I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry.

Yeah I bet.



Calif Bill wrote:
Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your
money.


Well, why have you been a charter member of the Bush-Cheney
Cheerleaders then? Why do you go so far out of your way to
defend President Bush? Why do you so blatantly despise the
few relatively successful moderate Democrats? Doesn't add up!


... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put
all their resources behind Kerry.

???

No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards
came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary.

Where do you get this loony-toons stuff?



... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this
DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a
few years prior. Both unelectable.


Why was Dole "unelectable?"

DSK



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/

Sort of explains Kerry selection.

By ignoring the facts and concentrating on a lot of negative
blather?

That's not an explanation, that's spin. Kerry won the
primaries. He was also the top fund-raiser, a sad comment on
our current political system, but he certainly was not
selected by some secret cabal of Democrat elitists.



Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no
leadership showing.

Actually Dole had a lot of leadership and probably the most
real practical political experience of any recent candidate.
He also had a pretty strong sense of morals, something
lacking in almost all other Republicans and many Democrats.

The biggest problem with Dole is that he was a throwback to
a kinder, gentler, slower paced, more bipartisan era. A
Republican Party which was turning to total amorality,
win-at-all-costs, cut-throat partisanship, and a total
abdication from any responsibility for national leadership,
rejected him.



... Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice
for President.

Shucks, by now almost everybody except you and NOBBY agree
that Kerry would have made a much better President than
Bush. But then, why would a moderate centrist Democrat
fellow like you see it that way?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most
votes during the primaries.


NOYB wrote:
That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any
other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate
who got more votes than *any* President ever.


Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now?

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very
low.

Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any
President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in
history...but still lost by 3 million votes.

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most
votes during the primaries.


NOYB wrote:
That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than any
other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican candidate
who got more votes than *any* President ever.


Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now?

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very
low.

Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any
President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in
history...but still lost by 3 million votes.

Turnout was high in that respect because there are more people of
voting age in the U.S. than ever before.

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was very
low.


NOYB wrote:
Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any
President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in
history...but still lost by 3 million votes.


My mistake
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Voter turnout was high, although not dramatically so. Now we
need to work on the swing year vote turnout, since that's
just as important.

DSK

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
No, the Democrats chose the candidate that pulled in by far the most
votes during the primaries.


NOYB wrote:
That Dem candidate also got more votes in the November election than
any
other Democrat in history. But they got beat by a Republican
candidate
who got more votes than *any* President ever.


Then why does Calif Bill (and so many other Republicans) regret it now?

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that voter turn out was
very
low.

Turn out was high. Bush got more votes (61 or 62 million) than any
President in history. Kerry also got more votes than any President in
history...but still lost by 3 million votes.

Turnout was high in that respect because there are more people of
voting age in the U.S. than ever before.


Turnout was higher in 2004 (55.3%) than at any other time since 1968
(60.8%). The highest turnout in the last 5 decades was 1960 (63.1%). Of
course, in 1960 a lot of dead Democrats from Chicago managed to climb out of
their graves and vote for Kennedy.



http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

On Tue, 23 May 2006 08:34:15 -0400, DSK wrote:

I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry.

Yeah I bet.



Calif Bill wrote:
Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your
money.


Well, why have you been a charter member of the Bush-Cheney
Cheerleaders then? Why do you go so far out of your way to
defend President Bush? Why do you so blatantly despise the
few relatively successful moderate Democrats? Doesn't add up!


... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put
all their resources behind Kerry.

???

No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards
came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary.

Where do you get this loony-toons stuff?



... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this
DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a
few years prior. Both unelectable.


Why was Dole "unelectable?"

DSK



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/

Sort of explains Kerry selection.

By ignoring the facts and concentrating on a lot of negative
blather?

That's not an explanation, that's spin. Kerry won the
primaries. He was also the top fund-raiser, a sad comment on
our current political system, but he certainly was not
selected by some secret cabal of Democrat elitists.



Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no
leadership showing.

Actually Dole had a lot of leadership and probably the most
real practical political experience of any recent candidate.
He also had a pretty strong sense of morals, something
lacking in almost all other Republicans and many Democrats.

The biggest problem with Dole is that he was a throwback to
a kinder, gentler, slower paced, more bipartisan era. A
Republican Party which was turning to total amorality,
win-at-all-costs, cut-throat partisanship, and a total
abdication from any responsibility for national leadership,
rejected him.



... Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice
for President.

Shucks, by now almost everybody except you and NOBBY agree
that Kerry would have made a much better President than
Bush. But then, why would a moderate centrist Democrat
fellow like you see it that way?

