Disturbed by the media

[rraley]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
Ever heard of fillibusters... If you feel bad for the minorities then you should be outraged at what's happening in Congress with the Federal Judge appointees. Who's to blame? The Democrats!

Good point my friend. The president has a right to have who he wants on the judiciary and the Democrats' insistence on litmus tests disgusts me.

It really does #### me off that Kerry gets all the attention. We have this candidate whose entire message is against Bush and we have this other one that builds his campaign around hope. John Edwards has an uplifting image, and John Kerry has a toned down version of Howard Dean. The media needs to let the Democrats decide who they want as their nominee, not some pundit.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by rraley
Good point my friend. The president has a right to have who he wants on the judiciary and the Democrats' insistence on litmus tests disgusts me.

It really does #### me off that Kerry gets all the attention. We have this candidate whose entire message is against Bush and we have this other one that builds his campaign around hope. John Edwards has an uplifting image, and John Kerry has a toned down version of Howard Dean. The media needs to let the Democrats decide who they want as their nominee, not some pundit.

you are right, the media has an impact on the race. I think they take on the phylosophy I heard earlier of 'The most Electable Candidate', instead of the best one.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
you are right, the media has an impact on the race. I think they take on the phylosophy I heard earlier of 'The most Electable Candidate', instead of the best one.

But the thing is that Kerry is not the most electable candidate. A Democrat from Massachusetts win a national election in this day and age? Just ask Mike Dukakis how that went. Edwards is from North Carolina and he has the potential to bring five southern states into close competition while Kerry will bring in none. If the Democrats cannot at least be competitive in the south, there is no way that they can win in November.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by rraley
But the thing is that Kerry is not the most electable candidate. A Democrat from Massachusetts win a national election in this day and age? Just ask Mike Dukakis how that went. Edwards is from North Carolina and he has the potential to bring five southern states into close competition while Kerry will bring in none. If the Democrats cannot at least be competitive in the south, there is no way that they can win in November.

SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH......... don't tell them that now!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
SSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH......... don't tell them that now!

Doesn't matter - Raley can scream it from the rooftops and the Dems won't listen. I actually was disappointed that the Kerry scandal came up because I think Bush could beat Kerry handily, but I'm not so sure if he could beat Edwards. But I also think it's too late for that - doesn't Kerry pretty much have all the delegates he needs?

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Doesn't matter - Raley can scream it from the rooftops and the Dems won't listen. I actually was disappointed that the Kerry scandal came up because I think Bush could beat Kerry handily, but I'm not so sure if he could beat Edwards. But I also think it's too late for that - doesn't Kerry pretty much have all the delegates he needs?

Kerry is 1500 delegates short of the number he needs, but he does basically have it sewn up. It is really bothering me how stupid the Democrats are being right now and sadly for me, there will be another election where you won't be voting for someone, you will be voting against someone.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by rraley
there will be another election where you won't be voting for someone, you will be voting against someone.

HA! Join the club! I voted against Clinton in '96 and against Gore in '00. I'm semi- voting FOR Bush this time around but I think he panders to the Libs too much.

And I also think the reason we can't find WMD in Iraq is because Bush spent too much time messing around with the UN and making public threats, giving Saddam ample time to get his stash out of the country. A true leader wouldn't have asked permission that he knew he wasn't going to be granted.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
HA! Join the club! I voted against Clinton in '96 and against Gore in '00. I'm semi- voting FOR Bush this time around but I think he panders to the Libs too much.

LOL. Well this time I will be voting AGAINST Bush, unless Edwards gets the nomination.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by rraley
LOL. Well this time I will be voting AGAINST Bush, unless Edwards gets the nomination.

Curious - what's so bad about Bush that you'd rather see Kerry in office?

 

[rraley]

My beef with President Bush is on several levels. First of all, he has run the largest budget deficit in history and there is no way that he can close that gap and unless he gets off of his no tax but spend ways. I can take tax and spenders and I can take no tax and no spenders, but no tax but spend is way too reckless for me. He has far too many connections to special interests (that $200 million for reelection is far too alarming for me). His foreign policy, while the goals and accomplishments are ultimately good, is a little too unilateral for me. He has cut low and middle income people off of college loan programs while tuition is increasing 20% nationwide. There is no plan to put all children under 18 living in poverty on a health insurance plan. His environmental record is appaling. And most of all, I honestly do not believe that he does not care about average people like me. He just seems too concerned with paying old buddies back and not helping the public good. Call me a populist or a ignitor of class warfare, but I see this president as only respecting wealth and his administration has shown that. So I just cannot vote for President Bush. What sucks is that Kerry is half of that while Edwards is none of that.

