5 Reasons John Kerry won't win the Democratic Nomination

[Metanis]

Wisconsin Public Radio featured this guy, Gary Gagliardi, for an hour last week. His blog isn't all that persuasive but live on the air he made a compelling case that Kerry has squandered his nomination because he continues to fight the wrong battles.

Since listening to this on the radio I have concluded that this author may be right. Kerry just isn't generating much passion among Democrats. (Except maybe Ted Kennedy, a fellow reprobate).

If the Democrats get to their convention in July and feel that Kerry is a locked on loser, will they demand he release his delegates to another candidate?

Here is the blog:

Strategy Blog
[ AoW-Strategy Blog | Next | Previous | Up ]

Five Reasons Why Kerry Won't Be the Democratic Nominee
From: Gary Gagliardi
Date: 22 Apr 2004
Time: 12:02:26 -0400

Comments
With a little over three months until the Democratic Convention at the end of July, Kerry has already made five strategic errors that will force Democratic leadership to ask him to step down. Sun Tzu teaches us to look at the trend of change and plan our strategy to leverage those trends. Kerry has taken positions against the five most powerful trends in the future.

1. Kerry has championed the need to get U.N.'s and Old Europe's support in Iraq, but over the next 3 months much of the corruption of the UN-European-Iraq connection will be exposed.
2. Kerry has not turned against the anti-war wing of his party and over the next three months the news of the War (turnover of power in Iraq, Saddam's trial, 9.11 committee reports, increase military activity, and possibly bin Laden's capture) will make against anyone tepid on strong defense a loser.
3. Kerry is raising a great deal of money but he is spending it on advertising bashing Bush rather than establishing a strong strategic position of his own. By the end of July, the failure of this approach will be apparent.
4. Kerry's refusal to release all his military records and his wife's tax return will continue to grow as an issue as the natural instincts of the press keeps them searching for reasons why.
5. The one economic issue Kerry is campaigning on, the jobs market, will improve dramatically over the next three months, while issues that he has ignored, such as interests rates, will deteriorate. Kerry made jobs the central test of the Bush's economic management and Bush will have passed that test by the end of July.

Sun Tzu teaches that one key to strategy is foreseeing the trends of the future. Kerry has campaigned without any foresight at all.



Last changed: 04/24/04

Available at http://artofwarplus.com/blog/0000004d.htm

See the 5pm slot here... http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.c ... =4/28/2004

[Voronwë]

DNC nominated Mondale.

this guy is a moron.

[miir]

That page is a comedy goldmine.

[Dregor Thule]

"Quoting" Sun Tzu went out of style in the 80's along with Flock of Seagull haircuts and flourescent suits.

[kyoukan]

sun tzu also said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is why real fiscal conservatives and not moronic party line spewing robots like metanis here are going to be voting for kerry in november.

[Metanis]

sun tzu also said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is why real fiscal conservatives and not moronic party line spewing robots like metanis here are going to be voting for kerry in november.

Somebody want to translate Kooky for me? I could swear she claimed "real fiscal conservatives" are going to vote for Kerry. That wing of the Democratic party was gored by the New Deal and buried by the Great Society.

[Arundel Pajo]

sun tzu also said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is why real fiscal conservatives and not moronic party line spewing robots like metanis here are going to be voting for kerry in november.

Somebody want to translate Kooky for me? I could swear she claimed "real fiscal conservatives" are going to vote for Kerry. That wing of the Democratic party was gored by the New Deal and buried by the Great Society.

I'd make a half-hearted attempt to explain philosophy to you and relate it to current politics, but I'm afraid it would be wasted breath. ...or wasted keystrokes, as it were.

[kyoukan]

Somebody want to translate Kooky for me? I could swear she claimed "real fiscal conservatives" are going to vote for Kerry. That wing of the Democratic party was gored by the New Deal and buried by the Great Society.

yeah I'll whip out my kyoukan to stupid fucking idiot dictionary and help you out here.

what I mean is, fiscally conservative people who are actually concerned about how much money the government is spending realize that as long as bush is sitting in the white house with a repiblican congress, kerry could buy every single welfare mother in the country a humvee SUV and each of their kids a gold plated pony and he still wouldn't come close to spending as much.

Republicans with a brain are holding their nose this year and voting for "not bush" because of their desperation to get them out of office. I'm sure you're not too aware of these people, because they generally vote on issues and not what their favorite fat white guy on fox news tells them to vote for.

[Xzion]

The only downside i see to Kerry is that he is too "socially conservative "
...but then again he was better then everyone else, just wish he took a strong anti-war position and stoped bitching about the tax cuts

[Toshira]

Nostradamus lives!

1. I'm curious what possible "expose" could be revealed that would make the European Union or the U.N. look any worse than the U.S., who funded the Taliban and Saddam.

2. "the news of the War (turnover of power in Iraq, Saddam's trial, 9.11 committee reports, increase military activity, and possibly bin Laden's capture) will make against anyone tepid on strong defense a loser."
What? Will make against anyone? English, motherfucker. If his point is that the U.S. is going to suddenly feel all peechy keen about being involved in the military activities currently ongoing, I would predict otherwise. Unless, of course, we are protected from the images of mass flag-draped coffins!

3. Yes, mud-slinging has never worked. /cough Dukakis and Willie Horton /cough. I agree though, it is a waste of $. Bush doesn't need any help making himself look like a fucking idiot.

4. His refusal to release his full military record? Somehow, I doubt he has full control over that. Kerry served in Vietnam and later expressed anger at the atorcities being commited by some of his fellow soldiers. It's already known he didn't get his Purple Hearts for entrail-dragging injuries, so I fail to see what could be in his military record that could harm him, unless a nice photo showed up of him comitting the atrocities he spoke out against. These are very important issues though. I also need to know if he's ever got a blowjob from an intern.

5. Yes, it will be wonderful to see the dramatic increase in service sector jobs that Bush's supposed economic policies helped to create! However, neither Bush, nor Kerry, control interest rates. Alan does. Further, rising interest rates are not necessarily a bad thing.


I'm not really pro-Kerry, because he's a political idiot, although he does seem to be learning.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

These are very important issues though. I also need to know if he's ever got a blowjob from an intern.

If he has gotten a blow job from an intern, then he should not lie under oath about it. If he does, then he has commited perjury. Perjury happens to be a felony in the U.S. Presidents that commit felonies in office get impeached. I think that it pretty simple to understand.

[Voronwë]

Kilmoll, glad you think then that the senior member of the White House staff - alledged to be the chief deputy of the Vice President, but likely somebody from his office - who violated the 1982 Intelligence Protection Act by outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative should do jail time correct?

HOw is that White House investigation going on the "treasonous" (George Bush Sr's word) destruction of a US INtelligence asset going anyway?

any updates on drudgereport?

[Burke]

Does it strike anyone as odd that there are degrees to murder/killing but not to lying, in a court of law?

The taking of human life has been codified: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, etc. but with lying it is purely binary, all or none. Lying under oath is lying under oath, but shouldn't the circumstances and what is at stake be taken into account as well?

[Ashur]

Lying under oath is lying under oath, but shouldn't the circumstances and what is at stake be taken into account as well?

No. As you said, lying under oath is lying under oath.

[Cartalas]

sun tzu also said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which is why real fiscal conservatives and not moronic party line spewing robots like metanis here are going to be voting for kerry in november.

Somebody want to translate Kooky for me? I could swear she claimed "real fiscal conservatives" are going to vote for Kerry. That wing of the Democratic party was gored by the New Deal and buried by the Great Society.

Metanis my friend let me take a stab at translating Kooky's post.

[Voronwë]

or maybe its like this:

the Bush administration is not conservative. It is reactionary.

[Toshira]

These are very important issues though. I also need to know if he's ever got a blowjob from an intern.

