20 total posts
Re: On the RNC
The "biased" media left pretty much everyone who didn't have cable or satellite in the dark for the DNC. From what I've seen, the scheduled coverage of the RNC is the same as for the DNC.
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee called me the other day and asked me to contribute $204 to the Kerry campaign. I asked them which party they thought I belonged to that I'd have $204 to kick around like that.
Re: On the RNC
Did they stay on the line and answer your question?
The Bush Campaign called my Mom a couple weeks ago and asked her about her vote for Bush. She informed them that not only would she not vote for Bush, she felt the citizens of the United States had NO REMOTELY DECENT CANDIDATE at all this time around and either side would be wasting their time to call her.
The person who called said "thank you Mrs. Butler" and hung up. I said "way to go, Mom!"
I think we should just boycott this election and instigate a "do-over" with more qualified candidates. How anyone could be totally on one side or the other without admitting that the candidate they are planning to vote for has some BIG problems is beyond me. The party-line is taken too far by some folks. Just read the threads here in SE for some great examples of that.
The platform this year provides me, IMO, with choosing the cleanest of the dirty laundry. By the time they get around to tabulating Oregon's votes, it's pretty much over anyway (I hate that!!)
I plan to vote for Bush. Kerry just makes my skin crawl. My brother, Jerry, who served his time in VietNam with the 101st Airborne Infantry Division, and returned home with 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, and other medals for his service, must be rolling in his grave over Kerry's choice of why we should vote for him. I find Kerry despicable in that regard! He took his right of Freedom of Speech too far.
Re: On the RNC
I think we should just boycott this election and instigate a "do-over" with more qualified candidates.
Unfortunately, such isn't in the system. Someone would elect a President if not a citizen in the country went to the polls.
What we need is a required none of the above on all ballots, from dog catcher to President.
click here to email email@example.com
I don't think this is necessarily true
>>>>The party-line is taken too far by some folks. Just read the threads here in SE for some great examples of that.>>>> at least as far as the SE members go.
I've been of the opinion that although they have come down firmly on one side or the other, it's the PERSON they have gone with and not necessarily the PARTY.
I haven't personally voted a party-line in years and years....I try to get myself as educated and knowledgeable as possible about the candidates running and make the decision of who to vote for based on that information.
Even with the protestoring going on in New York right now, they are angry at the Republican Party and they are angry at Bush, but when they are interviewed I still haven't heard ANY of them say they were PRO Kerry. I think many people at this point have decided, like you, that there isn't a good enough candidate on either side and wish to hell that there some more choices.
I suspect that as close as this race is right now, there will unfortunately be many who just don't bother to vote because they can't make up their mind over either candidate.....and as always is the case, they will be the first to complain about who wins.
I have to agree.
I wouldn't vote for either man to be dog catcher at this point. I know what GWB stands for and it makes my skin crawl. (BTW I've been a registered Republican for 35 years but Dubya scares the hell out of me!) On the other hand, I have absolutely no idea what Kerry stands for. (It seems to change so often.) I'm afraid that voting for him may be equivalent to jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I'm going to wait for the debates and then probably decide.
I've been watching CNN
for the most part, and found it interesting to note that one of the interviewers yesterday actually stated that the media news stations/casters are very obviously Kerry backers/supporters and wanted that person's (a woman) opinion. She did alot of hemming and hawing but ducked the response nicely by diverting it to another topic immediately.
I find it interesting that when the DNC was going on, Bush chose to stay in Texas and halt his campaigning until it was over......and yet Kerry and Edwards are out beating the bushes heavily. Considering that according to CNN polls done this morning around 15% of all Democrats are still up for grabs for their vote, perhaps the Kedwards team know they are in trouble and trying to grab what they can BEFORE the RNC gets heavily under way over the next few days. I guess that winning at all costs means more than showing Bush the same respect he showed them during their own convention by laying low for a few days. Or perhaps they feel that with the majority of the Republicans actually focusing on the RNC, that they won't get so much heat and can take advantage of that temporary reprieve?
The polls are showing that Bush has begun to creep upwards and has in some of the swing states actually taken the lead in the last few days.
Re: I've been watching CNN
There's no time to sit a few days out. The republicans are having their convention later than any in history.
Was that deliberately done in
order to reserve New York City for it and give NYC time to prepare? It seems the fitting place...given the history they have with him.
It was deliberately done.
