Skip to comments.FREEPERS!!! Give John Kerry his due credit. Seriously
Posted on 01/27/2006 7:47:05 AM PST by jsk10
An aide to Sen. Cornyn said that John Kerry is like "Christmas every day" for Republicans. Someone here said it was "Christmas in Cambodia" every day for Republicans. God bless 'em both. But what I REALLY want, is John Kerry to be the 2008 nominee for the Dems. Seriously. We couldn't get Dean in '04, but if we can make sure John Kerry gets credit for his political ploy here, maybe it will be the best gift of all.
I actually am serious about this. Those that dissent from my opinion will not be flamed. But who would you rather have carrying the (d) mantle. Sharpton?
"Gather ye 'round, mortal peons, whilst I hurl this sphere of horsehide into yon leather device on the hand of he called 'catcher.' For who among us does not love the ball of base? Did I mention I served in Vietnam?"
"Two southern nitwits with serious mental problems, convinced that each is the Messiah, NEITHER OF WHOM COULD CARRY THEIR HOME STATE, while keeping Gore in his deservedly subordinate role as Presidential Puppy-cleaner-upper."
Sure there may be pockets going more conservative, but overall people are becoming more liberal and "moderation" is becoming what many people want.
Kerry should be exiled to North Vietnam since he loves them so much. What did they do to war time collaborators in WWII?
Kerry's time is way overdue. Maybe he and Kennedy could make a party of it. Crash and burn together!
Sharpton seems to think he's got a shot at the ticket. No joke.
Any one of the "nine dwarves" that ran last time would be fine. Hell, I'll even toss in that Clinton bimbo.
In fact Hillarity and Mostly Braun would be a real good ticket!
Oh come on. You should at least give him credit for being a snappy dresser.
I would rather the Democrats put forth a candidate with integrity, and with the much more "conservative" views the party once held on many issues. It's unlikely to happen in the forseeable future, but I can dream can't I?
I absolutely agree with you to a point. Hubris is dangerous. But that is why it is all the more important to have a WEAK Dem. candidate. Seriously. Give me Kerry/Sharpton/Kucinich on the Dem ticket, and I'll put up any two Repubs with a Falwell, Robertson, and Jenna Bush cabinet. We'd win with 65% of the vote.
Actually, a good number of those Kerry votes were "anyone but Bush votes" without any other outlet. At least in 2000, the tie-died-tree-hugging-latte-swilling-faux-disaffected crowdn had Nader to pull the lever for. Not so lucky this time around. These were simply Howard Dean votes (and Howard Dean money, which is why he's still on the scene. The dems learned they can both keep Dean's money machine and trick his legions into believing they've been heard, by keeping Dean himself far away from the ballot, but giving him a sinecure with prestige).
Interesting thought experiment; suppose Dean managed to survive on some third-party ticket. Now run the numbers in a race of Bush-Kerry-Dean. Does John Kerry still garner 56 million or so votes? Does he still carry any major electoral jackpot other than California? Answer: Hell no. I believe he loses Washington, Oregon and possibly Wisconsin in this scenario.
Don't believe for a second that Kerry was all that popular amongst democrats. The early hype for Dean and the screams for "Hilary NOW!", should have made that apparent. However, he was the candidate the apparatchiks wanted and so democrats did what they were told and voted for him.
Had there been a viable, credible third-party candidate, even serving as a symbolic protest (like Nader in 2000, who cost Gore Florida), Kerry would have lost by a much wider margin.
Kerry or Clintoon, or maybe a Kerry Clintoon ticket! Yeah!
Give me a strong, conservative candidate, and who cares what the Dems do.
Edit twice, post once.
I'm betting on Mrs. Bill Clinton / Obama Barak (sp?) '08
I have a "winning" ticket for the 'Rats:
Actually, the REAL democratic party problem: they have a pool of potential candidates who haven't realized that the Summer of Love is over, and in the end, accomplished nothing.
The problem is psychological. The 1960's, to them, is the watershed event of their lives. They believe they "spoke truth to power" and "fought the establishment" without realizing they did nothing of the sort, on the one hand, and that they have become the establishment (that whioch they hated!), on the other. They haven't grown up mentally or ideologically. They cannot let their (mostly wasted) youth go. The current crop of Dem front-runners are, to our lasting shame, the "best" of the most narcissistic, ignorant, selfish generation ever coddled on American shores. That is until THEIR children grow up to assume responsibility, of course.
And with that 1960's mindset comes 1960's ideas, most of them demonstrably wrong, but like cats, you can't teach 'em anything.
Hillary's numbers are looking pretty good. (For the Republicans).
Many factors kept Florida from Gore, first and foremost was God's intervention. I'm just saying that it is silly for us to think that a "conservative" will win big in 06.
I could very well be wrong but even if another reagan were to come around I feel he wouldn't/couldn't get elected. I wish it were not true but the 5th columnists have set up shop and they are here to stay.