If he has gotten a blow job from an intern, then he should not lie under oath about it. If he does, then he has commited perjury. Perjury happens to be a felony in the U.S. Presidents that commit felonies in office get impeached. I think that it pretty simple to understand.

WTF? I wasn't talking about perjury. I was talking about the importance of knowing his sexual endeavors. These things are what really matter to me, as they no doubt judge how he will be dealing with matters of State.

I'm glad you think perjury is a simple concept to understand, though. I know I'll sleep better.

[Metanis]

Metanis my friend let me take a stab at translating Kooky's post.

Thanks Cartalas. I wonder if she has been deprived of oxygen at some point in her life?

[Metanis]

Does it strike anyone as odd that there are degrees to murder/killing but not to lying, in a court of law?

The taking of human life has been codified: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, etc. but with lying it is purely binary, all or none. Lying under oath is lying under oath, but shouldn't the circumstances and what is at stake be taken into account as well?

There are different degrees to lying!

Lies, damn lies, and the liberal media.

[Winnow]

Our leaders should be proud of blowjobs received. The same holds true for our women leaders.

Hillary Clinton would score points with me if she said, "Vince Foster ate me out and I loved it!"

[Voronwë]

Metanis my friend let me take a stab at translating Kooky's post.

Thanks Cartalas. I wonder if she has been deprived of oxygen at some point in her life?

here's hoping that you will for the next 90 seconds of yours.




j/k i'm not quite that much of an asshole.

[Cartalas]

Metanis my friend let me take a stab at translating Kooky's post.

Thanks Cartalas. I wonder if she has been deprived of oxygen at some point in her life?

here's hoping that you will for the next 90 seconds of yours.




j/k i'm not quite that much of an asshole.

I know for a fact Metanis can hold his breath for longer then 90 seconds

Sorry Met it was there

[Xzion]

Metanis my friend let me take a stab at translating Kooky's post.

Thanks Cartalas. I wonder if she has been deprived of oxygen at some point in her life?

here's hoping that you will for the next 90 seconds of yours.



j/k i'm not quite that much of an asshole.

I know for a fact Metanis can hold his breath for longer then 90 seconds

Sorry Met it was there

Gah 90 seconds is nothing, specially if you were a diving instructor,
a pot smoking diving instructor at that

Heh, and your dumb asses are seriously trying to persecute clinton for lying about a blowjob (as he should have done, its noones fucking business), but let Bush off the hook for the countless amount of lies and public deception he has created over just the past 6 months?

[Xouqoa]

Does it strike anyone as odd that there are degrees to murder/killing but not to lying, in a court of law?

The taking of human life has been codified: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, etc. but with lying it is purely binary, all or none. Lying under oath is lying under oath, but shouldn't the circumstances and what is at stake be taken into account as well?

Oh, yeah! So, perjury, you know! If you commit perjury, I don't care, don't give a shit. I don't think you should because you grade murder. You have murder one, murder two; you realize that there can be a difference in the level of murder, so there must be a difference in the level of perjury. Perjury one is when you're saying there's no Holocaust when 10 million people have died in it, and perjury... nine, is when you said you shagged someone when you didn't. You know, it's...

[Chidoro]

These are very important issues though. I also need to know if he's ever got a blowjob from an intern.

If he has gotten a blow job from an intern, then he should not lie under oath about it. If he does, then he has commited perjury. Perjury happens to be a felony in the U.S. Presidents that commit felonies in office get impeached. I think that it pretty simple to understand.

Don't recall Ollie North or Reagan going to jail. Or about all of the Bush lies to begin a war. But hey, it's only national security, we gotta crack down on the bj's!

Simpleton

[Voronwë]

These are very important issues though. I also need to know if he's ever got a blowjob from an intern.

If he has gotten a blow job from an intern, then he should not lie under oath about it. If he does, then he has commited perjury. Perjury happens to be a felony in the U.S. Presidents that commit felonies in office get impeached. I think that it pretty simple to understand.

