I remember you! You were that delegate dressed up like Spiro Agnew (or was it Nancy Reagan?)...they were so easy to get confused. :allovrjr: :mhcky21:Originally Posted by RFS62
I remember you! You were that delegate dressed up like Spiro Agnew (or was it Nancy Reagan?)...they were so easy to get confused. :allovrjr: :mhcky21:Originally Posted by RFS62
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I was Agnew. RFS62 was Nancy Reagan-he said he wanted to wear the dress.Originally Posted by GAC
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
And all these years I thought I was being tailed at that convention by J Edgar Hoover!Originally Posted by RedsBaron
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Just say no.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
Yes, and you and the rest us of could probably add some more details to your input above that we were skeptical of in the President and his cabinet that would convince most of us that GW would be the loser in the last election.Originally Posted by GAC
Something was missing though, a replacement that could convince us and instill confidence in us that he had the solutions as the next President. I believe that it takes more than to expound upon habitually your opponents mistakes and obvious blemishes. I think that you have to cause the people to believe that you as the next President have something more in the play book than bashing/exploiting your opponent well. Especially when we already knew GW and his staff had some real problems, not to mention that attempting to really deal with the Middle East with his new vision was a poison pill to begin with. Just because we individually can list several items with the current administration that we really do not appreciate, that does not qualify us as an individual to do a better job as the next President.
Unfortunately the other candidates did not convince the majority that they really did have the right answers and solutions that we as a majority could find credible and trust and we were left with a disappointing lesser of the two evils decision as you have already mentioned. Does the voting majority even know who the cabinet members were going to be for the opposing candidate in the past election that were to implement his plans and solutions? I don't think so, and within that line there might be a hint as to why he lost, I am not sure.
A side note: I think that a McCain/Leiberman or McCain/Dean type ticket would have defeated Mr. Bush and his cabinet.
Last edited by Spring~Fields; 01-14-2005 at 10:25 PM.
In semi-defense of John Kerry's campaign, he did almost pull out a victory in the electoral college. Had he carried Ohio, a lot of people would now be hailing his brilliant campaign.
I continue to believe that the Kerry campaign erred in seeming to make so much of the 2004 election center around who did what 35 years earlier. IMO too much of the 2004 campaign was spent with Kerry's saluting and "reporting for duty" at the Democratic convention and talking endlessly about his military record, coupled with non-stop criticism by Democrats and their media surrogates about Bush's Guard service. Add the Swift Boat Vets attacks on Kerry to the mix and one could have easily thought the most important issue in the 2004 campaign was which candidate was better qualified to personally lead an assault by a platoon upon Viet Nam.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Good point SF.
And I also agree with what you contend RB. With all the foibles that Bush had going on, I thought he was the most vulnerable incumbent President I have ever seen in my lifetime. Even surpassing that of one-termer Jimmy Carter.
Bush had set the stage and was ripe for defeat. And what really got to me was that the reason so many turned from Dean and the others during the Democratic primaries, and went with Kerry, was not so much because they agreed with Kerry, but because of the whole lot, Kerry seemed the most "electable", and able to send Bush packing (whom they felt should have never ben elected in the first place in 2000).
And they probably did put their best candidate forward. Personally, I think Dean would have gotten beaten bad if he had gotten the nomination. many were hoping that he would have gotten it. Kerry gave them their best shot. And yet, they still were not able to unseat a President who IMO was very beatable. And I think that still goes back to the Democrat's problem of being able to "connect" with a majority of the populace.
And I also think that during these troubling times of war, and Americans wanting to feel safe and knowing that someone is trying to look out after their security, it wasn't the right time to be pushing such "divisive" social issues as gay marriage, or even attacking or ridiculing people's religious beliefs.
One thing I have learned in my lifetime, especially during tense times, and especially during times of uncertainty and war.... more people do turn to God/religion because of that uncertainty.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Yup, you guys are right. What the Bush campaign did with their dirty politics with their Swift Boat lies and playing the "Fear" and " God" cards was disgusting. But it worked for them, so that is all that matters.
Don't even think about considering that it may have been anything that your party/ideology did wrong that lost this election.Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
Typical liberal victimology.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
What the Democrats did wrong was they refuse to get dirty in a mud wrestling fight.
Excuse me while I fall out of my seat laughing Mr Moore, Mr Soros, and MoveOn.org.Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
Both campaigns, and their supporters ran misleading campaign ads and played "fast and loose" with the truth when it was to their advantage.
Last edited by GAC; 01-15-2005 at 09:27 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I'm looking for Kerry's name in your example and just not seeing it. Strange.Originally Posted by GAC
Aren't comments like this against the board rules?Typical liberal victimology.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Amen. IMO one of the absolute silliest myths in politics is the assertion that the Democrats refuse to "fight dirty." Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bork, Thomas, Bush-the list is long of Republicans subjected to savage attacks by Democrats over the years.Originally Posted by GAC
I'm not saying that all of the attacks were unwarranted. I'm not saying that the Republicans haven't in turn subjected Democrats to some savage attacks. But it just amazes me that some Democrats seem to be utterly unable to recognize that both parties have engaged in some vicious political tactics.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
I think lately it's been the Republicans who've controlled the negative. And more power to them, it's smart politics. I think that's changing though.But it just amazes me that some Democrats seem to be utterly unable to recognize that both parties have engaged in some vicious political tactics.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |