LOL!!! House Democrats choose Hoyer

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

trying to get gore or kerry elected againwould be like repubs going for dole again.
if that's the best the dems can do, it will be about as worthwhile an effort as the last time they tried--and failed.

Exactly, it would be like resurrecting Dole, or Kemp, or even Qualye! (sp)

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

If you want to look at all possibilties that's fine.
I prefer to stick with those that have even a remote chance.
I take it that you're just joking about the Republicans you mentioned.

Back to Kerry or Gore, what I'm saying is that they have no chance of getting the dem nomination so it doesn't matter if they could beat whoever the Reps put up.

ArlJ,
Of course I'm not taking many things seriously at this point.
The Dems won't be counting on Gore (though he's gotten environmental issues going again)...maybe Sec of Interior? and Kerry...nope.
If the Repubs are hanging their hat on McCain, seems that he's swimmin' against the tide on Iraq. We'll see. All the neocons are bailing on Dubbya and the best hope for him is a "face saving" strategy, soon to be put forth by Daddy's buddies.
Rudy has no shot IMHO. He's already proven how capable he is...where did he move the command center? Yeah...good thinking.
And the rescuers were told by HIM, it's safe there, no need for protective gear, breathing protection...duh!
Mitt from Mass? Maybe, but I don't think he'll play with the evangelicals...isn't Mass the only state that allows gay marriage? Who was gov? The Repubs are running out of possibles, unless they try one of the racists again...and look where that got them.
What is Dan Quayle doing these days?
The Dems have a long way to go, but, if they get past the stumble of the first week, wait for Baker's report, and play their cards (Edwards) right, they might have a shot.
btw...The one and only Dubbya veto was about stem cells. He has made "executive modifications" to many that he's signed. I'l have to google it, but it's close to 600. Last minute rewrites before signing.
The Dems have two years minus one week to get something together.
Maybe they'll do a little better than the past six from the ones that made what we've got.
We'll see.
DTS

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

ArlJ,
Of course I'm not taking many things seriously at this point.
The Dems won't be counting on Gore (though he's gotten environmental issues going again)...maybe Sec of Interior? and Kerry...nope.
If the Repubs are hanging their hat on McCain, seems that he's swimmin' against the tide on Iraq. We'll see. All the neocons are bailing on Dubbya and the best hope for him is a "face saving" strategy, soon to be put forth by Daddy's buddies.
Rudy has no shot IMHO. He's already proven how capable he is...where did he move the command center? Yeah...good thinking.
And the rescuers were told by HIM, it's safe there, no need for protective gear, breathing protection...duh!
Mitt from Mass? Maybe, but I don't think he'll play with the evangelicals...isn't Mass the only state that allows gay marriage? Who was gov? The Repubs are running out of possibles, unless they try one of the racists again...and look where that got them.
What is Dan Quayle doing these days?
The Dems have a long way to go, but, if they get past the stumble of the first week, wait for Baker's report, and play their cards (Edwards) right, they might have a shot.
btw...The one and only Dubbya veto was about stem cells. He has made "executive modifications" to many that he's signed. I'l have to google it, but it's close to 600. Last minute rewrites before signing.
The Dems have two years minus one week to get something together.
Maybe they'll do a little better than the past six from the ones that made what we've got.
We'll see.
DTS

I kinda agree with your Rep assessment. McCain- shaky, Rudy - no way, after that it gets into people without name recognition which means you need someone charismatic with ideas. I think Mitt is a dark horse who will do well for these reasons. I really don't know how his religion will play into it but I don't think it will be a huge detriment. The evangelicals? where will they go if Mitt won the nom? Would they bail out on the party? don't think so. But if the reps again put these types front and center, they'll lose.

its early, lots can happen.

I have to say thought that as bad as the Rep situation looks, it is not much prettier on the Dem side. there are big problems for all of the main characters.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I kinda agree with your Rep assessment. McCain- shaky, Rudy - no way, after that it gets into people without name recognition which means you need someone charismatic with ideas. I think Mitt is a dark horse who will do well for these reasons. I really don't know how his religion will play into it but I don't think it will be a huge detriment. The evangelicals? where will they go if Mitt won the nom? Would they bail out on the party? don't think so. But if the reps again put these types front and center, they'll lose.

its early, lots can happen.

I have to say thought that as bad as the Rep situation looks, it is not much prettier on the Dem side. there are big problems for all of the main characters.

Arlj,
You could be completely right on this.
I don't think the "gay marriage" deal will play with the "religious right" at all, and though Mitt has shown good stuff regarding bringing things into balance after the "big dig", my guess is that the evangelicals will look elsewhere.
It is early. Lots can happen.
Seems that the Repubs still have to play the "commander-in-chief's" hand, and we'll just have to see how that plays.
If Baker comes to the rescue, fine with me. I have my doubts.
The "objectives" have gone through redefinition after redefinition.
Some people don't forget.
Like Edwards, I'll watch. If he picks Obama to run with, the Dems might show some hope.
The Repubs have to put out better than what they've got. Darkhorse?
I don't see one yet, but plenty of time.
We'll see.
It's interesting.
DTS

[Rileyoriley]

Kerry no longer has Kennedy behind him like he did in 2004. Kennedy (the Kennedy who will never be in the White House but desperately wants to be) saw his chance go down the tubes after Kerry lost the election. It was Kennedy's words you were hearing from Kerry's mouth back then. Now Kerry's speaking for himself and well, we see where that's got him.

