Just Popped in to Tell a Joke
Kim Cole
at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him.
He asked, "What are all those clocks?" St. Peter answered, "Those are
Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands
on your clock will move."
"Oh," said Rumsfeld, "whose clock is that?"
"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she
never told a lie."
"Incredible," said Rumsfeld. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter
responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice,
telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."
"Where's Bush's clock?" asked Rumsfeld.
"Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."
Barry
"Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bgp3dc$qqch7$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
Where you been? I thought you and Will ran off together. Hadn't seen
either of you around in a while.
Barry
Kim Cole
news:O5VXa.1718$Ta....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Will and I are having a great time here in Bora Bora! Weather is lovely,
landscape is beautiful. Lots of trees, no bushes. :<)
Actually, I wasn't kidding when I said in a post last month that I started
working for the Draft Wesley Clark campaign. I'm one of two coordinators
for Dallas for DraftClark2004 and I've been so incredibly busy I haven't
even been able to keep up with the quarterback wars! I heard we signed
someone today but didn't get a chance to hear who it was...Brett Favre??
I'm sooo out of the Cowboy loop!
(Anyone interested in General Wesley Clark can contact me at
kc...@draftclark2004.com ... gratuitous plug over.)
Self Hating Cowboys Fan
Hitlary lover.
"Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bgp3dc$qqch7$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
Barry
Cool! Bring me a t-shirt.
>
> Actually, I wasn't kidding when I said in a post last month that I started
> working for the Draft Wesley Clark campaign. I'm one of two coordinators
> for Dallas for DraftClark2004 and I've been so incredibly busy I haven't
> even been able to keep up with the quarterback wars! I heard we signed
> someone today but didn't get a chance to hear who it was...Brett Favre??
> I'm sooo out of the Cowboy loop!
Troy Aikman came out of retirement.
>
> (Anyone interested in General Wesley Clark can contact me at
> kc...@draftclark2004.com ... gratuitous plug over.)
>
Why's he different than all the others? You can e-mail me your answer, if
you want.
Barry
Barry
"Self Hating Cowboys Fan" <sh...@prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:FOVXa.922$e46.76...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Don't insult our president, you lesbo ultra liberal feminist pro-abortion
> Hitlary lover.
>
If everything you said about her were true, she'd still have more good
points than you.
Barry
Kim Cole
>
> "Self Hating Cowboys Fan" <sh...@prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:FOVXa.922$e46.76...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > Don't insult our president, you lesbo ultra liberal feminist
pro-abortion
> > Hitlary lover.
> >
>
> If everything you said about her were true, she'd still have more good
> points than you.
>
> Barry
The only point he has is the one on top of his head.
Patrick
"Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bgp3dc$qqch7$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
Barry Wong
> Where was Clintons clock? Powering the hydroelectric turbines?
That depends on what the definition of "was" is. And clock. And Clinton.
Howard Family
please!
"Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bgp3dc$qqch7$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
marty mcmahone
"Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:bgp3dc$qqch7$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
You do realize that's a recycled Clinton joke right? And probably recycled
from Nixon and Roosevelt and ....
Kim Cole
news:1fz8dm1.ls070d15723bsN%g...@saved.net...
> Patrick <p...@nulSpam.dreamstate.com> wrote:
>
> > Where was Clintons clock? Powering the hydroelectric turbines?
>
> That depends on what the definition of "was" is. And clock. And Clinton.
Geez. Does NO ONE have a sense of humor anymore? At least the libs could
laugh about Clinton...
Barry Wong
Allan Guyton
<kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote:
"Your" joke would've been funnier if I hadn't been hearing it off
and on since about 1995 about Clinton... :)
Get Wes in the race and then get back here, it's almost football
time!
Allan
Greg Lentz
<kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote:
>Will and I are having a great time here in Bora Bora! Weather is lovely,
>landscape is beautiful. Lots of trees, no bushes. :<)
Bora Bora is lovely. Went there for my honeymoon. Best seafood I
ever had was at a restaurant there. The menu is basically the day's
catch put on display on a bar.
Greg Lentz
Bear
> Don't insult our president, you lesbo ultra liberal feminist pro-abortion
> Hitlary lover.
Your support of our president insults him more than anything Kim could
hope to post...
Kent Henrich
Larry Cottrill
Seems fair, because the Libs and a few others aren't particularly amused
with what Dubya has done to the country... silly us, we think that
getting us involved in a war where American soldiers get killed for
bogus reasons is JUST a little more harmful to the Constitution than ol'
Slick Willie trying to avoid admitting he got a hummer in the Oval
Office...
Dave Wallen
Kent Henrich <khen...@ct.net> wrote in message
news:_ecYa.2998$jq....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Not funny. Just irrelevant.
Dave Wallen
Larry Cottrill <bear...@shentel.net> wrote in message
news:3F3159...@shentel.net...
Now, Larry... that hummer killed 300,000 potential americans.
Larry Cottrill
True... on the flip side, Hilary was the potential mother of all 300k...
Still got a problem with it?? LOL...
Dave Wallen
True. 300,000 more clintons should make even the repugs happy he got that
blowjob.
Allan Guyton
<khen...@ct.net> wrote:
Kent Lives! Welcome back, man!
Allan
Kim Cole
news:aguyton-6DDC34...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <bgpo9g$qtdbo$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Kim Cole"
> <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> > "Barry Wong" <g...@saved.net> wrote in message
> > news:1fz8dm1.ls070d15723bsN%g...@saved.net...
> > > Patrick <p...@nulSpam.dreamstate.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Where was Clintons clock? Powering the hydroelectric turbines?
> > >
> > > That depends on what the definition of "was" is. And clock. And
Clinton.
> >
> > Geez. Does NO ONE have a sense of humor anymore? At least the libs
could
> > laugh about Clinton...
>
> "Your" joke would've been funnier if I hadn't been hearing it off
> and on since about 1995 about Clinton... :)
Well, call me Outta The Loop, 'cause I'd never heard it! That's what
happens when you don't have a "real" job...nobody sends you jokes.
> Get Wes in the race and then get back here, it's almost football
> time!
99% sure he's running. We (DraftClark2004) just set up a headquarters in
Little Rock (Wes' home town). Somebody knows something... :<)
The *Cowboy's* regime change seems to be working...I'm headed to the first
preseason game next weekend and if I can manage to spend at least an hour
reading the 453 posts I'm behind on, I might actually know who's out there
on the field playing!
Kim Cole
Ha! As compared to what Bush is doing, you mean?
Kim Cole
news:2087199e.03080...@posting.google.com...
Damn. I wanted to win that contest.
Venger
>
> > Get Wes in the race and then get back here, it's almost football
> > time!
>
> 99% sure he's running. We (DraftClark2004) just set up a headquarters in
> Little Rock (Wes' home town). Somebody knows something... :<)
He's not running. You won't pry labor from Gephardt, the anti-war left from
Dean, nor the New England liberals from Kerry. Who exactly is going to vote
for him in the primary? Pro-war professional midwesterners? Yeah - those are
called Republicans.
Look for him to be considered for VICE president. Though I doubt his
personal comportment would entertain second fiddle.
Venger
There IS a chance he could run as an independent - but he'd lose, and I
doubt his personal comportment would entertain that either. Note trying to
provoke you, just laying down some political realism here.
will
wrote:
The political realism is that more than 50% of the country either
wants Bush to get his rear kicked or wants an alternative to Bush. The
electorate is generally quite savvy and will compromise in certain
areas to achieve a greater goal. Therefore, you'll see people peel off
these other candidates if they have a shot at the brass ring.
I heard similar attacks on Perot and they were all motivated by fear.
The only thing that beat Perot was that Perot wasn't playing to win.
That won't be the case with Clark.
Allan Guyton
> The political realism is that more than 50% of the country either
> wants Bush to get his rear kicked or wants an alternative to Bush. The
> electorate is generally quite savvy and will compromise in certain
> areas to achieve a greater goal. Therefore, you'll see people peel off
> these other candidates if they have a shot at the brass ring.
>
> I heard similar attacks on Perot and they were all motivated by fear.
> The only thing that beat Perot was that Perot wasn't playing to win.
> That won't be the case with Clark.
The political reality is that a Perot-ish third candidate (see Nader,
Ralph) tends to damage his most similar rival.
Perot thus insured two victories for Clinton, and Nader probably drew
enough support away from Gore in key states to provoke the challenged
election.
If Clark's a third party candidate, he'll wipe out the guy he's most
similar to, and if the Dem nominee isn't Lieberman, he'll damage the
Dem seriously.
Clark is, as was said elsewhere, likely jockeying for a SecState or
VP slot in a Dem admin. IMO.
Allan
Venger
> In article <inm3jv0eb3t0ohhu1...@4ax.com>, will
> <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
> > The political realism is that more than 50% of the country either
> > wants Bush to get his rear kicked or wants an alternative to Bush. The
> > electorate is generally quite savvy and will compromise in certain
> > areas to achieve a greater goal. Therefore, you'll see people peel off
> > these other candidates if they have a shot at the brass ring.
> >
> > I heard similar attacks on Perot and they were all motivated by fear.
> > The only thing that beat Perot was that Perot wasn't playing to win.
> > That won't be the case with Clark.
>
> The political reality is that a Perot-ish third candidate (see Nader,
> Ralph) tends to damage his most similar rival.
>
> Perot thus insured two victories for Clinton, and Nader probably drew
> enough support away from Gore in key states to provoke the challenged
> election.
Bingo. The butterfly ballot didn't cost Gore the election - Nader did.
Nader's votes go almost exclusively to Gore, and even assuming that only
half bother to still vote, and Gore is president...
> If Clark's a third party candidate, he'll wipe out the guy he's most
> similar to, and if the Dem nominee isn't Lieberman, he'll damage the
> Dem seriously.
They'll never nominate Lieberman.
> Clark is, as was said elsewhere, likely jockeying for a SecState or
> VP slot in a Dem admin. IMO.
Does the guy have it in himself to be so subordinate? He doesn't strike me
as the guy to get into a subordinate position in politics. Still, his
actions clearly demonstrate he is interested in zero risk, and maximum
reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot, without
having to risk voter rejection.
Venger
will
<agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <inm3jv0eb3t0ohhu1...@4ax.com>, will
><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>> The political realism is that more than 50% of the country either
>> wants Bush to get his rear kicked or wants an alternative to Bush. The
>> electorate is generally quite savvy and will compromise in certain
>> areas to achieve a greater goal. Therefore, you'll see people peel off
>> these other candidates if they have a shot at the brass ring.
>>
>> I heard similar attacks on Perot and they were all motivated by fear.
>> The only thing that beat Perot was that Perot wasn't playing to win.
>> That won't be the case with Clark.
>
>The political reality is that a Perot-ish third candidate (see Nader,
>Ralph) tends to damage his most similar rival.
Perot could have taken the election if he had stayed in in 92. He
sabotaged his whole campaign by dropping out and returning for some
reason.
>
>Perot thus insured two victories for Clinton, and Nader probably drew
>enough support away from Gore in key states to provoke the challenged
>election.
>
>If Clark's a third party candidate,
Nope. He's a Democrat and would run as such.
> he'll wipe out the guy he's most
>similar to, and if the Dem nominee isn't Lieberman, he'll damage the
>Dem seriously.
>
>Clark is, as was said elsewhere, likely jockeying for a SecState or
>VP slot in a Dem admin. IMO.
There's no need for him to campaign for those positions.
Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare. They've been so
worshipful of the military that they wouldn't know how to run against
him without alienating a large portion of their nominal base of Rep
leaning independents.
The Republicans greatly need the ability to call the Dems wimps,
chickens, weak on defense and anti-military. Without that, they lose
their edge on national security issues and Bush's ace in the hole.
>
>Allan
Kim Cole
news:Lamdne0O1MF...@august.net...
