"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

I am not sure what you mean they are comfortable.

Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
By the way, did you forget that independent study I referenced earlier,
that
showed Kerry's team is more guilty of attack ads than Bush's team.



I can probably find an "indenpendent study" that proves Hillary Clinton is
the
Virgin Mary. An intelligent conservative would be ablr to organize a body
of
evidence that surpasses a singel survey.

Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?



I'm not inclined to look for one. Only those blind to the obvious, contrasting,
tone of the campaigns would need a survey to begin with.

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?

Doug, Your premise is so weak I almost didn't respond.

Have you ever heard of newspapers and the internet?

As far as why someone who has extremely poor verbal skills and someone who
looks like a stiff zombie becomes their parties candidate for presidency, it
is the rabid fringe element of both parties that
support and select the candidate. To win their primary a candidate has to
cater to the very liberal or very conservative in their party. Once they
have won the primaries, they suddenly have to become a moderate.

I read a survey that showed the vast majority of democrats when asked their
position on issues, would not have voted for Kerry, but would have selected
Edwards as their presidential candidate.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:KFL4d.246623$Fg5.198184@attbi_s53...

You need to stop believing every left wing nut case that tells you that
the
majority of Republicans base their decisions upon what Rush or Hannity or
any other talking head you want to reference.

Uh oh. Something's wrong here.

1) If the majority of Repubs do NOT base their decisions on what the radio
slimeballs say, then the majority must base their decisions on something
else, right?

2) What is the something else? Their own insights? Their own research?

3) This enlightened majority you describe voted an idiot into office. What
possible reasons could they have had for doing that?

4) Since the idiot and his sitters have done nothing but damage to this
country, shouldn't the words "traitor" or "treason" be reserved for them,
not for his opponents?

Gould 0738 wrote:
My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.



You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?



Perhaps the poster whose name got lost in your repost thinks that
Republican principals have nicer teats.

Vote for Bush? Sure...if you're into reality denial, as he is.






--
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?

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:sNW4d.16134$He1.4381@attbi_s01...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president
who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

I am not sure what you mean they are comfortable.



This is vague, but I mean comfortable in more than one way. Perhaps they're
financially comfortable and have the mistaken belief that one candidate or
the other is going to take something away from them. After all, that's the
usual campaign spew. Or, they're ideologically comfortable and believe the
spew about how a candidate's going to turn control of the country over to
the United Nations. Remember that crap?

Ok, since the survey didn't agree with your theory, it must be wrong. Since
I don't agree with you, I must be blind.

There is not much I can say.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?



I'm not inclined to look for one. Only those blind to the obvious,
contrasting,
tone of the campaigns would need a survey to begin with.

Gould, you said Kerry would never be your choice for president, but
considering the alternative it is the best option for you. Is it just
possible ...............


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is
because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Can you find one independent survey that proves Bush is more guilty of
slinging mud than Kerry?



I'm not inclined to look for one. Only those blind to the obvious,
contrasting,
tone of the campaigns would need a survey to begin with.

There may be a perfectly valid reason for the difference. Have you ever
watched an experienced teacher interacting with a kid with special needs?
She'll make a V with her fingers and point to her eyes to make sure the kid
is truly focused on the teacher's face. It works. The next step is simple:
Anyone who either plans to vote for Bush or is undecided has a clear need to
be brought to a more focused state. More to the point, they need to be taken
by the lapels and shaken severely. That's the goal of Kerry's ads.