Dem. race just got more interesting

[KQ]

Originally posted by powpig
It's my opinion that your attitude is exactly the problem. It's the "lesser of two evils" approach. For years the Dems vote for their hapless candidate cause they hate the Reps and vice versa. If you vote for Dweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, you're just giving your stamp of approval for the status quo.

My, you've extrapolated a lot from my six word sentence. I had no idea that's what I was saying - thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by powpig

If 20 years ago the voters had begun to support 3rd party candidates, maybe today we wouldn't be faced with the abysmal choices we have. If not now, when? In 4 years there'll just be another excuse.
Just my opinions.

[It's just my opinion] If...if...if...you considered the realistic possibilities and what will work now instead of harping on what you feel should have been done 20 years ago the dream might become reality. In the mean time, let's stop the bleeding [/it's just my opinion]

[grrrr]

Originally posted by powpig
It's my opinion that your attitude is exactly the problem. It's the "lesser of two evils" approach. For years the Dems vote for their hapless candidate cause they hate the Reps and vice versa. If you vote for Dweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, you're just giving your stamp of approval for the status quo. If 20 years ago the voters had begun to support 3rd party candidates, maybe today we wouldn't be faced with the abysmal choices we have. If not now, when? In 4 years there'll just be another excuse.
Just my opinions.

Twenty years ago we did. In 1980, John Anderson took 6% of the popular vote, including mine.

[bagtagley]

Originally posted by powpig
It's my opinion that your attitude is exactly the problem. It's the "lesser of two evils" approach. For years the Dems vote for their hapless candidate cause they hate the Reps and vice versa. If you vote for Dweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, you're just giving your stamp of approval for the status quo. If 20 years ago the voters had begun to support 3rd party candidates, maybe today we wouldn't be faced with the abysmal choices we have. If not now, when? In 4 years there'll just be another excuse.
Just my opinions.

I'm an independent, and said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about 1 person, Bush.

Also, just because a person is a Libertarian, doesn't mean they'll magically fix everything, especially the mess that Bush has left.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Mcwop
I am talking about it surfacing in the Dem primary. That is when the story first surfaced the last time around.

Also, I don't this as mud-raking. It is legit. People have serious concerns about politicians that support/propose real programs that existed like prison furloughs.

No, it's not even close to legit, nor was it back when it was first used.
For the record though, Horton happened after Kerry was no longer Lt. Governor, and Lt. Governor (in MA at least) is a fairly meaningless post, although Dukakis did give him some responsibilities (most important might have been dealing with the changes in property tax at that time in the Commonwealth).

edit: and by not legit I was referring to the obviously racist way in which the issue was raised--it wasn't a real issue, just a way to unfairly savage Dukakis.

[Plakespear]

Originally posted by powpig
It's my opinion that your attitude is exactly the problem. It's the "lesser of two evils" approach. For years the Dems vote for their hapless candidate cause they hate the Reps and vice versa. If you vote for Dweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, you're just giving your stamp of approval for the status quo. If 20 years ago the voters had begun to support 3rd party candidates, maybe today we wouldn't be faced with the abysmal choices we have. If not now, when? In 4 years there'll just be another excuse.
Just my opinions.

I don't know the figures, but didn't this guy get a fair number of votes in 1992 and 1996?
http://www.texassciencesummit.org/ha...perot1_400.jpg

[Mcwop]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
No, it's not even close to legit, nor was it back when it was first used.
For the record though, Horton happened after Kerry was no longer Lt. Governor, and Lt. Governor (in MA at least) is a fairly meaningless post, although Dukakis did give him some responsibilities (most important might have been dealing with the changes in property tax at that time in the Commonwealth).

edit: and by not legit I was referring to the obviously racist way in which the issue was raised--it wasn't a real issue, just a way to unfairly savage Dukakis.

So a politician supporting a program that let's out covicted killers is a fake illegitimate issue, because it was raised in a way you dide not like, but it was politicians letting killers out of prison, nonetheless. I don't care what color Willie Horton was, I do not support politicians that support such stupid policies. Kerry openly defended the program, which was in effect while he was LT. Gov. The New Republic wrote about it.

Dukakis deserved to burn for his 1976 veto of the bill that would have ended the furloughs.

[yaze_bro]

Clark is all done.....after debate performance....

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Mcwop
So a politician supporting a program that let's out covicted killers is a fake illegitimate issue, because it was raised in a way you dide not like, but it was politicians letting killers out of prison, nonetheless. I don't care what color Willie Horton was, I do not support politicians that support such stupid policies. Kerry openly defended the program, which was in effect while he was LT. Gov. The New Republic wrote about it.

Dukakis deserved to burn for his 1976 veto of the bill that would have ended the furloughs.

Since 45 states at the time had similar programs, you should be pissed at a lot of other pol.s too, but this simply points out the fact that it was not a true issue--by your logic or anyone else's. The issue wasn't prison furloughs because those really had nothing to do with Dukakis or the campaign, the issue was Republican use of race to frighten white voters by implying that black criminals usually attacked white (women) and somehow Dukakis was soft on this.
It's the Bush campaign machine that should burn for this hate mongering.

[yaze_bro]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
the issue was Republican use of race to frighten white voters by implying that black criminals usually attacked white (women) and somehow Dukakis was soft on this.

and that picture of Dukakis in the tank.....

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki

It's the Bush campaign machine that should burn for this hate mongering.

You're such a hypocrit dude. You slander everyone with your political babble, spreading hate everywhere. Even your signature is hating on snowboarders, and than you call Bush a hate monger.

This only goes to show that Dex is not only skipping out on his meds, but that liberalism is a mental illness.

[acostiga]

order some ribs already!

[SledNeck]

liberalism is a mental illness.

Couldn't agree more...

[KQ]

Originally posted by yaze_bro
Clark is all done.....after debate performance....

I don't think Clark is done by his performance but Kerry - wow he was wearing the Teflon last night - he did everyone else in with HIS performance (if you're going to base your decision just on last night).

I totally disagree with the comments that Clark should have spoken up in defense of the President when Michael Moore (who supports Clark) said Bush was a deserter. My take on it is that Clark was allowing Moore his opinion and dismissing it at the same time by not giving it any credence. I DO NOT believe Clark had a "duty" to defend the President against Moore's statement.

The debate was interesting - I think some of the questions were a little too speculative in nature - asking the candidates to forecast hypothetical situations. The question regarding the practice of Islam that they gave Edwards was just WAY out there.

It's a shame Edwards messed up on the Defense of Marriage Act. Sharpton had some good things to say and Lieberman stuck to his guns with confidence. Kucinich was amazingly honest not glossing over things and Dean, with his cold, was subdued even though they kept harping on his behavior in Iowa.

It will be interesting to see what New Hampshire has to say now.

[mr_gyptian]

Yeah Sharpton had some great things to say especially when he looked like he'd been punched by George Foreman with the Federal Reserve question. He should stick to his race baiting. Has he burnt down any businesses lately??

As far as serious candidates go...Edwards owned that debate. He is hands down the future of the Dem party. one term as N.C. governor and Hillary will be an after thought.

Lieberman showed himself to be the most genuine of the candidates(might be because he's got nothing to lose). He's the only one that can speak with coherance regarding the war on terrorism. I guess that comes from not pandering to whichever way the wind is blowing in the Dem party.

[yaze_bro]

Lieberman is solid, but can't win a Democratic primary.....

Clark did not respond well when he was asked to respond to some earlier (mis)statements.....he's not ready for prime time.....