Don't recall Ollie North or Reagan going to jail. Or about all of the Bush lies to begin a war. But hey, it's only national security, we gotta crack down on the bj's!

Simpleton

actuall a member of Cheney's staff has a perjury conviction for Iran-Contra (Abrams is his last name i believe). He also had a second perjury finding commuted.

[Dregor Thule]

Maybe he was hired because of his believability as a scapegoat.

[Voronwë]

yeah his head might roll on the outing of the CIA agent thing. which according to Joe Wilson (the husband of the agent) was done out of Cheney's office.

i would imagine somebody who has a wife in the CIA has some decent sources on finding shit out. but i dont necessarily trust the guy implicitely.

[Chmee]

Personally I didn't think Clinton should have been subject to the investigation which ultimately led to the perjury charge and I didn't have a problem really with him not being found guilty of it. Give a prosecutor unlimited time and money and they will most likely find something to pin on you. I don't think anyone should have to put up with that broad and intrusive of an investigation into their private life. What does annoy me is that Clinton and his political allies share a large amount of responsibility in giving government the ability to perform this kind of witch hunt, the objection coming when it was turned against him. Overall I still would rather have the ability of government to perform this kind of overreach restricted than the amusement of watching Clinton hoisted on his own petard though.

Virginia Postrel wrote a good article on this back in 1998

http://reason.com/9804/ed.vp.shtml

A couple of pertinent bits ...

There is one sense in which the president deserves what has happened to him: He and his political allies are the people who made it possible, who created the legal mechanisms by which his private life became a matter of public, legal record. In that bitter irony lies the one hopeful aspect of L'Affaire Monica. It may, finally, create a consensus to rein in legal excesses that threaten not just Bill Clinton but the liberties of all Americans. But if Republicans are seduced by scandal and Democrats by dreams of vengeance, it may make matters worse.

The "crisis in the White House" begins with the Independent Counsel Statute. From the start, many Republicans opposed that law for corroding the constitutional division of powers. Back then, of course, presidents were Republicans, so the opposition was easy to ascribe to partisan motives. But in 1994, when the statute was up for reauthorization, a Democrat was in the White House, and his party controlled Congress. The most vocal opposition still came from conservative Republicans, who turned out to be remarkably principled.

They were utterly unsuccessful. The reauthorized statute was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton. So, as columnist and former Bush speechwriter Tony Snow notes, the law still "compels courts to appoint an independent counsel whenever somebody produces a saucy rumor." Apparently trusting that their friends would always be the ones wielding it, Clinton and his allies left nearly unlimited power in the hands of special prosecutors. Whatever they may say today, they made Ken Starr possible.

Media-savvy but legally unsophisticated liberal commentators, such as radio talk show host Tom Leykis, make a passionate, and fairly persuasive, argument about Clinton's presumed affair: It may be bad, but it's a private matter. It's between Bill, Hillary, and Monica. It's none of our business. It certainly doesn't belong in court. "Why are we asking questions about the president's sex life?" asks Leykis. "Why is that relevant to anything? Why should the president be put in a position of having to lie about something that's none of our business in the first place?"

Why indeed? The tempting answer is, Because you asked for it. Demanded it. Screamed and yelled and waxed indignant. You dedicated the 1992 Democratic National Convention to the cause. Remember "The Year of the Woman"? It was a media frenzy. And the number one agenda item was a ban on any hint of sexuality in the workplace.

Writing cheap symbolism into real law is a dangerous thing to do. But Congress did it in 1994. Ratifying the view that sexual harassment is too serious a matter to be governed by normal legal constraints, the very same Democratic Congress that reauthorized the Independent Counsel statute rewrote the rules of evidence. The new rules allow a defendant's sexual history--not just previous allegations of harassment--to be dragged into sexual harassment suits. (The plaintiff's history, however, was made inadmissable.)

