White House reps are upset since future Democratic presidential non-winner John Kerry stated in “Rolling Stone”–
”When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, ‘I’m against everything?’ Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f— it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”
They feel that–particularly because of the language–John Kerry should apologize.
And I’m flashing back to the B5 episode where John Sheridan was told he had to apologize to an alien race and he rehearsed an entire very unapologetic apology. I swear, if Kerry issues an apology along those lines–something like, “All right, I apologize: I’m sorry that George Bush f—ed it up” or “I’ll apologize for saying it as soon as George Bush apologizes for doing it”–I’ll vote for him. Not that it’ll do any good. The Democrats still won’t win the presidency in 2004. But it’d be amusing to read that comeback and watch the fallout.
PAD
• 
Perhaps you should offer your speech-writing services to one of the candidates. I certainly would like to hear that apology and it certainly would get Kerry MY vote.
–Todd
I think the language was an obvious attempt by Kerry to bust out of the stiff Gorelike image he’s gotten himself saddled with.
As for apology, I’m with you. If Kerry says, “I’m sorry bush f–ked it up,” he’s got my vote.
You know, with nine Dems running for the presidency, you’d think one of them would have a snowball’s chance in hëll.
But I guess not.
Oh I wouldn’t count the Dems out just yet. History has a way of kicking out presidents right after wars, no matter how high their popularity is at the start. Another lesson that Jr should have learned from Daddy.
The problem with the Democrats’ chances is that
1. History has shown that the candidate who spends the most money tends to win elections.
2. George W. Bush’s unprecedented $200 million re-election war chest will buy a lot of bûllšhìŧ.
I’m not writing off the Dems just yet — I guess I’m still optimistic enough that Boy George will get booted in 2004 — but anyone who says the election is not an uphill battle for the Dems is deluding themselves.
Echoing the sentiments of the friend who first pointed this out to me: John Kerry owes me an apology. *I* knew he’d f— it up this badly, and I have little doubt he’ll soon exceed my expectations.
Did Dubbya ever apologize for calling that reporter a “major-league @$$hole” on the 2000 campaign trail?
I’ll admit it. I’m a Bish supporter. But I don’t think there should be an apology. Never apologize for saying what you *truly* believe.
The naughty language thing isn’t exactly going to help Bush, if he really wants to push the issue. Kerry probably isn’t getting the nomination, so this can’t really help Bush even if it becomes a big deal – and Bush’s record on the same subject isn’t exactly exemplary (cf. cursing out Al Hunt in front of his 4-year old daughter in 1987, Clymer comment, Tucker Carlson article, etc.) Admittedly, those weren’t intended for the public record, but I think “four year old” trumps that.
eh, screw the apology. he said what ALOT of us are thinking.
as for the Dem’s not winning in 2004 before last week, i’d’ve agreed, unfortunately. however, thanks to a no-win situation, Bush has shot himself in the foot. i am referring to the lifting of steel tariffs. unions stick together and they represent a very vocal (high voting percentage) of the public. sure, steel is a very small part but, like the Teamsters who came to the aid of the striking grocery workers in CA, all different types of unions protect their own (if Bush lists tariffs on steel because of some noisy Europeans, what’s to stop him from doing it to textiles or coal or timber or beef, etc.?) and believe me when i say that Bush’s action will come back to haunt him.
I think Bush gave a half-assed apology for his “major league áššhølë” remark. But is Bush going to apologise for his “F–k Saddam, we’re going to take him out” remark? Which he made over a year before before he invaded Iraq?
While I’m here, I’m going to copy a statement made in a discussion thread at Fark.com on this topic:
“McKerry is cursing like a serviceman. I guess that’s why Bush never curses.”
If Kerry didn’t expect Bush to “…f– it up as bad as he did.” when referring to the war, I guess the only thing I would want to hear out of Kerry’s lips, in as plain a manner of speaking as he feels is appropriate, is what he would have done differently in Iraq, that wouldn’t have been a f– up.
