behind.' We will have accountability," he said. Political experts say Kerry's turning up the heat on the president is a sure sign that he is feeling the pressure from his rival, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Dean's been getting good buzz in Democratic circles for his fund-raising prowess and his willingness to tangle with a very popular incumbent president. Dean has surprised many by raising $7.5 million between April and June. But he is also spending money at a faster pace than any of the other eight Democratic candidates, buying expensive airtime in Iowa. By some estimates, he's got about $6 million left in the bank. Kerry, on the other hand, has about $11 million in the bank. The Kerry campaign won't acknowledge any concern about Dean, who is running neck-in-neck against Kerry in New Hampshire. One Kerry campaign staffer recently told a national magazine, "We can take Howard Dean out whenever we want to. Why do it now?" The rest of the Democratic pack, including Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, seem content to let Dean and Kerry fight it out, figuring that by the time the New Hampshire primary is over next January, only one of the two will still be standing strong. Fox News' Brian Wilson and Julie Asher contributed to this report.
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Jul 11, 2003 10:00:42 GMT -5
Because of Kerry's statements about the 2000 election, there is nothing he could say or do that would change my mind about him.
I think most of the Gore majority would feel the same.
He is the only Dem candidate I would not vote for.
|
|
|
Post by Judith on Jul 11, 2003 15:54:14 GMT -5
Kerry wants us to "get over it" because it's to his political convenience for us to forget the 2000 election. He's just the only one who has the guts to even refer to it and that's just to tell us to "get over it" again. Have you noticed how not one single Democratic candidate has mentioned it?
But we needn't worry about it ever being forgotten. Historically, things are only forgotten or swepped under the rug until they develop into that proverbial mountain out of a molehill.
With time and with the people's outrage this will be addressed just like all the other crimes our government has committed since its inception. Crimes like slavery, like the decimation of the Native Americans, and like the internment of the Japanese. I could go on for hours with examples.
The theft and fraud of the election of 2000 is being exposed even now. Give it time and we will see it completely exposed.
Judith
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Jul 11, 2003 17:37:06 GMT -5
When election 2000 is exposed. Or 9-11 or Iraq for that matter, I think they will impose a police state.
Remeber, the Patriot Act was written BEFORE 9-11.
Think about that.
That's called getting your ducks in a row. Of course, they want to win the election by deception. But if they can't, they will steal it via the voting machines or a staged terrorist attack. Or some other creative means.
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Jul 18, 2003 18:48:17 GMT -5
Kerry is at the top of my shit list.
I am a little confused though. He is suddenly taken an anti-war stance. However, I thought he supported the war. And oh yeah, the patriot act too. BTW, didn't he give the prez the authority to wage war on Iraq without congressional approval. Oh and wait, he punked out of that Bush regime statement claim.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought he was pro-war.
|
|
|
Post by GSC Admin on Jul 18, 2003 19:42:55 GMT -5
He was. Now he is wanting it both ways just like Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman. This is going to hurt them. But I think Kerry, along with Graham, are the best of the current candidates. There is no way in hell I would vote for Dean in the process. I would also not vote for Kucinich, Sharpton, or Braun. We need someone who is experienced and that people love, like Gore. Some people use the excuse Gore has so much bagage. Well after this whole Iraq ordeal unfolds, Bush will have more, serious, bagage than creating the damn internet. GET WITH IT GORARRIORS!
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Sept 2, 2003 8:49:35 GMT -5
Kerry says his Vietnam experience qualifies him for handling international affairs. <clear throat> Hey, I am just repeating what he said.
