Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dumb and Dumber.

The only thing dumber than watching a Jim Carrey film is quoting it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Barak Obama
Baltimore Mayor (and almost certainly Maryland's next governor) Martin O'Malley

and...that's all I've got.

Bill White, Houston's Mayor will go far in his political career, though it's sort of unclear if he's a Democrat or a Republican.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What's really scary is how many things Bush has done poorly that a lot of people had to overcome to vote for him. Iraq. His first debate. Others.

My turn to rant - and it is against Kerry voters and the idiots talking about leaving the country, surprisingly.

While I can understand that Bush's policies, inteligence, beligerence and moral superioriuty make them want to eat his puke just so they could puke it up again, I am asking them this morning (and I am surrounded by people that seem practically clinically depressed) to name three things that Bush did to harm your average Joe in Ohio, Florida or Colorado in a concrete way.

They can't. Those people got tax cuts. They weren't attacked by terrorists. The ecomony is basically unchanged. No one was denied an abortion they wanted (subject to certain caveats). Mortgage rates are lower. First-time home owners are higher. The lost jobs would have been lost under Gore in all likelihood. The Patriot Act didn't cause jack-booted thugs to show up at their door.

Thus, why buck the general rules of don't change presidents during a war, stay the course, its the economy stupid, or if it ain't broke don't fix it?

The only real harm to Joe Schoe in Ohio is that Bush has mortgaged the future with the high deficits to support the war and other programs. The problem is that best Kerry could do was say he might not have entered the war when we did, he might have had a better plan, and we might have had more allies to defray the cost. In reality, that wouldn't have happened. France, Germany and Russia were never going to join in an invasion of Iraq. Thus, Kerry was either: (1) lying - he never would have gone to war (which is fine, but would also have been political suicide); or (2) going to have incurred a pretty darn similar cost.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are far smarter than you give them credit.

Really? Well how's Bush going to help those folks in Ohio get manufacturing jobs?

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you figure that Edwards will get the money that's currently planned for Hillary's coffers?

I predict (hope?) that the Dems are not clueless enough to put her forward for Prez or even VP. If anything is guaranteed to bomb in Middle America, that is (even without Penske).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by LessinSF
My turn to rant - and it is against Kerry voters and the idiots talking about leaving the country, surprisingly.

While I can understand that Bush's policies, inteligence, beligerence and moral superioriuty make them want to eat his puke just so they could puke it up again, I am asking them this morning (and I am surrounded by people that seem practically clinically depressed) to name three things that Bush did to harm your average Joe in Ohio, Florida or Colorado in a concrete way.

They can't. Those people got tax cuts. They weren't attacked by terrorists. The ecomony is basically unchanged. No one was denied an abortion they wanted (subject to certain caveats). Mortgage rates are lower. First-time home owners are higher. The lost jobs would have been lost under Gore in all likelihood. The Patriot Act didn't cause jack-booted thugs to show up at their door.

Thus, why buck the general rules of don't change presidents during a war, stay the course, its the economy stupid, or if it ain't broke don't fix it?

The only real harm to Joe Schoe in Ohio is that Bush has mortgaged the future with the high deficits to support the war and other programs. The problem is that best Kerry could do was say he might not have entered the war when we did, he might have had a better plan, and we might have had more allies to defray the cost. In reality, that wouldn't have happened. France, Germany and Russia were never going to join in an invasion of Iraq. Thus, Kerry was either: (1) lying - he never would have gone to war (which is fine, but would also have been political suicide); or (2) going to have incurred a pretty darn similar cost.

Ok, but what about Bush Lied and Halliburton?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Really? Well how's Bush going to help those folks in Ohio get manufacturing jobs?

He's not, but neither would Kerry. The president doesn't control the economy. He can put in place policies, such as tax cuts, that allow the private sector to flourish, but that's about it.

I agree with Less' post. Those jobs would have been gone under Gore as well.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Really? Well how's Bush going to help those folks in Ohio get manufacturing jobs?

Buy them plane tickets to India or China. What do I win for answering correctly?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Barak Obama
Baltimore Mayor (and almost certainly Maryland's next governor) Martin O'Malley

and...that's all I've got.

Gov. Mark Warner (D - Va.)?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by LessinSF
name three things that Bush did to harm your average Joe in Ohio, Florida or Colorado in a concrete way.

For this perhaps not average Joe

(1) The damn Bush economy has cost me a ton;
(2) I have had family members sent to Iraq (I'm not blaming him for Afghanistan), in one case having their tour extended six months beyond;
(3) The damn tax cut never came for me anyways, due to AMT, so he didn't deliver on that fucking promise;
(4) His educational policy is playing a big role in my kids getting taught to a test; this is insane;
(5) I have had to watch the whining condescending bastard on a daily basis for four years. If he complains about "hard work" from his ranch one more time I'll scream.

Still, to hell with Canada. I couldn't stand all the poutine.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He's not, but neither would Kerry. The president doesn't control the economy. He can put in place policies, such as tax cuts, that allow the private sector to flourish, but that's about it.

I agree with Less' post. Those jobs would have been gone under Gore as well.

We can remove any tax incentives that exist for shipping jobs overseas, though.

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
Not true. It's about as stastically relevant as the 1.3 million who voted for Alan Keyes in Illinois.

TM

That's only because "Ham Sandwich" wasn't on the ballot

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Fugee
I predict (hope?) that the Dems are not clueless enough to put her forward for Prez or even VP. If anything is guaranteed to bomb in Middle America, that is (even without Penske).

Can she control herself though? She needs about ten calls to (213) to pull in $20M.

I agree she'd bomb, but few candidates have such self-recognition.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How do you figure that Edwards will get the money that's currently planned for Hillary's coffers?

Hillary is a media and left-wing darling and has all the money. So was Dean.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How about "White Trash". Lets call it what it is.

I grew up in PA. I know White Trash when I see it, and I see the GOP surfing into the Oval Office on a sea of White Trash.

I see no reason not to call a cracker a cracker. What can he call me in return? Educated? Informed? A smarty-pants? "One of them liberal elitists"? Guilty as charged. I'm not going to kiss some redneck's ass because he's got a probelm with me being more informed than he is. If he wants to best me, he can pick up some readin' materials and articulate a viewpoint stronger than "yeew Yanks think yer so smart with yer French candidate... yeeew Saddam lover..."

If I might just point out - the complete and willful pig ignorance of what is going on in the majority of the country known as "flyover land" is one major reason why the Dems have basically lost all traction in huge chunks of the country. In contrast, I noted last night that the Repubs have managed to remain a comparatively significant presence in a lot of Dem strongholds. People justifiably expect their representatives (and those representatives' water-carriers) to have respect for them. Part of that is to recognize that people can understand your position perfectly and still disagree with you. Even people without college, French or sunken-concrete foundations to their homes.

The Dems have got to figure out how to connect with and appeal to the 70% of the population of the country that you consider white trash. Simply swapping out Kerry with a less obviously elitist replacement isn't sufficient.