>
> "Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:bgsi32$s3mec$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > Get Wes in the race and then get back here, it's almost football
> > > time!
> >
> > 99% sure he's running. We (DraftClark2004) just set up a headquarters
in
> > Little Rock (Wes' home town). Somebody knows something... :<)
>
> He's not running.
Funny, that's not what the pundits and those close to him think. Guess you
have some inside track that we should all be aware of? The truth is, a very
reputable rumor mill has it that he wants to run and is prepared to do so,
but his wife is the sticking point. It's basically a matter of whether he
can convince her or not. He was on Hannity and Colmes about a month ago and
when provoked by Sean Hannity who said, "You're running as a Democrat,
aren't you? Admit it! Aren't you! Just admit you're a Democrat!" Clark
replied, "I'm running as a concerned American patriot." Sounds to me like
he might be running.
You won't pry labor from Gephardt, the anti-war left from
> Dean, nor the New England liberals from Kerry. Who exactly is going to
vote
> for him in the primary? Pro-war professional midwesterners? Yeah - those
are
> called Republicans.
Dean will implode by Christmas and all his supporters will rally to Clark.
I've already had Dean supporters switch and Clark hasn't even announced yet.
Gephardt doesn't have a chance...his supporters have to go somewhere. Look,
I've been out pounding the pavement for Clark. I know for a fact people are
interested in him...including a lot of Republicans. Don't count him out.
> Look for him to be considered for VICE president. Though I doubt his
> personal comportment would entertain second fiddle.
He's on record as saying he will not run as VP.
> Venger
> There IS a chance he could run as an independent - but he'd lose, and I
> doubt his personal comportment would entertain that either. Note trying to
> provoke you, just laying down some political realism here.
He's also on record as saying that this is a two-party country. He won't
run as an independent.
Kim Cole
You mean like when he fought in Viet Nam and won the Silver Star, two Bronze
Stars, and a Purple Heart? Is that the zero risk you're talking about?
and maximum
> reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot, without
> having to risk voter rejection.
I'd love to hear specifics on why you think that. Clark has never backed
down from a fight yet.
Kim Cole
news:iro4jvgq57h8av7ja...@4ax.com...
http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=83
Venger
> "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QIednXZvfu-...@august.net...
> >
> > "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:aguyton-911B12...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > In article <inm3jv0eb3t0ohhu1...@4ax.com>, will
> > > <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Does the guy have it in himself to be so subordinate? He doesn't strike
me
> > as the guy to get into a subordinate position in politics. Still, his
> > actions clearly demonstrate he is interested in zero risk,
>
> You mean like when he fought in Viet Nam and won the Silver Star, two
Bronze
> Stars, and a Purple Heart? Is that the zero risk you're talking about?
Different sort of risk. He is not interested in rejection. He will run if he
thinks he has a good chance to win.
> and maximum
> > reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot, without
> > having to risk voter rejection.
>
> I'd love to hear specifics on why you think that. Clark has never backed
> down from a fight yet.
He should have run then. He's not going to now. Candidates are getting
traction with their targeted supporters, and Clark isn't going to be able to
unseat those commitments.
Venger
will
wrote:
LOL. That's silly, especially in an age where the most sacred
commitments are overturned without hardly a second thought.
There's no reason for Clark to get in early with the field as it is.
>
>Venger
>
Venger
> "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Lamdne0O1MF...@august.net...
> >
> > "Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
> > news:bgsi32$s3mec$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > > Get Wes in the race and then get back here, it's almost football
> > > > time!
> > >
> > > 99% sure he's running. We (DraftClark2004) just set up a headquarters
> in
> > > Little Rock (Wes' home town). Somebody knows something... :<)
> >
> > He's not running.
>
> Funny, that's not what the pundits and those close to him think. Guess
you
> have some inside track that we should all be aware of?
Nope. Just my political instincts. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first
time, but my instincts on these things I find very trustworthy.
> You won't pry labor from Gephardt, the anti-war left from
> > Dean, nor the New England liberals from Kerry. Who exactly is going to
> vote
> > for him in the primary? Pro-war professional midwesterners? Yeah - those
> are
> > called Republicans.
>
> Dean will implode by Christmas and all his supporters will rally to Clark.
Doubtful. Dean is the favorite of the Pavlovian anti-Bush left - they are
not going to abandon him. His prime appeal to them - being anti-Bush, isn't
going to change, nor dissipate. It doesn't matter if he wanted to raise the
retirement age of SS recipients - SS recipients aren't his core supporters.
You must come to this party early, or have such overwhelming broad appeal
(Hillary) that you can use your public clout to bypass the normal
balkanization of the primary process.
> I've already had Dean supporters switch and Clark hasn't even announced
yet.
How wise is switching from a candidate who is running to one who isn't? And
what makes that switch anything other than a notion at this stage?
> Gephardt doesn't have a chance...his supporters have to go somewhere.
I think you are woefully mistaken. Labor VOTES. Unions are one of the few
strengths in the Democrat party that turns out every time. Dismissing the
candidate who gets the AFL-CIO and Teamsters endorsements is shortsighted.
> Look,
> I've been out pounding the pavement for Clark. I know for a fact people
are
> interested in him...including a lot of Republicans. Don't count him out.
Alot of Plano Republicans looking hard at Clark huh? Are you sure you aren't
confusing polite interlocution for real interest? I could do a poll at an
Albertsons door in Plano and I wager not 10% know who Wesley Clark is.
Venger
Venger
>
> > Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
> > patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare.
>
> http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=83
Who the Hell is Lowell Feld?!?!?!
If you really want to try and nominate someone to run to the right of Bush
on foreign and military policy, and at the same time be anti-Iraq war, by
all means do it.
"Worst Nightmare". November '04 cannot come soon enough.
Venger
Kim Cole
>
> "Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:bgu02p$rkr4o$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:QIednXZvfu-...@august.net...
> > >
> > > "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:aguyton-911B12...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > > In article <inm3jv0eb3t0ohhu1...@4ax.com>, will
> > > > <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does the guy have it in himself to be so subordinate? He doesn't
strike
> me
> > > as the guy to get into a subordinate position in politics. Still, his
> > > actions clearly demonstrate he is interested in zero risk,
> >
> > You mean like when he fought in Viet Nam and won the Silver Star, two
> Bronze
> > Stars, and a Purple Heart? Is that the zero risk you're talking about?
>
> Different sort of risk. He is not interested in rejection. He will run if
he
> thinks he has a good chance to win.
You mean like the rejection he took when he was asked to step down as SAC of
NATO? I'd like some specifics on why you think this.
> > and maximum
> > > reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot, without
> > > having to risk voter rejection.
> >
> > I'd love to hear specifics on why you think that. Clark has never
backed
> > down from a fight yet.
>
> He should have run then. He's not going to now.
As I said, I think I'm a *little* more clued in than you are and my sources
say he's running. Who are *your* sources?
Candidates are getting
> traction with their targeted supporters, and Clark isn't going to be able
to
> unseat those commitments.
Until Clinton comes out and endorses him.
Kim Cole
Especially when he's getting tons of publicity for free right now.
Kim Cole
>
> "Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:bgtvnm$sbhop$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Lamdne0O1MF...@august.net...
> > >
> > > "Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bgsi32$s3mec$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > > Get Wes in the race and then get back here, it's almost football
> > > > > time!
> > > >
> > > > 99% sure he's running. We (DraftClark2004) just set up a
headquarters
> > in
> > > > Little Rock (Wes' home town). Somebody knows something... :<)
> > >
> > > He's not running.
> >
> > Funny, that's not what the pundits and those close to him think. Guess
> you
> > have some inside track that we should all be aware of?
>
> Nope. Just my political instincts. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first
> time, but my instincts on these things I find very trustworthy.
So are my sources...who happen to be pretty high up in the Democratic party.
Not personal friends before you get the wrong idea, but the Draft Clark
organization isn't some fly-by-night group made up of disgruntled
housewives.
http://www.draftclark2004.com/news_detail.asp?nid=75
> > You won't pry labor from Gephardt, the anti-war left from
> > > Dean, nor the New England liberals from Kerry. Who exactly is going to
> > vote
> > > for him in the primary? Pro-war professional midwesterners? Yeah -
those
> > are
> > > called Republicans.
> >
> > Dean will implode by Christmas and all his supporters will rally to
Clark.
>
> Doubtful. Dean is the favorite of the Pavlovian anti-Bush left - they are
> not going to abandon him.
Ha! I can name 10 in my group that already have. And more will come if
they have a better choice, which Clark is.
His prime appeal to them - being anti-Bush, isn't
> going to change, nor dissipate. It doesn't matter if he wanted to raise
the
> retirement age of SS recipients - SS recipients aren't his core
supporters.
His anti-Bush stance is critical, but he brings a lot of negatives too. As
a recent article in Newsweek said...paraphrasing...savvy Democrats realize
that the only way they've won in the last 40 years is to nominate a centrist
from the South. Hmmm....wonder who that could be?
> You must come to this party early, or have such overwhelming broad appeal
> (Hillary) that you can use your public clout to bypass the normal
> balkanization of the primary process.
Clinton declared in October when he won his first term. Clark is getting a
lot of free publicity by not declaring early, and his infrastructure is
pretty well set with the Draft Clark folks--90 chapters in 40 states and
growing daily. That's one thing he doesn't have to worry about because it's
essentially been done for him. Clinton has said he thinks Clark would make
a great president, leading us to think he'll help with fundraising...and if
Clinton can't do anything else, he can raise cash. We're about to start
radio ads in several states this month...what more does he need?
> > I've already had Dean supporters switch and Clark hasn't even announced
> yet.
>
> How wise is switching from a candidate who is running to one who isn't?
And
> what makes that switch anything other than a notion at this stage?
What makes anyone's support more than a notion? Why support Kucinich or
however you spell it? Lots of big money is behind Sharpton right now (those
rappers have dough, baby)...that support has to go somewhere when those guys
drop out.
> > Gephardt doesn't have a chance...his supporters have to go somewhere.
>
> I think you are woefully mistaken. Labor VOTES. Unions are one of the few
> strengths in the Democrat party that turns out every time. Dismissing the
> candidate who gets the AFL-CIO and Teamsters endorsements is shortsighted.
Those groups will support the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
> > Look,
> > I've been out pounding the pavement for Clark. I know for a fact people
> are
> > interested in him...including a lot of Republicans. Don't count him
out.
>
> Alot of Plano Republicans looking hard at Clark huh? Are you sure you
aren't
> confusing polite interlocution for real interest? I could do a poll at an
> Albertsons door in Plano and I wager not 10% know who Wesley Clark is.
My dad is one. He's disgusted with Bush and he's a long-time Repub. And
you might find this interesting:
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/gop.html
will
<justf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Not the kind he needs to run as a Dem. Being a CNN commentator on the
>war in Iraq isn't gonna win him any votes over the orchestrator of
>same...
>
>He needs to get on Oprah and promise more welfare money.
>Get on Springer and promise to back Jerry's run to the senate.
>Do a voice over on Sponge Bob.
>Hang out at Bills place in Harlem for a week or two.
>
>The guy has virtually no name recognition, and no matter how inept his
>likely democratic rivals are, that's awfully tough to overcome. I'm
>pretty sure Venger is quite right when he says likely less than 10% of
>the population even knows who Clark is. His lack of holding an elected
>position hurts him even more. Ask Jesse Jackson, who DID have name
>recognition and a large contingency from the get go, only to get
>slaughtered in the booth. The only reason a guy like Clark has a
>chance at winning the nomination in this election is the Dems need to
>send "someone" to slaughter ala Mondale or Dukaukis.