So the president of the United States can be asked, under oath, about his sex life. It doesn't matter if the sex was consensual or even if the woman made the first move. It doesn't have to be harassment; indeed, no one claims anything of the kind in
the Lewinsky case. But Congress chose to make every intimate detail fair game. And if, like many a cheating spouse, the president lies to cover up adultery, he is guilty of a serious crime--perjury, a potentially impeachable offense.

The whole thing is worth a read.

[Jice Virago]

Of course Chmee, there is also the fact that the original independant counsel (who the GOP picked and approved) flat out said that there was nothing warrenting investigation on Slick Willey. They didn't like that answer, so in came Ken Starr from the Reagan think tanks, those same people who tried to figure out how to repeal affirmative action and determine a way to send blacks back to africa when Reagan was Gov of cali. Bill may have been a victim of the mechanism he put in place, but it was the Neocon witch hunt (tons of good old boys pissed off to the point of psychosis that Bush Sr got his ass kicked) who abused the system and spent millions to determine that he lied about a blowjob.

[Voronwë]

41 million of the publics money at last count.

[Arundel Pajo]

41 million of the publics money at last count.

That's one expensive hummer.

[Kylere]

LOL still flogging this dead and rotted horse?

Clinton got a BJ, big deal I could care less if he was doing Jenna Jameson.
Clinton lied under oath, this is an entirely different issue

Should they have been asking him questions about his sex life? Now there is the debate, but I know that any CEO in the US who was accused of sleeping with an intern would be asked the same questions and penalized if he lied under oath about it. I would mock any CEO equally if they started that dumb ass redneck "meaning of the word "is" is" shit also.

[Kelshara]

The whole blowjob crap only came about since they were pissed about Bush Sr. loosing and then seeing Clinton being successful/popular as a president. Nothing but sore losers.

[Cartalas]

The whole blowjob crap only came about since they were pissed about Bush Sr. loosing and then seeing Clinton being successful/popular as a president. Nothing but sore losers.

You have to be kidding me? Is there any chance someone could put a Maxi Pad on your mouth to absorb the shit that flows from it.

So its ok to recieve a BJ in the Oval Office and then Lie about it under oath, now before you spew anything about Bush in return, I am starting to agree with public opinion about the miss handling of Iraq. But that statement had nothing to do about Bush.

[Chmee]

Of course Chmee, there is also the fact that the original independant counsel (who the GOP picked and approved) flat out said that there was nothing warrenting investigation on Slick Willey. They didn't like that answer, so in came Ken Starr from the Reagan think tanks, those same people who tried to figure out how to repeal affirmative action and determine a way to send blacks back to africa when Reagan was Gov of cali. Bill may have been a victim of the mechanism he put in place, but it was the Neocon witch hunt (tons of good old boys pissed off to the point of psychosis that Bush Sr got his ass kicked) who abused the system and spent millions to determine that he lied about a blowjob.

A large part of my point is that the independent council too easily allows an abuse of prosecutorial power. And I agree it overstepped its bounds here (and in other cases). In my opinion it was a bad idea, and a bad idea that Clinton signed into law. Overall I would still rather see the bad law be fixed. But I still think it worthwhile pointing out that Clinton and the Democratic party have their share in the creation of the problem, and point out the hypocrisy of them complaining about asking about things like consentual sexual relations when they pushed the policies that allowed that to happen.

[Kelshara]

I couldn't care less if he got a BJ in the oval office, he should never have been investigated about it in the first place. Do you seriously think he is the only President to have an affair? If so, you are even more naive than I thought in the first place..

[Cartalas]

I couldn't care less if he got a BJ in the oval office, he should never have been investigated about it in the first place. Do you seriously think he is the only President to have an affair? If so, you are even more naive than I thought in the first place..

Why not? Do you think the White House is a Brothel? And, no im sure he is not the only president that got a BJ but he is the only one who got caught.

He should of not lied end of Story.

[Kelshara]

He should not have had to lie, end of story. And heh, only ones who got caught? Nah, the only one who was a threat to the Republicans.