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Jan 23, 2004 17:23:12 GMT -5
Whatever the outcome of John Kerry’s quest to be elected president of the United States, he is like so many Vietnam veterans lucky to still be around. Wounded three times in firefights, Kerry’s hobbies include motorcycles, flying loops in small airplanes, and taking the controls of helicopters during campaign hops. Sporting an Ivy League pedigree rivaling that of President Bush, Kerry is flying into a political maelstrom that destroyed the presidential hopes of two other Vietnam war heroes—Bob Kerrey and John McCain—and upended the Senate career of a third (Max Cleland). Kerry’s run for the White House, therefore, is extraordinary historic drama. By happenstance or a good hunch, historian Douglas Brinkley found an eyewitness perch to watch up close Kerry’s latest challenge of the fates. Just as Brinkley was wrapping up a carefully researched examination of a Yale grad’s transformation from warrior to antiwar activist to venerable member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the subject of this interesting slice of history announced he was running for president. Brinkley scrambled to finish his 16th work of history—with an excerpt hustled into the December issue of Atlantic Monthly—on a political journalist’s deadline. The combination of scholarly research and first-hand reporting creates a fascinating portrait of a star-crossed presidential candidate, seemingly in training since he was a teenager invited on a summer cruise with the Kennedy clan, including the president who uncannily shared the same initials: JFK. Brinkley found that John Forbes Kerry is hardly a Kennedy wannabe. Instead of launching a political career as a chesty war hero—the tried and true path of John F. Kennedy and many other national leaders—Kerry returned from Vietnam with a fistful of medals and joined the war protestors. Most of this book focuses on Kerry’s experiences as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam that led to his decision to break ranks with the establishment he was born and bred to defend and perhaps one day lead. www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=614
|
|
|
Post by ErinB on Jan 24, 2004 19:13:30 GMT -5
By David Podvin makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/040124_StopCrying.htm“Stop crying in your teacups. It isn’t going to change. Get over it.” That was the response of John Kerry to a liberal who condemned the theft of the presidency by George W. Bush. If the sentiment sounds familiar, that’s because it isn’t original. Kerry borrowed his words from America’s vapid conservative posse for whom chanting the phrase “Get over it” constitutes a dazzling display of wit. Plagiarizing witticisms from Ann Coulter is not an endearing trait for a potential Democratic presidential nominee. It is one thing for liberals who are still incensed about the stolen election to be treated contemptuously by right wing banshees – it is an entirely different matter to incur such disdain from a man who seeks to be our champion. But it is not unusual for Kerry to parrot the Republicans or be dismissive of liberal concerns. When members of the Congressional Black Caucus approached the senator for his support in challenging the Jim Crow tactics that subverted the 2000 presidential election, he told them to go away. Kerry supported the Iraq War Resolution, either because he really believed Bush’s transparent lies (in which case he is not very bright) or because it was the politically shrewd thing to do (in which case he is not very honorable). Whatever the reason, there was no profile in courage from this Massachusetts senator. When Bush and John Ashcroft used the terrorist attack on America as an excuse to confiscate civil liberties with the USA Patriot Act, it was Russ Feingold – not John Kerry – who rose with a stirring defense of American liberty. Kerry sided with the Republicans. Kerry has consistently collaborated in stocking the federal courts with people who exalt the corporate agenda and reject the Theory of Evolution. He has voted to confirm the vast majority of Bush’s reactionary judicial appointees, and has thus doomed America to suffer many more miscarriages of justice like Bush v Gore. The senator voted for the misnamed No Child Left Behind Act, legislation that drained money away from teaching school children by mandating unproductive testing. The result has been a decline in the quality of education and an increase in the profits of the Washington Post Company’s Kaplan test-publishing subsidiary. Siding with Bush on the theft of the election, supporting an illegal war, gutting the Bill of Rights, voting to confirm extremist judges, and misusing education money to buy favorable news coverage for Bush comprise a track record that is unlikely to inoculate nominee Kerry from a crippling third party challenge. His record of accommodating the Republicans will prevent him from easily moving to the middle - where elections are won - because a significant number of liberals will hesitate to throw their support behind a candidate who has so frequently abandoned them. And while running an optimistic, positive campaign made Kerry a winner in the eyes of Iowa Democratic caucus goers, if he were to try that strategy against the vicious Bush mob, he would soon be political road kill. The “Stop crying in your teacups” line not only reveals the profound contempt Kerry feels for the rank and file, it also illustrates another problem– the Republicans will cast him as a stereotypical effete leftist. Never mind that