snuffbox 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2006 Yeah, Feingold's just trying to be a rebel...he doesnt actually mean anything he says... How do your posts manage to just get worse with each passing day, y2jerk? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2006 Weren't you advocating disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing with your previous comment? Or did I completely misunderstand you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2006 I like Invader3k's post. The problem is that there are different threads of thought in terms of what makes America great. I'm in the "we're great because we're based upon fair law and reason and peace" group, but there are a lot who may think America's a great place because we kick towelhead ass and won't let fags get married, all while they can arm themselves to the teeth. This isn't BAD or anything, just different ideas of what makes us good. A nice synergy would be "we're great because we always use our hope and can-do attitude to make fair laws and reason work, but don't disrupt the peace or fuck with us because we'll kick your ass." That seems to have worked for the last 200 years, but for whatever reason no one can enunciate it properly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2006 EVAN BAYH IS GONNA TAKE BACK OUR WHITE HOUSE I feel that Bayh does have the best chance of winning. That's not the same as me saying I think he'd make the best president. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2006 Weren't you advocating disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing with your previous comment? Or did I completely misunderstand you? Or, maybe he's disagreeing because he doesnt think the Iraq war and the Patriot Act were the right things to do in the war on terror...or maybe hes secretly rooting for the terrorists to win! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 27, 2006 Weren't you advocating disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing with your previous comment? Or did I completely misunderstand you? Or, maybe he's disagreeing because he doesnt think the Iraq war and the Patriot Act were the right things to do in the war on terror...or maybe hes secretly rooting for the terrorists to win! I'm not talking about just the war. I'm talking about how some people feel like the Democrats should take contrary positions just to make themselves look different than the Republicans (in response to your "Yeah, hed be alot better off if he agreed with all this administrations's policies..." comment). I don't know if that assessment applies to Feingold himself, but I do beleive it applies to some of his supporters. The question for the year 2008 is will the anti-withdrawal or pro-withdrawal factions organize around specific candidates, and which will end up controlling the nomination process? Or will party unity and Bush-fatigue unify everyone into supporting whoever ends up with the nomination, regardless of what the state of Iraq is. This could easily turn into 1968 all over again if they're not careful. The mindset I already described, if prevalent, does little to help party unity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2006 This could easily turn into 1968 all over again if they're not careful. Care to elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you're talking about because that was a period with a lot of political transitions, not all of them good for the Democrats but good for war-fatigued folks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2006 John Kerry tried the whole "disagree with whatever Bush says" thing in 2004, and it backfired when he couldn't back up his counter-arguments at all. Like when President Bush said they were going to scale back military bases in Germany, and Kerry said it was a bad idea but couldn't give any solid reasoning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted June 28, 2006 EVAN BAYH IS GONNA TAKE BACK OUR WHITE HOUSE I feel that Bayh does have the best chance of winning. Why, though? Because he's a vanilla centrist? I don't suppose I've heard anything terrible about him, but I haven't heard anything dazzling about him either. Much like Indiana, he's just kind of there. Is that why? DO they reckon he ain't no high-falutin' blue-state snob? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2006 I'm starting to think Obama's gonna run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2006 EVAN BAYH IS GONNA TAKE BACK OUR WHITE HOUSE I feel that Bayh does have the best chance of winning. Why, though? Because he's a vanilla centrist? I don't suppose I've heard anything terrible about him, but I haven't heard anything dazzling about him either. Much like Indiana, he's just kind of there. Is that why? DO they reckon he ain't no high-falutin' blue-state snob? I'm basing this purely on his impressive resume and track record of appealing to people from both parties. On paper, the guy's an incredible candidate, and this early on, that's really all I have to go by. Of course, so was Thomas Dewey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted June 28, 2006 You also think John Kerry was a good candidate... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 This could easily turn into 1968 all over again if they're not careful. Care to elaborate on that? I'm not sure what you're talking about because that was a period with a lot of political transitions, not all of them good for the Democrats but good for war-fatigued folks. The war dereailed LBJ's reelection bid, and Humphrey's candidacy never got out from under the shadow of the war. He was a pro-war candidate in an anti-war party. His public support for Vietnam waivered towards the end of his campaign, but no one ever seriously thought he'd do anything in Vietnam that Johnson wasn't already doing. The analogy isn't exact, of course, because the incumbent president that started the war isn't of the same party as the people who are split over it. The war's unpopularity will probably hurt the Republican candidate more than it hurts the Democratic candidate, but support for it could hurt the Democrat just enough to cost him enough support on the left to cost him the election. In order to win, the Democrat must find a way to placate the people who want to immediately withdraw without actually promising to do that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 You also think John Kerry was a good candidate... He was better than most (i.e. anyone who ever got less than 48% of the vote in a 2-man race). We were all pissed that Kerry didn't respond sooner the the Swift-Boat crap, but I doubt any of the people who bought into that garbage were ever actually going to vote for him in the first place. The way Bush was milking 9/11 for his own personal popularity pretty much assured he'd be reelected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 Better than William Jennings Bryan...really? Since you apparently base the qualities of a candidate solely on their polling numbers...George W. Bush must be the greatest Presidential candidate ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 Better than William Jennings Bryan...really? Despite his famous fiery rhetoric, he lost 3 times. Being a great American and being a good candidate aren't the same thing. If anything, they're opposites. Richard Nixon comes to mind. Since you apparently base the qualities of a candidate solely on their polling numbers... That's not entirely what I'm doing. All I said was that he was better than most candidates because he came within 3 points of winning. Most presidential candidates don't even get nominated by a major party, let alone come within 3 points of winning the popular vote. This "Kerry was a horrible candidate" crap is a bunch of nonsense. Obviously he wasn't a great candidate, because he lost, but he did far better than people who I'd consider to be one of the worst candidates...or even the worst nominees for that matter. Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis were all worse nominees than Kerry, and those are just guys who've in our lifetime! George W. Bush must be the greatest Presidential candidate ever. Huh? Bush got 51% of the vote. That puts him pretty far down on the list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted June 29, 2006 To me, the thing with Bayh and any other vanilla centrists "appealing to the right," though, is that the Republicans are likely going to counter with more flavorful centrists, mavericks, and other assorted not-Texan-neocons-nor-batshit-Brownback-type guys, so there's going to be a change either way, so why not just go with a more proven commodity like a Giuliani or a McCain rather than some governor of Iowa/Virginia/former gov. of IN who I'm sure means well and hasn't really pissed anybody off really but is not a big name? Of course, it's so early in the game that all of this means nothing. There's plenty of time for a Washington Outsider© or two to ride in on a white horse and save us from these tired old retreads, loonies, and mannequins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 Consensus of opinion seems to be its too early to say anything for certain, but the thread keeps on chugging along anyways. To my knowledge, Biden's the only guy actually running, so I guess he'd technically be considered in the lead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 Yes, its a couple of years away, so we shouldnt soil the majestic importance of an internet messageboard by chatting about potential presidential aspirants... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 I was just noting the irony, friend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted June 29, 2006 Yeah, Joe Biden. Who the fuck wants THAT blowhard anywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dobbs 3K 0 Report post Posted June 29, 2006 Kerry was a good candidate, but like I said earlier, he ran a terrible campaign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted July 1, 2006 Yeah, Joe Biden. Who the fuck wants THAT blowhard anywhere. I beleive you missed my point. Biden is the only announced candidate, and therefore would be considered the frontrunner if we were limiting ourselves to talking about what we actually know to be true about this campaign (which I'm not actually advocating). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted July 1, 2006 I like Joe Biden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zaius 0 Report post Posted July 1, 2006 So do I. A Biden/Warner ticket would probably get my vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted July 1, 2006 I like Joe Budden. Pump, Pump PUMP IT UP! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted July 2, 2006 I agree with The Czech Republic on the Joe Biden issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted July 2, 2006 The guy, like Teddy, is the quintessential Senate lifer: too flawed for any legitimate chance at the White House (manslaughter: Ted :: PLAGIARISM! : Biden), but does enough good for his state that he'll always be elected. Also, never ever shuts the fuck up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted July 2, 2006 Joe Biden : Presidential Politics :: The Beatles : Presidential Politics Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Felonies! Report post Posted July 2, 2006 I didn't think of it that way. Explain? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