>
>At this point, it doesn't really matter who the Dems choose. Bush wins
>the next election in a landslide...His popularity is MUCH higher than
>you claim, and the Dems are so disorganized and so busy falling all
>over themselves criticizing anything and everything GWB does, I'm not
>sure the DNC could organize a successful High School student body
>election right now.
>
>Why do you think Al bowed out and Hillary won't run?
>
>OH, and a whole bunch of people getting $400/kid right now are REAL
>happy with the current admin. Married couples are gonna be REAL happy
>with him come April.
>
>I don't see anything short of a major, domestic terrorist attack
>hurting Bush next year. Personally I'm quite disappointed in him, but
>the general public is happy with GWB, no matter how much mud the Dems
>throw at the wall. The only people getting fired up about that are
>hard core libs, anyhow.
Right. LOL.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93445,00.html
Bush has holed up in the White House and barely faced the public or
the media. The more he is exposed in conditions that aren't carefully
scripted, the weaker he will become. He has personally coasted and his
support is only a function of his position. People aren't supporting
him as much as they are supporting the POTUS.
People do not like his economic policies. The majority does not
particularly like his foreign policy. They are supporting his war
policy primarily to support the soldiers.
As far as knowing a candidate, how well did they know Clinton or Bush?
People align with unknowns all the time. In fact, they probably prefer
them so they can idealize them like they did Bush. Dubya is a creation
of the Republican image machine. Heck, I had him as Governor and he
seemed OK to me. I knew he was AWOL and a reformed party boy and a
failure in business and the beneficiary of insider deals. I didn't
care as long as he could do the job.
He can't. Just listen to him speak. He's amiable and playful. He's
also struggling to recall the answers he been forced to remember. The
real show is run by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove. Bush is just the
amiable figurehead in over his head.
I'll leave it to Hackworth to sum up Rummy:
"Rumsfeld is an arrogant asshole. That's a quote, by the way."
will
Let me add something critical to my analysis. Bush was so beaten up
for his communication skills in 2000 that he was a pleasant surprise
in the debates for being somewhat average. Since then his stature has
risen, but his exposure has lessened. He makes a lot of scripted
appearances, but does very little give and take. Therefore, I think
the debate surprise for Bush could well be negative because he will a)
have higher expectations and b) have to defend his record.
I can foresee him being in the same position as his father and looking
lost and defensive in the debates.
Allan Guyton
<wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
Allan
Allan Guyton
<ven...@augustmail.com> wrote:
> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:aguyton-911B12...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > Perot thus insured two victories for Clinton, and Nader probably drew
> > enough support away from Gore in key states to provoke the challenged
> > election.
>
> Bingo. The butterfly ballot didn't cost Gore the election - Nader did.
> Nader's votes go almost exclusively to Gore, and even assuming that only
> half bother to still vote, and Gore is president...
>
> > If Clark's a third party candidate, he'll wipe out the guy he's most
> > similar to, and if the Dem nominee isn't Lieberman, he'll damage the
> > Dem seriously.
>
> They'll never nominate Lieberman.
A shame, really. Lieberman might be my ideal candidate- tough on
foreign policy and realistic domestically.
> > Clark is, as was said elsewhere, likely jockeying for a SecState or
> > VP slot in a Dem admin. IMO.
>
> Does the guy have it in himself to be so subordinate? He doesn't strike me
> as the guy to get into a subordinate position in politics. Still, his
> actions clearly demonstrate he is interested in zero risk, and maximum
> reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot, without
> having to risk voter rejection.
Colin Powell.
Allan
will
<agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <iro4jvgq57h8av7ja...@4ax.com>, will
><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:29:12 -0400, Allan Guyton
>> <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
>> patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare. They've been so
>> worshipful of the military that they wouldn't know how to run against
>> him without alienating a large portion of their nominal base of Rep
>> leaning independents.
>>
>> The Republicans greatly need the ability to call the Dems wimps,
>> chickens, weak on defense and anti-military. Without that, they lose
>> their edge on national security issues and Bush's ace in the hole.
>
>I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
>Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
>
>Allan
How do people that want a smaller federal government see fit to
support Bush?
People choose what they view as the lesser evil all the time. Besides,
there's no real competition for dyed in the wool party people. The
push is to grab the middle of the road independents and Clark is
likely to do that.
Venger
>
> > Nope. Just my political instincts. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first
> > time, but my instincts on these things I find very trustworthy.
>
> So are my sources...who happen to be pretty high up in the Democratic
party.
We'll see. I won't fail to mention it when he doesn't run, so be sure to
mention it if he does...
> > > Dean will implode by Christmas and all his supporters will rally to
> Clark.
> >
> > Doubtful. Dean is the favorite of the Pavlovian anti-Bush left - they
are
> > not going to abandon him.
>
> Ha! I can name 10 in my group that already have.
Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can find a
Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from wanting
Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
> His anti-Bush stance is critical, but he brings a lot of negatives too.
As
> a recent article in Newsweek said...paraphrasing...savvy Democrats realize
> that the only way they've won in the last 40 years is to nominate a
centrist
> from the South. Hmmm....wonder who that could be?
Unless you get Ross Perot to run and take 19% of the vote, forget it. Clark
is nowhere as charismatic as Clinton was. I mean look, he's a decent guy and
all, I don't mean to imply he's a sloberring fool, which he so clearly is
not. He does not have, however, the telegenic appeal that Clinton has. Few
do.
> > You must come to this party early, or have such overwhelming broad
appeal
> > (Hillary) that you can use your public clout to bypass the normal
> > balkanization of the primary process.
>
> Clinton declared in October when he won his first term. Clark is getting
a
> lot of free publicity by not declaring early,
Indeed, he's racking up 380 hits on Google News, all the same story about
Little Rock, compared to Dean on Time, Newsweek, and 4,640 Google News hits.
> and his infrastructure is
> pretty well set with the Draft Clark folks--90 chapters in 40 states and
> growing daily. That's one thing he doesn't have to worry about because
it's
> essentially been done for him. Clinton has said he thinks Clark would
make
> a great president, leading us to think he'll help with fundraising...
He he he... RIGHT. The last thing Clinton wants is a Democrat incumbent in
the White House in 2008. Bank on it.
> and if Clinton can't do anything else, he can raise cash. We're about to
start
> radio ads in several states this month...what more does he need?
He needs to enter the race. Coy may make a country girl seems all the more
attractive and mysterious, but coy in politics looks weak and indecisive.
> What makes anyone's support more than a notion? Why support Kucinich or
> however you spell it? Lots of big money is behind Sharpton right now
(those
> rappers have dough, baby)...that support has to go somewhere when those
guys
> drop out.
And there is nothing to indicate they go to Clark - especially since he
isn't running yet. You can play the hare to Dean's tortoise, but that
usually ends up the way the fable did.
> > > Gephardt doesn't have a chance...his supporters have to go somewhere.
> >
> > I think you are woefully mistaken. Labor VOTES. Unions are one of the
few
> > strengths in the Democrat party that turns out every time. Dismissing
the
> > candidate who gets the AFL-CIO and Teamsters endorsements is
shortsighted.
>
> Those groups will support the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
So will almost every Democrat primary voter. How does that work for any of
them? Labor will turn out in the primaries for Gephardt, big time.
> > Alot of Plano Republicans looking hard at Clark huh? Are you sure you
> aren't
> > confusing polite interlocution for real interest? I could do a poll at
an
> > Albertsons door in Plano and I wager not 10% know who Wesley Clark is.
>
> My dad is one.
Yes he is. One. I'll bet you $20. We can meet at an Albertson's in Plano,
with a clipboard, and ask what, 50 people if they know who Wesley Clark is?
A side bet will be how many say "that black guy from Demolition Man and
Blade". I put the over/under on that response at 6.
> He's disgusted with Bush
Really? I mean what outrade does he save for truly disgusting things, like
child pornographers? Or is he just looking for a different candidate?
> and he's a long-time Repub. And you might find this interesting:
>
> http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/gop.html
Not really. I mean every candidate has the apocryphal Canadian girlfriend
supporter.
Venger
Venger
>
> > > If Clark's a third party candidate, he'll wipe out the guy he's most
> > > similar to, and if the Dem nominee isn't Lieberman, he'll damage the
> > > Dem seriously.
> >
> > They'll never nominate Lieberman.
>
> A shame, really. Lieberman might be my ideal candidate- tough on
> foreign policy and realistic domestically.
I like Lieberman myself, a ticket of 1988 Gore and 2000 Lieberman would
actually be the most conservative Democrat ticket since 1960.
> > > Clark is, as was said elsewhere, likely jockeying for a SecState or
> > > VP slot in a Dem admin. IMO.
> >
> > Does the guy have it in himself to be so subordinate? He doesn't strike
me
> > as the guy to get into a subordinate position in politics. Still, his
> > actions clearly demonstrate he is interested in zero risk, and maximum
> > reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot, without
> > having to risk voter rejection.
>
> Colin Powell.
Never struck me that way. He had no problem being the smaller cheese in Gulf
War I, and never struck me as someone who enjoyed knowing his station and
rank. Whereas I think Clark, like so many, enjoys the ring of his own voice.
Venger
will
wrote:
He's got more appeal than Clinton. Don't fool yourself. This guy
didn't loathe the military, weasel out of duty, marry Hillary, take
part in peace protests or have a trail of bimbos.
Funny, but it doesn't matter. What matters is November 2004.
Nobody could name Clinton or Carter more than a year ahead of time.
will
wrote:
Yep, Republicans are scared.
Allan Guyton
<wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:34:23 -0400, Allan Guyton
> <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <iro4jvgq57h8av7ja...@4ax.com>, will
> ><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:29:12 -0400, Allan Guyton
> >> <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
> >> patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare. They've been so
> >> worshipful of the military that they wouldn't know how to run against
> >> him without alienating a large portion of their nominal base of Rep
> >> leaning independents.
> >>
> >> The Republicans greatly need the ability to call the Dems wimps,
> >> chickens, weak on defense and anti-military. Without that, they lose
> >> their edge on national security issues and Bush's ace in the hole.
> >
> >I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
> >Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
>
> How do people that want a smaller federal government see fit to
> support Bush?
How do you support any representative member of government?
If you expect a president to do 100% of what you want, that president
will have to be you.
To me there is no more important issue than domestic security.
If another 9/11 happens, the damage to the economy would be far more
severe than the original.
So basically, if I'm to oust Bush, the alternative needs to be credibly
able to do AS well (Lieberman) on domestic security.
Besides, the fed budget (minus defense and homeland security increases)
has grown about 3%, IIRC, about what you'd expect with a divided Congress.
Plus, Bush has the advantage of incumbency. The fiscal conservatives
would have to choose between supporting him or getting someone worse
(only possible exceptions at this point seem to be Lieberman and Dean)
fiscally.
> People choose what they view as the lesser evil all the time. Besides,
> there's no real competition for dyed in the wool party people. The
> push is to grab the middle of the road independents and Clark is
> likely to do that.
It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
him... :)
Allan
Kim Cole
You betcha. If he runs, he wins.
Kim Cole
Then we have something in common because I enjoy the ring of his voice too.
Common sense and intelligence are wonderful things.
Kim Cole
Because he was against the war and called it our greatest strategic blunder
since the Cold War.
Kim Cole
> In article <ar36jvc0qd2cs245q...@4ax.com>, will
> <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:34:23 -0400, Allan Guyton
> > <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <iro4jvgq57h8av7ja...@4ax.com>, will
> > ><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:29:12 -0400, Allan Guyton
> > >> <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
> > >> patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare. They've been so
> > >> worshipful of the military that they wouldn't know how to run against
> > >> him without alienating a large portion of their nominal base of Rep
> > >> leaning independents.
> > >>
> > >> The Republicans greatly need the ability to call the Dems wimps,
> > >> chickens, weak on defense and anti-military. Without that, they lose
> > >> their edge on national security issues and Bush's ace in the hole.