I mean, he voted to allow Bush to go forward, so he must have had an idea of how the situation SHOULD have been handled, and he thought that Bush did a bad job of it.
I’m not asking for speculation, but actual quotes from John Kerry.
He thinks he would have done better in Iraq. Why? What has he said or done that proves what he would have done wouldn’t be a “f– up”?
I don’t know if the “reporter” for Rolling Stone had it on the ball enough to ask this, since I could give a rat’s patootie about what is in Rolling Stone, but can anyone offer an answer?
On a similar topic, why are some of the democratic candidates trying desperately to hit a younger audience? Al Sharpton on SNL (I will admit, the three wise men bit was funny). John Kerry in Rolling Stone. Are they trying to duplicate (unsuccessfully) the “Clinton Charm” (sax playing. The non-admission to marijuana use). Or is it just a modern equivalent of sitting down with the guys at the local donut shop to show your are one of them, even though you clearly aren’t?
Now let me get this straight Kerry should apologize for saying what we all know is true.
What a country!
As for the Dems not winning. It’s too early for any pundit to do anything but blow smoke. But a friend of mine made a comment I think is worth considering.
Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Is there anyone who did not vote for him in 2000 who will now vote for him in 2004. And there seem to be quite a few folks out there who voted for him last time who won’t this time.
Just something to ponder.
What’s startling about the use of the “f” word is not that it’s so shocking and lowbrow, but that it’s so appropriate in describing the situation at hand.
History may have shown that the person who spends the most money wins, but since the existence of television, the shorter candidate has received more votes than the taller candidate only once: Jimmy Carter v Gerald Ford. (Gore is taller than Dubya – but the sentence is still correct. The odds of an electoral college/popular vote mismatch occurring again is low.)
Dubya is either 5’11 or 6′ even, depending upon which report you read.
According to one article I read:
John Kerry is 6’4
Ðìçk Gephardt is 6
As far as recapturing the “Clinton Charm”, anyone who studies the demographics of voters know that 18-24 year olds is a group that vastly undervotes.
Kerry’s doing the right thing to “un-Gore” himself. In a field so large as the stampede to the first primaries and caucusi (sic), I don’t blame him for setting up a young base of voters. Go for them, organized labor, and the seniors pìššëd at the AARP, and you’ve got a block of votes that only a Diebold voting machine can stop (if you believe the press about them, that is).
What should Kerry say he would have done differently? How about “I know what the hëll we’re going to do with Iraq once we win the war.” Obviously Dubba didn’t plan past putting Saddam’s head on a pike in the Rose Garden.
Okay, I retract my earlier questions about the candidates trying to appeal more to younger folks.
The truth is much scarier than that. Too many people think that statistics matter a hill of beans.
Statistics (an inexact science at best) shows that Bush should lose because he is shorter. And this information is being passed like it really has relevance.
That ranks up there with PAD saying that there is some cosmic connection between his daughter and snowfall. She was born in December. Snow is a possibility at EVERY birthday.
Bush is shorter. This just means that he buys pants with shorter legs than Gephardt or Kerry. It really has nothing to do with who will win elections.
Sorry people. like it or not, by the laws set down in the constitution, Gore lost. The popular vs electoral vote discussion is a whining noise at this point. The whole reason the electoral college EXISTS, is to prevent what almost happened in the 2000 campaign from happening: that is to say, the larger numbers of people in a few high population centers decide for the whole country.
There are all kinds of ways to look at it. Gore had the higher numbers, because he focused on “city campaigning”, and therefore should win (here in PA, for instance, Ed Rendell won the Governor’s race because he focused his campaigning on Philly and Pittsburgh. Outside the big cities, his numbers were weak. But since he focused on the major population centers, he carried the vote. And now libraries and schools in the less urban areas of the state are suffering in a BIG way, because of his budgeting.)
BUT, Bush had the higher number of electors, so he should win.
BUT, Gore was an incumbent VP, and taller, and statistically, HE should have won.
