Where to begin. . .
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/22/kerry/index.html

Oh man. Where to even begin.

First, let's get this out of the way. Kerry is an idiot. He lost to an incompetent fool like Bush, and he thinks he has a chance against his next opponent, who, by the law of probability, is likely to be vastly more intelligent than Bush?


And second, the republicans are at it again! "The democrats are wrong about national security" and Rove wants to repeat that over and over again in 2006. Hurry up guys! Let's scare the hell out of everyone again! It worked before, maybe it'll work again! How much you guys wanna bet we'll start getting terror threat level color changes again now that we're gonna be moving into the 06 campaign cycle?

I so agree with you, Shakran. Any hope Kerry may have for another presidential run is a dim hope, at best.

The incumbents will circumvent the Abramoff scandal with a new barrage of scare tactics that worked so well in the 2004 election. This time it will be the Iranian "mushroom cloud," rather than the Iraqi threat, that will cause us all to cling hopefully and submissively to our current leadership.

How many more times are these tactics going to sway the voters? Sadly, I think the answer may be "forever."

Kerry in 08?.....The democrats would be doomed.
As far as the scare tatics:
You can fool all the people some of the time,
Some of the people all of the time,
You can't fool all the people all the time.
Now that you mention it Elphaba,
That "Iranian Mushroom cloud" would do the trick
Or a severe recession in march
When Iran plans to switch from the US dollar standard to the Euro.
The "financial mushroom cloud"


I agree with much of what Kerry is saying.
Only I don't trust him, to say what he means
and mean what he say's.
The same with Gore's statements the other day.
To little to late.
Honestly I haven't seen any democrat worth my vote.
McCain.....maybe
I want door number three please.

If the Democrats want to win, they'll run someone like Joe Leiberman, who is a moderate and has obvious integrity.

So they'll be running Kerry, or maybe throw Edwards out to the wolves.

Kind of reminds me of the Maryland Democratic Party. In 2002 they tried to run the lieutenent governer of an unpopular governer on the "I'm a Kennedy and a women with no apparent political traits whatsoever" ticket, and the voters elected a Republican for the first time in thirty years. So, instead of asking themselves why they lost, they are throwing the mayor of Baltimore (severely liberal prettyboy who has done little for the city except play his guitar) and the Montgomery County executive (makes aformentioned mayor sound like Pat Buchanon) into the primary to see who sticks.

Fortunately, as a Republican I am secure in the knowledge that even though I'm outnumbered by about three-to-one I will have a lot to laugh about when the Democrats lose again (which is essentially what it is, far more then the Republicans winning in this state).

guys, read this post three times, because djtestudo makes an excellent point.

Personally, I think that Bill Richardson should be the candidate. He's a centerist, has executive experience, and he'll bring in the Hispanic vote like no one else. I spent 3 or 4 days cussing after he said no to Kerry for the VP spot.

I think that this next election cycle is going to be incredibly interesting with the corruption scandals and Katrina looming over everyone's head. If I lived in a coastal community anywhere along the Gulf or the Eastern Seaboard or in a earthquake-prone area, there's no way that I could vote Republican after the FEMA mess. If the Democrats can take advantage of that fear and promise some concrete changes, they might find some more votes. Then again, taking advantage and concrete changes have never been the national party's strong suit.

Sometimes, I wish I were rich and 35 already.
What is so difficult about running honestly? Seriously. If you have enough money, you can be honest because you don't need anyone else's money. But the problem is... people who have that much money usually want more of it and the power that goes with it... so they're no longer honest either.

So we will, once again, have no one worth voting for. AGAIN. McCain might be okay, but it depends on whether he thinks he has to pander again to the uber-conservatives in his party, or if he can get away with being Libertarian (at least that's how it looks to me). Does that make sense?

I never thought I could find myself saying this... hold on... it's coming...

With the likes of Howard Dean running the democratic party, I actually hope that Hillary Clinton gets the nod.