> > >
> > >I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
> > >Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
> >
> > How do people that want a smaller federal government see fit to
> > support Bush?
>
> How do you support any representative member of government?
>
> If you expect a president to do 100% of what you want, that president
> will have to be you.
>
> To me there is no more important issue than domestic security.
I don't understand how *anyone* can continue to support this administration
after those 28 pages were suppressed. The one thing that Americans should
understand loud and clear is where Bush's loyalties lie and they AREN'T with
the 3,000 people and their families who died that day.
He sold out the 9/11 dead for a few barrels of oil and anyone who continues
to defend him because they think he's interested in protecting the people of
this country and cares about what happened that day should hang their heads
in shame. As should he.
> If another 9/11 happens, the damage to the economy would be far more
> severe than the original.
>
> So basically, if I'm to oust Bush, the alternative needs to be credibly
> able to do AS well (Lieberman) on domestic security.
The first thing Clark would do is pull our allies and NATO into Iraq which
would free up our military to do things like, oh, say....*protect us*. He's
not part of the "Bring It On" posse.
> Besides, the fed budget (minus defense and homeland security increases)
> has grown about 3%, IIRC, about what you'd expect with a divided Congress.
>
> Plus, Bush has the advantage of incumbency. The fiscal conservatives
> would have to choose between supporting him or getting someone worse
> (only possible exceptions at this point seem to be Lieberman and Dean)
> fiscally.
>
> > People choose what they view as the lesser evil all the time. Besides,
> > there's no real competition for dyed in the wool party people. The
> > push is to grab the middle of the road independents and Clark is
> > likely to do that.
>
> It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
> lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
> fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
> must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
Well, the tree huggers like him. He actually believes there IS such a thing
as "global warming" which Bush is still struggling to pronounce.
> Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
> believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
> him... :)
Actually, I doubt it. He's about common sense and doing the right thing and
not screwing Americans, which I think you also support. He thinks the
Patriot Act went too far and needs to be re-examined. He believes in
progressive taxation. He believes in affirmative action, but not quotas.
And hey...HE'S A HUNTER!!! If I can forgive him that, then he MUST be good!
:<)
Barry Wong
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:05:32 -0500, "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Unless you get Ross Perot to run and take 19% of the vote, forget it.
> >Clark is nowhere as charismatic as Clinton was. I mean look, he's a
> >decent guy and all, I don't mean to imply he's a sloberring fool, which
> >he so clearly is not. He does not have, however, the telegenic appeal
> >that Clinton has. Few do.
>
> He's got more appeal than Clinton. Don't fool yourself. This guy
> didn't loathe the military, weasel out of duty, marry Hillary, take
> part in peace protests or have a trail of bimbos.
I guess appeal is in the eye of the beholder. Venger is talking about
'telegenic' appeal -- the sort of raw charisma that attracts
admirers/followers. Clinton is guilty of all the stuff you said, and
that probably means he's not as good a person as Clark -- but on the
question of charisma, are you saying that Clark has more than Clinton?
will
<agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
We've got a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican
President. What we've had is Republican government.
The problem isn't just spending increases but irresponsible tax cuts.
Borrow and spend big government.
>
>Plus, Bush has the advantage of incumbency. The fiscal conservatives
>would have to choose between supporting him or getting someone worse
>(only possible exceptions at this point seem to be Lieberman and Dean)
>fiscally.
Bush also has to defend himself and I think that's tough for him to do
if he can't rely on image. There's little substance to him and real
conservatives don't have much to point to as conservative policy from
him.
>
>> People choose what they view as the lesser evil all the time. Besides,
>> there's no real competition for dyed in the wool party people. The
>> push is to grab the middle of the road independents and Clark is
>> likely to do that.
>
>It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
>lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
>fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
>must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
Nope. He can tell them off if he wants to with no ill effect...if he's
a winner. You can diss Sister Soulja or piss off Pat Buchanan or
double cross labor on Nafta and still win.
>
>Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
>believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
>him... :)
Well, it is about Bush. People are going to be voting yes or no on
Bush, primarily. Right now there's enough people willing to vote no
for him to lose. With the right opponent, they'll be comfortable doing
so.
>
>Allan
Kim Cole
>
> "Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:bguqe7$t2u60$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > Nope. Just my political instincts. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the
first
> > > time, but my instincts on these things I find very trustworthy.
> >
> > So are my sources...who happen to be pretty high up in the Democratic
> party.
>
> We'll see. I won't fail to mention it when he doesn't run, so be sure to
> mention it if he does...
Can't. I'll be too busy trying to get him elected.
> > > > Dean will implode by Christmas and all his supporters will rally to
> > Clark.
> > >
> > > Doubtful. Dean is the favorite of the Pavlovian anti-Bush left - they
> are
> > > not going to abandon him.
> >
> > Ha! I can name 10 in my group that already have.
>
> Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can find a
> Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from
wanting
> Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
Except your comment was that people aren't going to abandon Dean. I told
you they already have.
> > His anti-Bush stance is critical, but he brings a lot of negatives too.
> As
> > a recent article in Newsweek said...paraphrasing...savvy Democrats
realize
> > that the only way they've won in the last 40 years is to nominate a
> centrist
> > from the South. Hmmm....wonder who that could be?
>
> Unless you get Ross Perot to run and take 19% of the vote, forget it.
Clark
> is nowhere as charismatic as Clinton was. I mean look, he's a decent guy
and
> all, I don't mean to imply he's a sloberring fool, which he so clearly is
> not. He does not have, however, the telegenic appeal that Clinton has. Few
> do.
LOL! That's truly hilarious. His nickname is "General Hottie." He screams
sex appeal, just like Clinton. Are you sure you know which guy we're
talking about, because you clearly have never seen him on TV.
> > > You must come to this party early, or have such overwhelming broad
> appeal
> > > (Hillary) that you can use your public clout to bypass the normal
> > > balkanization of the primary process.
> >
> > Clinton declared in October when he won his first term. Clark is
getting
> a
> > lot of free publicity by not declaring early,
>
> Indeed, he's racking up 380 hits on Google News, all the same story about
> Little Rock, compared to Dean on Time, Newsweek, and 4,640 Google News
hits.
Who cares about Dean? He's loud and obnoxious and has been bold enough to
take on Bush so he's getting press. Nobody claims in any of these articles
that he'd be a great president or that he could easily beat Bush. Clark
has had his share of press too, but again, you must not be paying attention.
Did you notice that he was mentioned in the Dean article in Newsweek? Or
that he's been on every news show around lately? And, look for him to
appear on Oprah sometime in the near future.
> > and his infrastructure is
> > pretty well set with the Draft Clark folks--90 chapters in 40 states and
> > growing daily. That's one thing he doesn't have to worry about because
> it's
> > essentially been done for him. Clinton has said he thinks Clark would
> make
> > a great president, leading us to think he'll help with fundraising...
>
> He he he... RIGHT. The last thing Clinton wants is a Democrat incumbent in
> the White House in 2008. Bank on it.
So why make that comment? And remember, we're talking about Clinton here.
He loves being in the spotlight, loves being the wise old sage that people
come to for advice and help. If Clark asks, Clinton won't be able to help
himself, no matter who he might know personally that wants to run in 2008.
> > and if Clinton can't do anything else, he can raise cash. We're about
to
> start
> > radio ads in several states this month...what more does he need?
>
> He needs to enter the race. Coy may make a country girl seems all the more
> attractive and mysterious, but coy in politics looks weak and indecisive.
Word on the street is Labor Day. Every one of us in the movement could be
wrong and he might do exactly as you say and not run.
Or we might be right.
> > What makes anyone's support more than a notion? Why support Kucinich or
> > however you spell it? Lots of big money is behind Sharpton right now
> (those
> > rappers have dough, baby)...that support has to go somewhere when those
> guys
> > drop out.
>
> And there is nothing to indicate they go to Clark - especially since he
> isn't running yet. You can play the hare to Dean's tortoise, but that
> usually ends up the way the fable did.
Except you got it wrong. Re-read the fable--we're the tortoise.
> > > > Gephardt doesn't have a chance...his supporters have to go
somewhere.
> > >
> > > I think you are woefully mistaken. Labor VOTES. Unions are one of the
> few
> > > strengths in the Democrat party that turns out every time. Dismissing
> the
> > > candidate who gets the AFL-CIO and Teamsters endorsements is
> shortsighted.
> >
> > Those groups will support the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
>
> So will almost every Democrat primary voter. How does that work for any of
> them? Labor will turn out in the primaries for Gephardt, big time.
I think a lot of candidates will be asked to fall on their swords when a
candidate appears that can beat Bush. And that candidate is Clark.
> > > Alot of Plano Republicans looking hard at Clark huh? Are you sure you
> > aren't
> > > confusing polite interlocution for real interest? I could do a poll at
> an
> > > Albertsons door in Plano and I wager not 10% know who Wesley Clark is.
> >
> > My dad is one.
>
> Yes he is. One. I'll bet you $20. We can meet at an Albertson's in Plano,
> with a clipboard, and ask what, 50 people if they know who Wesley Clark
is?
> A side bet will be how many say "that black guy from Demolition Man and
> Blade". I put the over/under on that response at 6.
How many people in Podunk, Iowa knew who Bush was when he ran? How many
people in Los Angeles knew who Carter was? What possible difference does
that make? The election is over a year away and as I said, Clark has an
infrastructure in place. When he announces, things will gear up and you'll
start to hear his name everywhere.
> > He's disgusted with Bush
>
> Really? I mean what outrade does he save for truly disgusting things, like
> child pornographers? Or is he just looking for a different candidate?
He's looking for a president that doesn't pledge allegiance to Saudi Arabia.
will
Yep. Nobody drafted Clinton.
Of course, I thought Clinton lacked any appeal whatsoever, so don't
ask me. I'll admit that I tend to look at things intellectually. I
respond to ideas more than flight suits.
Kim Cole
news:lhWXa.2262$1X3.115...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...> news:bgp89t$qmf76$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Barry" <barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:O5VXa.1718$Ta....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...> > > news:bgp3dc$qqch7$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > Donald Rumsfeld died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St.
> > > Peter
> > > > at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > He asked, "What are all those clocks?" St. Peter answered, "Those
are
> > > > Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie
the
> > > hands
> > > > on your clock will move."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Oh," said Rumsfeld, "whose clock is that?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that
> she
> > > > never told a lie."
> > > >
> > > > "Incredible," said Rumsfeld. "And whose clock is that one?" St.
Peter
> > > > responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved
> twice,
> > > > telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."
> > > >
> > > > "Where's Bush's clock?" asked Rumsfeld.
> > > >
> > > > "Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Where you been? I thought you and Will ran off together. Hadn't seen
> > > either of you around in a while.
> >
> > Will and I are having a great time here in Bora Bora! Weather is
lovely,
> > landscape is beautiful. Lots of trees, no bushes. :<)
>
> Cool! Bring me a t-shirt.
>
> >
> > Actually, I wasn't kidding when I said in a post last month that I
started
> > working for the Draft Wesley Clark campaign. I'm one of two
coordinators
> > for Dallas for DraftClark2004 and I've been so incredibly busy I haven't
> > even been able to keep up with the quarterback wars! I heard we signed
> > someone today but didn't get a chance to hear who it was...Brett Favre??
> > I'm sooo out of the Cowboy loop!
>
> Troy Aikman came out of retirement.
>
> >
> > (Anyone interested in General Wesley Clark can contact me at
> > kc...@draftclark2004.com ... gratuitous plug over.)
> >
>
> Why's he different than all the others? You can e-mail me your answer, if
> you want.
I'll e-mail you some info when I get back from Little Rock. Opening our
campaign headquarters there this weekend...
will
Dean can't win because of gay rights. Lieberman appeals mostly to
people that wouldn't vote for him over Bush anyway. The rest of the
crew have various problems. Democrats realize that.