BUT, Bush won more of the 50 states than Gore did, so by a state count HE should have won (including Gore’s home state. only one president ever won the overall election, but narrowly lost his home state. Gore not only lost his home state’s election handily, but he lost the vote count in his HOME DISTRICT. Basically, the first Tennessee election Gore ever lost, was the presidential one in 2000).
It can go on and on, but it all boils down to the laws in this country working exactly as they did.
I will have to research, but there was a democratic contingency in 2000 that outlined for the Gore camp EXACTLY what happened for Bush, which was depend upon electoral votes, rather than popular votes. If memory serves, the dems were expecting to lose the popular but win the electoral vote.
Had things swung the other way, would the calls for doing away with the electoral college still be as loud? Would the “principled people” who say that Bush “stole” the election because he did not win the popular vote, still complain because Gore won without the popular?
It all boils down to: let it go.
Gore lost, legally. no amount of kvetching will change that.
If you really want to get Bush out, then vote for the candidate who stands the best chance, not the one who stands the furthest from Bush.
If I were inclined to vote for a democrat, I would vote for Leiberman. I disagree with him on a number of things, but he says he stands FOR something, rather than just spouting anti- this or anti-that rhetoric.
If Leiberman were to win the nomination, I think he would be the greatest threat to Bush in 2004, because he is close enough in views to many republicans, that he could actually steal votes from Bush.
He would have the far left votes, because they would rather vote for zippy the pinhead than Bush, and Leiberman would be able to steal a number of more centrist-conservative votes because his views are not so far to the left. He would just need to avoid saying anything about abortion.
But, in the opinion of this registered republican (and solid Bush supporter), Leiberman is the one of the dems running who would stand the best chance.
Sorry about the double-post (not to mention the length of my last post. Oy!).
Segansca, I asked for quotes from the man. He says he knows Bush screwed up, but he doesn’t say what he would have done differently.
That’s all I want. His actual words and plan, NOT some idea posted in quotes.
His comment implies either that he thinks his plan would have worked better, or that he is of the mind that he doesn’t know what would be the right thing, but what Bush did/is doing isn’t it.
That’s not terribly presidential. To be a president, one must lead. To lead means you look at a situation and KNOW how to fix it, or at least know how you will fake your way through it.
It also means making a decision, and sticking to it, even if it turns out to be wrong. Kerry decided that military action in Iraq was the “right thing” to do.
But he hasn’t offered what the right path would have been. Just that Bush “f– up” the whole thing.
It sounds to me more like he is letting politics get in the way of conviction, and that is a reason that he, and most of the other dems, will lose in 2004.
Stand up for something, of the White House will stay a republican residence for 4 more years. The sooner the dems realize this, the sooner they will win again.
BTW: What would YOUR exit strategy in Iraq be? You seem to think that Bush is bogged down in something, and that is what he “f– up”. So what would YOU do differently?
For the record, I think the best thing Kerry could do is to keep his yap shut about his comments, and not apologize.
Goes to the idea of standing by what you say.
I think Kerry is slowly losing his mind. I think it all started when that puppet Triumph the Insult Comic Dog totally dissed Kerry on Jay Leno, and ever since he’s been getting more and more desparate. I think he fired his campaign manager around that time also. Seriously, big deal, he said a curse word. So what? I think he is at the point where he will say anything just to get noticed.
\\John Edwards is 6
[W]hy are some of the democratic candidates trying desperately to hit a younger audience?
…because they want to win?
As Michael points out, Dubya is quite the potty mouth himself. Atrios also has the Saddam example as well as a couple nasty remarks he’s made in the past to journalists (one in the presence of a 4-year-old).
That ranks up there with PAD saying that there is some cosmic connection between his daughter and snowfall.
I said that? I definitively said there was a cosmic connection?
Where?
PAD
I wouldn’t even have bothered to make a comment if not for Peter’s almost throw away line about the Democrats losing the Presidency next year. Honestly, I think it is more an issue of is the race one the Republicans can win, and I don’t necessarily think so. 2000, was a strange, strange election (and whether or not your candidate won, that the Superme Court got involved should still trouble you in your sleep)and that Bush won was a coin toss, not a consensus. (Yes, the same could be said if Gore won, but that is not the issue being addressed).