And it's sad, because the republicans are making it to easy for the dems, but I think the dems still have a lot of soul searching to do.

Sounds like someone hit the "9/11" button on the Rovebot3000 again.

What is the Democratic position on national defense? War in Iraq? War against terror?

Do you think Kerry knows that he or whomever the nominee is won't be running against Bush in '08? They can not win by simply saying Bush is wrong. That seems to be the only democratic message.

i dont see anything interesting in this matter.
i think kerry is dreaming in public, and his dreaming is of no consequence.

nor do i see any particular need for the democrats to outline an anti-bush or anti-republican campaign aimed at 2008 right now.
there is no need: given the fiasco that has been the second bushterm so far, they need only stand by and watch the right self-destruct. presenting a clear alternative vision at this point would help the right by giving them something against which to stabilize their sad situation. why do it? let them implode....

if the partisan balance in congress shifts via the mid-term elections, bush could well find himself impeached for any number of reasons--the domestic spying thing appears the most likely. but this reflects mostly the twitching of the few remaining neurons that conspire to keep any faith in this degenerate political system intact on my part.

fact is that none of us know yet what will happen in the midterms, so none of us has any idea what the 2008 situation will look like....so the prognostications above, while psychologically gratifying no doubt, are not worth the space they take up.

Somebody, anybody, should take Kerry aside, and say, "stop, please, just stop."

I would be fine with his nattering if he was not a going to be candidate and would make it clear that he is not. He obviously plans to be.

I miss the old days of blue collar democrats. Howard Dean has a portion of the right idea, but isn't quite getting the whole picture.

Talk to the unions about 30,000 jobs lost at Ford. Go places you might muss up your hair and get some grease on your pants. The GOP talks to these people every day, makes them all a shit sandwich, serves it to them, and they eat it up like mother's milk.

Very true Poppin..... and until we get a Democrat that does go into these places and talks to the workers and truly fights for them, not just giving lip service, the Dems will stay in the horrid shape they are in.

All we need is one vey loud and interesting independant who can stick to his or her guns. Reps can't manage themselves, and Dems can't stop em. We need reform.

ok, I accept the independent nomination for president in '08!!! thanks. =)

I'd gladly vote for you!!! I suspect that you'd own Bush in the debate too. :thumbsup:

Maybe I should elaborate on my previous post. Even if a great candidate came from obscurity into the light from either party, the BS bickering would drown out the persons qualities and skills in favor for Entertainment Tonight-esque news flashes about what he or she is wearing and what he or she thinks about Brad and Angelina. CSPAN has become reality TV in that it is something to distract you from what's important. The independant investigation for the wiretaps was heald in the basement of Congress, and all that was on CSPAN and the news was fluff. The only way for anyone qualified and able to become president is for pigs to fly, hell to freeze over, the fat lady to sing, and people actually considering voting for a third party candidate. Vote Libertarian. Vote Green. Vote Constitution. Vote Labor. Vote Natural Law. Vote Communist. Vote whatever. Just don't vote for the idiot on the left or the idiot on the right. We have to stop things like "vote or die" (P. Diddy didn't kill anyone who didn't vote) and bring dignity back to our democratic preocess. The two party system is setting fire to our home, and we're letting it burn to the ground.

Here here!

As a Republican (moderate), I'd say this:

I'd seriously consider Lieberman. Also Guiliani. It would be an interesting race, wouldn't it? I think there are a number of good people out there who won't run because it's too much of a circus.

I'd also be suprised if the Dem's ran him. I think they'll run Hillary. But who knows. It sure as hell won't be Kerry.

My wife is a Democrat. So's my mother in law, and so are my parents, so when you say you're outnumbered, my response is "Yeah, tell me about it. Let's go find a bar!"

We should get rid of both parties and start over. The Dems are out of touch with the moderate majority, and the Republicans are too receptive to the far religious right.

Let's just make me King, and I'll solve all the problems. First, I'll shoot all the lawyers...