I think they also want Bush gone and are taking a more sophisticated
approach than in 2000. I doubt the Greens field a candidate or that he
gets much support.
Venger
> > mention it if he does...
>
> Can't. I'll be too busy trying to get him elected.
Come now, you'll have some spare time between now and then...
> > > Ha! I can name 10 in my group that already have.
> >
> > Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can find
a
> > Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from
> wanting
> > Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
>
> Except your comment was that people aren't going to abandon Dean. I told
> you they already have.
Well, the two percent that abandoned Dean to show up for Clark in polling in
NH only leaves Dean with 22%...
> > Unless you get Ross Perot to run and take 19% of the vote, forget it.
> Clark
> > is nowhere as charismatic as Clinton was. I mean look, he's a decent guy
> and
> > all, I don't mean to imply he's a sloberring fool, which he so clearly
is
> > not. He does not have, however, the telegenic appeal that Clinton has.
Few
> > do.
>
> LOL! That's truly hilarious. His nickname is "General Hottie."
Ho boy...
> He screams sex appeal, just like Clinton. Are you sure you know which guy
we're
> talking about, because you clearly have never seen him on TV.
Uh, yeah, I'd recognize him in a crowded room. I saw tons of his commentary
with Aaron Brown during the hot stages of the Iraq war. I saw him on
television BEFORE the Iraq war. And on various Sunday newsshows since. Yeah,
I got the right guy...
> > > Clinton declared in October when he won his first term. Clark is
> getting
> > a
> > > lot of free publicity by not declaring early,
> >
> > Indeed, he's racking up 380 hits on Google News, all the same story
about
> > Little Rock, compared to Dean on Time, Newsweek, and 4,640 Google News
> hits.
>
> Who cares about Dean? He's loud and obnoxious and has been bold enough to
> take on Bush so he's getting press. Nobody claims in any of these
articles
> that he'd be a great president or that he could easily beat Bush. Clark
> has had his share of press too, but again, you must not be paying
attention.
That's just it Kim, I *AM* paying attention, I'm just not in a Wesley Clark
echo chamber. We could argue who reads more political journalism, but I
assure you, I am not inattentive to the subject. If you honest to God want
to claim Clark has been getting anything approaching comparable press, I'd
have to say you're too close to the eye of the storm.
> Did you notice that he was mentioned in the Dean article in Newsweek?
Let me guess - a certain Massachussetts senator with a JFK monogram was also
mentioned. And let me guess - a certain senator from Conneticut who walks on
Sundays was also mentioned... I would not get excited about a buried mention
when your opponent is on the cover in newstands.
Have you been involved in a campaign before? A successful one, at a high
level? Just curious.
> > > and his infrastructure is
> > > pretty well set with the Draft Clark folks--90 chapters in 40 states
and
> > > growing daily. That's one thing he doesn't have to worry about
because
> > it's
> > > essentially been done for him. Clinton has said he thinks Clark would
> > make
> > > a great president, leading us to think he'll help with fundraising...
> >
> > He he he... RIGHT. The last thing Clinton wants is a Democrat incumbent
in
> > the White House in 2008. Bank on it.
>
> So why make that comment?
Because you said he'd help you fundraise, and I'm here to tell you, the LAST
thing Clinton is going to do is put a Democrat in the White House.
> And remember, we're talking about Clinton here.
> He loves being in the spotlight, loves being the wise old sage that people
> come to for advice and help. If Clark asks, Clinton won't be able to help
> himself, no matter who he might know personally that wants to run in 2008.
We'll see. He's certainly done the Democrats, including Clark, no favors on
Iraq.
> > He needs to enter the race. Coy may make a country girl seems all the
more
> > attractive and mysterious, but coy in politics looks weak and
indecisive.
>
> Word on the street is Labor Day. Every one of us in the movement could be
> wrong and he might do exactly as you say and not run.
>
> Or we might be right.
Indeed, I am anxiously awaiting a Texas sized told you so...
> > And there is nothing to indicate they go to Clark - especially since he
> > isn't running yet. You can play the hare to Dean's tortoise, but that
> > usually ends up the way the fable did.
>
> Except you got it wrong. Re-read the fable--we're the tortoise.
Uh... the hare starts late, seeing all it's advantages. The tortoise starts
early, knowing time is crucial.
> > > Those groups will support the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
> >
> > So will almost every Democrat primary voter. How does that work for any
of
> > them? Labor will turn out in the primaries for Gephardt, big time.
>
> I think a lot of candidates will be asked to fall on their swords when a
> candidate appears that can beat Bush. And that candidate is Clark.
Whew... I'd offer you've not been around alot of major candidacy's...
falling on swords is not what these guys do. Most will go as long as the
funds take them.
> > > My dad is one.
> >
> > Yes he is. One. I'll bet you $20. We can meet at an Albertson's in
Plano,
> > with a clipboard, and ask what, 50 people if they know who Wesley Clark
> is?
> > A side bet will be how many say "that black guy from Demolition Man and
> > Blade". I put the over/under on that response at 6.
>
> How many people in Podunk, Iowa knew who Bush was when he ran?
Which one? 41, the then two-term vice president? Or 43, with the same name
as the former president? Really Kim, I mean I know you're jazzed cause you
like the guy and he's a "hottie", but are you really offering to me that his
name recognition is even close to equal to that of GWB's in 1999?
> How many people in Los Angeles knew who Carter was?
About as many who knew who Ford was...
> What possible difference does that make?
The question regarded your "word is out" and "people are interested in him"
statements - which I would offer describe your immediate circle in the
campaign group, not the populace. How can the word be out and people be
interested if they have no earthly idea who he is? 95 out of 100 people
wouldn't know Wesley Clark if they backed over him in a parking lot. That
doesn't make him unelectable, or a bad person, just unknown. And in this
business unknown = unvoted for.
> The election is over a year away and as I said, Clark has an
> infrastructure in place. When he announces, things will gear up and
you'll
> start to hear his name everywhere.
Okie dokie...
> > > He's disgusted with Bush
> >
> > Really? I mean what outrade does he save for truly disgusting things,
like
> > child pornographers? Or is he just looking for a different candidate?
>
> He's looking for a president that doesn't pledge allegiance to Saudi
Arabia.
Just when I think you've gone sane... is that Clark's position? Can we quote
him?
Remember what I said about running to the right of Bush - you will never win
trying it.
Venger
Venger
>
that already have.
> >>
> >> Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can
find a
> >> Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from
> >wanting
> >> Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
> >
> >Except your comment was that people aren't going to abandon Dean. I told
> >you they already have.
>
> Dean can't win because of gay rights.
I ignore you mostly, because discussing things with you tends to bog down in
pointless minutae, but allow me to risk it to note that Clark is a big
proponent of getting rid of DADT in the military and allowing gays to serve
openly.
Smell that? That's the red part of the map not voting for you on one issue
alone...
> I think they also want Bush gone and are taking a more sophisticated
> approach than in 2000. I doubt the Greens field a candidate or that he
> gets much support.
If Nader runs again, it might be a 45-stater...
Venger
will
wrote:
>
>"will" <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote in message
>news:ir86jv8j7sbf9uost...@4ax.com...
>>
>that already have.
>> >>
>> >> Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can
>find a
>> >> Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from
>> >wanting
>> >> Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
>> >
>> >Except your comment was that people aren't going to abandon Dean. I told
>> >you they already have.
>>
>> Dean can't win because of gay rights.
>
>I ignore you mostly, because discussing things with you tends to bog down in
>pointless minutae,
You mean like facts? LOL
>but allow me to risk it to note that Clark is a big
>proponent of getting rid of DADT in the military and allowing gays to serve
>openly.
>
>Smell that? That's the red part of the map not voting for you on one issue
>alone...
I've heard him speak on that topic and his position is the only
rational one to have. Don't ask don't tell is stupid.
There's always been gays in the military and always will be. Even Rick
Santorum realizes there's a difference between being gay and
performing homosexual acts.
>
>> I think they also want Bush gone and are taking a more sophisticated
>> approach than in 2000. I doubt the Greens field a candidate or that he
>> gets much support.
>
>If Nader runs again, it might be a 45-stater...
Nader gets nothing.
>
>Venger
>
Barry Wong
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:54:07 -0700, g...@saved.net (Barry Wong) wrote:
>
> >I guess appeal is in the eye of the beholder. Venger is talking about
> >'telegenic' appeal -- the sort of raw charisma that attracts
> >admirers/followers. Clinton is guilty of all the stuff you said, and
> >that probably means he's not as good a person as Clark -- but on the
> >question of charisma, are you saying that Clark has more than Clinton?
>
>
> Yep. Nobody drafted Clinton.
Drafting someone takes fewer people than electing someone. Clinton's
been a Governor and twice-elected US President. Clark has been elected
to...?
Venger
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:16:50 -0500, "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Dean can't win because of gay rights.
> >
> >I ignore you mostly, because discussing things with you tends to bog down
in
> >pointless minutae,
>
> You mean like facts? LOL
No.
> >but allow me to risk it to note that Clark is a big
> >proponent of getting rid of DADT in the military and allowing gays to
serve
> >openly.
> >
> >Smell that? That's the red part of the map not voting for you on one
issue
> >alone...
>
> I've heard him speak on that topic and his position is the only
> rational one to have. Don't ask don't tell is stupid.
You may think so, and many others may think so as well, but thinking DADT is
stupid doesn't mean the individual also think allowing open homosexuality is
smart.
> >> I think they also want Bush gone and are taking a more sophisticated
> >> approach than in 2000. I doubt the Greens field a candidate or that he
> >> gets much support.
> >
> >If Nader runs again, it might be a 45-stater...
>
> Nader gets nothing.
Nader gets to ruin it for the Democrats. Again. No Nader, no Bush
presidency. At least in 2000.
Venger
Barry
How do you figure that? Got any proof? Maybe in the French military.
Even Rick
> Santorum realizes there's a difference between being gay and
> performing homosexual acts.
>
Gays will never be accepted in the military, it just won't work. DADT is
the closest that the US military will come to acceptance. They can pass all
the laws they want, but the soldier out in the field has the final say.
Barry
will
>will <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:54:07 -0700, g...@saved.net (Barry Wong) wrote:
>>
>> >I guess appeal is in the eye of the beholder. Venger is talking about
>> >'telegenic' appeal -- the sort of raw charisma that attracts
>> >admirers/followers. Clinton is guilty of all the stuff you said, and
>> >that probably means he's not as good a person as Clark -- but on the
>> >question of charisma, are you saying that Clark has more than Clinton?
>>
>>
>> Yep. Nobody drafted Clinton.
>
>Drafting someone takes fewer people than electing someone.
Well Richard Nixon got elected too, but somehow I don't think that
proves anything about his charisma.
will
wrote:
But this isn't 2000, we aren't as spoiled by peace and prosperity and
everyone knows compassionate conservatism is BS. I think the idea that
both parties are the same has lost some of the appeal that encouraged
votes for Nader.
>
will
wrote:
LOL. The military is a gay magnet. Young guys and uniforms.:>)
>
>Even Rick
>> Santorum realizes there's a difference between being gay and
>> performing homosexual acts.
>>
>
>Gays will never be accepted in the military, it just won't work. DADT is
>the closest that the US military will come to acceptance. They can pass all
>the laws they want, but the soldier out in the field has the final say.
Let's just hope they don't get lonely and say Yes.:>)
>
>Barry
>
>
Allan Guyton
<kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote:
> "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:aguyton-55D1E4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > In article <ar36jvc0qd2cs245q...@4ax.com>, will
> > <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:34:23 -0400, Allan Guyton
> > > <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
> > > >Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
> > >
> > > How do people that want a smaller federal government see fit to
> > > support Bush?
