Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 SHUT UP CHRIS MATTHEWS IM GONNA DUEL WITH YOU Somehow i see Mathews excepting a duel challenge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 I hope it'll be like SaturdayAM monster dueling shows. "And Miller's two-headed dragon easily defeats Chris Matthews' Pikachu! Uh-oh! Chris has summoned Blastoise!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 You know that somewhere, in another plane of existance, modern America's favorite Republican watched the aftermath of tonight's event and is doing this: You sure he's not doing that after reading this thread? No. But I am. And if you people think this Convention is mean-spirited, thank God you weren't around back when political conventions actually meant something... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Point is that people are tired of negative politics. Last night they got it in spades. We'll see how it pays off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Well I've been hearing negative politics via TV commercials by groups like the Media Fund for the last year or so, and somehow, someway, my life has managed to go on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 (edited) Every election people say "no negative politics" Every election the negatives keep coming...while people may say they don't like em, they're effective. EDIT: BTW, one reason Zell said all that is because after this term he's done in the Senate. His wife wants him home. Edited September 2, 2004 by Stephen Joseph Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Cheney's attack on Kerry was pretty effective...it was a good speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Point is that people are tired of negative politics. Last night they got it in spades. We'll see how it pays off. Jobber, seeing how the ENTIRE Democratic formula is nothing but negative campaigning (God knows Kerry's plans aren't getting mentioned) --- you'd better hope you're wrong. -=Mike ...Campaign officials aren't stupid. They know what works... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Blitzer & co. dismember Miller's speech (my comments in italics) WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Judy, speaking of Zell Miller, he is here with us. Zell Miller, who delivered the keynote speech. We want to talk to you later. We'll be speaking with Tad Divine, a senior Democratic strategist for the Democratic political ticket. But Senator Miller, you have accused the Democratic presidential nominee of being a flip-flopper, but remember, as you pointed out yourself, 12-years-ago you were here endorsing Bill Clinton and going after the first President Bush. The Democrats are saying, you've become a flip-flopper. SEN. ZELL MILLER (D), GEORGIA: They've said a lot of things worse than that. I don't think I've ever used the term flip-flopper of John Kerry. I've talked about this atrocious record that he's had for 20 years in the United States Senate. What a weak record it is on national defense and what a terrible record it is on raising taxes. BLITZER: But as you well know, they're been many times over the years, you've worked very closely with him and praised him. The Democrats are circulating information that as recently as three years ago, you were praising him. SEN. ZELL MILLER (D), GEORGIA: That was before 9/11. That was along about maybe 2001, and I'd come to the Senate, been there for about five or six months. This man was a war hero, and I honor war heroes, and I honor John Kerry's service. JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Miller, the Democrats are pointing out that John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came through Congress while he was in the Senate, and many of these votes that you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against, that they were specific weapons systems. MILLER: What I was talking about was a period of 19 years in the Senate. I've been in the Senate for four years. There's quite a few years' difference there. I have gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about here today. I've got more documentation here than the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library put together on that. Avoid the question some more, you wack-job JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: You also were, I would say, almost indignant that anyone would possibly call America military occupiers, not liberators, on at least four occasions. President Bush has referred to the presence of American forces in Iraq as an occupation, and the question is: Are you not selectively choosing words to describe the same situation the president of the United States is describing? MILLER: I don't know if the president of the United States uses those words, but I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry have used them on several occasions. GREENFIELD: Yes. So has President Bush. MILLER: Well, I don't know about that. But the Liberal Duo did, and it's worth condemnation by God! AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE, ZELL WILL DUEL YOU! GREENFIELD: Well, we'll... BLITZER: You know that when the secretary -- when the vice president was the secretary of defense he proposed cutting back on the B-2 Bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons systems. MILLER: Look, the record is, as I stated, he voted against, he opposed all of those weapons systems. That, to me, I think shows the kind of priority he has as far as national defense. Who? Kerry or Cheney? Does he think Cheney is weak on Nat'l Defense, too? Look, John Kerry came back from Vietnam as a young man unsure of whether America was a force for good or evil in the world. He still has that uncertainty about him. WOODRUFF: You praised him... GREENFIELD: Then why did you say in 2001 that he strengthened the military? You said that three years ago. MILLER: Because that was the biographical sketch that they gave me. LOL This young senator -- not young senator, but new senator had come up there, and all I knew was that this man had won the Purple Heart three times and won the Silver Star and... Look, I went back and researched the records, and I looked at these, and I -- when I was putting that speech together, I wanted to make sure, whenever I sat down with people like you who would take these talking points from the Democrats and who also have covered politics for years, that I would know exactly what I was talking about, and we don't have time to go through it on the air, but I can go through every one of those things that were mentioned about where he voted. Sure doesn't look like it. He voted against the B-1 Bomber... BLITZER: A lot of... MILLER: ... on October the 15th, '90, and on and on. WOODRUFF: But do you simply reject the idea that Vice President Cheney, as Wolf said and as we know from the record, also voted against some of these systems? MILLER: I don't think Cheney voted against these. BLITZER: No, but he opposed some of them when he was the defense secretary, and sometimes he was overruled by the Congress because he was concerned, he was worried that the defense of the United States could be better served by some other weapons systems, not specifically those. I'm specifically referring to the B-2 and the F-14 Tomcat. MILLER: I'm talking about John Kerry's record. I'll let Dick Cheney, the vice president, answer those charges. He knows what happened in the Department of Defense years ago. I don't know that. But I do know, because I've looked it up and it's there for everyone to see, that he voted against those positions as far as those weapons were concerned. He voted against all the weapons that really won the war against Communism, the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror. LOL. BLITZER: I know you have to move on because you have other things to do, but when you were speaking tonight -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you seemed very angry. MILLER: Me angry? BLITZER: Yes, sir. MILLER: No, no. I'm sorry if I gave that appearance. I was very... BLITZER: But you -- you seemed so angry that there are already some suggesting that the appearance could actually backfire from the cause that you're promoting tonight... MILLER: I'm sure probably some anchors are saying that. BLITZER: ... and the bottom line... (LAUGHTER) MILLER: That's what anchors do. BLITZER: The bottom line question is: Why are you still a Democrat? MILLER: Because I was born a Democrat and because I was... WOODRUFF: But other people change parties. MILLER: Well, other people are not Zell Miller. I don't change parties. I'm going to die a Democrat. I'm going up to the pearly gates, and I'm going to see my maker, and I'm going to see my mama and daddy, and I'm going to say I remained a Democrat, a conservative Democrat. See, you talk about your voting for all these Republican things. I voted for the conservative proposals. If the Democrats had put any conservative proposals up there, I would have voted with them. There's nobody that welcomes a conservative Democrat in the party anymore. There's no room for us. BLITZER: Senator Zell Miller, thanks for spending a few moments with us. MILLER: I know somebody that wrote a book about that. BLITZER: All right. WOODRUFF: We appreciate it. BLITZER: We're going to move on now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Isn't it a FACT that Cheney voted the same way Kerry did on defense and miliatry budgeting every single time in the past 20 years with the exception of 3 instances? Also, I am sorry, but Zell Miller came off as a blithering fool. I know technically he has a (D) next to his name but I am thinking it stands for Dixiecrat. I don't care what political party he associates himself with, last night he came off APPEARING LIKE the stereotypical, old, angry, bitter blue-hair republican. Not to metion the fact that the transcript from a speech he gave a couple of years ago CONTRADICTS just about EVERY SINGLE, talking point he gave at the convention. Those big blown up pics in some people's sigs in this thread remind me of CAIN from the Poltergeist movies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Isn't it a FACT that Cheney voted the same way Kerry did on defense and miliatry budgeting every single time in the past 20 years with the exception of 3 instances? Since Cheney isn't running for President, what he did is more than a little immaterial. Also, I am sorry, but Zell Miller came off as a blithering fool. As if you'd have said otherwise regardless. I know technically he has a (D) next to his name but I am thinking it stands for Dixiecrat. Wow, really reading the liberal talking points, eh? Hint: Dixiecrats died in 1948.' And if ANYBODY wants to mention Lester Maddox --- remember, Jimmy Carter had no problem blowing the guy in his pursuit of the governorship of Georgia. I don't care what political party he associates himself with, last night he came off APPEARING LIKE the stereotypical, old, angry, bitter blue-hair republican. Not according to focus groups. Not to metion the fact that the transcript from a speech he gave a couple of years ago CONTRADICTS just about EVERY SINGLE, talking point he gave at the convention. Times change. Kerry has changed. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Since Cheney isn't running for President, what he did is more than a little immaterial. No it's not -- considering he's a VP. Didn't know that little nugget of info NoCal, if it's true... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Since Cheney isn't running for President, what he did is more than a little immaterial. Since Zell is supporting Bush-Cheney '04, it's more than material. It's hypocritical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesse_ewiak 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Well, you know both Dick and Edwards had similar speeches, they both mentioned Kerry more than Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Yeah, that scared me too, KKK... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Since Cheney isn't running for President, what he did is more than a little immaterial. No it's not -- considering he's a VP. Didn't know that little nugget of info NoCal, if it's true... Who votes on the V.P? The VP can't do anything. Heck, Bush Sr. didn't support Reagan's tax cuts. They still passed regardless. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Times change. Kerry has changed. -=Mike Oh ok, so it is ok for Bush/Cheney/Zell to change.....but for Kerry, "times changing" = !~LOLFLIPFLOP2004~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Times change. Kerry has changed. -=Mike Oh ok, so it is ok for Bush/Cheney/Zell to change.....but for Kerry, "times chaning" = !~LOLFLIPFLOP2004~! 9/11 changed a lot of things. But, hey, nice to see you admit that Kerry can't make a stand. It's even funnier because his base is so divided that he CAN'T even try to do so. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Who votes on the V.P? The VP can't do anything. Heck, Bush Sr. didn't support Reagan's tax cuts. They still passed regardless. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Times change. Kerry has changed. -=Mike Oh ok, so it is ok for Bush/Cheney/Zell to change.....but for Kerry, "times chaning" = !~LOLFLIPFLOP2004~! 9/11 changed a lot of things. But, hey, nice to see you admit that Kerry can't make a stand. It's even funnier because his base is so divided that he CAN'T even try to do so. -=Mike Well I'm not voting for Kerry, remember? I am not trying to argue that he is a strong candidate or anything, I am just pointing out the double standard. As far as 9/11 changing things.....yeah it's called the Patriot Act. Other then that, I am not sure exactly what it changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesse_ewiak 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 This is great...Zell's speech, based on an e-mail hoax? Someone ought to tell Zell that not everything he receives in his inbox is the gospel truth. Jesse at pandagon revealed a portion of Miller's insane diatribe was lifted from a chain email as we noted yesterday, and it looks like the core of his attack on Kerry is similarly founded entirely on GOP email agitprop. Last night, a raving Zell-lot said: Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts. The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom. The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq. The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora. The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11. I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against. Which all sounds very damning if true, which it isn't. Of course it also sounds like yet another chain email which is the basis for an Urban Myth, one which has been thoroughly discredited. From Snopes: Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988." Status: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Sen. John Kerry Democrat from Massachusetts HE says he is strongest Presidential Candidate on National Defense! He said Check the Record.. We Did ! Here is what we learned. He voted to kill the B-1 Bomber He voted to kill the B-2 Stealth Bomber He voted to kill the F-14 He voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle He voted to kill the F-16 He voted to kill the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter He voted to kill the AH-64 Apache Helicopter He voted to kill the Patriot Anti-Missile System He voted to kill the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System He voted to kill the Trident Missile System He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle He voted to kill the Tomahawk Cruise Missile In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. Substitute clubs for spitballs, and Zell was repeating an email hoax, almost word for word. As Snopes goes on to explain, "all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems." All