Maybe someone needs to start thinking what many already feel: where would George Bush be in his Presidency had not the events of Sept. 11 happened? Putting aside any conspricacy theorists (and I’ll admit that I’m one), that Bush would have found a reason to go into Iraq, where would he stand right now? If, as the saying goes, all politics are local, well, brother, on the local level things are pretty bad.
For all the talk about an improving economy, any improvement over the last 18 months is an improvement, but it is still far behind where we started at the beginning of Bush’s Presidency. If Bush is actually confronted on the issues, to include our deepening involvement in Iraq, the shallowness of the policies and decision making would come to fore: Not everything can be made better by a some marmalade covered bread (unless you’re Paddington, of course).
The problem is, an candiate has a problem when his opponent wraps himself in the flag. That is what Bush is going to do; I’d expect Gore to do the same thing in this situation. It appeals to the knee-jerk American, the one who, to paraphrase Bill Maher said, “Do to the least they can do by putting a flag on their car.” It is by getting through to them that the election can be won. If those people can be convinced that there are problems internally that have nothing to do with Iraq, but everything to do with the money in their pocket, there is nothing more local than that, then the Democrats have a fighting shot at winning.
Of course, inherent in this is that the Democratic candidate have a real plan for growth or, alternatively, for restructuring our economy to reflect that it is now service based, not manufacturing. Without such a plan, the candidate would be offering nothing more than the promises predicated on fallacy that are always offered.
No matter what, I still believe the Republicans can still lose.
Oh, of course, no third-party candidates this time. That puts Bush back in, no matter what.
Wolfknight — I posted those stats on height because someone else said he with the most money wins. Another stat says that no one has won the Presidency while in the House of Representatives. Taken together, we have a reason Gephardt would win, and one he would lose. So do they cancel each other out – do we need to find another stat?
I agree, all these stats are worthless. Every case is different. But the stats are out there, and people listen to them.
Someone’s bound to say “But there is a rational reason why Money would make a difference” Yes…and in a TV age, it is hard to deny that how a candidate looks will make a difference too. Perot was ridiculed for his lack of stature and large ears. No One is about to admit they didn’t vote for him because of that…but no one can argue either that looks don’t have an at least subconscious effect on our actions.
In the end everyone will argue, after they voted, that they made their decision purely on the basis of policy positions. But most of the candidates are aware that that unfortunately isn’t the case. Money plays a part. Charisma plays a part. Looks play a part. Lots of factors figure in.
and note…in my post…if it was my post you were responding to, I mentioned that Gore had the Popular vote, but I did not argue that Bush had the Electoral Vote. To quote “(Gore is taller than Dubya – but the sentence is still correct. The odds of an electoral college/popular vote mismatch occurring again is low.)” See…I said there was a mismatch. If I were arguing the results, I would have claimed that Gore had both the popular vote, and should have had the electoral vote if the popular vote in Florida had been counted correctly. I didn’t say that though. So you didn’t have to go off on that tirade.
However, there hasn’t been a popular vote/electoral vote mismatch like that since Rutherford B Hayes…and he was nicknamed Rutherfraud for that exact reason. It’s not surprising there is a similar reaction today to the 2000 election.
The Kerry Campaign Response:
“John Kerry saw combat up close, and he doesn’t mince words when it comes to politicians who put ideological recklessness ahead of American troops,” said spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. “I think the American people would rather Card and the rest of the White House staff spend more time on fixing Bush’s flawed policy in Iraq than on Sen. Kerry’s language.”
Not that it matters, because Kerry is not doing to get the DEM nomination, but his use of the “F” word was just so calculated. Just like his appearance on the Tonight Show with him riding a Halrey into the studio. Enough with the stunts. Lets hear some of Kerry’s real plans for the country if he’s elected.
I don’t think there is any adult alive who uses “foul language” less than I do, but I gotta say that this is one instance where the right word was used.