Kerry is a war hero; so was George McGovern, but that didn’t stop the GOP from successfully misrepresenting him as a pansy. “Stop crying in your teacups” is the kind of effeminate phrase that is guaranteed to alienate male swing voters. A Democratic nominee who goes around uttering words like that will win majorities only in the District of Columbia and the Castro District of San Francisco. Like all too many Washington Democrats, Kerry prizes getting along with Republicans more than he values principle. He has been loath to offend establishment sensibilities by impugning Bush’s character. His lack of outrage at the current administration’s serial criminal behavior makes him an unworthy advocate for people who are appalled by what Bush is doing to America. As Paul Krugman has written, “The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.” Kerry falls into the latter category. Bush cannot survive close scrutiny of the kleptocracy over which he presides. His administration is based on the premise that government exists to serve campaign contributors. The Democrats need someone to connect the dots between crony capitalism and the problems now plaguing the nation. That someone will not be a comfortable member of the ruling class. The venal raison d’être of this administration has gone largely unquestioned by the Boston Brahmin Kerry, who has yet to express anger that the country is being run for the monied elite. Despite being presented with countless opportunities to denounce Bush as being morally unfit to lead the country, the senator has been unable to bring himself to do it. If Kerry becomes the nominee and battles Bush with the same submissive torpor he has shown during the last three years, the Democrats will lose in a landslide. There is no need for the party to choose this perilous path. The presidency is there for the taking. Although Bush will have the money and the media, he is a scofflaw whose misconduct presents a can’t-miss target for a willing opponent. Democrats can succeed by nominating an animated leader to aggressively challenge Bush and thereby inspire the millions of alienated Americans who are yearning for someone to stand up on their behalf. Kerry is not that man. During his years in Washington, he has been a bloodless technocrat who has watched passively as three Republican presidents have lied and cheated and broken the law. He was a warrior in the battle against Vietnamese communism, but he has been a conscientious objector in the fight against American fascism. While he was undeniably brave in opposing his enemies on the battlefield, his conduct in the Senate has frequently been craven. He has not been a leader, he has been a follower, and all too often he has followed the wrong party. The upcoming presidential campaign will require extraordinary vigilance on the part of the Democratic nominee. Bush is a con man who will tell Americans anything they want to hear. The Democrat cannot win by politely reciting policy positions – he must repeatedly confront his deceitful opponent in order to show voters that they have been swindled. It will be an arduous process requiring an advocate who can persuasively convey a sense of righteous indignation, and John Kerry has never demonstrated that he is capable of summoning the indignation necessary for the task at hand. Except, of course, when he is indignantly telling liberals to “Get over it.”
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Jan 30, 2004 7:39:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by EnemyCombatant on Jan 30, 2004 8:23:57 GMT -5
Yes, actually it's undisputed. But Kerry will give no comment one way or another. So, pick a Bonesman people. LOL! The Dems are nominating Bush's frat bro. ================================ Below is something I copied and pasted from another message board. These are not my words but the guy is really trying to analyze Kerry. Kerry is for the Iraq War: www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=92 (an op-ed about his vote to grant Bush the authority to go to Iraq, even though he had said he opposed it). www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 (Kerry voted "Yea" for the Iraqi war. Kerry is for the FTAA agreement: www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Free_Trade.htm (here he seems to indicate that he doesn't support the FTAA unless it has stronger labor standards and environmental standards) Unfortunately, the problem with the FTAA is not environment nor labor but rather that the giant sucking sound that we heard with NAFTA would extend throughout the Americas. NAFTA has been a disaster to the average American laborer and FTAA will be even more so. It has nothing to do with problems in the environment. night-owl.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/18/142350/064 Another view on Kerry's position on Free Trade. Kerry has actually broken with fellow Democrats in endorsing the "fast track" for the approval of the FTAA. So, frankly, I find that this talk about him vetoing the FTAA unless it has stronger labor and environmental support to be doubletalk. Kerry and the expansion of the Patriot Act: I could have been wrong on this one. He seems to indicate an "end to the Ashcroft Era": www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/civil_liberties.html He did vote "Yes" on the Patriot Act in 2001 though: selectsmart.com/president/Kerry.html In retrospect, it's hard to say that he supports an expansion of the Patriot Act. I do think that if he were President in 2004 and he had a 9-11 type of attack that he would have another Patriot Act