Question for the Lefties, 2008

[SamOdom]

Plain and simple math demands we must take a red state to win the White House in '08. How and with whom do we do this? I get lambasted here for my moderate to conservative views and my wish for the Dem party to move closer to my views. IMHO, that is the only way to win. Seems many if not most 'Dems' here wish to move the party more left, is that the prescription to win the WH in '08, if not, what do you propose?

 

[TheRightWing]

They hope Diebold can save them this time around!!!! ROFLMAO

 

[docmercer--banned]

Once again Right Wing shows how dense he truly is with that statement ...

 

[Redneckman]

Once again Right Wing shows how dense he truly is with that statement ...

You don't answer Sam's question because you know damn well the democratic party is being run by left wing kooks like YOU. No chance to win an election any time soon with people like you speaking for the 'rats.

 

[docmercer]

RedNeckMan

In all seriousness (if possible) can you please elaborate on your post. Who are the "kooks" that you see running the Democratic party. And with that being said, what specifically makes them "left wing" and "kooks". Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but we hear it over and over -- I'd like to hear specifics from someone willing to make the claim.

Thanks

 

[edub69]

There will still be plenty of opportunity to capitalize on anti-Bush sentiment in 2008. I don't imagine many people who voted against Bush in 2004 will vote Republican next time around. We'll still be in Iraq, and the longer that goes on the more opportunity people will have to see the Iraq war for what it was - a dumb idea, that was sold dishonestly to the American public. Painting the next candidate as a Bush apologist will be important. After that, they will need someone who can expose the Republican party as political opportunists who know nothing about national security except occasionally pulling their heads out of the sand to tell people to "support the troops". Ignore the Patriot Act, since no one cares about that. I still think Wesley Clark would be the best candidate, although a lot can change between now and then. Then name Bill Richardson or some other Hispanic guy as VP and you'll have a good shot to take Nevada, New Mexico, and maybe even Arizona and/or Colorado.

 

[docmercer]

I think Bill Richardson would have a shot as well. For the following reasons:

He's a governor - so like Clinton, Bush Sr and Reagan he has a huge advantage in that he can bury a lot of his "records" in libraries and not come under scrutiny like someone who has resided in the Senate (good example was Kerry, but the "left" would have a field day with McCains voting record too --- every Senator has voted for bills they didn't agree with but had a rider attached they wanted passed etc)

He's also from "the south" - and we know that the party of family and values (the repubs) refuse to even consider voting for a candidate that is from "the North" (what year is it down there anyway???)

He has not been afraid to both criticize the Bush admin, but also to give praise where he feels its due. Plenty of soundbites from members of both parties praising his ability to see beyond the usual BS that bogs down left vs. right.

 

[TheRightWing]

RedNeckMan

In all seriousness (if possible) can you please elaborate on your post. Who are the "kooks" that you see running the Democratic party. And with that being said, what specifically makes them "left wing" and "kooks". Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but we hear it over and over -- I'd like to hear specifics from someone willing to make the claim.

Thanks

Vegasman,
Who is the leader of your great part because when I think of your party and what it has came to be these voices overwhelm me with joy but you tell me if I'm wrong with whom the leadership really is.....

1.Hillary Clinton
2.John Kerry
3.Howard Dean
4.Jesse Jackson
5.Dick "Turbin" Durbin
6.Mikey Moore
7.Moveon down the road org.
8.Al Gore
9.Al Fraken aka Sturat Smalley
10.Paul Krugman


now do you agree with most polices or beliefs of these people?

 

[docmercer]

You list names - not policies or beliefs.

Who was the leader of the repubs during Clintons 8 years? Do you fully agree with Rush that women who believe in equal rights are Nazis? Do you believe Ann Coulter when she says we lost vietnam because of the troops on the ground? Did you support Newt when he left his dying wife for another woman?

I do agree with a lot of what some of the list believe - but I'm still waiting for what these policies and beliefs are as you would have us believe.

Typical though - I ask for specifics and get a truncated version of Goldbergs list.

 

[TheRightWing]

Guess I need to rephrase this to......do you see anyone on my Dem Party list that you share the same views as them and if so who and why?

 

[edub69]

Vegasman,
Who is the leader of your great part because when I think of your party and what it has came to be these voices overwhelm me with joy but you tell me if I'm wrong with whom the leadership really is.....

1.Hillary Clinton
2.John Kerry
3.Howard Dean
4.Jesse Jackson
5.Dick "Turbin" Durbin
6.Mikey Moore
7.Moveon down the road org.
8.Al Gore
9.Al Fraken aka Sturat Smalley
10.Paul Krugman


now do you agree with most polices or beliefs of these people?

Why your obsession with Paul Krugman? He's simply an op-ed columnist, a professor, and an author. Who brainwashed you into thinking he is a leader of the democratic party? Probably someone who realizes that his critiques of Bush are right on the money. Do you consider, let's say, Charles Krauthammer a leader of the Republican party? Do you agree with ALL the beliefs of ALL the following people:

Tom DeLay
Bill Frist
Ed Gillespie
Rick "Man on dog Sex" Santorum

just to name a few? My guess is you can't even answer, because you don't know what all of their beliefs are.

 

[TheRightWing]

Cause Paul Krugman is propaganda liar who put's our soldiers at risk when he say's we hate muslims,flush their holy book down the toliet,this war is about oil,daddy's revenge,etc. He's a puke and by the Times numbers will be looking for a job writing for moveon or smirking chimp soon.

 

[docmercer]

RightWing - I sure as hell DO agree with many on the list.

First off - "fraken" or "sturat" -- you typing with boxing gloves on?