I would highly recommend that you do not begin there in the future. You make people take sides, you expose yourself, and only those who agree with you completely (or passionately disagree) continue to read, and then post.

Tacticians would chide you for 'showing your hand' so early. You asked where to begin, I am telling you.

Now, without killing your enemies with kindness, it is important to first recognize your opponents strength. Your discounting Kerry as an imbicile shows contempt and frustration, but little else.

Your choice of words are also at fault here. Does Kerry fit the traditional definition of "idiot"? Of course not. Look what you have done in the second instance here. You have shown your audience that you do not choose your words carefully and are quick to use euphamisms. If your opponent then attacks your wording, you are left looking foolish. You can hide behind the excuse of common language, and "everyone knew what I meant", but the damage is done sir. Your words have been discounted from this point on.

Are you trying to persuade the moderate person who has yet to choose political sides?
Are you trying to cause increased passion in your own camp by showing the ineptitude of your opponent?
Are you calling for a rebuttal from your opponent, thus creating a debate?

I must assume the answer is the second option... am I right?

So should Bush ignore this, or act on it? If he should act, what do you recommend?


[Edit: Damn--put the wrong link in. Now it's fixed.]
One link of many

Good idea. Ask the unions why US airlines and auto manufacturers can't turn a profit, when companies like Toyota seem to be faring much better.

Boeing just won the largest contract the company has seen since 1997
effectively upping the GNP 4.4% for november.
The Unions will also be happy the explain how NAFTA, CAFTA, ect has
hurt the companys. Not to mention healthcare costs rising ten times inflation.
Beyond all those "real facts"
The Union (employees) don't and won't care why the companies are failing
They will care about losing their own jobs.
The employees will vote for the person who will
convince them they will fix it

Boeing isn't an airline or an auto manufacturer. How many competitors does it have, one or two?

The unions also care about a great deal more than JUST their jobs. Things like closed shops, the inability to get fired, and frequently, unsustainable pensions.

Then the union members are surprised when the company bankrupts and the good times are gone.

Agreed on NAFTA though.

I assume you take the same position when people call Bush an "idiot", do you? :hmm:

Check out my signature, then you decide.

I do, sir.

let me re-phrase that, what I meant was that a potential democratic candidate has to talk to the union membership. The unions themselves are not the entities that vote, nor are they convincing their members adequately that the GOP is no good for them.

A democratic candidate needs to get to the places where people work for a living, and still wonder if the dream of home ownership is beyond them as housing skyrockets. He or she needs to talk to the folks who thought the Contract on America was going to make things great and ended up following it down a rabbit hole.

Psst...Spoiler: overinflated dollar.

Bullshit. Japanese companies pay much much less in terms of healthcare for their employees. Their cars are much cheaper to produce because of this fact.

Wait, I'm confused. I took Marv's point to be that things that unions like drive labor costs up (though his list did not include healthcare). And then what you said backs that up, but your tone indicates you're rebutting him. Clearly I've misunderstood one of you. Can someone fill me in?

My nightmare is a Liberman vrs McCain race for 2008.

McCain is a camera whore who I have no faith in.

Liberman is the only Democrat who I would trust to not fark up Iraq and the war on terror.

Right now I'd honnestly give the nod to Liberman but that would depend if he had to sell his soul for the nomination by shifting left. Luckly for the Republicans, the Democratic primaries cater to the more extreme, and the lunatic fringe would never accept Liberman as is.

My dream election would be Hilary vrs Rice, but Rice won't do it :(

And amazingly higher quality. You would think for the insane costs of the UAW we could at least be making the best cars for it.

Wow ..... I had a dream similar to that,
only it had nothing to do with politics
and lots of jello :lol:





Bad alpha phi bad

Thats wrong on SO many levels :eek:

Both would make decent presidents. Regretably, neither one is electable in his own party.