[Jice Virago]

The law itself, I have no problem with. Information is power and as long as it is hidden from the public, they have no power. What is a problem is that a forceful minority seized power within the majority party and are able to push their agenda by bullying the true moderates and conservatives. If the (clearly GOP approved) original independant council's recommendation had been adhered to in the first place, there would not have been any issue here. All of these things are stemming from the radical Neocons who cannot tolerate anything that does not fit into their agenda of corperate imperialism. They are going to break the GOP if the GOP does not take steps to reform itself from within. There is ample evidence of the problem already, but people refuse to see it. Case in point, Dole should have beat Clinton and would have been a better president, imo. The problem was that the radical GOP put a leash on him and his intended policies (like forcing him to shoulder anit-abortion which was something that he did not want) which had the effect of making him basically, unelectable. If he had been able to campaign how he wanted to and with his own policies, he would have won. Instead, after the neocons got through with him, he was a boring beaten down man spewing party line rhetoric and looking like he might not physically survive an entire presidential term. Oh well, thats my opinion.

[Metanis]

Issue #5 - It's Jobs Stupid!

Gagliardi contends that any moron can see that the job situation is HIGHLY LIKELY to improve between the date that Kerry sewed up the nomination and the actual election. Kerry loses ground when the Job Situation improves. Kerry SHOULD HAVE beat up on Bush regarding the direction of interest rates and the budget deficit both of which ARE expected to get WORSE.

In brief... Kerry is dumb as a rock.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... &printer=1

Robust April Jobs Data Spur Rate Fears

By Glenn Somerville

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment swelled for a second straight month in April with American employers adding 288,000 more jobs to payrolls for the strongest two-month gain in four years, the Labor Department said on Friday.


The surge in April hiring handily outstripped economists' forecasts and followed an upwardly revised 337,000 job gain in March. It landed hard on financial markets, which saw brightening job prospects as likely to prompt early interest-rate rises from the Federal Reserve.


The national unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in April from 5.7 percent in March.


Analysts said the employment report showed the pace of U.S. economic activity has kicked into a higher gear that promises continued gains in hiring.


If so, it may take some sting from charges by prospective Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry that President Bush has presided over such huge job losses that he should be replaced in presidential voting in November.

Bush remains on track to be the first president since the Great Depression to have a net loss of jobs at the end of his term but April's gains cut that tally to about 1.5 million and it may shrink further in coming months.


LONG WAY TO GO


Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, issued a statement calling the jobs numbers good news. However, he added: "We still have a long way to go to get America working again."


Private-sector economists said the process of job rebuilding appears to be taking root.


"The longest jobless recovery during the post-war period is over and a self-sustaining economic expansion has arrived," economist Sung Won Sohn of Wells Fargo & Co. in Minneapolis said. "Businesses have regained confidence in the sustainability of this economic expansion and have started to hire people in earnest."


In the first four months of this year, 867,000 jobs were created -- a striking contrast to the comparable four months in 2003 when 195,000 jobs were scrubbed from payrolls.


Financial markets took the strong jobs data negatively, with stock and bond prices falling on worries the Fed could push rates up as early as June 30, the conclusion of next meeting of its policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee.


By early afternoon, prices for 30-year U.S. Treasury bonds were down 1-1/2 points while the yield, which moves in the opposite direction, was up to 5.48 percent.


Stock investors also flinched in the face of rate-rise fears, despite the fact that hiring growth stems directly from improved economic conditions.


HOW SOON, HOW FAST


The FOMC met this week and scrapped a reference to being "patient" about raising rates, a change seen as paving the way for hikes once policy-makers were sure durable growth was in place, though the Fed promised to move at a "measured" pace.


"We have one more jobs report before the June 29-30 FOMC meeting and if it shows that employment growth is now consistently at or above 200,000 a month, the last excuse for not tightening will be gone," predicted economist Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors Inc. in Holland, Pennsylvania.


