On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:59:37 GMT, wrote
this crap:

Abbie Hoffman was far left, and far out. Jerry Rubin was far left until his
mental breakdown, which left him a blithering, money grubbing righty. Mental
breakdowns will do that to you.

Who are they?

Tom Harkin is a progressive liberal Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a progressive
liberal Democrat. Compared to them, Kennedy and Kerry are pretty much centrists.
They are not "far" anything. The only reason anyone mistakes them for liberal
or left leaning is because of the contrast between them and the religious right
wing fascist wackos in the White House.

Kennedy and the French looking Kerry are centrists? You are whacked.
They are socialists.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Sort of like yours.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:46:10 -0400, Walt
wrote this crap:

Horvath wrote:

Real boats use diesel.

Real boats don't have motors.

But then, you have to break it out of the bottle to sail it.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Try looking up your ass... you might find your boyfriend.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:10:41 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
Bwahahaaha! Where are the WMD the war was started over, Loco?
Hmmmm?
Your president is a killer of American Soldiers and has buried our
economy.

Oh really! Like I said before you should try to get yourself educated.


America's Economy is Strong and Getting Stronger
[political crap snipped]

You ignored the question.

Where are the WMD?

Try looking where they keep the Rose Law Firm billing records.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

French like your boyfriend??

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 00:59:37 GMT, wrote
this crap:

Abbie Hoffman was far left, and far out. Jerry Rubin was far left until
his
mental breakdown, which left him a blithering, money grubbing righty.
Mental
breakdowns will do that to you.

Who are they?

Tom Harkin is a progressive liberal Democrat. Paul Wellstone was a
progressive
liberal Democrat. Compared to them, Kennedy and Kerry are pretty much
centrists.
They are not "far" anything. The only reason anyone mistakes them for
liberal
or left leaning is because of the contrast between them and the religious
right
wing fascist wackos in the White House.

Kennedy and the French looking Kerry are centrists? You are whacked.
They are socialists.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

wrote in message
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:35:05 GMT, "Maxprop"

Add their poll numbers together...

. . .which means nothing, especially at this stage.

The Democrats big problem has been trying to
be Republicans and going after the same block of voters in the middle. A
lot of
Democrats are sick of that tactic and stopped caring about going to the
polls to
vote for Republicrats.

Only the far left wing espouses this belief. Same as the far right wing,
which claims to be sick of voting for moderates.

Notice how well right winger, Lieberman was received.

He was poorly received by both sides. The right disliked him because he
flip-flopped on abortion and some other conservative values. The left
disliked him from the get-go. And many simply felt he would put the
interests of Israel ahead of those of this country. He was a very poor
choice for Gore.

Despite what you think, Kerry isn't very far left, and Nader is hardly
radical.

You've got to be kidding. Have you read any of Nader's books, or his more
recent position papers? And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost
division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land. Kerry's
worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the
so-called "undecideds."

Eccentric, yes - radical, nope. Kerry would be in more trouble if he
picked a
Republicrat such as Gephardt to run with him.

He'll only be in trouble with the far left, which is actually a minor base
within the democrat party. Same would hold true of Bush if he'd pick a
centrist running mate. The religious right and the far right would be
****ed. But neither distal wing is the largest component of either party's
base. Centrists are, like it or not. The far wings can't control an
election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties,
because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live.

Kerry/Nader is unelectable, IMO. Sad to say that Bush/Cheney is.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
... And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost
division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land. Kerry's
worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the
so-called "undecideds."

Unless you are getting your "facts" from the Bush/Cheney propaganda
machine, you'd have a very hard time backing this up.

If looked at realistically, Kerry is somewhat moderate... more liberal
on some issues, definitely centrist on others.


... The far wings can't control an
election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties,
because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live.

Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest
advertising budget, most of the time. It's been well proven that
egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters
in less time than any other type of campaign. That's why we are in the
mess that we're in.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote:
... And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost
division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land.
Kerry's
worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the
so-called "undecideds."