Well, americans pay more for healthcare than the rest of the world. Much more. Unions don't set the cost of healthcare. If america ever happens to reign in its healthcare costs it would be doing its domestic economy a huge favor.

So true.
The company I worked for had their (our) insurance
rates increased 200% last year,
100% the year before.
Add that strangle hold to the 45% price decrease
Chrysler demanded just to keep their buisness.
If we didn't meet Chrysler's demands;
they would take all the tooling,
and put them in a factory in China.
They pulled about 4.5 million in orders
just to show they were serious.
My company had no choice but to open a plant in Mexico,
In order to stay in buisness.
Fortunatly for the employees aerospace products
Must be built in the USA....
(as required by boeing, us goverment, macdonald douglas, ect.)

If a politician were to visit these union workers.
And make strong statments about reducing healthcare costs,
and Protecting US buisness....That politician would have 90%
of these workers votes.

So, you are saying that because the cost of healthcare is high in America, this cost of labor is higher than it is in other countries, such as Japan (where an employer could pay less $$ while covering a greater % of the total healthcare cost)? And I think this implies that you believe that it is the total cost of healthcare (arrived at by providers and insurers, affected by government policy) that makes labor cost high, as you think employers should be covering healthcare costs. In other words, pushing healthcare costs onto workers to lower total labor costs (thereby allowing the product to be sold cheaper) is not part of the equation that you consider?

Is this a fair summation of where your original comment was coming from? This isn't a set-up for a threadjack or debate, I'm just making sure I'm understanding where people are coming from.

Healthcare is just one piece of the puzzle
A large piece
It has increased at a rate ten times inflation
The companies can't afford to pay it anymore.
The employees can't afford to pay, and still
pay the rest of their living expenses.
It is a major problem for both.
with no clear soultion that I know of.

Yes, that seems about right. Certainly employers could push the costs of healthcare more onto their employees, and many of them seem to be doing so. Does that really change much, though? The cost of healthcare is still inflated, putting more of the cost on employees will just cut into their quality of life and their willingness to feed the economy through spending.

And welcome to the future....

Where Liberman an independent kicked out as a democrat for not being liberal enough and he has endorsed McCain for president.

Shame for the democrats they didn't find their moderate, and good for republicans if the democrats win (bad for the country of course for a while, but unavoidable.)

You're mad because none of the Democrats are moderate? You just made Hillary cry.

I think Hillary's very moderate... when the polls tell her to take that position.

Yea pretty much, but no, fucking up the health care system does not make you moderate.

You didn't see Sicko, so you're clearly not aware that Hillary 1994 is NOT Hillary 2008.

So now we are relying on Professor Dr. Michael Moore for our information about health care?

I'm assuming, from the tenor of this thread, that I'm probably going to get creamed for this, but I'll go ahead and be the one to step up to the bat....

I don't think the Democrats should try to find moderates to put into the White House. Nor, for that matter, do I think Joe Lieberman is a moderate.

I think the Democrats should stop trying to court middle-of-the-road Republicans who might be willing to toe our side of the line for an election or two if we kiss their ass enough. I think the Democrats should begin tapping the great untapped reservoir at the Left. People who aren't voting because they're fed up with the system, and think there's no difference between the two parties, or who are wasting their votes on third-party candidates who don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

I think the Democrats should run someone brave enough to say that it is a matter of national shame that we live in a country where the government tells us that the poverty line is $10,488 if you're single, $20,444 for a family of four; that it is a scandal that we are the only prosperous, first-world nation not to have a national health care system; that we have a government that doesn't support labor unions; that we tax the poor and the middle-class and offer breaks, incentives, and loopholes to the wealthy; that our public school system is a matter of national humiliation-- we, who used to have one of the finest public school systems anywhere; that we proportionally offer fewer grants and fewer scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students than any other first-world country. That we sell our legislation to the bid of polluting industries, at the expense not just of "the environment" (a vague phrase if ever there was one), but of our clean drinking water, our beaches, our parks, our air, and the grass and trees in our back yards.