Just who should Kerry apologize to, anyway? Clearly, Team Dubya takes the choice of words personally, but Kerry wasn’t speaking to them, he was speaking the readers of Rolling Stone. Any of them demanding an apology?
I wonder if this might finally energize the Kerry campaign.
Alas, I see Dubya winning simply because Big Money wants him in and is giving him $200 million to run with, and because the key electoral states he “won” with now have more electoral votes. The 49.9% who voted for him are still voting for him, and the 50.1% who voted for Gore haven’t found a single candidate to get excited by.
Albert Gore, if you are out there, it’s still not too late to run.
I think it’s great to watch Republicans, en masse, try to claim the moral high ground. Currently we’ve got an administration that uses the banners of Executive Privilege and National Security to hide everything and anything that they deem potentially sensitive (including reserving the right to black out any incriminating evidence from any reports about 9/11). Yet this time 8 years ago the same people were doing everything they could do discredit and remove Clinton from office because of personal indiscretions on his part.
The popular line of reasoning is that if Clinton is untrustworthy in his personal life, he’s probably untrustworthy in his political life, and that’s not something the American people should tolerate. And yet any time that any news about the goings-on within the Administration somehow manages to leave past the vast net designed to hold it all in, what we get is a load of lies, misdirection, and blatant favoritism.
I still haven’t figured out how a tax cut on capital gains benefits the average person. Or how eliminating steel tariffs helps the US. Or how allowing companies to set up off-shore tax shelters while they ship jobs off US shores is a good thing. Or how replacing $75,000/year jobs with $35,000/year jobs is something Bush should be bragging about.
I also think that it’s amusing that, more and more, Republicans are going on record opposing free speech! This is great! Any time anyone even slightly criticizes policy they are labeled as purveyors of hate speech!!! Criticizing the Bush Administration is now, apparently, as bad as what you’d hear at a KKK rally!
And, to switch gears, if you want to talk the “legality” of the 2000 election, there are two sides to the issue. How about a blatantly conservative US Supreme Court that overrules the Florida State Supreme Court’s right to enforce it’s own state constitution? And these being the same Justices that trumpet State’s rights whenever it suits them?
How about the entire election hinging on the state that is governed by your brother? Or election results that hinge from an appointed official chosen by your brother? Or lists of known criminals used to block large groups of known Democratic voters if their name was even remotely close to any of those on the list? Or closing polls early? Or refusing to recount votes from old Jewish people for a borderline Nazi?
Yeah. All that sounds perfectly legal to me.
Phinn
Why apologize? People seem to forget when Bush was walking onto a stage with Ðìçk, and the microphone was live. Bush saw a reporter and said ” I don’t like that A-hole.” Bush didn’t apologize. So what if Kerry didn’t call Bush a dimwitted F@*KHEAD…he just said Bush F’ed up! Although it was funny listening to all the newscasters trying to relay the story! They sounded like little kids trying to say a bad word on the play ground. hahaha
(quote) It can go on and on, but it all boils down to the laws in this
country working exactly as they did. I will have to research, but there was a democratic contingency in 2000 that outlined for the Gore camp EXACTLY what happened for Bush, which was depend upon electoral votes, rather than popular votes. If memory serves, the dems were expecting to lose the popular but win the electoral vote.
Had things swung the other way, would the calls for doing away with the electoral college still be as loud? Would the “principled people” who say that Bush “stole” the electionbecause he did not win the popular vote, still complain because Gore won without the popular? (unquote)
While researching, please do check articles from the time which widely reported that the Bush campaign had in place, before the election, a crack legal team which already had papers prepared to serve the Supreme Court arguing that winning the popular vote should trump the electoral college votes, as that was their expectation of what would occur for their candidate.
(quote) It all boils down to: let it go. Gore lost, legally. no amount of kvetching will change that. (unquote)
While a minority kvetch, I must forcefully disagree. My own view is that the Supreme Court simply had no jurisdiction in this case. The Constitution specifically gives and delineates the authority to debate and decide such federal election disputes to the House of Representatives, allowing for the decsion to be made by the directly-elected representatives of the people, rather than by an appointed body.