> >
> > How do you support any representative member of government?
> >
> > If you expect a president to do 100% of what you want, that president
> > will have to be you.
> >
> > To me there is no more important issue than domestic security.
>
> I don't understand how *anyone* can continue to support this administration
> after those 28 pages were suppressed.
Sure you don't. You were claiming Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.
> The one thing that Americans should
> understand loud and clear is where Bush's loyalties lie and they AREN'T with
> the 3,000 people and their families who died that day.
>
> He sold out the 9/11 dead for a few barrels of oil and anyone who continues
> to defend him because they think he's interested in protecting the people of
> this country and cares about what happened that day should hang their heads
> in shame. As should he.
Somehow, that fails to chasten me. If we had Al Gore (who I DID vote for, btw),
Attorney General Feinstein would still be trying to sue Osama and Mullah
Omar.
> > If another 9/11 happens, the damage to the economy would be far more
> > severe than the original.
> >
> > So basically, if I'm to oust Bush, the alternative needs to be credibly
> > able to do AS well (Lieberman) on domestic security.
>
> The first thing Clark would do is pull our allies and NATO into Iraq which
> would free up our military to do things like, oh, say....*protect us*. He's
> not part of the "Bring It On" posse.
Which allies aren't in Iraq already? The Japanese have just started their
first post-WWII foreign deployment of troops.
The "Bring It On" thing is quite helpful in the War on Terror. Since
Iraq 'had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism', it might surprise you
to know that the vast majority of those engaging our troops these days
are foreign imports. If they're attacking our MILITARY in IRAQ, it's going
to be harder for them to attack our CIVILIANS HERE. (Especially when they're
dead...)
Bush's War on Terror has shifted the line of scrimmage from our own 1 (9/11)
to the very foundations of terrorism and those who support terror. Two
terror-backing dictatorships have had 'regime change'. Iran, the biggie,
could fall in months without us lifting a finger.
I fail to see how the Do-Nothing side has anything to contribute to this
effort, since they've opposed each and every action we've taken to protect
ourselves. (Not saying that Clark per se is a Do-Nothinger, btw)
> > It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
> > lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
> > fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
> > must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
>
> Well, the tree huggers like him. He actually believes there IS such a thing
> as "global warming" which Bush is still struggling to pronounce.
Well, I'll forgive him that fallacy. It's August in Virginia and we're
freezing in the low 80s.
> > Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
> > believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
> > him... :)
>
> Actually, I doubt it. He's about common sense and doing the right thing and
> not screwing Americans, which I think you also support. He thinks the
> Patriot Act went too far and needs to be re-examined. He believes in
> progressive taxation.
I'd rather see a flat tax. I don't know what percentage is appropriate
(I'd leave that to economists), but a flat tax is by definition the most
fair tax possible.
> He believes in affirmative action, but not quotas.
That's the same as liking the beach, but not the sand. :)
> And hey...HE'S A HUNTER!!! If I can forgive him that, then he MUST be good!
> :<)
ROTFL. I'll definitely check him out if he decides to run.
Allan
Allan Guyton
<wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Give me someone better than Bush and I'll vote
for them.
Allan
Barry
You said, "Always". I doubt very seriously there were many gays in the Army
from the American Revolution up until WW2.
Being gay didn't become popular in this country until recently.
Barry
Venger
Of course - but is it really? It's not progressive, and makes no assumptions
regarding a base floor of sustenance.
If we agree that there is a minimum amount of money a person needs to meet
the basic functions of life - how can you justify taxing that? There's the
rub. What people really want is to tax disposable income...
I like a flat tax - ditch the tax code, the loopholes, and the tax
accountants. But it must be baselined.
Additionally, the Democrats will never go for it. The notion that rich
people need to pay a higher percentage is ingrained in them.
Venger
will
<agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Oh, I think the Republicans would have impeached Gore for allowing
9-11 to happen. Republicans are full of it on national security. They
haven't done anything to improve it that Democrats wouldn't have done.
They have done some things that have no positive aspect as far as
national security.
It is BS, just like Republican Presidential fiscal conservatism is.
>
>> > If another 9/11 happens, the damage to the economy would be far more
>> > severe than the original.
>> >
>> > So basically, if I'm to oust Bush, the alternative needs to be credibly
>> > able to do AS well (Lieberman) on domestic security.
>>
>> The first thing Clark would do is pull our allies and NATO into Iraq which
>> would free up our military to do things like, oh, say....*protect us*. He's
>> not part of the "Bring It On" posse.
>
>Which allies aren't in Iraq already? The Japanese have just started their
>first post-WWII foreign deployment of troops.
>
>The "Bring It On" thing is quite helpful in the War on Terror. Since
>Iraq 'had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism', it might surprise you
>to know that the vast majority of those engaging our troops these days
>are foreign imports. If they're attacking our MILITARY in IRAQ, it's going
>to be harder for them to attack our CIVILIANS HERE. (Especially when they're
>dead...)
>
>Bush's War on Terror has shifted the line of scrimmage from our own 1 (9/11)
>to the very foundations of terrorism and those who support terror. Two
>terror-backing dictatorships have had 'regime change'. Iran, the biggie,
>could fall in months without us lifting a finger.
This is fiction. There is no line of scrimmage because they aren't
playing a game with rules and we don't know what they want to do or
are planning to do. We can assume anything we want. We can assume that
they were really powerful on 9-11. For all we know, they might have
shot their wad and lost their top operatives pulling that one
operation off.
IOW, we have no way to accurately judge the value of what Bush has
done.
>
>I fail to see how the Do-Nothing side has anything to contribute to this
>effort, since they've opposed each and every action we've taken to protect
>ourselves. (Not saying that Clark per se is a Do-Nothinger, btw)
>
>> > It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
>> > lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
>> > fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
>> > must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
>>
>> Well, the tree huggers like him. He actually believes there IS such a thing
>> as "global warming" which Bush is still struggling to pronounce.
>
>Well, I'll forgive him that fallacy. It's August in Virginia and we're
>freezing in the low 80s.
>
>> > Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
>> > believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
>> > him... :)
>>
>> Actually, I doubt it. He's about common sense and doing the right thing and
>> not screwing Americans, which I think you also support. He thinks the
>> Patriot Act went too far and needs to be re-examined. He believes in
>> progressive taxation.
>
>I'd rather see a flat tax. I don't know what percentage is appropriate
>(I'd leave that to economists), but a flat tax is by definition the most
>fair tax possible.
Give me a break. It isn't about fairness, it is about maximizing.
Fairness is everyone hurting equally. When you tip a waitress in West
Texas $5, she's probably gonna be real happy. What does that $5 mean
to Bill Gates? Money is real for the waitress and an abstraction to
Warren Buffett.
Barry
Damn I hate to get back into these political debates. What did the
democrats do after the first WTC bombing? Nothing, why then would they do
something now?
Barry
will
wrote:
>
>"Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:aguyton-5D9747...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> In article <bgv6pe$rps6g$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Kim Cole"
>> <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, I doubt it. He's about common sense and doing the right thing
>and
>> > not screwing Americans, which I think you also support. He thinks the
>> > Patriot Act went too far and needs to be re-examined. He believes in
>> > progressive taxation.
>>
>> I'd rather see a flat tax. I don't know what percentage is appropriate
>> (I'd leave that to economists), but a flat tax is by definition the most
>> fair tax possible.
>
>Of course - but is it really? It's not progressive, and makes no assumptions
>regarding a base floor of sustenance.
>
>If we agree that there is a minimum amount of money a person needs to meet
>the basic functions of life - how can you justify taxing that? There's the
>rub. What people really want is to tax disposable income...
>
>I like a flat tax - ditch the tax code, the loopholes, and the tax
>accountants. But it must be baselined.
Sure. I think the majority of Americans are willing to go with a
single rate under the right circumstances.
>
>Additionally, the Democrats will never go for it. The notion that rich
>people need to pay a higher percentage is ingrained in them.
If the rate is high enough and has a large enough standard deduction,
Democrats would go for it, but Republicans wouldn't. It works both
ways.
I'd personally like to know where the sweet spot is to be revenue
neutral and still protect lower income people.
>
>Venger
>
Barry Wong
> Well Richard Nixon got elected too, but somehow I don't think that
> proves anything about his charisma.
True. So are you saying that Clinton fits into the same category as
Nixon with respect to charisma?
This seems kinda silly to me, Will. If you think Clark has 'telegenic
appeal,' bully for you. If you think he can win without it (a la Nixon),
maybe that's even better. How much difference does it make to you if
Venger or anyone else doesn't?
FWIW, I think Quincy has more charisma than Chad...
natch
> > "Barry Wong" <g...@saved.net> wrote in message
> > news:1fz8dm1.ls070d15723bsN%g...@saved.net...
> > > Patrick <p...@nulSpam.dreamstate.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Where was Clintons clock? Powering the hydroelectric turbines?
> > >
> > > That depends on what the definition of "was" is. And clock. And Clinton.
> >
> > Geez. Does NO ONE have a sense of humor anymore? At least the libs could
> > laugh about Clinton...
> >
> >
> Only the Libs thought what he did to the country was funny.
What the heck did he "DO" to the country? All he did was attempt,
albeit lamely, to cover up getting a hummer. Stupid, selfish,
immature, yes all that. But he didnt do anything to the country
specifically or directly. The fact that all the energy and focus was
taken away from more important issues is every bit as much to blame on
Ken Starr and the Cons as on Clinton. Get real man. What Bush is doing
is "to the country."
Kim Cole
Hey, have you heard of this guy named Wesley Clark? :<)
Gotta go...heading to Little Rock for the opening of campaign headquarters.
That reminds me...I'd better set the TIVO for tomorrow night...(now it's a
football related post!)
Kim Cole
>
> "will" <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote in message
> news:ir86jv8j7sbf9uost...@4ax.com...
> >
> that already have.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can
> find a
> > >> Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from
> > >wanting
> > >> Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
> > >
> > >Except your comment was that people aren't going to abandon Dean. I
told
> > >you they already have.
> >
> > Dean can't win because of gay rights.
>
> I ignore you mostly, because discussing things with you tends to bog down
in
> pointless minutae, but allow me to risk it to note that Clark is a big
> proponent of getting rid of DADT in the military and allowing gays to
serve
> openly.
That's absolutely false.
Kim Cole
>
> "will" <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote in message
> news:ir86jv8j7sbf9uost...@4ax.com...
> >
> that already have.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you have - they are in your group. Do you not think I can
> find a
> > >> Dean shill who will state the inverse? Or that 10 have switched from
> > >wanting
> > >> Bush to Dean? Or Clark? Or Gary Coleman as California governor?
> > >
> > >Except your comment was that people aren't going to abandon Dean. I
told
> > >you they already have.
> >
> > Dean can't win because of gay rights.
>
> I ignore you mostly, because discussing things with you tends to bog down
in
> pointless minutae, but allow me to risk it to note that Clark is a big
> proponent of getting rid of DADT in the military and allowing gays to
serve
> openly.
>
> Smell that? That's the red part of the map not voting for you on one issue
> alone...
To further add to my comments, Clark is not a "big proponent" of doing away
with DADT. Nor does he ever state *anywhere* that he would change the
policy to allow gays to serve openly. His position, as shown below, is that
it is an issue for the leaders of the armed forces to resolve. "I think
that ... we should welcome people that want to serve. But we also have to
maintain consistent standards of discipline; we have to have effective
units."
From his interview on Meet the Press...
MR. RUSSERT: In the brief you talked about combating discrimination. Many
people would point to the military’s policy on gays as being discriminatory.
Are you in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military?
GEN. CLARK: I’m not sure that I’d be in favor of that policy. I supported
that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don’t think it works. It
works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially
we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always
will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to
serve. But we also have to maintain consistent standards of discipline; we
have to have effective units.