I agree with Franken (who happens to agree with Colin Powell) on his view that troops should never be sent into a war without

- clearly defined missions
- clearly defined exit strategy
- proper funding and equipment

I agree with Hilary that those in society who are of the age of minority should have access to health care without the risk of bankrupting their parents.

I agree with Al Gore that Social Security is not some slush fund to be used to pad budget numbers and then used as leverage to guilt those who came before us.

I agree with John Kerry that the US strategy of alienating allies like Canada may not hurt is militarily (in numbers) but destroy our credibility since Canada has supported military actions in the past no matter what party the president belonged to.

I also agree with John McCain that soft money is a direct cause of dirty campaigns (so are PAC's like MoveOn and paid organizations like Swiftboat vets)

Any cut/paste list you'd like to reply with? Did I not detail policy enough for you? Are you waiting for someone else to help you understand the concept that a person can actually agree with concepts that go across "party lines"?

 

[edub69]

Cause Paul Krugman is propaganda liar who put's our soldiers at risk when he say's we hate muslims,flush their holy book down the toliet,this war is about oil,daddy's revenge,etc. He's a puke and by the Times numbers will be looking for a job writing for moveon or smirking chimp soon.

You mean he doesn't toe the Republican party line on all issues? He's hardly the only one. The only people who put our soldiers at risk are the Bush Administration and the people in Congress who voted to give Bush the authority to wage war.

 

[docmercer]

We need to be very clear about something (as if anything in politics is clear)

Many in congress (Kerry for example) believe that the president should have the right to wage war without always getting approval from other legislative bodies. Many disagree with specific military actions - but still believe that it is up to the president to make the decision.

With that being said - what was voted on was a resolution authorizing force against Saddam if Saddam failed to turn over WMD. HOWEVER, this vote was (and so many others) sold to us under the guise that "all other avenues would be exhausted".

Why is it that press in countries like the UK, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Jordan and Australia all reported that no less than 3 times did Saddam try to negotiate an exit from Iraq before the war - and each time was ignored. Promises to bring allies on board, promises to return to the UN and get the votes - all BS. We know for a fact now that while we were still in the "early stages of diplomacy" with this war, we were in fact paving runways in Saudi Arabia and moving supplies into neighboring countries. Any chance you'll ever get to see Saddam stand trial and hear about all his dealings with us in the past? Gosh no - we can't embolden the terrorists!

Vote against the war? In literally the months after 911 when people are still crying during baseball games and TV networks are being bullied into not showing war movies and censoring jokes about Bush. Timing as they say, is everything. The admin knew that if they ever were going to sell a war that was soft on facts - now would be the time. A country grieving over 911 is looking to swat something - and with Iraq's history and rhetoric, it worked out to a T.

 

[eek.]

Are you guys going to be able to recount votes properly by 2008 ?

I doubt it.

You've still got to fix your vote counting system first, its broken.

 

[edub69]

We need to be very clear about something (as if anything in politics is clear)

Many in congress (Kerry for example) believe that the president should have the right to wage war without always getting approval from other legislative bodies. Many disagree with specific military actions - but still believe that it is up to the president to make the decision.

With that being said - what was voted on was a resolution authorizing force against Saddam if Saddam failed to turn over WMD. HOWEVER, this vote was (and so many others) sold to us under the guise that "all other avenues would be exhausted".

Why is it that press in countries like the UK, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Jordan and Australia all reported that no less than 3 times did Saddam try to negotiate an exit from Iraq before the war - and each time was ignored. Promises to bring allies on board, promises to return to the UN and get the votes - all BS. We know for a fact now that while we were still in the "early stages of diplomacy" with this war, we were in fact paving runways in Saudi Arabia and moving supplies into neighboring countries. Any chance you'll ever get to see Saddam stand trial and hear about all his dealings with us in the past? Gosh no - we can't embolden the terrorists!

Vote against the war? In literally the months after 911 when people are still crying during baseball games and TV networks are being bullied into not showing war movies and censoring jokes about Bush. Timing as they say, is everything. The admin knew that if they ever were going to sell a war that was soft on facts - now would be the time. A country grieving over 911 is looking to swat something - and with Iraq's history and rhetoric, it worked out to a T.

Agree with most of what you say here, however, I think the members of Congress should not have been so dumb as to believe that if they authorized Bush to use force, he would not use it. How many speeches about the threat of mushroom clouds if we don't invade Iraq did they have to listen to before they knew that the administration was hellbent on invading Iraq? Therefore you have to conclude that they knew their votes would eventually lead to war, and amounted to tacit support of the invasion. Probably most of them voted in favor of it because it was being used as a political issue in the Republican campaign for the 2002 House/Senate elections.

 

[docmercer]

Purely about votes. Check out the presidents approval rating at the time and the blank check support. Now that his numbers are in the tank - look at how he's treated.

Of course, a 5 week holiday during a time of war should fix things. I mean, we need to give the guy a break - he last took a long holiday over 3 months ago.

 

[BASEHEAD]

"First off - "fraken" or "sturat" -- you typing with boxing gloves on?"

Now thats funny....Slow down man,they give you shot before proofread before you send it,stop giving us "neo-cons" a bad name....lol.

 

[docmercer--banned]

"Let us go to the cards:

Judge McCulhbert has it 9 rounds to 3 ....
Judge Smith has it 10 rounds to 2 ....
Judge McCoy has it 9 rounds to 3 ..."

KTVVEGAS WITH A SOLID ASS WHIPPING OVER WOMENS 178 LB # 8 RANKED MIDDLEWEIGHT ...MINNESOTAs FINEST, RIGHT WINGER!