In the case of the 2000 election, I might have disagreed with the choice made under such circumstances (as was done in the Hayes-Tilden election), but would recognize it as legitimately arrived at.
As to why Kerry hasn’t specified how he could have done better than f’ing it up like George – Kerry doesn’t have the luxury of a Secretary of State, or a Secretary of Defense, or the CIA, or the NSA or the Joint Chiefs, all of whom should have offered a “plan of action” that included Iraq’s rapid capitulation!
I still haven’t figured out how a tax cut on capital gains benefits the average person. Or how eliminating steel tariffs helps the US. Or how allowing companies to set up off-shore tax shelters while they ship jobs off US shores is a good thing. Or how replacing $75,000/year jobs with $35,000/year jobs is something Bush should be bragging about.
Well, to be fair, as a long time Democrat, I can see answers for the first two. But I STILL think Bush fûçkëd it up…
Did Bush apologize for using the term “major league a$$hole ” When refering Adam Clymer. Considerring we have lost more troops in the first 6 months of the Iraq war than in the first 3 years of Vietnam I think kerry was holding back. Apologizing makes a person look weak. Kerry should go on the offensive and challenge the president more on Iraq. He has the credentials but I don’t know if he has the will.
> I still haven’t figured out how a tax cut on capital gains benefits the average person. Or how eliminating steel tariffs helps the US.
It “helps” in that the EU don’t slap $15bn of retalitory tariffs on stuff from the states Bush scraped last time…
Peter,
You’d actually vote for John Kerry if he were to issue an insincere apology? Seriously? You wouldn’t take under consideration any of his positions on various issues or anything?
Well, okay. Sounds hasty and ill-considered to me, but it’s your vote.
Nice TV Roundup this week. I don’t watch any of the shows you review (aside from Angel) and yet I still find it interesting and insightful.
-Dave OConnell
No Kerry should not apologize. He’s not going anywhere in the presidential race, the last thing he needs to do is issue some mealy mouthed apology that he doesn’t mean.
What little respect I have for him in the first place would go right out the window if he apologizes.
This just in:
The AP and NPR are reporting that Al Gore will be endorsing Howard Dean tomorrow.
John Kerry’s response reported to be:
“Aw, F*&@# !”
Wolfknight: I asked for quotes from the man [Kerry]. He says he knows Bush screwed up, but he doesn’t say what he would have done differently.
That’s all I want. His actual words and plan, NOT some idea posted in quotes.
Dude, you’re kind of asking the wrong people. If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, go check out its stable. You’re asking us to tell you how he would’ve done things better, only to refute us because we’re putting words in the Kerry’s mouth.
In all seriousness, why don’t you hit Kerry’s website and throw the gauntlet down there? I don’t know how Kerry’d have handled Iraq better than Bush, but I admit I’d like to… it’d be nice to believe that Kerry’s smart enough not to shoot off his mouth if he can’t walk his talk, because if he doesn’t have a better plan than Bush he just shot himself in the foot, big-time.
That OTHER John Byrne
Well, to be fair, as a long time Democrat, I can see answers for the first two. But I STILL think Bush fûçkëd it up…
Oh, sure. I understand the rhetoric. Easing up on taxes will cause investors to invest more money, companies will become stronger, blah blah blah. The real meat and potatoes of the issue, though, is that the tax cut made rich people a lot richer, and I’m still seeing my fellow employees laid off.
And as for dropping the steel tariffs, yes, I can see how that “helped” the automotive industry that wants to use steel from the EU and China instead of buying American. Not only is that a fine example of Patriotic behavior in a time of war, but it’s also helping out one industry by hamstringing another. American Steel either has to slash prices to compete with foreign steel, which will likely result in pay cuts and layoffs stateside, or risk going out of business altogether. So, who wants to bet that the automotive industry contributed more to Bush’s campaign than the United Steelworkers?
It “helps” in that the EU don’t slap $15bn of retalitory tariffs on stuff from the states Bush scraped last time…
And maybe if Bush would stop bending the EU over and trying to have his way with them, they wouldn’t be so upset with us.
