2008 -- Dem do's and dont's

hgc said:
Don't nominate Hillary Clinton. I know she is popular in the party, but too much of America hates her guts. Frankly she is charismatically challenged to the point of making Kerry look Clintonian (the other Clinton). This choice would lead to disaster.

Do nominate John Edwards. A real liberal who won't hide from it, but also appeals to middle America. Very charismatic and connects to people.

I don't know who else may be available, but they'll start to come out of the woodwork in January '07. Obama will be too young still.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it's going to be Hillary. The Democratic base is who votes in the primaries, and she is extremely popular w/ that group. Edwards won't do any better in the primaries next time around, and he is extremely inexperienced in governing anything which makes him unlikely to be elected president even if he wins the nomination.

The best hope for the Dems to win the presidency would be if they nominate a moderate (someone not seen as too far left) governor (which gives needed governing experience), preferably from the south. This has been the only winning strategy they've had in recent history (Carter, Clinton), but I think that their base has moved too far left for another like them to make it through the primary process.

He's not from the south, but Illinois governor Rod Blagojovich is known to have presidential aspirations. But his penchant for style over substance (such as the napalm train fear-mongering he exploited while a US Representative) could make him unpalatable to the US electorate.
 
materia3 said:
What Kerry-Edwards screwed up on was the bible belt and it was the bible belt states like Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky and others who put it over the top for Bush by so many votes. Although its his home state, even Texas is a bible belt state, with many areas where even whisky is illegal to sell or drink.

Any president who talks to god and god talks back can do no wrong, and god talks through him, he was not only not the anti-Christ, he was the last scion. Michael Moore should've figured that out.

My advice for the democrats in 2008 is to start telling people you pray, talk to god and whatever you have done is because god wanted it. It works.
Click to expand...

Didn't work for Kerry. The "God" count in the 3rd debate (mention of God, Lord, or Almighty) was...Kerry-9 times...Bush-2 times. Go through the transcript and count for yourself. I only counted once if used twice in the same sentence.
 
hgc said:
Thing about Jeb is that he ain't dumb like his big brother. Is that better or worse? I don't know.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amuse me how liberals keep calling Republican Presidents dumb. Reagan was dumb, Bush the elder was dumb, W is dumb. It's sad that they automatically think this way and yet they are on a James Randi critical thinking forum! Whenever I see a old liberal with gray hair, I pity them. I think of them as a person who thinks from emotion and never bothered to learn the facts. I figure they learned their political opinions from their parents and family and are just parroting what those people say.

I used to be a Democrat when I was young, (voted for Carter in 1976) and learned from that horrible mistake. The posts from the liberals on this thread who recommend Hillary or Edwards, completely define Einstein's definition of insanity..."Keep making the same mistakes and expecting different results".
 
Re: Re: 2008 -- Dem do's and dont's

aerocontrols said:
Edwards is going to have a hard time running for President. How will he stay in the public eye for the next four years?
Click to expand...
Reagan was out of the "public eye" for almost 20 years if I remember correctly. He assiduously worked the rubber chicken circuit for much of that period, building off his role as spokeman for GE. He built up a strong base of support for his eventual run at politics.
 
One thing the Dems can do is to stop supporting gun control laws that make mere ownership a crime. These gun control laws which turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals, more than anything else, are the most offensive in the eyes of these single-issue voters.

Do not say anything which depicts gun ownership as a character defect which will lead to murder.

Stop using the "there is no sporting use for these guns" label for popular semi-automatic rifles. Let the states decide how they want to regulate firearms, then they can sidestep all of the flak they get from gun owners on gun control when running in a federal election.

In a gun owner’s opinion, when a politician wants to grab guns, they wonder what will they grab next.

Ranb
 
easycruise said:
It never ceases to amuse me how liberals keep calling Republican Presidents dumb. Reagan was dumb, Bush the elder was dumb, W is dumb. It's sad that they automatically think this way and yet they are on a James Randi critical thinking forum!
Click to expand...

Can you give any evidence that a measurable percentage of liberals call G.H.W. Bush dumb? The man was the head of the CIA back when the CIA was really on the ball. Also, I do not consider Ronald Reagan dumb.

As for G.W. Bush's dumbness, I will quote the man himself by saying, "the jury is still out on that."
 
easycruise said:
It never ceases to amuse me how liberals keep calling Republican Presidents dumb. Reagan was dumb, Bush the elder was dumb, W is dumb. It's sad that they automatically think this way and yet they are on a James Randi critical thinking forum! Whenever I see a old liberal with gray hair, I pity them. I think of them as a person who thinks from emotion and never bothered to learn the facts. I figure they learned their political opinions from their parents and family and are just parroting what those people say.

I used to be a Democrat when I was young, (voted for Carter in 1976) and learned from that horrible mistake. The posts from the liberals on this thread who recommend Hillary or Edwards, completely define Einstein's definition of insanity..."Keep making the same mistakes and expecting different results".
Click to expand...
You have no idea what I think of the intelligence of past Republican presidents. Why don't you try to learn some facts, instead thinking from emotion? And stop parroting what Rush Limbaugh said. He's also a loudmouth prick who goes around making sweeping character generalizations about people of other political leanings.
 
hgc said:
You have no idea what I think of the intelligence of past Republican presidents. Why don't you try to learn some facts, instead thinking from emotion? And stop parroting what Rush Limbaugh said. He's also a loudmouth prick who goes around making sweeping character generalizations about people of other political leanings.
Click to expand...


Sad. Instead of refuting any of Rush Limbaugh's arguments, you resort to calling him names. And if you think that most liberals do not call Reagan and Bush the elder dumb, I have some valuable swamp land in Florida that you will be interested in.
 
easycruise said:
Sad. Instead of refuting any of Rush Limbaugh's arguments, you resort to calling him names. And if you think that most liberals do not call Reagan and Bush the elder dumb, I have some valuable swamp land in Florida that you will be interested in.
Click to expand...
Let me take you by the hand, and lead you back to the discussion.

Me: G.W. Bush is dumb.

You: Liberals are always saying Republican presidents are dumb. Liberals don't think, but are emotional.

Me: You know nothing of what I think of other Republican presidents. Pricks like Rush make sweeping character generalizations about ther other political side.

You: You didn't address Rush's arguments. And most liberals blah blah blah swampland in Florida.

Your mistakes:

You think I argue on behalf of your conception of "most liberals." I don't. I argue on my own behalf. What you think most liberals think is irrelevant and a non sequitor. That's the closest to "not addressing" and argument and name-calling that anyone has done in this entire thread.

You make sweeping character generalizations ("liberals" are emotional) based on political stripe, which is childish and silly.

You think I that just because I noted that your behavior is similar to Rush's that I failed to address Rush's argument. There is nothing to address. If you or Rush want to present some evidence that people who have a political bent have certain psychological characteristics, then let's have the evidence. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom