SuperJerk

By the way, with the above comments I made about Bob Dole, it should be noted that he is the first person I ever voted for in a presidential election, and the only Republican.

...But he almost won... That alone should keep him off of any "worst" list.

The outcome of the election of 1968 was 43.4% to 42.7%. He lost by .7% of the popular vote. He almost won. That has to count for something. I think you're harshly judging a 1968 candidate because he didn't campaign the way people do in 2006. Bob Dole was not a "sacrificial lamb." After their success in 1994, the Republicans completely beleived they could win. Clinton didn't crack 50% (though he did get more votes than Dole and Perot combined), and the right candidate could have kept Ross Perot out of the race, picked up some additional support from non-voters, and won. The biggest problem with the 1996 election for the Republicans was that Dole was even in the race. He'd been running for president so many times, and had built up a campaign war-chest so huge he scared any potentially competitive candidates out of the race. Pete Wilson, Carrol Campbell, Jack Kemp, John McCain, and Dan Quayle all refused to run against him because they couldn't match the amount of money and favors he'd accumulated. That left inexperienced guys like Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, Morry Taylor, and Bob Dornan as the only visible alternatives. Lamar Alexander made a good go of it, but just couldn't match Dole's name recognition. Arlen Specter, Phil Gramm, and Dick Lugar were also fair alternates, but got out quickly because they couldn't match Dole's fundraising.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519404/

She's not the incumbent.

GEORGE ALLEN UPDATE "Now you gettin' personal!" So...Allen's hired thugs physically attack a guy for asking embarrassing questions, put a headlock on him from behind and throw his head into a glass door...the whole thing is caught on tape...and the lead story is still a bad joke John Kerry told 2 days ago?

I'd say you're a Libertarian.

I find it funny how the Republicans assumed Kerry meant the solidiers when he was talking about people being stuck in Iraq. Are they finally admitting that our sodliers ARE stuck in Iraq? edit: I also find it funny that the only person who seriously thinks Kerry meant the soldiers is also trying to argue that soliders are uneducated.

Are you kidding? Hubert Humphrey was one of our greatest statesmen to never become president. He was a solid backer of civil rights since the 1940s, and his push for the inclusion of Civil Rights into the 1948 platform led to the walk-out by segregationists like Strom Thurmond. Humphrey had the misfortune of being VP for the unpopular Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party was tearing itelsef apart in the streets of Chicago in 1968, and Humphrey managed to pull them back together enough to come within a few fractions of a point of beating Richard Nixon and fellow Democrat George Wallace. This is BEFORE Watergate and the bombing of Cambodia, when Nixon was still best known for being Eisenhower's VP and a nostalgic symbol of the 1950s, rather than the paranoid egomaniac he's known as today. People you didn't mention: Bob Dole (1996)-never gave people a reason to vote for him, and kept his best quality--his keen sense of humor--under wraps until after the election. Allowed himself to get linked the the supremely unpopular Newt Gingrich. Walter Mondale (1984)-in a time of economic recovery, promised a tax hike. George McGovern (1972)-spent the entire campaign catering to leftist special interest groups, allowing Nixon win in won of the biggest landslides in history. His only popular issue, ending the Vietnam War, was undercut by Nixon troop withdrawal and de-escalation of the conflict. Barry Goldwater (1964)-his reckless and reactionary comments made him sound like a war-monger against a man who only a year later would escalate the Vietnam War. He was an opponent of civil rights at a time when the movement was gaining mainstream support, and an advocate of states rights at a time when it was a code-word for continued institutionalized racism. None of these four could appeal to anyone beyond their party's base. None of whom even came close to winning. If you wanted to make this list more fun, we could talk about people who ran but didn't even get nominated.

The prayer scene from "Talledega Nights" was the funniest thing I've seen in a movie all year.

Ouch.

Yeah, because this movie sounds JUST LIKE the other movies he's done lately. + Ah, shit...and me without my trusted "Smilies-to-English" dictionary.

Princess Leena Total Cumulative Posts: 6605 ( 18.1 posts per day / 0.29% of total forum posts )

Yeah, because this movie sounds JUST LIKE the other movies he's done lately.

Bryan Singer made the movie he wanted to see instead of the movie the fans wanted to see. Superman Returns was flawed, but was still a good film. Singer's a talented director, and it sounds like he learned from his mistake and wants to try again.

Probably because of every poll where people say they're tired of politiicans bashing each other instead of talking about issues. Of course, those polls are full of shit.

If Dick Grayson had been killed during Infinite Crisis, DC would already have elaborate scheme to resurrect him in place.

Seeing as Fox as admitted to under or over medicating himself in the past in order to make a point, I really don't see how it was foolish of anyone to assume that he might have done it again for these ads. If he didn't do it on purpose, fine. But no one should act as if, oh, my, what an OUTRAGEOUS accusation to make against Michael J. Fox! Because he has done it before. Which is his right, and more power to him, because I think we should be doing this research. But I don't feel questioning his participation in these ads was really out of line. Rush was accusing Fox of pretending to shake, calling it an "act". That's different than going off medication to show how bad the disease could affect you.

To bad DC didn't pick the right person to be the writer of "All New Atom".

Yes, the sequel will have to be action driven, rather than character driven, because Singer completely wrote himself into a corner with Lois Lane that he can't ever get out of!!! There's no question who the villian should be.

I feel cheated. The worst we've got where I live are candidates who want senior citizens to get raped in crooked nursing homes. Hey, you know what this election was missing? http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/30/bus...g.ap/index.html

Sounds like I missed a helluva good show.

Did you even watch the show? First of all, the first year of West Wing was more about all the mistakes the characters made than highlighting one ideology over another. The whole MS storyline from years 2-4 ended with President Bartlet admitting he was wrong to cover-up his illness. Once they'd established that the show was about Democrats, they pretty much had to keep it that way because everyone was under contract. The original plan was to have Alan Alda (Vinnick) take over as a moderate Republican president, but those plans were scrapped because the show was cancelled. Because John Spencer died, they decided to let Jimmy Smits (Santos) win the election. Second, the focus shifted away from Lowe's character (Sam) because Martin Sheen joined the cast, and test audiences for the pilot said he was the character they were most interested in. Bradley Whitford's character (Josh), remained the secondary focus of the show because people responded to the romantic tension with his female assistant (Donna). Third, very few of the shows Republican characters were portrayed as villians (the exceptions being James Brolin's Gov. Ritchie and Speaker Haffley). John Goodman's character was a straightforward conservative, and the tension in the episodes he played in came from the Democrats paranoia about what he might do, rather than what he would do. Matthew Perry, Christian Slater, Mark Feuerstein (Calley), William Fichtner and Emily Procter (Ainsley Hayes) among others were all sympathetic conservatives or Republicans that were recurring characters.

I have no problem with a Republican that runs on a platform of keeping taxes low, the military strong, balancing the budget, and not over-regulating the economy. These are not things which the Democrats have handled well. But that's not the same thing as the current Republican platform of cutting taxes for the top, throwing money at weapons systems that don't work, supporting a failed foriegn policy, going additonal trillions into debt to privatize Social Security, ignore pollution laws and passing tax-dollar giveaways for corporations. The Republicans need to get back to their core principals, and away from one-stop shopping for their favorite special interest groups.