So I think that’s an issue that the leaders in the armed forces are going to
have to work with and resolve.
I do think that the sort of temperature of the issue has changed over the
decade. People were much more irate about this issue in the early ’90s than
I found in the late ’90s, for whatever reason, younger people coming in. It
just didn’t seem to be the same emotional hot button issue by ’98, ’99, that
it had been in ’92, ’93.
MR. RUSSERT: So you have no problem having openly gay Americans serve in the
military as long as they abided by the same code of conduct that
heterosexuals abided by?
GEN. CLARK: Well, the British have a system that—they put this in the
British system. They call it— they said, “Don’t ask, don’t misbehave.” I
think the leaders in the armed forces will look at that some day. But I have
to tell you, also, we have got a lot of other issues on the plate for the
United States armed forces, and this is one among many. And the men and
women charged with those responsibilities need to look at those issues. But
this is only one issue.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’s an important one to many Americans. Parameters, which
is a journal published by the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, has an
article by Professor Aaron Belkan of the University of California. He says
that 24 countries now have gays in the military, most of our NATO partners.
Would you allow American troops to serve in joint exercises with NATO
partners that had gays in the military?
GEN. CLARK: They already are. And they served together in Kosovo and in
Bosnia and so forth.
MR. RUSSERT: That being the point, should the United States not allow openly
gay people to serve in the military?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think we need to charge the men and women responsible
for the armed forces to come forward with that answer. I think that has to
come from them based on what we need for the armed forces, as well as, you
know, their concerns about society as a whole.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’d look at changing the policy?
GEN. CLARK: Absolutely.
Kent Henrich
> > In article <ar36jvc0qd2cs245q...@4ax.com>, will
> > <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:34:23 -0400, Allan Guyton
> > > <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <iro4jvgq57h8av7ja...@4ax.com>, will
> > > ><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:29:12 -0400, Allan Guyton
> > > >> <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
> > > >> patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare. They've been
so
> > > >> worshipful of the military that they wouldn't know how to run
against
> > > >> him without alienating a large portion of their nominal base of Rep
> > > >> leaning independents.
> > > >>
> > > >> The Republicans greatly need the ability to call the Dems wimps,
> > > >> chickens, weak on defense and anti-military. Without that, they
lose
> > > >> their edge on national security issues and Bush's ace in the hole.
> > > >
> > > >I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
> > > >Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
> > >
> > > How do people that want a smaller federal government see fit to
> > > support Bush?
> >
> > How do you support any representative member of government?
> >
> > If you expect a president to do 100% of what you want, that president
> > will have to be you.
> >
> > To me there is no more important issue than domestic security.
>
> I don't understand how *anyone* can continue to support this
administration
> understand loud and clear is where Bush's loyalties lie and they AREN'T
with
> the 3,000 people and their families who died that day.
The suppressed 28 pages just might be the key to the world's economy. While
it is easy to criticize our dependence on Saudi oil, or foreign oil, or oil
in general, step back and realize what would happen if the world's supply
were cut in half due to militant forces in Saudi Arabia turning off the
spigots. We saw the California economy go south when electricity was in
short supply. Try shutting down New York City, Boston, Washington D.C. and
the eastern seaboard for three months while oil brokers triy to find
supplies to fire up the generators. I'll bet the tree huggers wouldn't care
about global warming if they couldn't turn on their microphones to rant
about George Bush's iis-interest in unproven theories in greenhouse gases.
>
> He sold out the 9/11 dead for a few barrels of oil and anyone who
continues
> to defend him because they think he's interested in protecting the people
of
> this country and cares about what happened that day should hang their
heads
> in shame. As should he.
You make it sound so easy. Surely you have a bolder plan, but you just
don't want to publish it right now.
>
> > If another 9/11 happens, the damage to the economy would be far more
> > severe than the original.
> >
> > So basically, if I'm to oust Bush, the alternative needs to be credibly
> > able to do AS well (Lieberman) on domestic security.
>
> The first thing Clark would do is pull our allies and NATO into Iraq which
> would free up our military to do things like, oh, say....*protect us*.
He's
> not part of the "Bring It On" posse.
We saw who our allies were. Why would Clark be able to convince Belgium,
France, and Germany to react differently?
>
> > Besides, the fed budget (minus defense and homeland security increases)
> > has grown about 3%, IIRC, about what you'd expect with a divided
Congress.
> >
> > Plus, Bush has the advantage of incumbency. The fiscal conservatives
> > would have to choose between supporting him or getting someone worse
> > (only possible exceptions at this point seem to be Lieberman and Dean)
> > fiscally.
> >
> > > People choose what they view as the lesser evil all the time. Besides,
> > > there's no real competition for dyed in the wool party people. The
> > > push is to grab the middle of the road independents and Clark is
> > > likely to do that.
> >
> > It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
> > lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
> > fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
> > must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
>
> Well, the tree huggers like him. He actually believes there IS such a
thing
> as "global warming" which Bush is still struggling to pronounce.
>
> > Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
> > believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
> > him... :)
>
> Actually, I doubt it. He's about common sense and doing the right thing
and
> not screwing Americans, which I think you also support. He thinks the
> Patriot Act went too far and needs to be re-examined. He believes in
> progressive taxation. He believes in affirmative action, but not quotas.
> And hey...HE'S A HUNTER!!! If I can forgive him that, then he MUST be
good!
And you have specific examples of where he has used his "common sense"
instead of the prevailing actions, and can cite his successes following this
line of action????
> :<)
>
>
Kent Henrich
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 23:26:17 -0400, Allan Guyton
> >severe than the original.
> >
> >So basically, if I'm to oust Bush, the alternative needs to be credibly
> >able to do AS well (Lieberman) on domestic security.
> >
> >has grown about 3%, IIRC, about what you'd expect with a divided
Congress.
>
> President. What we've had is Republican government.
> The problem isn't just spending increases but irresponsible tax cuts.
> Borrow and spend big government.
>
Didn't you mean to say the problem isn't just irresponsible spending
increases, but tax cuts?
I just don't understand why I have to buy Bill Gates' prescriptions. If we
want to help out poor people by spending risc people's money, then spend it
where it works.
>
> >
> >Plus, Bush has the advantage of incumbency. The fiscal conservatives
> >would have to choose between supporting him or getting someone worse
> >(only possible exceptions at this point seem to be Lieberman and Dean)
> >fiscally.
>
> Bush also has to defend himself and I think that's tough for him to do
> if he can't rely on image. There's little substance to him and real
> conservatives don't have much to point to as conservative policy from
> him.
>
>
> >
> >> People choose what they view as the lesser evil all the time. Besides,
> >> there's no real competition for dyed in the wool party people. The
> >> push is to grab the middle of the road independents and Clark is
> >> likely to do that.
> >
> >It's easy to be for a guy when you know nothing about him. Dean has
> >lost a good bit of his luster in my eyes pursuing the liberal Dem
> >fringe. If Clark is to serve the Democrats as their nominee, he
> >must please the liberal version of the Christian Coalition first.
>
> Nope. He can tell them off if he wants to with no ill effect...if he's
> a winner. You can diss Sister Soulja or piss off Pat Buchanan or
> double cross labor on Nafta and still win.
>
> >
> >Somehow the fact that Kim is a huge supporter of Clark leads me to
> >believe that it would be very, very difficult for us both to support
> >him... :)
>
> Well, it is about Bush. People are going to be voting yes or no on
> Bush, primarily. Right now there's enough people willing to vote no
> for him to lose. With the right opponent, they'll be comfortable doing
> so.
> >
> >Allan
>
Kent Henrich
> > In article <iro4jvgq57h8av7ja...@4ax.com>, will
> > <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:29:12 -0400, Allan Guyton
> > > <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's face it, the Republicans have used too much military and
> > > patriotic imagery and Clark is their worst nightmare. They've been so
> > > worshipful of the military that they wouldn't know how to run against
> > > him without alienating a large portion of their nominal base of Rep
> > > leaning independents.
> > >
> > > The Republicans greatly need the ability to call the Dems wimps,
> > > chickens, weak on defense and anti-military. Without that, they lose
> > > their edge on national security issues and Bush's ace in the hole.
> >
> > I agree, but I don't see how the anti-war crowd (which is a strong
> > Democratic base constituency) would fully support a former general.
>
blunder
> since the Cold War.
>
>
What did he call the Afghanistan-Taliban war? Is he in favor of allowing
Bin Ladin to continue?
will
wrote:
Don't be naive. Why do you think they called them the Roughriders?
What about all the wigs they wore in the American Revolution?
Sounds gay to me.:>)
will
wrote:
There weren't any Republicans wanting to invade Afghanistan after the
first bombing either.
will
wrote:
If that is the case, then the number one project for our economy and
national security is a race to replace oil with viable alternatives.
Why isn't Bush promotiing that?
I'd like to know why the Democrats aren't either, though.
In my campaign, we have several plans that no one is talking about.
#1 is the American Energy Independence Initiative. That makes energy
independence the #1 national defense priority and aims to make oil
obsolete in 10 years. It is a combination of increased research and
subsidies to further encourage the implementation of currently
accessible alternative energy processes.
#2 is the Democracy Renewal Act which makes redistricting a
non-partisan event done statistically and without regard for political
advantage. Most races in the country aren't close because the
districts are drawn to protect the parties in power and to diminish
the voting power of American voters of all parties.
#3 is the BCS Elimination Act. This illegal cartel must be abolished
and allow NCAA football championships to be settled on the field.
will
wrote:
>
Well, I'm not worried about Bill Gates' prescriptions because there's
not many of him. hat I'm worriede about is the possible collusion
between government and corporations. In our system the drug companies
only have to win the fight that demands all drugs are covered by
running some ads that scare old people.
What really needs to be done is to expose the scam that drug companies
are pulling by advertising these "miracle" drugs that don't work and
charging exorbitant prices for them.
IOW, we should cover extremely expensive drugs that actually save
lives as well as some cheaper ones that are truly important. What I
fear is that we end up paying full price for some overrated,
overpriced drug that doesn't work as well as Alka Seltzer or aspirin.
will
>will <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>> Well Richard Nixon got elected too, but somehow I don't think that
>> proves anything about his charisma.
>
>True. So are you saying that Clinton fits into the same category as
>Nixon with respect to charisma?
I didn't understand Clinton's charisma, but then I don't understand
the proliferation of tattoo parlors and piercing. I accept that
Clinton has charisma, but it didn't work on me and I suspect it gets
overrated. I never saw evidence that anyone wanted to be like Bill. I
do think Kennedy had real charisma as did Reagan.
>
>This seems kinda silly to me, Will. If you think Clark has 'telegenic
>appeal,' bully for you. If you think he can win without it (a la Nixon),
>maybe that's even better. How much difference does it make to you if
>Venger or anyone else doesn't?
Just as an intellectual exercise. My analysis is that Clark has
charisma and telegenic appeal to middle America. Probably not on the
level of Elvis, but maybe on the level of Colin Powell, who i think
could have won the Presidency himself.
>
>FWIW, I think Quincy has more charisma than Chad...
Yeah, I'm not sure Chad has any charisma. He hasn't shown it anyway.
Kent Henrich
When Bush cited his interest and support for the Hydrogen Fuel Cell
technoloy, he was ridiculed as being unrealistic. Wanna bet there is a
major breakthrough in the next five years?
Kent Henrich
Ah, but there are millions of people who could buy their drugs if they
needed them. People need to make choices: buy their good health, or buy
their luxuries. I'd like to see a minimum test for benefits.
will
wrote:
We don't need a major breakthrough. We need economies of scale. Demand
is too light because prices are too high. Prices are too high because
demand is too light.
Bush Hydrogen program was a token gesture.