Unless you are getting your "facts" from the Bush/Cheney propaganda
machine, you'd have a very hard time backing this up.

If looked at realistically, Kerry is somewhat moderate... more liberal
on some issues, definitely centrist on others.

Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing
Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone. Even the the
left wing websites give the guy an A- to B+ grade for his record. I don't
give a **** what he preaches during an election cycle--they all lie like
used car dealers when the cameras are rolling, and attempt to represent
themselves as centrists. Both parties, by the way.

... The far wings can't control an
election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties,
because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live.

Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest
advertising budget, most of the time.

That's likely true of the primaries, but not necessarily the general
election. Media coverage plays an increasing role in the general election,
and people tend to tune out the innundation of ads.

It's been well proven that
egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters
in less time than any other type of campaign.

Pop psych bull****. The swing voters can't be categorized as a group.
Their ultimate choices are made for reasons that run the gamut from wise to
idiotic. What you claim above sounds like a gross oversimplification.

That's why we are in the
mess that we're in.

Perhaps you'd like to provide some of that "well proven" evidence. Don't
bother, because you can't--it's your opinion. Even if it bore some
validity, it's not the whole story. No right wing or left wing candidate
has won a presidential election in the past half century. They all tend
toward centrism, simply because fringe groups (left wing or right wing
extremists) don't elect presidents. Kerry's going to have a hard time
selling himself as a centrist with his voting record, regardless of how you
attempt to portray it. Kennedy faced the same problem. Kerry is no
Clinton.

The reason we're in the mess we're in is because it's the American way, like
it or not. It may suck, but it's what we have.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Fringe extremists in Congress are rare, Doug. But on the existing
Congressional scale, Kerry generally votes as left as anyone.

I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so many
times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record...
for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in
accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist).





.... I don't
give a **** what he preaches during an election cycle--they all lie like
used car dealers when the cameras are rolling

Agreed

Unfortunately, voters tend to go for the candidate with the largest
advertising budget, most of the time.


That's likely true of the primaries, but not necessarily the general
election. Media coverage plays an increasing role in the general election,
and people tend to tune out the innundation of ads.


It's been well proven that
egregious falsehood and appeals to low prejudices will sway more voters
in less time than any other type of campaign.


Pop psych bull****. The swing voters can't be categorized as a group.
Their ultimate choices are made for reasons that run the gamut from wise to
idiotic. What you claim above sounds like a gross oversimplification.


That's why we are in the
mess that we're in.


Perhaps you'd like to provide some of that "well proven" evidence.

Nixon's landslide in 1972 and Reagan's landslide in 1980 are the biggest
examples I can think of... both were based on loudly repeated falsehood
(for example, Nixon's record with the war in Viet Nam) and racist
innuendo (for example Reagan's speeches about the evils of welfare).


... Don't
bother, because you can't--it's your opinion.

An opinion based on observation of facts.


...Kerry's going to have a hard time
selling himself as a centrist with his voting record, regardless of how you
attempt to portray it.

I'm not trying to portray anything. In fact I am not particularly a fan
of Kerry's. He is certainly more liberal than many, but the attempt to
paint him as a far left winger is pure propaganda... and it appears to
be working.

DSK

I disagree, this is a Bush/Cheney smear that has been repeated so
many
times it is taken as true. Take a look at his actual voting record...
for example the times his voting on defense issues has been in
accordance with Dick Cheney's (a well known leftist).




To hide his abysmal record on military appropriations, Kerry will vote
yes on every high-cost veterans benefit that comes along, and call
that "defense spending." That also explains the loyal support he gets
from scattered groups of veterans. If you care most about government
benefits, and not new equipment, then Kerry's definitely your man.

-------------------------------------

Kerry's Record Rings a Bell
By William G. Mayer
Washington Post
Sunday, March 28, 2004; Page B04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A28761-2004Mar27

Is Sen. John F. Kerry a liberal? As the presidential campaign unfolds
over the next seven months, the parties will no doubt spend a lot of
time debating this question, with Republicans insisting that he is and
Democrats just as vehemently denying it.

