What will become of Kerry? (as if anyone really cares)

[dr_mabeuse]

I think if Dean had been nominated and had coming out swinging about the absurdity of this war, and had pushed people's faces in it to make them realize that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda--and that's not an easy task--he might have run on that, but I think he still would have been smeared as a Northeastern Liberal. I'm pretty sure that's what they thought in Iowa too, and that's why he lost the primary

Clark has a stellar CV, but he was a very weak candidate in my opinion. He actually seemed reluctant to run. Now if Schwartzkopf had been a democrat... There was a guy with charisma.

One thing about Dean and Clark, though, is that they don't come from the senate. The last President we elected out of the senate was Kennedy, 40 years ago. Being a senator puts you on the record and these days they use it against you. Far better to come from a governorship.

Edwards has the senate curse and was just too inexperienced. Look for him in 4 years. I really would have liked to see his optimism pitted against Bush's doom-and-paranoia though. I really hate this War On Terror mentality. I hate the fact that America is so frightened all the time now, and I think there are plenty of other people who feel the same way. (But then, what the hell do I know about how people in America feel anymore?)

Knowing what we know now, I think Lieberman might actually have had the best chance (another senator). Of course, the main reason I say that was because his foreign policy was the same as Bush's, and we know now that foreign policy had little to do with this election. I really don't know what Lieberman's domestic agenda was.

Besides, I'm soft on Joe bevcause he called me before the election to remind me to vote. That was thoughtful of him, don't you think?

---dr.M.

P.S. I think anyone who still thinks that Hillary is going to try and run in 4 years is absolutely nuts. Can you imagine what the republicans would do to her? And is there a more feared and hated figure in American politics today?

Oh yeah. Well, I mean besides the president.

P.P.S. Who are the Republicans going to field in 2008? Surely not Cheney.

Arnold?

 

[LadyJeanne]

Knowing what we know now, I think Lieberman might actually have had the best chance (another senator). Of course, the main reason I say that was because his foreign policy was the same as Bush's, and we know now that foreign policy had little to do with this election. I really don't know what Lieberman's domestic agenda was.

Considering the moral values vote is what won the election - read, Christian values - I don't believe a Jewish man would have had any better chance to win. America is not ready for a Jewish, female, black or Hispanic president. Not even close.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think if Dean had been nominated and had coming out swinging about the absurdity of this war, and had pushed people's faces in it to make them realize that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda--and that's not an easy task--he might have run on that, but I think he still would have been smeared as a Northeastern Liberal. I'm pretty sure that's what they thought in Iowa too.

Clark has a stellar CV, but he was a very weak candidate in my opinion. He actually seemed reluctant to run. Now if Schwartzkopf had been a democrat... There was a guy with charisma.

Edwards was just too inexperienced. Look for him in 4 years though. I really would have liked to see his optimism pitted against Bush's doom-and-paranoia though. I really hate this War On Terror mentality. I hate the fact that America is so frightened all the time now.

Knowing what we know now, I think Lieberman might actually have had the best chance. Of course, the main reason I say that was because his foreign policy was the same as Bush's, and we know now that foreign policy had little to do with this election. I really don't know what Lieberman's domestic agenda was.

besides, Joe called me before the election to remind me to vote. That was thoughtful of him.

---dr.M.

P.S. I think anyone who still thinks that Hillary is going to try and run in 4 years is absolutely nuts. Can you imagine what the republicans would do to her? And is there a more feared and hated figure in American politics today?

Oh yeah. Well, I mean besides the president.

Libermann's domestic policy is pretty moderate. he was tacked onto the Gore ticket, in part to allay the suspicion that Gore was a Clinton liberal. Of course, as a jew, he would have been subjected to some pretty vile attacks by the Evengelical right I fear.

If Hil wins the nomination, you can get ready for more right wing fundy fun because it will be a dead lock we will have another republiccan president.

On the upside to all this, you now get to enjoy the moderate republican rebellion. It's already started with Spector warning GWB about court appointees who would over turn roe v wade. the Neo-cons may be getting the most significant challenge they will see in their 8 years, not from dems, but from the moderates in their own party. One can hope.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

On the upside to all this, you now get to enjoy the moderate republican rebellion. It's already started with Spector warning GWB about court appointees who would over turn roe v wade. the Neo-cons may be getting the most significant challenge they will see in their 8 years, not from dems, but from the moderates in their own party. One can hope.

-Colly

Yeah, that's what I think too. I think the action will switch from democrat vs. republican to an internecine battle within the republican party. I'll bet there are a lot of people out there who don't even know that not too long ago there were such things as non-evangelical republicans. This religious takeover of the GOP didn't really happen until the 90's. Before that, the GOP was the party of the fiscal conservatives and pro-business interests, the so-called Mainstreet Republicans.

There even were liberal republicans under Rockefeller.

Yeah, I look for interparty warfare.

I also look for a few big, juicy scandals to break during this term. That seems to be par for the course. The rule is: democratic scandals involve sex, and republican scandals involve money. Be interesting to see if it plays out.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Bad news Colly, Arlen's already been brought to heel and backtracked on his remarks. Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee is traditionally reserved for the senior member of the majority, but he still needs them to actually vote that designation and they can remove it at their whim. These guys can't even extend a hand of cooperation witihn their own damned party.