three votes were appropriations bills, voted as a package, and Congressmen vote yes or no on, and in many instances support alternatvie appropriations packages which contain the same or even more weapons systems -- or even because they think the bills should allocate more dollars for defense. As Snopes explains: Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons — because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military. In other words, Zell's accusations are a complete and total lie, and either he is too dishonest to admit it, or too big a rube to see it. Making Zell's attack even more insane is the fact that both Dick Cheney and President Bush I actually spoke specifically in favor of spiking some of the very same weapons systems Miller falsely claims Kerry tried to kill. Cheney, for example, complained about Congress "forcing" him to buy more F-14s and F-15s, two systems Zell accuses Kerry of opposing. As Snopes points out, Secretary of Defense Cheney himself testified before Congress that he favored cutting the Apache Helicopter program: So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years. If you have Zell's email address, please acquaint him with Snopes, and also with Google. And urge him to see a doctor. Some Aricept might be in order. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Yeah, that scared me too, KKK... I wasn't scared -- I was confused. Nevermind, I'm a lost cause. (The softball is lobbed, now who will take a swing?...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Yeah, that scared me too, KKK... I wasn't scared -- I was confused. Nevermind, I'm a lost cause. (The softball is lobbed, now who will take a swing?...) I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY OF THAT PANSY-ASS CRAP FROM YOU, KKK! THIS IS THE KKKONSERVATIVE BRIGADE, DAMN IT, NOT YOUR LITTLE SISTER'S TEA PARTY CLUB!!! NOW DROP THE FUCK DOWN AND GIVE ME FIFTY WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT KERRY VOTED AGAINST!!! DO IT!!!! I'm sorry, this Zell shit is way too funny to give up. I need to find a Howard Dean pic like this one, too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 HOWS THIS LOOK YOU WAR MONGERING RACIST!?!?\ Are you insiunating, that I'm not quite stable? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING!!!!!! YEARRRRGHHHH!!!! WELL I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL! We could fight in IOWA! IN NEW HAMSHIRE, IN CALIFORNIA, IN NEW YORK.... AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO WASHINGTON DC TO TAKE BACK THE WHITEHOUSE!!!!!!!!! Really not hard to find crazy Howie pics... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 The first one's the only real angry one though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 The first one's the only real angry one though. He looks pretty pissed in all except the last one actually... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Since Cheney isn't running for President, what he did is more than a little immaterial. If the Vice President isn't so important, then why do we even bother to a 'ticket'? Why not appoint the Vice President? Wow, really reading the liberal talking points, eh? Hint: Dixiecrats died in 1948.' The "State's Rights Democrat Party" died in 1948. The book 'The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968' goes over the Thurmond/Wright campaign and some other informative stuff. The party died. The people who could be categorized as that still live on. That would be like saying that Hockey Players died in 2004 if the NHL closed. No. Hockey Players will still be around and so were "Dixiecrats" I don't know if the mainstream of the GOP has much room to talk about Civil Rights in the 1960s. Considering they nominated a man who voted against the Civil Rights Act, they refused to pass a platform plank saluting the Civil Rights Act (at the 64 convention) and they had no real problem with getting the support of Southerners. Some of them being segregationists (some weren't, of course). Everett Dirksen did the right thing, but the rest of his party didn't follow his ideals. And if ANYBODY wants to mention Lester Maddox --- remember, Jimmy Carter had no problem blowing the guy in his pursuit of the governorship of Georgia. I think there's at least 3 groups of Southern politicians (going up until the 1970s) (1) the progressives (who usually didn't get any power due to the race issue. Ellis Arnall) (2) the opportunists (who used the race issue as a way to get elected. Strom Thurmond, Jimmy Carter [the 1970 campaign], George Wallace) (3) the "believers" (who really did believe a lot of the racist crap. Theodore Bilbo, J.B. Stoner) Hollings might be between 2 and 3, I'd have to check some of the stuff with his governorship. The Talmadges of Georgia were close to 3. Granted, they were also dictorial (if you've ever heard of the "Three Governor's Controversy", it's just bizarre) Carter did technically 'flop-flop' and say that 'segregation was over' when elected. Even if his campaign involved praise of George Wallace. I'll use restraint with Miller and the Civil Rights Act. Due to Robert C. Byrd and all. I don't care what political party he associates himself with, last night he came off APPEARING LIKE the stereotypical, old, angry, bitter blue-hair