 

[Penn]

What do you all think about Sen. Zell Miller(Ga) coming out on MSNBC last week and stating he'll vote for George Bush rather than any Democrat who wins the nomination?

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by penncam
What do you all think about Sen. Zell Miller(Ga) coming out on MSNBC last week and stating he'll vote for George Bush rather than any Democrat who wins the nomination?

I wasn't thrilled to say the least, but I expected it. The Democratic Party is a big tent and we love dissent so he is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Larry Gude]

rraley...

...you need to understand that this, your points and thoughts, are just stunning to read to most of us in here. Every where I go, forum wise, it's one word in opposition to Bush: HATE

Congrats for you!

Substantive argument, what next???

I thought y'all, Democrats, weren't allowed to do that?

Welcome again!

 

[rraley]

Re: rraley...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...you need to understand that this, your points and thoughts, are just stunning to read to most of us in here. Every where I go, forum wise, it's one word in opposition to Bush: HATE

I have to disagree with you Mr. Gude, I do not hate President Bush. He seems to be the kind of a guy that I would love to pass some time with. I do not like the track that he has taken this country on in the domestic sense and I think that he could have done a better job of dealing with the Iraq War. I mean how the hell can someone justify not going in to remove Hussein from power? If John McCain came out and ran for president again, I would definitely vote for him over John Kerry.

More later...lunch time...

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not making...

...myself clear.

I am impressed with you. It seems to be most of your party mates who genuinely hate the man.

Enjoy lunch!

 

[rraley]

Re: I'm not making...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...myself clear.

I am impressed with you. It seems to be most of your party mates who genuinely hate the man.

Enjoy lunch!

Lunch was good. Yeah I totally misunderstood your earlier post. My bad, don't know what I was thinking. Yes most of my fellow Democrats genuinely hate President Bush and it is that sort of hate that will cause rash things. People within my party just want to beat him, they do not want a real alternative to the president nor do they want someone who will bring true, pragmatic change to this country. Democrats are so mad that they have stopped giving real arguments save the candidate that I support John Edwards. People want a positive message of hope, not just the politics of cynicism, as Senator Edwards would say (he won the endorsement of the largest newspaper in Wisconsin today, which is nice). I truly hope that other Democrats will come out and support a true, pragmatic leader and not some anti-Bush candidate like Howard Dean or John Kerry.
We cannot beat Bush by just criticizing; we have to offer an alternative. Here is what the basis for our campaign should be...
Repeal the tax cuts for those with incomes above $200,000. That tax cut has not helped us get any jobs (we've lost 2.2 million). Rather use that money to provide substantive business tax credits to create jobs and keep their companies in America and not the Virgin Islands. Offer health insurance for all children that live in poverty. Scrape the damn Mars project, where the hell are we getting that money? Fully fund No Child Left Behind as the Congress promised. Rejoin international treaties so that the worldwide community will be able to recognize that our causes are just. Rewrite trade agreements so that we do not have a trade deficit that is larger than our budget deficit. Outlaw contributions from lobbyists and start down the road to more public financing of campaigns instead of special interest funding. Repeal part of the Patriot Act but keep the 2/3 of it that help this country fight terrorism. It is all so simple my fellow Democrats. Let us be ABOUT something rather than AGAINST something.

 

[Bruzilla]

Whay bugs me about the media is that they all operate on the "repeat a lie often enough..." principal. For a while, it seemed that guys like Bill O'Reilly would help put an end to this, but sad to say... he hasn't. Take for example, the AWOL thing. All he would need to do is bring on someone from the Texas or Alabama ANG and have them explain the policies under which those organizations operate. They could come right out and say that people in the ANG do not serve like their active duty counterparts, and can skip drills for several months provided they make that time up before the end of their service year. Instead, he has talking heads and reporters who come on and speculate about the facts WHILE repeating the charges and giving them a sense of credibility in the eyes of many.

Another example is the talk of how the Republicans are attacking Kerry for dealing with special interest groups, and the hypocrisy of them complaigning about this while Bush has taken millions in special interest money as well. The truth is that the Republican ad attacks Kerry for saying that he'll not deal with special interest groups while he's obviously taking their money.... not that he was taking the money. So that's the lie, and I heard it repeated several times this weekend.