Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


As to the rest -- what do you expect from johnkerry.com?

Eisboch


Certainly not four years of messed mixages.



I just wish there was another choice. I have little confidence in GB
and less in the JFK wanna-be. I suppose GB could hire Kerry as a speech
writer, given that Kerry says the same thing Bush does in a more
articulate way.

Eisboch


That you still have any ocnfidence in Bush is astonishing. Bush has
pooched everything he has touched.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Gould,

It is not a campaign smear. A senator can list those bills that he
sponsored of cosponsored that passed and became law.

It would show the candidates ability to lead and initiate bills, and not
just one who is voting on the party line.

As I pointed out earlier, I could not find any bill of significance that
Kerry sponsored or cosponsored. When I asked you to find one bill that you
thought was significant, you could not find any either.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Eisboch,
If you notice on johnkerry.com they list generalities with very little
specific accomplishments.

That's because any Senator has very little he or she can take personal,
and
exclusive
credit for. It's a committee environment.
That's why "served on this committee", "co-sponsored X bill". etc, is
about as
good as it gets.

Good campaign smear though. Measure a legislator by the same yardstick you
would use to evaluate an executive.

It would be like asking Geoprge Bush to list all of his Senate votes
during the
last four years in the WH.

Eisboch,
This might be the worst choice we have ever had. Why is it that the cream
of the crop or the best of the best become the candidate for each party? It
seems that the extreme of either party get the volunteers out in mass, and
they control the primaries which leave the vast majority of the voters going
WTF.


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


As to the rest -- what do you expect from johnkerry.com?

Eisboch


Certainly not four years of messed mixages.



I just wish there was another choice. I have little confidence in GB and
less in the JFK wanna-be. I suppose GB could hire Kerry as a speech
writer, given that Kerry says the same thing Bush does in a more
articulate way.

Eisboch

excuse the typo.
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:6aB7d.97372$wV.37655@attbi_s54...
Eisboch,
This might be the worst choice we have ever had. Why is it that the cream
of the crop or the best of the best *Do Not* become the candidate for each
party? It seems that the extreme of either party get the volunteers out
in mass, and they control the primaries which leave the vast majority of
the voters going WTF.


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Eisboch wrote:


As to the rest -- what do you expect from johnkerry.com?

Eisboch


Certainly not four years of messed mixages.



I just wish there was another choice. I have little confidence in GB and
less in the JFK wanna-be. I suppose GB could hire Kerry as a speech
writer, given that Kerry says the same thing Bush does in a more
articulate way.

Eisboch

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:31:20 -0400, Eisboch
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

As to the rest -- what do you expect from johnkerry.com?

Eisboch

Certainly not four years of messed mixages.

I just wish there was another choice. I have little confidence in GB
and less in the JFK wanna-be. I suppose GB could hire Kerry as a speech
writer, given that Kerry says the same thing Bush does in a more
articulate way.

The problem is that 75% of the country is disenfranchised from the
process. The candidate that does the best in Iowa and New Hampster
going into Super Tuesday wins it all - and has since the introduction
of this system.

There is no say any more. Take this election. Three states are
destined to elect the President - about 9% of the total voting
population - if that.

Which is exactly the way the two major parties want it. That way they
don't have to work hard. They want as small a grouping as possible.

Is it going to change? Not a chance. You think this election is
partisian? Just wait until Billary runs in 2008. You ain't seen
nuttin' yet.

And that is the one that will either destroy the country or make it
better.

You heard it hear first. :)

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Is it going to change? Not a chance. You think this election is
partisian? Just wait until Billary runs in 2008. You ain't seen
nuttin' yet.



Well, I like Hillary a lot, both as a person and as a politician. But I
don't believe she'll be the nominee or even a serious contender.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:00:37 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Is it going to change? Not a chance. You think this election is
partisian? Just wait until Billary runs in 2008. You ain't seen
nuttin' yet.

Well, I like Hillary a lot, both as a person and as a politician. But I
don't believe she'll be the nominee or even a serious contender.

Well, we shall see.

I'm betting it's already a done deal.

Later,

Tom

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:01:54 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

Eisboch,
This might be the worst choice we have ever had. Why is it that the cream
of the crop or the best of the best become the candidate for each party?
It seems that the extreme of either party get the volunteers out in mass,
and they control the primaries which leave the vast majority of the voters
going WTF.

We get the democracy *we* deserve. It seems to me, we don't get the
chance to choose our candidates, they are appointed. IMHO, the two party
system is overrated. I became excited about Perot's candidacy, not
because I thought he would be a good President, but because he could send
a message to the two parties that they weren't doing their job of
representing us. Much has been said about the American non-voter, perhaps
they are voting, none of the above.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:01:54 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

Eisboch,
This might be the worst choice we have ever had. Why is it that the cream
of the crop or the best of the best become the candidate for each party?
It seems that the extreme of either party get the volunteers out in mass,
and they control the primaries which leave the vast majority of the voters
going WTF.

We get the democracy *we* deserve. It seems to me, we don't get the
chance to choose our candidates, they are appointed. IMHO, the two party
system is overrated. I became excited about Perot's candidacy, not
because I thought he would be a good President, but because he could send
a message to the two parties that they weren't doing their job of
representing us. Much has been said about the American non-voter, perhaps
they are voting, none of the above.


I'm beginning to admire the British parliamentary system.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:43:15 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:01:54 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

Eisboch,
This might be the worst choice we have ever had. Why is it that the
cream of the crop or the best of the best become the candidate for each
party? It seems that the extreme of either party get the volunteers out
in mass, and they control the primaries which leave the vast majority
of the voters going WTF.

We get the democracy *we* deserve. It seems to me, we don't get the
chance to choose our candidates, they are appointed. IMHO, the two
party system is overrated. I became excited about Perot's candidacy,
not because I thought he would be a good President, but because he could
send a message to the two parties that they weren't doing their job of
representing us. Much has been said about the American non-voter,
perhaps they are voting, none of the above.


I'm beginning to admire the British parliamentary system.

I'm not sure it's our system or us. Our forefathers warned of the tyranny
of a party system. We have allowed our politicians to serve their "party"
rather than serve us. It is our own fault. In any event, I wouldn't
change the system. It has provided a heritage and stability that has
carried us through trying times. The benefits of that continuity can not
be disregarded.