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Kerry no longer has Kennedy behind him like he did in 2004. Kennedy (the Kennedy who will never be in the White House but desperately wants to be) saw his chance go down the tubes after Kerry lost the election. It was Kennedy's words you were hearing from Kerry's mouth back then. Now Kerry's speaking for himself and well, we see where that's got him.

Edward is clearly the candidate that is most electable.
Even repubs like me don't have a negative stance on him and would vote for him if he proves his mettle and the repub candidate doesn't meet the needs.
Dems need to moderate, in case noone's told them strong defense and lack of handouts to those who don't deserve them is where mainstream USA stands. Kerry and Gore and Hilary represent the ideals of the old Dems.
They need a fresh face like Edwards to win it.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Edward is clearly the candidate that is most electable.
Even repubs like me don't have a negative stance on him and would vote for him if he proves his mettle and the repub candidate doesn't meet the needs.
Dems need to moderate, in case noone's told them strong defense and lack of handouts to those who don't deserve them is where mainstream USA stands. Kerry and Gore and Hilary represent the ideals of the old Dems.
They need a fresh face like Edwards to win it.

Big-O: Edwards is an "ambulance chaser" in the mold of John Grishams' "King of Torts"! Just ask his constituents!

Originally Posted by oracle80

Are you truly ****ing serious? You can't possibly be.
The Dems have been rooting against the war hoping to get back to pwer with its failure. Nothing like rooting for deaths of American soldiers to make me wanna sing "America the Beautiful"
The repub is right. For all the nonsense and propaganda the Dems just spread, the fact that the first thing they attempt to do in house is embarrasing to them shows they have no united party ideals or structure makes some folks realize that maybe the "vote on the war" should have been examined against exactly what you were voting for, rather than just against. It also showed that they haven't learned a ****ing thing in 12 years on the sidelines, and with 6 since having any control of the agenda whatsoever.

NO Sh it Sherlock. Some Demo's relished our failure. Sick.
Read the post.
And if you dont think the Republicans act the same way... the swamp land thing buddy, I got more than an acre for you. A few good people on both sides but mostly a bunch of hacks that have more ability to get reelected than to make good policy. Dont fool yourself and think Republicans have some leg up.

Kerry is a goner.

Its Hillary. She is smart, shes got ideas, and has done some incredibly Republican type things with the business community in New York. She can buck the often-times outrageously unworkable policy the Demos try.

Its McCain. He speaks his mind and can go against Republican stupidity and not get hurt. He is as close to an independent as one can get. These may be the two most electable people from both sides at present.

[Danzig]

mccain, edwards, kerry, gore. all losers in past races. if they really had what it took, they'd have been elected. far as i can remember, only bush one and nixon had failed campaigns and got elected later. bush benefitted from reagan choosing him as his running mate, altho historically vp's are no shoo-in.

the eventual winner may not even have his name in circulation right now. it's not as tho clinton was a household name when he decided to run.

hillary has a lot of baggage. a ton, and i'm just not sure that she can win a national election.
obama imo doesn't have enough experience.
i can't believe it's two years out and we're already discussing this.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

mccain, edwards, kerry, gore. all losers in past races. if they really had what it took, they'd have been elected. far as i can remember, only bush one and nixon had failed campaigns and got elected later. bush benefitted from reagan choosing him as his running mate, altho historically vp's are no shoo-in.

the eventual winner may not even have his name in circulation right now. it's not as tho clinton was a household name when he decided to run.

hillary has a lot of baggage. a ton, and i'm just not sure that she can win a national election.
obama imo doesn't have enough experience.
i can't believe it's two years out and we're already discussing this.

i agree completely with your assessment. Most of the names being thrown around now are losers not capable of winning a general national election.

As far as not believing that we are discussing it? I'm not surprised at all.
This is a board where the day after BC day we start discussing the Kentucky Derby. It's never too early!!

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by pgardn

“I can’t believe they are self-destructing before they even get started,” said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois. “Everyone on our side is giddy.”



What a wonderful thing our two political parties. The Democrats that have no idea what they want to do, and a hateful Republican party that wants to see failure. What a wonderful outlook from both sides. Both sides should feel ashamed.

Giddy...

Yes I get giddy when our nation's politicians cant get anything done. Makes me happy as hell. Will someone from Illinois please get rid of this Republican clown.

This is the sad state of America. The people in this country that root for failure in government are pathetic. They would rather see their country go to hell than have the other party do well.

These people that root for failure in our government, whether they be the Democrats who secretly root for failure in Iraq, or people like Oracle and his original post, who root for nothing to get done by the Democrats, like cleaning up corruption, these people are more loyal to their parties than their country.

These people are traitors. Anyone who cares about their party more than their country is a traitor. How anyone can be a Republican or Democrat is beyond me. I guess they are too stupid to think for themselves. This isn't the 1800's or even the 1900's where you needed parties for information and for communication, this is the year 2006, where people can get anything they want from a computer. Wake up people.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

I don't like what either one of the political parties are doing right now. Both parties are full of people who are almost entirely incapable of making good decisions for the people of this country. I used to be a Republican before the current Bush administration started ****ing up because of the whole Clinton debacle. Now, I don't like either one of them. I will bad mouth the Dems as much as I've bad mouthed the Repubs unless either one or both of the parties can get their acts together, and it would certainly be about time (wishful thinking). At least I'm not biased. LOL!