THIS FROM A LIBERAL on kerry, not good at all

rainstorm · #1 Postby **rainstorm** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:16 am

joe klein, time magazine:

"The stodginess is compounded by the Senator's public performances. In an effort to seem positive, he has removed the "Bring It On" red meat from his stump speech and replaced it with Spam. It is not uncommon to see audiences leaving his fund-raising events in droves while he is still speaking. Often he'll talk about the need for a new style of campaigning, a "conversation" with the American people, and then he'll proceed to relaunder a list of Democratic nostrums ("Health care is a right, not a privilege") that were clichés when Dukakis slogged the trail. There is nothing conversational, or comforting, about his candidacy."

its not good when fellow liberals are walking out on kerry's speeches.

Lindaloo · #2 Postby **Lindaloo** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:35 am

Actually it is a good thing. LOL!!

j · #3 Postby j » Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:42 am

Lindaloo wrote:Actually it is a good thing. LOL!!

I 2nd that!

Guest · #4 Postby **Guest** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:02 am

Kerry is really a very inadequate candidate in many ways. The fact that he is running a generally competitive race highlights the degree that Bush is viewed as incompetent by a large chunk of voters. Sure, Bush has resolve and conviction on many issues, but he doesn't seem like he knows what he is doing much of the time, and it is quite transparent.

rainstorm · #5 Postby **rainstorm** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:11 pm

i think you are wrong there. bush has a rather large lead right now. you have to ask why the dems decided on kerry. at least howard dean had an enthusiastic following among the far left wing

Guest · #6 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:31 am

rainstorm wrote:i think you are wrong there. bush has a rather large lead right now. you have to ask why the dems decided on kerry. at least howard dean had an enthusiastic following among the far left wing

4-5% for an incumbent President at this stage is rather unimpressive. I am pretty sure he had a similar lead over Gore 1-2 weeks before the election. We'll see if Kerry is a closer. I suspect he is.

Also, I'd love to hear from some on the right, exactly which Gore states Bush will win in 2004?? anyone??

GalvestonDuck · #7 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:39 am

zwyts wrote:Also, I'd love to hear from some on the right, exactly which Gore states Bush will win in 2004?? anyone??

New York and Hawaii, if not others.

rainstorm · #8 Postby **rainstorm** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:01 am

kerry is imploding as we speak. thank you dems for nominating him

#9 Postby **streetsoldier** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:03 am

John Kerry has more positions thatn Heidi Fleiss, and about the same sense of "commitment".

Guest · #10 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:12 am

GalvestonDuck wrote:
zwyts wrote:Also, I'd love to hear from some on the right, exactly which Gore states Bush will win in 2004?? anyone??

New York and Hawaii, if not others.

cute

GalvestonDuck · #11 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:13 am

zwyts wrote:
GalvestonDuck wrote:
zwyts wrote:Also, I'd love to hear from some on the right, exactly which Gore states Bush will win in 2004?? anyone??

New York and Hawaii, if not others.

cute

Cute? I wasn't trying to be cute.

There weren't THAT many Gore states to begin with. Those two, I'm certain, Bush will carry.

Guest · #12 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:15 am

rainstorm wrote:kerry is imploding as we speak. thank you dems for nominating him

Your just a shill for the conservative media. Also, your fickleness makes Kerry look like a statue. So, Ms Helen Boortz, Which Gore states will Bush win in 2004? Thanks.

rainstorm · #13 Postby **rainstorm** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:21 am

zwyts wrote:
rainstorm wrote:kerry is imploding as we speak. thank you dems for nominating him

Your just a shill for the conservative media. Also, your fickleness makes Kerry look like a statue. So, Ms Helen Boortz, Which Gore states will Bush win in 2004? Thanks.

thanks for the compliment, mr zwyts kennedy!! lol

Guest · #14 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:22 am

GalvestonDuck wrote:
zwyts wrote:
GalvestonDuck wrote:
zwyts wrote:Also, I'd love to hear from some on the right, exactly which Gore states Bush will win in 2004?? anyone??

New York and Hawaii, if not others.

cute

Cute? I wasn't trying to be cute.

There weren't THAT many Gore states to begin with. Those two, I'm certain, Bush will carry.

Duck. You are a very good and bright poster, but that has to be one of the worst prognostications of all time.

Bush is going to carry a state over a Northeast liberal, that Gore won by 25%? COME ON.

GalvestonDuck · #15 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:29 am

Zwyts...I also said UK would take the NCAA championship this year, but I was wrong.

We'll see what happens in November. :wink:

By the way, thanks!

rainstorm · #16 Postby **rainstorm** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:32 am

michigan, pennsylvania, iowa, nm, oregon, wisconsin.

Guest · #17 Postby **Guest** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:43 am

rainstorm wrote:michigan, pennsylvania, iowa, nm, oregon, wisconsin.

Thanks for the prediction. I will memorialize this post for comparison on Nov 5th. Based on the success of your predictions about other world events, particularly the Iraq conflict, I suddenly have a renewed feeling of optimism about the Kerry Campaign.

GalvestonDuck · #18 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:56 am

I have to disagree with Pennsylvania. And I think Kentucky will go to Kerry also.

THIS FROM A LIBERAL on kerry, not good at all

THIS FROM A LIBERAL on kerry, not good at all

Who is online