A poll by Reuters of 19 primary dealers on Wall Street -- big firms that deal directly with the Federal Reserve -- found that all expect a hike by the Federal Reserve in its 1 percent fed funds rate by August and 11 saw a move as early as June.

That represented a significant shift in opinion from earlier surveys when some firms thought the Fed might keep rates on hold until 2005.

While employment has pickup up, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has noted inflation pressures are relatively muted because of unused industrial capacity and high levels of productivity, or hourly output per worker, which keep wage pressures at bay.

Some analysts said this may give policy-makers room to hold off from raising rates in June, but likely not much beyond then. "A tightening move in June is not a slam-dunk case," Sohn said, adding he considered an August hike was more likely because by then the Fed will have seen three more monthly employment reports.

There were 21,000 new jobs in manufacturing on top of 9,000 in March, a third straight month that this category of employment increased after more than three years of decline.

[Sirton]

OMG! nice post for a few laughs...

If Clinton was so great and sucessful as president...then why in 40 years did republicans take over the congress and they still have not lost control since(This was before the whole impeachment thing and BJs). Bill Clinton to me has destroyed much of the Democratic party, but keep on licking it up, just making the other side stronger...The only bastion the DNC has now is the NE and California can really go either way if the republican is moderate on social issues. The Democratic party is one falling apart with no true leader or no real leader just someone who lost all power they had to the other party since the 1950s.

I hear bitching about the Nader factor every so often, what about the Perot factor in 92....A vast majority of Perot supporters were voting for him because of Bush Srs. pledge on taxes violation ect...Knew OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people that was main reason..plus they were polled and about 80% of Perot supporters were also Republicans. Did Bill ever get 50% of the vote? I personally think there should be only 2 parties in the final election after a run off of all the parties at a earlier time. We wouldnt have Perot or NAder or Pat Buchanon arguements.

Also just a FYI about Kerry: he has openly admitted to commiting atrocities during Vietnam...It is all on tape with him saying it about himself. He said he had commited em too. If ya hadnt seen it yet you will closer to election time im sure...Not that it matters much to me just a FYI.

[Dregor Thule]

Is there any way to add a feature like STFU, but instead replaces someones posts with a sound? For example, whenever I see a Sirton post, I don't even bother to read it anymore, all I can hear in my head is http://www.talkingtp.com/WavFiles/Dumb_ ... _sound.wav.

[MooZilla]

Ok. Clinton can lie about a blowjob, if George Bush gets to lie about national security, and waging war on other countries.

[Kelshara]

Everytime I see a Sirton post I just remember him bragging about his White House contacts.. and then I laugh.

[Vetiria]

The Dems have California, the NE, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, probably Ohio and Florida, and other states as well. In fact, the Dems had the majority of the population in 2000. They sure are falling apart.

[Xzion]

doesnt Kerry already have the lead in the electoral votes?
Seems the only states that like Bush are the backwater shitholes in the south

[miir]

If Clinton was so great and sucessful blah... blah... blah... blah... blah..

Is there any way to add a feature like STFU, but instead replaces someones posts with a sound? For example, whenever I see a Sirton post, I don't even bother to read it anymore, all I can hear in my head is

I usually get a disturbing visual of a Sirton>Midnyte>Brotha>Metanis circle jerk ...

[Kylere]

I honestly would have voted for Dean, but Kerry scares me enough that I would rather have Kyoukan running the country.

What was that King movie with Walken where he could see the future and had to whack the wierdo popular candidate? I get that feeling about Kerry, the only candidate the democrats could have chosen I would have been less likely to vote for was the guy that looked like Golem.

[Pahreyia]

I honestly would have voted for Dean, but Kerry scares me enough that I would rather have Kyoukan running the country.

What was that King movie with Walken where he could see the future and had to whack the wierdo popular candidate? I get that feeling about Kerry, the only candidate the democrats could have chosen I would have been less likely to vote for was the guy that looked like Golem.

The Dead Zone.