I was an investor in several fuel cell companies several years ago. I
am quite sure the problem isn't technology as much as infrastructure
and commitment. Of course, they refers just to fuel cells.
We have other means of keeping the grid and generating electricity
with renewable resources. It just doesn't pay enough. Frankly, it will
never pay enough just on the basis of energy dollars until current
energy prices go through the roof. That's because we don't look at
long term costs, the cost of pollution, the costs of an economy
dependent on foreign oil, the military costs of insuring the flow of
oil.
Barry Wong
> In my campaign, we have several plans that no one is talking about.
>
> #1 is the American Energy Independence Initiative. That makes energy
> independence the #1 national defense priority and aims to make oil
> obsolete in 10 years. It is a combination of increased research and
> subsidies to further encourage the implementation of currently
> accessible alternative energy processes.
What an amazing transformation this would be! I'd be all for it, though
I expect that the economic consequences en route would be severe enough
that we might not get through to the other side. It's unlikely that a
presidential candidate would ever make this a front-burner issue, as it
would take longer to accomplish than the 4 or even 8 years that s/he
would have to oversee the transformation. And the in-between would be
painful, making re-election well-nigh impossible.
> #2 is the Democracy Renewal Act which makes redistricting a
> non-partisan event done statistically and without regard for political
> advantage. Most races in the country aren't close because the
> districts are drawn to protect the parties in power and to diminish
> the voting power of American voters of all parties.
I like this idea as well, but who's going to implement it? The people
who have the power to do so are favored by the current situation; they
created it and they sustain it. It'd take an awful lot of principled
politicians (a virtual oxymoron) in office all at the same time (a
virtual impossibility) to see this come to pass.
> #3 is the BCS Elimination Act. This illegal cartel must be abolished
> and allow NCAA football championships to be settled on the field.
Though I think your other initiatives are unrealistic, this one might be
enough to get you elected. Is their a link on the Quincy website to
draftwill.org?
will
wrote:
I'd have to see the numbers to see if the savings is worth the
complication. My gut says probably not.
I say cover everyone under medicare and find ways to push down the
costs of drugs. There are market principles that will work to do so,
but the Doctors are key as well. Maybe Doctors need continuing
education about the efficacy of these drugs from someone other than
the salesman.
There is a corrupting influence that comes from advertising and sales
pitches that clouds honest appraisal.
will
That sounds like another waste of $12 and bandwidth and I'm not sure
if you can call it "drafting" if I am actually prompting others to
draft me. That's a minor detail.
Furthermore, I'm really worried about being assassinated. I'm pretty
sure I'm the only candidate ever who could only get one lousy vote and
still have people willing to kill him.
will
<justf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:01:50 -0500, will
><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:33:47 -0500, justforfun
>><justf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:04:52 -0500, "Kim Cole"
>>><kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"will" <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3vo5jvo229rt13r7s...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:30:39 -0500, "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"Kim Cole" <kc...@coleconsulting.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:bgu02p$rkr4o$1...@ID-26365.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>> >> "Venger" <ven...@augustmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >> news:QIednXZvfu-...@august.net...
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > "Allan Guyton" <agu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >> > news:aguyton-911B12...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>>>> >> > > In article <inm3jv0eb3t0ohhu1...@4ax.com>, will
>>>>> >> > > <wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Does the guy have it in himself to be so subordinate? He doesn't
>>>>strike
>>>>> >me
>>>>> >> > as the guy to get into a subordinate position in politics. Still, his
>>>>> >> > actions clearly demonstrate he is interested in zero risk,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> You mean like when he fought in Viet Nam and won the Silver Star, two
>>>>> >Bronze
>>>>> >> Stars, and a Purple Heart? Is that the zero risk you're talking about?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Different sort of risk. He is not interested in rejection. He will run if
>>>>he
>>>>> >thinks he has a good chance to win.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> and maximum
>>>>> >> > reward, which would be to hold out for an administration slot,
>>>>without
>>>>> >> > having to risk voter rejection.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I'd love to hear specifics on why you think that. Clark has never
>>>>backed
>>>>> >> down from a fight yet.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >He should have run then. He's not going to now. Candidates are getting
>>>>> >traction with their targeted supporters, and Clark isn't going to be able
>>>>to
>>>>> >unseat those commitments.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. That's silly, especially in an age where the most sacred
>>>>> commitments are overturned without hardly a second thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no reason for Clark to get in early with the field as it is.
>>>>
>>>>Especially when he's getting tons of publicity for free right now.
>>>
>>>Not the kind he needs to run as a Dem. Being a CNN commentator on the
>>>war in Iraq isn't gonna win him any votes over the orchestrator of
>>>same...
>>>
>>>He needs to get on Oprah and promise more welfare money.
>>>Get on Springer and promise to back Jerry's run to the senate.
>>>Do a voice over on Sponge Bob.
>>>Hang out at Bills place in Harlem for a week or two.
>>>
>>>The guy has virtually no name recognition, and no matter how inept his
>>>likely democratic rivals are, that's awfully tough to overcome. I'm
>>>pretty sure Venger is quite right when he says likely less than 10% of
>>>the population even knows who Clark is. His lack of holding an elected
>>>position hurts him even more. Ask Jesse Jackson, who DID have name
>>>recognition and a large contingency from the get go, only to get
>>>slaughtered in the booth. The only reason a guy like Clark has a
>>>chance at winning the nomination in this election is the Dems need to
>>>send "someone" to slaughter ala Mondale or Dukaukis.
>>>
>>>At this point, it doesn't really matter who the Dems choose. Bush wins
>>>the next election in a landslide...His popularity is MUCH higher than
>>>you claim, and the Dems are so disorganized and so busy falling all
>>>over themselves criticizing anything and everything GWB does, I'm not
>>>sure the DNC could organize a successful High School student body
>>>election right now.
>>>
>>>Why do you think Al bowed out and Hillary won't run?
>>>
>>>OH, and a whole bunch of people getting $400/kid right now are REAL
>>>happy with the current admin. Married couples are gonna be REAL happy
>>>with him come April.
>>>
>>>I don't see anything short of a major, domestic terrorist attack
>>>hurting Bush next year. Personally I'm quite disappointed in him, but
>>>the general public is happy with GWB, no matter how much mud the Dems
>>>throw at the wall. The only people getting fired up about that are
>>>hard core libs, anyhow.
>>
>>
>>Right. LOL.
>>
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93445,00.html
>>
>>Bush has holed up in the White House and barely faced the public or
>>the media. The more he is exposed in conditions that aren't carefully
>>scripted, the weaker he will become. He has personally coasted and his
>>support is only a function of his position. People aren't supporting
>>him as much as they are supporting the POTUS.
>>
>>People do not like his economic policies.
>
>You are wrong here. They may disagree with his overall policies, but
>people vote based on what you've done for them personally, not what
>you've done overall. The increase in the child credit was smart, the
>early "rebate" check was ingenious. Finally doing away with the
>"marriage penalty" was equally smart. Give people "free money" and
>they have the tendancy to overlook the big picture...ask the dems,
>they've been riding welfare forever....The american public can have
>their votes bought cheap....ask the Gore supporters who were giving
>away packs of cigs in exchange for votes. ;-)
The loss of millions of jobs, the exploding budget deficit and the
weak economy do matter to a lot of folks. I'd say that the tax cuts
mostly work on dedicated Bush voters. Independents tend to be smarter
and more critical and diehard Dems can't be won over.
>
>
>>The majority does not
>>particularly like his foreign policy. They are supporting his war
>>policy primarily to support the soldiers.
>
>Nonsense. The majority still think the war has something to do with
>terrorism and are supporting it for that reason.
They are catching on to the idea that you can win a war and lose the
peace. The war was unpopular before it happened, people supported it
to support the troops, they supported winning and now the support is
peeling off because the euphoria of victory is over and we have to
face the realities of occupying a country.
>
>I'm not saying the American public is stupid...just very uninformed
>which bodes well for any sitting administration.
>
>>As far as knowing a candidate, how well did they know Clinton or Bush?
>
>Clinton is far more charimatic than Clark...and he WAS a governor. He
>had big time political experience. As far as Bush, I assume you mean
>GWB...Obviously he was the gov of one of our largest states and his
>name had been out there as a potential national candidate for a coupla
>years.
>
>>People align with unknowns all the time. In fact, they probably prefer
>>them so they can idealize them like they did Bush. Dubya is a creation
>>of the Republican image machine.
>
>Absolutely. and they did a masterful job, too.
>
>>Heck, I had him as Governor and he
>>seemed OK to me. I knew he was AWOL and a reformed party boy and a
>>failure in business
>
>I assume you mean the Rangers? He was quite successful in the oil
>business.
He was a failure in the oil business. That's why they stuck him in the
Rangers deal.
>
>>and the beneficiary of insider deals.
>
>Come on...what politician isnt?
>
>> I didn't
>>care as long as he could do the job.
>>
>>He can't. Just listen to him speak. He's amiable and playful. He's
>>also struggling to recall the answers he been forced to remember. The
>>real show is run by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove. Bush is just the
>>amiable figurehead
>
>Same with any president. The job requires finding the right people to
>put around you and smiling alot ;-
>
>>in over his head.
>>
>>I'll leave it to Hackworth to sum up Rummy:
>>
>>"Rumsfeld is an arrogant asshole. That's a quote, by the way."
>>
>>http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0805-09.htm
>
>Ah, but few have been as successful for as long as Rummy. Hell, none
>has.
>
>The point is simple. No one beats a sitting president unless that
>President does something REAL stupid ala Carter or Bush I. The DNC
>doesn't have the credibility or the power to unseat Bush, and Clark
>isn't the guy they need to try.
>
>Additionally, if Arnold wins the recall vote in California (and he
>will) that state likely goes to Bush next year and you can hang up ANY
>chance of a Dem winning the White House.
Based on what?
will
<justf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:08:30 -0500, will
><wi...@quincycarterbandwagon.com> wrote:
>>
>>Let me add something critical to my analysis. Bush was so beaten up
>>for his communication skills in 2000 that he was a pleasant surprise
>>in the debates for being somewhat average. Since then his stature has
>>risen, but his exposure has lessened. He makes a lot of scripted
>>appearances, but does very little give and take. Therefore, I think
>>the debate surprise for Bush could well be negative because he will a)
>>have higher expectations and b) have to defend his record.
>>
>>I can foresee him being in the same position as his father and looking
>>lost and defensive in the debates.
>
>Unless the Dems can come up with a real strong candidate he won't need
>the debates...Gore was supposedly the best debater on earth and Bush a
>lightweight, but GWB just let Al beat himself.
>
Gore was overrated and Bush was underrated. Now I think the opposite
is true.
I think this is a dead heat barring a scandal and Republicans are
deluding themselves by thinking otherwise.
Barry Wong
You think Clark didn't have anything to do with his own 'drafting?' I'm
not saying it was his idea (of course, drafting you wasn't your idea
either), but if he were that adamant about not wanting to run, he'd have
killed the idea long ago. The drafting strategy makes it easier for him
to pre-run without making any kind of public commitment, and if things
don't look good, he can simply shut it down without any loss of face. If
it snowballs, he's good to go.
> Furthermore, I'm really worried about being assassinated. I'm pretty
> sure I'm the only candidate ever who could only get one lousy vote and
> still have people willing to kill him.
If you were really worried about assasination, you never would've
started the Quincy Carter Bandwagon. BTW, I wouldn't turn my back on Ray
if I were you.
Venger
down
> in
> > pointless minutae, but allow me to risk it to note that Clark is a big
> > proponent of getting rid of DADT in the military and allowing gays to
> serve
> > openly.
>
> That's absolutely false.
Oh REALLY?
"I'm not sure that I'd be in favor of that policy. I supported that policy.
That was a policy that was given. I don't think it works. It works better in
some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we've got a lot
of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I
think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve."
Venger