I don't think he will be brought to heel. I think there is going to be some serious interparty fighting. It's been brewing, but moderates within the party recognized they had to toe the line or risk throwing the election to the Dems. They can now snipe at will, since W's credibility isn't going to be an issue in 2008.

AS a long time republican, now independant, I can at least hope there are enough of us left who resent the hijacking of our party by neo cons and the religious right to put up a fight.

 

[Guest]

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I'm just hoping that we get a more moderate president next time, regardless of political party. I'm a moderate liberal registered as an independent, and one of the only reason I voted for Kerry was fear of George W. And I'm not the only one, so that says something about the state of the Democratic Party if they can't find a better candidate. I would have voted for Clarke, but independents aren't allowed to vote in either party's caucus in this state. Keep in mind that a single state decided the presidency, so it disturbs me when the "president" declares that a mandate.

But George W. won, and I take some solace in the fact that at least this time, I see it as a legitimate victory. So now, I'll do the only thing a liberal in this country can do: pray no supreme court justices retire any time soon. Wishful thinking: probably. Maybe I should put that on the "wish" thread.

 

[Guest]

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Kerry does not work for me, but I am one of the people paying his salary for no work. As far as I am concerned, Kerry is a lazy, shiftless, dishonest bum! My opinion is in no way connected with his politics or party affiliation, it is based upon his dishonesty.

JMHO.

So he's a politician, right????


The only surprise here is that it all seems to surprise you!!

See now, this is EXACTLY how I learned to despise football fans.

Year after year, every winter, the football fan of every team of also-rans got a free pass to insult the Buffalo team for being the second-best team in the whole country.

Yeah VB, but second out of two is a loser.

 

[BlackShanglan]

We made the same error this time we did in 2000: we marketed our candidates as solutions to complicated issues. Karl Rove long ago learned that most people don''t study issues beyond the point where they cease to be entertaining.

I've got to disagree with you on this one. For me, the issues killed Kerry. His stance on opening bilateral talks with North Korea struck me as arrant lunacy, not to mention a bizarre contradiction of his positon on Iraq and Iran. His claims that Europe would help bail us out of Iraq were not only unsubstantiated but were actively driving a wedge between him and the European governments before he was even within reaching distance of the job. His claim that we could save $350 billion a year that was "wasted" on administrative costs in hospitals and doctors' offices ignored the fact that a large chunk of that money was for basic needs that will not go away - receptionists, billing clerks, etc. Yes, some savings could be made, but nothing like what he would need to bail out the flatly staggering proposition he was making for having the government supply insurance to large numbers of people already covered through their workplaces. And his position on abortion never made sense to me. "I think it's not a life and therefore it's OK to abort" makes perfect sense to me; it's consistant in its logic. So does "I think it's a life and deserves protection." But "I think it's a human being that people should have the choice to kill" is a difficult position to comprehend. So is "I think people should have the choice to kill something I'm claiming I think is a human, but not to get married unless they are straight." He was all over the map, and the only consistant impression I got from him was "I'll say anything to get your vote."

So he didn't.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm just hoping that we get a more moderate president next time, regardless of political party. I'm a moderate liberal registered as an independent, and one of the only reason I voted for Kerry was fear of George W. And I'm not the only one, so that says something about the state of the Democratic Party if they can't find a better candidate. I would have voted for Clarke, but independents aren't allowed to vote in either party's caucus in this state. Keep in mind that a single state decided the presidency, so it disturbs me when the "president" declares that a mandate.

Yes, I agree. If I hear the words "mandate" or "legacy" again I'm going to punch someone.

What bothers me most is the sweeping Republican gains in the Senate and the House. Delay (sp?) really seems to have won out in his sordid little scheme to redistrict Dem seats out of existance and particularly to destroy districts that traditionally voted split tickets. That really pisses me off. I've always respected the American people's long-standing tradition of electing a president from one party and House and/or Senate from the other. It's usually the only thing keeping us all from being ruthlessly fucked; they're too busy fucking each other.

(There's probably a Lit story in that image somewhere ...)

 

[BlackShanglan]

P.P.S. Who are the Republicans going to field in 2008? Surely not Cheney.

Arnold?

Still not legally possible, thank heaven.

 

[Guest]

Kerry to continue from Senate
For his part, Kerry on Wednesday vowed to take his beliefs back to the U.S. Senate, where he has served since 1984 and has another four years left of his current term.

“In the years ahead, I am going to fight on for the principles and people of Massachusetts,” he said in his concession speech.

Kerry told supporters in an emotional campaign farewell in Boston that “we cannot win this election.”

“In America, it is vital that every vote count ... but the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal fight,” Kerry said, referring to an earlier option of contesting the race in Ohio and the fact that Bush was 3 million votes ahead in the popular vote.

“I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail,” he said, but “there won’t be enough outstanding votes for us to win Ohio, and therefore we cannot win this election.”

Speaking at Faneuil Hall in Boston, where he launched his quest for the White House more than a year ago, Kerry said he had telephoned Bush to congratulate him on his victory.

Yet Kerry’s public remarks contained an element of challenge to the president.

“America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion,” he said. “I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6405260/?GT1=5809

I hope he ends up taking tickets at the Clinton Library!

 

[Pure]

Republican for 2008. Jeb Bush, of course!