May I also point out that in all likelihood, Kerry knew exactly what he was saying, and that his choice of words was carefully chosen? I remember doing the Reagan/Mondale election when Bush Sr. emerged from his vice-presidential debate with his democratic opponent saying he ‘Kicked a little ášš.’ And his numbers went up, as though kicking a middle aged woman’s ášš made him more of a man, but there you go.
Frankly, I don’t think any of the Democratic challengers are strong enough to defeat Dubya, but I will be there bright and early on election day to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever he (or she) is. The prospect of four more years under Bush is terrifying in terms of what that will do for our environment, ecconomy and America’s standing in the world community.
I’m sorry that the democrats bicker so much amongst themselves that they fûçk everything up
“I’m sorry that the democrats bicker so much amongst themselves that they fûçk everything up.”
That’s only because we don’t have a high priest like Karl Rove or Rush Limnbaugh telling us what we should be thinking…
PAD,
You think the Dems will lose in 2004? Why? I’m beginning to think the opposite – and I’m on the “right” side of the fence.
This Medicare issue is becoming big on the right – and I mean the “fiscal” right, not the “moral” right. The era of Big Government is not only back, but back in a big way under Bush. An entitlement expansion is not something the US government should be doing when we are already running deficits in a time of war/economic sluggishness.
Bush-43 is going the way of Bush-41. He’s going to make a good chunk of his base uninspired, while Dean fires up the Liberal base that’s still out for blood from 2000. Right now, I’m giving the Democrats 3-2 odds.
I swear, if Kerry issues an apology along those lines–something like, “All right, I apologize: I’m sorry that George Bush f—ed it up” or “I’ll apologize for saying it as soon as George Bush apologizes for doing it”–I’ll vote for him.
Cause you would vote for Bush otherwise, right?
Jesus Christ… What’s with America these days? Ooooh! PROFANITY!
I HATE POLITICAL APOLOGIES! THEY’RE MEANINGLESS DRIVEL MEANT TO PLACATE THE WORTHLESS MASSES OF THIS COUNTRY!
God, I wish I could gather every weak-willed sissy out there who thinks that politicians need to make apology policy and mow them all down with a machine gun. Cutting a few hundred people in half with gas-tipped rapid-fire shells should adjust the thinking of some of the jáçkáššëš in this nation.
So PAD, are you saying that John Kerry is our last, best hope for peace?
Seriously, it’s always nice to see the Republicans troll out in threads like this. It’s all kind of rediculous, becausewe won’t really see who does what until there’s a Democratic nominee. Until then, it’s just tilting at windmills.
But hey, how about that Battlestar Gallactica, huh? Huh? 🙂
This thread is hilarious. The democrat party can now add cussing to its long list of things for which they promote and advocate: lying under oath to protect one’s family, commiting adultery as long as it is consentual, flag burning, removing any vestige of religion from the public square, and protecting eagle’s eggs while simultaneously defending the right to kill unborn humans. I guess the goal of these liberals is to get enough people to accept moral relativism so that no one can ever accuse them of hypocrisy (But at the same time they throw around that term willy-nilly). The barbarians are truly at the gates.
I would give away quite a bit (I haven’t yet decided what) if I could just get a “None of the Above” category in my voting booth.
I like what Lazarus Long said about democratic voting. If you’re not familiar with the writings, check with me.
On this, from skrinq:
While researching, please do check articles from the time which widely reported that the Bush campaign had in place, before the election, a crack legal team which already had papers prepared to serve the Supreme Court arguing that winning the popular vote should trump the electoral college votes, as that was their expectation of what would occur for their candidate.
Not quite, but something similar: the story was that, if Bush got a popular vote win but an EC loss, the Republicans would announce that the popular vote winner “should” be the winner, and try to shake lose enough electors from whatever states they could in order to make that happen — since in most cases the electors are in fact legally free to do what they want. Unprecedented? Well, these guys have been pretty good at “unprecedented but legal” in the past few years.