republican. Not according to focus groups. Well, not according to at least one focus group (the Luntz one). It's red meat. Some will like it, some will not. It's the matter of where the "moderates" are. I don't think the Moderates will be coming out for Bush after hearing Zell claim Kerry would "out-source our National Security to Paris" or hearing that Zell knocked on the door of W's soul and got an answer. Not to metion the fact that the transcript from a speech he gave a couple of years ago CONTRADICTS just about EVERY SINGLE, talking point he gave at the convention. Times change. Kerry has changed. Wait.. Zell Miller condemned Kerry for bashing the weapons which won the Gulf War. The Gulf War being in 1991. Kerry also had some other votes against various weapons (which were in general packages, if I recall correctly), this happened in the 1980s. Zell Miller said that John Kerry worked to strengthen our military. Now Zell Miller says that John Kerry voted against the weapons used by our military in conflicts which happened before Zell Miller praised Kerry's record. I'm sure that Zell's paperwork (which is more stuff than the New York Public Library) has all sorts of Kerry evilness which happened after that speech. But, the fact remains that Zell Miller contradicted himself. Who votes on the V.P? The Electoral College does. The VP can't do anything. Except for in the case of a draw, of course. And also they're around just in case. Heck, Bush Sr. didn't support Reagan's tax cuts. They still passed regardless. Bullshit. H.W. Bush denied that he had bashed Reagan's tax cut idea in the primary, and then they showed the "Voodoo Economics" clip. I'm pretty freaking sure that Bush didn't come right out in 1981 and stand against the tax cut. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Slappy's post made me swallow my gum Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 2, 2004 Since Cheney isn't running for President, what he did is more than a little immaterial. If the Vice President isn't so important, then why do we even bother to a 'ticket'? Why not appoint the Vice President? You actually vote for the VP? Sad. If you REALLY want to compare VP's, the Dems are very much on the short end of the stick in that debate. Let's just say Quayle was MUCH better qualified for the slot than Edwards. I don't know if the mainstream of the GOP has much room to talk about Civil Rights in the 1960s. Considering they nominated a man who voted against the Civil Rights Act Who, Goldwater? And if you want a lengthy discourse on the Democratic party's record on race, you might not like the outcome. they refused to pass a platform plank saluting the Civil Rights Act (at the 64 convention) Yet Republicans were the force in the passage of it. Weird, huh? and they had no real problem with getting the support of Southerners. You mean like the Dems, who had no problem siccing dogs on blacks and taking a blind eye to lynchings and the outright annihilation of black communities? Again, the Dems don't have a history to actually stand on. Some of them being segregationists (some weren't, of course). Everett Dirksen did the right thing, but the rest of his party didn't follow his ideals. Who did LBJ look to for passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts? Hint: Not the Democrats. And if ANYBODY wants to mention Lester Maddox --- remember, Jimmy Carter had no problem blowing the guy in his pursuit of the governorship of Georgia. I think there's at least 3 groups of Southern politicians (going up until the 1970s) (1) the progressives (who usually didn't get any power due to the race issue. Ellis Arnall) (2) the opportunists (who used the race issue as a way to get elected. Strom Thurmond, Jimmy Carter [the 1970 campaign], George Wallace) (3) the "believers" (who really did believe a lot of the racist crap. Theodore Bilbo, J.B. Stoner) Hollings might be between 2 and 3, I'd have to check some of the stuff with his governorship. Who put the confederate flag over the SC State House? Why, Fritz did. I don't care what political party he associates himself with, last night he came off APPEARING LIKE the stereotypical, old, angry, bitter blue-hair republican. Not according to focus groups. Well, not according to at least one focus group (the Luntz one). It's red meat. Some will like it, some will not. It's the matter of where the "moderates" are. I don't think the Moderates will be coming out for Bush after hearing Zell claim Kerry would "out-source our National Security to Paris" or hearing that Zell knocked on the door of W's soul and got an answer. They will. In droves. Kerry is aware that things are going VERY badly for him right now. Who votes on the V.P? The Electoral College does. The VP can't do anything. Except for in the case of a draw, of course. And also they're around just in case. Heck, Bush Sr. didn't support Reagan's tax cuts. They still passed regardless. Bullshit. H.W. Bush denied that he had bashed Reagan's tax cut idea in the primary, and then they showed the "Voodoo Economics" clip. I'm pretty freaking sure that Bush didn't come right out in 1981 and stand against the tax cut. Bush did not support them. This is hardly news. -=Mike ...And, again, the VP does not do a damned thing... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
