Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/3/2004 4:52:48 AM EST
Do you think that the democrats could have won if they could have come up with a decent candidate? Initially every democrat was saying “Anyone but Bush” but then Kerry came along and all that stopped. Even dims hate Kerry (they just wont admit it), so do you think they could have taken it if they had put up “Anyone but Kerry”?

i fear the land of hillary
Link Posted: 11/3/2004 4:54:21 AM EST
They did run a real jackass, but other then Hillary, do the Dems have anyone strong to run?
Link Posted: 11/3/2004 4:58:31 AM EST
the democrats will always be know as weak, Americans dont want to be weak especially when people are trying to kill you.
Link Posted: 11/3/2004 5:00:20 AM EST
I wrote this to a liberal friend of mine about their candidates:

Mistake One – Candidates
Do you think the country would have really chosen President Gigolo and Vice President Slip-n-fall? Let’s take a look at them for a minute:

The Gigolo
Did anyone look at this man’s record before the nomination? We are at war and you select the absolute worst candidate you can in relation to National Security! Polls consistently throughout this campaign indicated that the war was the most important issue for voters yet you pick someone because he served a whopping 4 months in Vietnam…did you forget you hated that war and it’s soldiers? Yes, John Kerry said, “Take me” but that was after he said “Please don’t take me. I want to go to school in Europe.” Funny how you always left that part out.

It was not difficult for Americans to realize what National Security would be like today had John Kerry’s views become a reality in the last 19 years. We would still be duking it out with the Soviet Union and Communism because of his opposition to President Reagan. Despite his “global test” requirements, he opposed the world’s coming together to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991. If America had gone along with him, Hussein would be in Kuwait and more than likely Saudi Arabia by now. Tell me what America has to do to pass this “global test?”

John Kerry said this is a battle that should be fought with law enforcement and intelligence. How were we to fight the terrorists with intelligence when Kerry tried to slash $6 billion from the Intelligence budget only ONE YEAR after the first WTC bombing? Even Teddy Kennedy (he must have been sober at the time) said he was nuts! I would also love for one of you to explain how law enforcement will prevent another attack. Sure, you may catch the guy who does it, but it won’t prevent the next one. The one time that Slick Willy actually did something about a terrorist attack taught us that one. Sure, he got the guy responsible, but the towers may still be standing had he prosecuted a war instead of prosecuting a trial.

I could talk about actually fielding a candidate who says they are going to raise taxes (that tactic proved so successful in the past). Or about how his faith guides him in his environment and poverty policies but he doesn’t mind the brutal killings of partially born children. Or maybe his parading around the woods killing ducks claiming he is a champion of the 2nd Amendment…as if ducks had anything to do with our constitutional right to bear arms.

But let’s move on to Vice President Slip-and Fall…

Have you people not heard all the lawyer jokes? Do you know why there are so many? BECAUSE PEOPLE HATE LAWYERS. And John Edwards is one of the reasons why. He made millions driving doctors out of their practices convincing juries of a junk science that to this day has never been proven. You want to talk about health care costs? Perhaps you should be talking to your VP nominee. Nothing like choosing a running mate who will mobilize the entire medical profession and every business that has suffered from a frivolous lawsuit against you.

And why the hell would a candidate pick a running mate who couldn’t even deliver his home state? Even the real JFK knew LBJ could deliver TX.



Link Posted: 11/3/2004 5:01:39 AM EST
I think they would have probably won if they had run Lieberman. He would have pulled in a lot of the centrist vote (hell, I like him as a person, even though I would have still voted for Bush). But he got kicked to the curb by the radical-left extremists of the party. They ran a hard-lefter, and they are reaping what they sowed.
Link Posted: 11/3/2004 5:02:02 AM EST
Hell Yes they could have won. Vet an adequate close to moderate candidate and not have a massive Republican get out the vote drive. What would Gephardt done if he had made it further into the primaries??

As it was Kerry an ultra-lib was able to mobilize the anybody but Bush crowd and with the inability of the news media to present an unbiased presentation they came close. If the Repubs had turned out like they did last time they would have had their clocks cleaned.

The Gay marriage propositions dragged a lot of people out, that may have been the clincher in several states.
Link Posted: 11/3/2004 5:06:03 AM EST
From a candidate perspective, Kerry was an extreme loser with a 20-year voting record that couldn't help but sink him and they still almost managed to eek out a victory against an incumbent wartime President with economic figures rivalling Clinton.

I really think that a Gephardt, Edwards or even Dean might have been able to win where Kerry lost. Luckily for us, we will never know because Dem primary voters bought into the incredibly asinine premise that Kerry represented the "most electable" candidate.

I guess when some of your other choices are "Strangelove" Clark, Kucinich, and Sharpton he was pretty electable in retrospect; but electing a Teddy protege?
Link Posted: 11/3/2004 5:16:49 AM EST
Top Top