I think we should run someone who agrees that it this war we're fighting is a joke, made to protect nobody's interests but those who profit off of it. That it is doubly insulting to all of us to be engaged in such a war when we have no health care for the sick, no housing for the homeless, and the national minimum wage has only been raised $1.40 in the past 17 years, while the purchasing power of the dollar has dropped by over 30%. That our infrastructure is old and outdated and crumbling, but we waste billions on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, and a pointless war that does nothing but kill and maim American boys and girls in service of a civil conflict we'll never be able to solve, that has little to do with us anymore. We don't even take proper care of the poor kids who sign up to fight this stupid thing: their hospitals can't treat them properly, their benefits are late, they have to wade through mountains of paperwork and endless bureaucracy-- and this is how we treat our heroes?!

I want to run someone who will point these things out, and then say that he or she wants to fix them. Not just as a campaign promise, but for real: someone who has thought about it, and wants to pass reform legislation the likes of which hasn't been seen since the New Deal. I want someone who is unafraid to say that they are progressive. That, yes, there are industries they want to curtail, but there are industries they want to help flourish. There are financial practices they want to restrict, but there are others they want to help grow. That we might all have to tighten our financial belts to help pay for this, but the tightening is going to start at the top for two simple reasons: first, that's where the money is, and second, if you received, it's only fair that you give back, too. That they want to equalize taxes to really be what they are: a way to pool our resources for all America. That we're going to pass legislation to preserve natural resources, and fund science properly, so that we can use the power of American innovation to get ourselves unhooked from our dependence on foreign oil, and our use of plutonium and uranium.

I want someone to say that this country is about a fair shake. The rich don't get to buy the government, and the government doesn't get to ignore the poor. This country should be about giving everyone a shot to make it big: if you're rich, we'll give you a chance to get richer; if you're poor, we'll give you a leg up, to try and make to the next level, too. If you work, you deserve to get something for it. And this country's got more working poor than anywhere else in the First World. It's not right that two people with four kids ought to need to work three to five jobs between them to get everybody fed, housed, clothed, and ready for education. Study, work, earn: that should be a person's story in this country. And the government ought to be there to help you, not ignore you at best or put the boot on your neck at worst. And the government is not there to make your doctor reveal your medical records, or your librarian reveal what you like to read, or your phone company reveal who you like to chat with. Not without a fair warrant from a judge, challengeable in open court.

Government should be word of hope, not a word of contempt. It should be something that fosters trust and community, not something that profits itself and ignores those who need it most.

The Democrats won't run anyone like that, of course. These days, really wanting a fair shake for everyone is just wild-eyed radicalism.

Which I guess makes me the resident wild-eyed radical.

I agree they should court them.

Only because I want to see easy republican victories.

I'm curious how you see easy republican victories in the future....as long as the evangelical right has a stronghold over the Republican party.

Most indicators are pretty clear and consistent......the country is turning more left than right.

I would like to submit a concurring opinion, as they say in the Supreme Court. I agree with Ustwo (I'm shocked my own self), insofar as the Democrats do not need to tap into some sort of unused reservoir of liberal voters. However, he's completely wrong about the consequences of high liberal participation in the elections. Democratic participation is WAAAAAY up this year as everyone who could possibly identify themselves as liberal is both excited about our candidates and desperate to do anything to obliterate the GOP and their voters from every legislative body and executive office in the country. And, I'm delighted to say, the Democrats look poised to do well on that front. Basically, that well is dry - everyone's voting already.

That said, I agree that the Democrats will do best by growing a backbone and a pair and letting the country know that we will do our best in the future as a liberal, progressive society, not a conservative one (e.g., the Bush years - game, set, match).


...And yeah, the more we excise the Lieberman set from Congress, the better off the country will be.

There's a long time between now and Nov. If the Dems and the left have proved anything to me over the past 6-10 years it's that they can figure a way to lose regardless of the odds that favor them.

Touche.