But NYC could have been ready early in August, no problem. It was done to limit the length of the campaign to increase dollars per day the republicans could spend. It was also done to place the convention as close to the 9/11 tragedy in time and place as possible.
I've heard about 10 seconds worth of convention coverage today and they're already raising 9/11 victims as campaign workers.
And this upsets you because?????
>>>>>I've heard about 10 seconds worth of convention coverage today and they're already raising 9/11 victims as campaign workers.>>>>>
You didn't seem to mind when Kerry was 'using' his 'war' buddies as campaign workers........I don't remember Kerry or Edwards being front and center doing anything for the 9/11 victims or families or for their own states when Hugo and Andrew blew through. Hell, I never even HEARD of Edwards until Kerry sucked him up....guess he needed a pretty face.
Re: And this upsets you because?????
When did Hugo and Andrew "blow through" Massachusetts?
Andrew hit in 1992 and Hugo hit in 1989, long before Edwards entered the Senate. Andrew crossed Florida and hit Louisiana, tracking AWAY from North Carolina.
already formulating his political career during those times, and he had enough influence even then to be a 'player' in helping the state recover and didn't do anything, Josh. Concerned citizens even in Virginia were going out of their way to put pressure on their representatives to get help for their communities, but I can't find anything anywhere that indicates Edwards did anything to help his own state during those times.
As for Mass.....it didn't take a direct hit, but from what I understand there was still considerable damage done via flooding from coastlines and the 'after effect' rains as it ran up the eastern coast. I live over 800 miles away (northwest near Tenn) from the NC coast where it came in and we still have forests of trees laid flat from the winds from Hugo.
There have been other political issues for both of their states though over the years that they have both served as representatives and have done nothing for the working class, but to listen to them talk today, it's a huge concern for them NOW.
Re: Edwards was
I think that's a real stretch re: Edwards.
What reason do you have to believe that Kerry "wasn't there" for his state in the aftermath of whatever damage might have been done by Hugo?
Re: And this upsets you because?????
The vets that come forward and stand with Kerry do so on their own. The 9/11 victims are dead and do not have that same choice available to them.
I know it's a subtle difference.
Your sarcasm is unbecoming
Since you have decided to go there, in case you hadn't noticed, Dan, the 9/11 campaign 'workers' at the RNC aren't dead, are they?
Do we know how many, if any, of Kerry's war 'buddies' that he left behind were killed because he cut and run and wasn't there to watch their backs?
Keep it on topic, please....below the belt hits when that wasn't was being discussed is disgusting.
I was being literal
The comrades of Kerry were on stage with him at their own choice. The republicans are calling on the memory of those who died three years ago. They have no choice in this matter.
If you're looking for inappropriate comments regarding 9/11 victims I suggest you check Madison Square Garden.
And you don't think
that any 9/11 campaign workers are there because they WANT to be and support Bush VOLUNTARILY? If you believe that Kerry's supporters are there because they CHOSE to be, why is it so hard to believe that 9/11 families or friends have also CHOSEN their candidate and are helping get their chosen candidate elected? Considering that these people only have monetary compensation for their losses and they don't blame Bush for what happened to their lives and their loved ones, I find them to be very courageous in voicing their support.
Re: And you don't think
Sorry for my lack of clarity. I was referring to the victims killed in the 9/11 attacks. That was who the report on the convention I heard meant and I should have specified that.
On their own?
That is possible but debatable in view of a certain Lt JG "arranging" safe jobs for his crew when he abandonded them.
If you doubt it you haven't read Kerry's own words in his Boston Globe Bio.
On the other hand all the 9/11 victims ARE NOT DEAD and most, when interviewed/polled by the NYT are more supportive of Bush than Kerry despite the Times attempting to slant it the other way.
But her thinking mirrored the sometimes contradictory views of 9/11 families. Mrs. Fairben, who described herself as a registered Democrat, said she expected to vote for Mr. Bush in November. She said Mr. Kerry's handling of attacks on his Vietnam record had not impressed her enough to win her vote.
Also, she said, "I agree with the president right now that we've got to keep doing what we're doing in Iraq, and I'm afraid to think what would happen if Kerry would undo that."
Almost two-thirds of the relatives questioned said they believed Mr. Kerry would "make the right decisions'' on protecting the country from terrorism - the same number that said that about Mr. Bush. But more said they had "a lot" of confidence in Mr. Bush.