lurking around, but perhaps not as stringent as this one. It's hard to call this issue mostly because these kind of things depend a lot on who Kerry would use in his cabinet if he were to be President. Kerry is for expanded government ability to snoop into the private lives of citizens “What many Americans don't realize is that in the off-line world, they have already lost most of their privacy.” —Sen. John Kerry to the Massachusetts Software & Internet Council Inc. www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/07/28/privacy.law.idg/ At one point Kerry did support online privacy. He and McCain introduced a bill requiring companies to disclose their privacy policies. That was 2000 tho. His vote for the Patriot Act does seem to be a little suspect tho. If he does indeed manage to repeal it, it would go a long way in restoring credibility that he does care about privacy. Then again, if he is President, the FBI and CIA would both have his ear and I am not sure that he would be so willing to repeal it for the sake of the people. I'm sorry, but none of these candidates show the kind of backbone that is needed to stand up to the large bureaucracies in D.C. and stop civil rights abuses. Kerry believes the war on Iraq was just www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/elec04.prez.kerry.dean.ap/index.html He has frankly waffled a lot on this issue since he announced his presidency. During the vote he voted for it, but now he says that Congress received bad intel, and now he also attacks the lack of diplomacy and a bunch of other stuff, but says that the war was just in that it overthrew Saddam Hussein. www.counterpunch.org/willson1015.html (A letter from a vet to John Kerry regarding his vote for the war-- not flattering). So, frankly, I think I was wrong on his overall stance of the Patriot Act, but it's hard to find too much about Kerry's position between 2001 and his announcement to run for office in 2003. He does seem to show a lot of concern about the use of the Act in non-terrorist-related matters, but putting your finger to your chin is not action and the bottom line is that he did vote for it. John Kerry's stance seems to change as the winds do. He is going to do a lot more of that as the primaries come along and he tries to secure the nomination for President. I see him as a generally good person with a good background and a good stance on many issues, but with this much waffling already, I am not sure that he is the kind of person that can go to D.C. and resist the temptation of appeasing the other bureaucracies in D.C. and get anything done. In fact, look ahead to this scenario: Kerry wins the presidency in November. Republicans maintain a majority in the House and Senate. Supreme Court remains packed by Republicans What are the chances that Kerry could get anything like a repeal of the Patriot Act passed? What about a veto of the FTAA agreement? Would Kerry risk the ire of the big corporations by vetoing the FTAA? I doubt it, because from day 1 you are running for re-election and the minute you start to piss off big money is the moment you can kiss the Presidency goodbye. Frankly, his ties to the Skull and Bones cannot be ignored under any circumstances. If the same people that can press the buttons on Bush and Cheney are able to gain a considerable amount of influence on Kerry and his foreign policies, then what's the point in even casting a vote? What would fundamentally change? He's a decent candidate that is saying the right things because he is taking a pulse on the feelings of most Americans. That's what candidates do in order to get elected. But I am simply not so sure that he is a person that can maintain that once he is in office. I frankly expect a disaster sometime in 2004, leading up to the elections. If the Democratic nominee gains any kind of momentum and Bush continues to falter at the polls (he has become a source of jokes once again since the State of the Union address) then you can expect something that will rally Americans back to unswerving support of Bush and the neocons. All they have to do is rig another election and they are home free and all they have to worry about then is grooming an heir for 2008, which is likely to be someone like Jeb Bush since they will be expected to run against Hillary Clinton in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Jan 30, 2004 9:07:50 GMT -5
Yes, actually it's undisputed. But Kerry will give no comment one way or another. So, pick a Bonesman people. LOL! The Dems are nominating Bush's frat bro. >>>> Correct. As I stated before, the status quo is firmly ensconced in both parties. That is why Al Gore is standing up to it in the way he feels he can. No one can make me believe that the party insiders had nothing to do with him not running. Perhaps Dean's appointment of Neel is their way of saying in your face, now trash me for this. Also, I agree 100% that the focus should be on getting Bush out. That's why I can't understand why the DLC is spending so much time trashing Dean, (even though I am not a big fan of his) than getting Bush. People want the lies about PNAC, 9.11, etc exposed. I sure hope then that those same people are complaining to the DLC and to McAuliffe as to why they are so silent on these issues. To me, Kerry is just another skull and bones elitist who told us to stop crying in our teacups about the theft of the presidency. I surely hope he doesn't get the nomination. I would never voluntarily vote for a skull and bones man to be this country's President. It would truly nauseate me to have no choice this year. Jan
|
|