DSK

Doug, you seem to consider anyone who disagrees with what you call 'an
argument' is a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader'. That's nonsense. I'm sure as hell
not a 'Bush-Cheney Cheerleader', yet we disagree often. One does not have
to like Bush to have voted for him. For God's sake, look at what the
alternative would have been!

The important thing is this: I've not yet been out fishing because I've
been subbing too damn much. Luckily, school is over soon, and my last sub
job will be on the 14th of June. Then I'll have a chance to get the rods
rigged and do a little trolling. Or maybe I'll just get some shrimp and do
a little drift fishing. It's much more relaxing.

Have you done any boating yet?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Calif Bill wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .


..Best would be a major CEO of a large,
successful company

Like...Dick Chaney?


or a Governor.


Like...GWB?

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry.

Yeah I bet.



Calif Bill wrote:
Since it is a secret ballot, I can not prove it, so you get to keep your
money.


Well, why have you been a charter member of the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders
then? Why do you go so far out of your way to defend President Bush? Why
do you so blatantly despise the few relatively successful moderate
Democrats? Doesn't add up!


... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put
all their resources behind Kerry.

???

No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards
came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary.

Where do you get this loony-toons stuff?



... Is part of Democracy to have a party leadership committee, but this
DNC seemed to deem Kerry their person. Just like the RNC blessed Dole a
few years prior. Both unelectable.


Why was Dole "unelectable?"

DSK



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/..._kerry_debate/

Sort of explains Kerry selection.

By ignoring the facts and concentrating on a lot of negative blather?

That's not an explanation, that's spin. Kerry won the primaries. He was
also the top fund-raiser, a sad comment on our current political system,
but he certainly was not selected by some secret cabal of Democrat
elitists.



Dole was unelectable as he had no charisma, no real platform and no
leadership showing.

Actually Dole had a lot of leadership and probably the most real practical
political experience of any recent candidate. He also had a pretty strong
sense of morals, something lacking in almost all other Republicans and
many Democrats.

The biggest problem with Dole is that he was a throwback to a kinder,
gentler, slower paced, more bipartisan era. A Republican Party which was
turning to total amorality, win-at-all-costs, cut-throat partisanship, and
a total abdication from any responsibility for national leadership,
rejected him.



... Sort of like Sen., Kerry. Senators make a poor choice for President.

Shucks, by now almost everybody except you and NOBBY agree that Kerry
would have made a much better President than Bush. But then, why would a
moderate centrist Democrat fellow like you see it that way?

DSK


I am a not a Bush cheer leader. This administration sucks. No financial
control whatsoever. Kerry, was proposing a couple hundred million increase
in social spending. Also no financial control whatsoever. He was going to
raise taxes on only the top 1%. You think his wife would like that. He was
the top fundraiser as he had the DNC behind him. I voted for Badnarick.
Anybody but the above. Both sides of the aisle are profligate spenders.
But sides added pork, barrels of Pork, to the highway spending bill, and
every other bill that came along. Anybody that opposed a spending bill,
seemed to lose their chairmanship, or any other position with power. WE as
a people need to vote out 90% of the incumbents and tell the ones coming in
to correct their retirement plan! Why should you get a lifetime pension for
4 years of elected office, where the salary was very good? Put them on
Social Security and then you would see SS fixed. DSK, you are so much a
Yellow Dog Democrat, that you would never look at the candidate except for a
'D' after their name!!!!

wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
.. .


.Best would be a major CEO of a large,
successful company

Like...Dick Chaney?


or a Governor.


Like...GWB?


Like Chaney? Yes, but you also have to look at the business morals of the
person. The POTUS is a CEO of a large, powerful corporation, so the fact is
you need leadership ability. As to Governor, you also need one from a state
that has a powerful governorship. Texas is not one, but you also have to
look at the leadership of the person as a Governor. Clinton was also a
governor, and Arkansas is a one party state, that is backwoods. He also was
a crappy POTUS. He had the charisma, and brains to be a great POTUS, but he
failed to use his brain, and tried to run the country like Arkansas.
Surrounded himself with halfassed advisors, and looked at what a poll said
instead of making an informed decision. Sort of 'Mob Rule'.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry.

Yeah I bet.

... Kerry was far behind in the polls and primaries until the DNC put
all their resources behind Kerry.

???

No, Kerry won almost all the primaries with fairly large margins. Edwards
came in second a number of times, Dean won a single early primary.

Where do you get this loony-toons stuff?


From the Daily Insanity, published by Zell Miller, Bill's hero.

And at least Zell has a brain he uses instead of being a democratic party
hack!