But swing states change with demographics changes. Those big cities, they were Democratic before, they're Democratic now and they'll be Democratic forever. Every one else who doesn't live in a major city would cease to have any voice in the election of the president. Not good.
Hilarious how giddyup started a thread suggesting the exact same thing a while back and got slammed, yet I don't hear any outrage this time. I wonder why that is? This forum rocks!
Guess again. I voted for Gore in 2000 and I am going to vote for W in 2004. If the Democratic party had Clark as their candidate or even Edwards, I would probably vote for them as I feel W is a very weak Republican candidate. However, guys like Kerry are not going to get it done for me. Sorry. And I am the type of voter he needs to win over - the one that has some republican leanings and some democratic leanings.
I'm switching parties too! I watched both the DNC and the RNC...W's got my vote (and my girlfriends too).
Man, I never would have expected that from you, Manny (sounds kinda silly with Man/Manny but I'm not trying to offend you). You're smarter than that.
So you think Kerry would be worse than the worst president in history? I just don't get statements like this. You honestly believe that Dubuyuh has earned a second term? What the hell does "guys like Kerry" mean?
For some reason, I had always thought that HayesStreet was a die-hard Republican...I need to pay more attention.
Foreign policy hawk, domestic liberal (with a little libertarian and anarchist thrown in for good measure). I'm an issues melting pot!
I appreciate it if you wouldn't use Christ's name to voice your incredulousness towards me. A simple, "Man, I would have never expected that, Manny," would have sufficed. I have always tried to treat you with respect here and I don't think it is asking too much to expect the same in return. Come on Hayes, you are better than that and you know it.
And I don't get statements that W is the worst president in history. I mean he is far from being the greatest, but do you not remember presidencies of guys like Carter or Harding or even U.S. Grant? It is like you and other liberals thought that it didn't matter who the Democratic party trudged on out there, that this individual would beat Bush. But you know what? Kerry is going to have do more than just be the "guy who is running against Bush" to win this election. Maybe he will pull ahead after the debates, and if he wins, then congrats to him. I will support him because he is my president not because he is a Democrat. I just don't think that Bush is doing that bad of a job; can't that be reason enough for me to vote for him or is it a prerequisite to post on this site to be a Democrat?
Back to the original topic, I think the Kerry critique of Iraq reported today is a step in the right direction. Kerry has to give people a reason to vote for him, not just a reason to vote against Bush. I think the thrust of his speech as being reported does an adequate job of summarizing some of the many flaws of the administration's policy toward Iraq and emphasizes a few, easily-agreed-to principles for dealing with Iraq that the voters will approve of. if he continues to take steps like today, I think he has a good chance of winning.
So Manny, you think helping companies to destroy the environment, invading the wrong country, spending more time on vacation than any other president, and removing civil liberties left and right (among many other disgusting things this president has done, things that would take 20 threads to list) is okay, but using the words "Christ" or "Jesus" is a big no-no. Alright then.
No. There will never be a majority of leftists in this country and thankfully there never will be. Do we need a Euro-style economic sinkhole here? No. But it would mean a few big states with Democratic urban areas would determine every election and cancel out the smaller, more Republican ones.
Don't really know why I am responding, but first of all where does it tie that all the stuff you said Bush has done is connected to a personal preference of mine (being a Christian and not liking to hear the Lord's name in vain)? You lost me on that. But sure, I think all of what you said about Bush is great. Just remember that smoking pot is not good for you, ZRB.
It's plainly obvious where it ties in. I think you're supporting Bush because of his "religion." You gave yourself away.
And I think you would benefit greatly from smoking a big spliff now and then. You know, like Laura used to do.
Hayes wasn't disrespecting you Manny...You could have stopped at "sufficed", and made your point clear.