The question of how to measure a senator's or representative's ideology
is one that political scientists regularly need to answer. For more
than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use
the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups,
notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American
Conservative Union (ACU).

The ADA, which describes itself as "the nation's oldest independent
liberal organization," was founded in 1947 by a group of distinguished
postwar liberals -- including Eleanor Roosevelt, labor leader Walter
Reuther and historian Arthur Schlesinger -- to rally support for
progressive causes. Shortly afterward, the ADA began publishing an
annual legislative score card. Every year, the ADA's Legislative
Committee selects what it considers to be the 20 most important votes
cast in each house of Congress. Senators and representatives then
receive a score ranging from 0 to 100, based on the percentage of times
they voted for the liberal position, as identified by the ADA. In 1971,
a group called the American Conservative Union began publishing a
conservative counterpart to the ADA ratings, using the same method.

The ADA and ACU ratings are valuable as yardsticks for several reasons.
Both have been around for a long time, thus providing some historical
perspective. Both groups are able to speak with some authority about
what constitutes the "liberal" and "conservative" positions on various
issues. And both are good at distinguishing between meaningful and
unimportant votes. Voters back home might be taken in if the House
passes a resolution saying that all Americans have the right to
adequate health care or a strong national defense -- but doesn't take
any action or provide any money toward that goal. The ADA and ACU
almost certainly won't.

So what do the ADA and ACU ratings tell us about Kerry? Here are the
numbers for the past 10 of his 19 years in the Senate:


YEAR ADA ACU

1994 .950

1995 .954

1996 .955

1997 .950

1998 .954

1999 .950

2000 .9012

2001 .954

2002 .8520

2003 .8513

AVG .926


Kerry's 2003 ADA score may be a bit misleading. The ADA gives each
senator five points every time he or she casts a liberal vote. Senators
get zero points if they vote for the conservative position or if they
don't vote at all. Of the 20 votes selected by the ADA in 2003, Kerry
was absent for three. He thus actually voted the liberal position on
all 17 of the votes he was present for.

Either way, Kerry's voting record is a very liberal one, according to
both rating systems. The ADA's Web site notes that "those Members of
Congress considered to be Moderates generally score between 40% and
60%." By that criterion, Kerry's record falls well outside
the "moderate" range.

The same point is borne out by a comparison of Kerry's ratings with
those of other Democrats who are often classified as moderates, such as
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana. Breaux's lifetime average ADA score
through 2002 is 55. When Lloyd Bentsen of Texas was a senator, his
lifetime ADA score was 41. Former Georgia senator Sam Nunn had a
lifetime ADA average of 37. Al Gore had a 65 average. Joe Lieberman,
who is sometimes described as a liberal and sometimes as a moderate --
he has a generally liberal voting record but also dissents from several
important liberal positions -- has a lifetime ADA score of 76 through
2002.

At the other end of the spectrum, three senators are often singled out
as the most liberal: Barbara Boxer of California, Pat Leahy of Vermont
and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Their lifetime ADA scores through
2002 are, respectively, 96, 93 and 90 -- statistically
indistinguishable from Kerry's.

In recent weeks, a number of commentators have asserted that Kerry's
voting history is complicated to classify. The evidence doesn't bear
this out. If you were to take the numbers shown here, cover up Kerry's
name and then ask a sample of American political scientists, "I have
here a senator who in the past 10 years has had an average ADA score of
92 and an average ACU score of 6. Is he a liberal, a moderate or a
conservative?" they would have no difficulty in classifying the 2004
Democratic candidate as, for better or worse, a liberal.


William Mayer is an associate professor of political science at
Northeastern University in Boston.

If you care most about government
benefits, and not new equipment, then Kerry's definitely your man.


This country no longer needs to thrash the new gear industry. Wake up, fraud.

RB