The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 I'll be damned but the liberal media is doing a fine job of making me feel sorta bad for the old chap. Now that the campaign is over, they're portraying John as a warm intellectual guy who loves hockey and his family, has a healthy masculine relationship with his stepson, a man who was born and bred to rule and lead. He's not afraid to think before he speaks, and really cared about the country he defended. He seems like you'd want to be at home with him in his den, each in big fuzzy sweaters on an overstuffed couch, watching the Bruins game and discussing European history during the intermissions. And you get the feeling that he'd bring that sort of Kennedy charm to the White House, but he failed, and probably wept for hours afterwards. SO WHY WAS HE PORTRAYED AS SUCH A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG WHEN IT ACTUALLY MATTERED?!?!?! AHHHHH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Ask Bob Dole about that problem. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Because the republicans made him look that way? This isn't hard people... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Because the republicans made him look that way? This isn't hard people... The GOP didn't make him look like a humorless corpse. That was his own doing. -=Mike ...Hint: Obsessing over your war record never looks good... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Yeah I didn't deny that. Hey, has anyone missed the joke, "Hey Kerry, why the long face?" ho ho ho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 I think he'll be fine. What with still having his senate seat and all. I'm not sure what Edwards was thinking giving his up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Yeah, I'd say Edwards in boned. He didn't really add much to the Kerry ticket and, in my opinion, got his ass handed to him by Cheney in the veep debate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 How many years was Edwards in the Senate again? EDIT: Technically that is. If you add it up it was probably just a month Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 One term of six years... Of which, he was running for other offices at least 1/3 of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 I think he'll be fine. I'm sure he'll get buy what with the Heinz fortune and all. He could buy his own country and rule that, at least when Teresa is on vacation anyway. Ask Bob Dole about that problem. He brought many problems on himself, too. Someone who spends a lifetime in the Senate compromising and shit probably will feel like a fish out of water at campaign stops and such... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Ask Bob Dole about that problem. -=Mike Damn...that guy acted like a dottering old plastic dinosaur throughout the '96 campaign... Then after losing he makes hilarious visits to Letterman, SNL, etc... I think that showed a lot of polititians how important it could be to somewhat embrace the pop culture side of America during campaigns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CBright7831 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Don't forget Dole's hilarious credit card commercial. "I just can't win." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 It was amazing how much I liked Bob Dole after he lost the election. Bob is actually hilarious and....human. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 7, 2004 I think he'll be fine. What with still having his senate seat and all. I'm not sure what Edwards was thinking giving his up. This makes me insane. If you're going to run for President you SHOULD give up your seat in Congress. It's a diservice to the people who elected you if you decide to just do something else for 2 years. Even worse was Lieberman as a VP candidate and still running for re-election in Congress. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted November 7, 2004 Very rarely in (presidential) elections do you dislike one of the candidates as a person. I had no doubts that John Kerry was more or less a good guy, but I thought he was a miserable candidate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 He came off as an annoying elitist who tried to do "cool" sports, and for all his vaunted debate skills, really wasn't much better than Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted November 7, 2004 He came off as an annoying elitist who tried to do "cool" sports, and for all his vaunted debate skills, really wasn't much better than Bush. I think (aside from Bush in the first one) they both showed themselves to be very good debaters. Bill Clinton may have been the only better debater on a presidential level than either of these two in recent memory, imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DerangedHermit 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 He came off as an annoying elitist who tried to do "cool" sports, and for all his vaunted debate skills, really wasn't much better than Bush. I think (aside from Bush in the first one) they both showed themselves to be very good debaters. Bill Clinton may have been the only better debater on a presidential level than either of these two in recent memory, imo. I agree with that Clinton is one of the best in recent memory... but both Kerry and Bush were abysmal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 It was amazing how much I liked Bob Dole after he lost the election. Bob is actually hilarious and....human. Those boner pills--stiffen one part of your body, loosen up the rest? I recommend picking up his "Great Political Wit" book. Excellent read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 I agree with that Clinton is one of the best in recent memory... but both Kerry and Bush were abysmal. I couldnt disagree with you more about Bush/Kerry...their third debate may have been the best Ive seen(and that includes nearly every presidential debate since 1960, CSPAN is awesome for old political reruns). But, out of curiosity, why do you find Bush and Kerry to be poor debaters? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 8, 2004 I agree with that Clinton is one of the best in recent memory... but both Kerry and Bush were abysmal. I couldnt disagree with you more about Bush/Kerry...their third debate may have been the best Ive seen(and that includes nearly every presidential debate since 1960, CSPAN is awesome for old political reruns). But, out of curiosity, why do you find Bush and Kerry to be poor debaters? I'll give my opinion. (Especially in the first debate) Bush takes way too long to start delivering his response, giving him a "Deer in the headlights" look. Kerry refuses to get into specifics --- and the phrase "Go to my website" is the kiss of death as NOBODY will actually do it. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DerangedHermit 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 I agree with that Clinton is one of the best in recent memory... but both Kerry and Bush were abysmal. I couldnt disagree with you more about Bush/Kerry...their third debate may have been the best Ive seen(and that includes nearly every presidential debate since 1960, CSPAN is awesome for old political reruns). But, out of curiosity, why do you find Bush and Kerry to be poor debaters? I'll give my opinion. (Especially in the first debate) Bush takes way too long to start delivering his response, giving him a "Deer in the headlights" look. Kerry refuses to get into specifics --- and the phrase "Go to my website" is the kiss of death as NOBODY will actually do it. -=Mike Took the words out of my mouth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted November 8, 2004 It sure makes him look hip to that internets crowd, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 He came off as an annoying elitist who tried to do "cool" sports, and for all his vaunted debate skills, really wasn't much better than Bush. I think (aside from Bush in the first one) they both showed themselves to be very good debaters. Bill Clinton may have been the only better debater on a presidential level than either of these two in recent memory, imo. I wasn't impressed by either. Bush took forever to respond and seemed to stammer a lot, and looked like a deer caught in headlights for the first few seconds. Kerry was particularly annoying because people were like "WHOA-HO-HO! Watch out for John Kerry at the debates! He founded a debate society! He's GOOD!" And then we get a lot of "I'd like to go back to the last question," and "Well let me tell you what the President is doing." Aside from that gaping flaw he also had a monotone and wasn't concise. I appreciate elevated vocabulary and eloquent speech in the right time and place, but this came off as just inability to answer the question. Sometimes it just pays to be terse and concise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted November 8, 2004 Kerry refuses to get into specifics For the longest time, I was afraid I was the only one in the country who had no clue what Kerry's specific plans were. I knew he had a plan, but I had no clue what it was And then slowly, through conversation, I realized that the majority of the people I knew were confused as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted November 8, 2004 I already stated this in the Thank God the Election is over thread, but Kerry had a plan with everything except for what was to be done exactly with the war in Iraq. The war on terrorism, on his part, was to be done with the help of our allies and the United Nations, unlike what Bush has done. His plan with healthcare was to nationalize it and make it accessible to many more people, but the drawback (according to Bush) was that there was no way to fund this kind of national healthcare like in Canada. Whether you agree with them or not, the "plan" was there. Just a point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 You can't nationalize American health care. End of discussion. Our allies aren't the allies we thought they were, as we learned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted November 8, 2004 You can't nationalize American health care. End of discussion. No, I'd like to know why. Explain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2004 It doesn't even work in Canada. Waiting lists and rationing is everywhere. Hillary lobbied for it back in '93 and was laughed out of the chamber. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 8, 2004 I already stated this in the Thank God the Election is over thread, but Kerry had a plan with everything except for what was to be done exactly with the war in Iraq. The war on terrorism, on his part, was to be done with the help of our allies and the United Nations, unlike what Bush has done. Which makes one ignore that Bush TRIED to get them involved, but due to some nice bribery on the part of Saddam, they refused. Saying "I'll get them involved" without explaining HOW is not a plan. His plan with healthcare was to nationalize it and make it accessible to many more people, but the drawback (according to Bush) was that there was no way to fund this kind of national healthcare like in Canada. Whether you agree with them or not, the "plan" was there. Just a point. I enjoy having the best health care on the planet. I don't want the gov't involved, as they fuck up everything. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
