Cheney jump?

After Bush's whisper campaign four years ago that McCain's adopted little brown kid was in reality the foul result of his fooling around with a colored woman? I don't think so...

 

Adding McCain to the ticket certainly makes Shrub electable, and I don't think many, Republicans included would be sad to see Dr. Evil hit the road. Probably they cite "health concerns" and Cheney retires. But.... McCain playing second fiddle to the dumbass? I don't see it, unless he gets to be President like Cheney.....

 

Using that logic, I guess Bush is stuck with Cheney.

 

You think he's not electable right now? I'd still give him a 55-60% chance of winning. It's pretty much a tossup, but the incumbent has a much easier time manipulating the news (for example, the terrorism alerts just after Kerry picked Edwards).

 

Well, he lost the popular vote last time and he is a hell of a lot less popular than 4 years ago. Also, Edwards energizes the Democratic ticket.

Also, his service records are "lost", he invaded Iraq based on God kows why, the economy still sucks and we are piling up record deficits, he is low intellect and a liar which the American population now regognizes.... Yes, I believe him to be unelectable. Cheney is just a Strangelovian side show that makes it that much worse ("I have no continuing interest in Halliburton... 'cept those payments they make me...")

 

His dad didn't/couldn't dump Quayle, even though he was a drag on the ticket. Ever since nominees took over selecting VP candidates from conventions, it's correctly been seen as the first and most important choice that a potential president can make. Admitting a mistake of that magnitude is political hara-kiri. Ask Vice-President Thomas Eagleton (is he even still alive?)

Besides, who would join the Dubya Titanic at this point? A pro-choicer like Bloomberg or Pataki? Zell Miller? Ken Lay? Lynndie England? There aren't a lot of realistic choices out there.

 

Kerry-McCain vs. Bush-Miller would've been pretty cool (and good for the country IMO).

 

No one votes for president based on who the VP is.

Now something really important

"Due to heavy traffic and the big match, the server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later.

If you would like to avoid messages like this, become a BigSoccer Supporter and receive priority access to the site and much, much more."

Just a gimic to get you to pay to log on.

 

Or maybe it is some kind of crazy business model where the service you 'pay' for is a little better than the 'free' service? What a notion!?!

 

Unfortunately, but I still think Kerry should give it some thought.

 

I agree with 50% of that. It's the first choice the nominee makes. But nobody votes for the VP, nobody.

Having said that, hearing that Kerry offered the job to McCain made me wonder about his decision-making. McCain nearly melted down in his run against dubya, he's an accident waiting to happen.

You can see that he's wound tight, and one of these days........bang, zoom

 

Do you know anything about Zell Miller? Do you realize that he somewhere to the right of Cheney? He is a democrat in name only.

 

A Kerry-McCain ticket would have been wonderful for a lot of noble reasons like bringing unity, etc etc.

But mostly I wanted it because I think McCain is a hoot.

 

I know you're exaggerating, but when Cheney was a member of Congress he had the most conservative voting record of any member. Just like Kerry has the most liberal voting record of any Senator.

 

That doesn't surprise me.

But yes, I was exaggerating. A little bit, anyway. Anyway, my point was that a Bush-Miller ticket wouldn't be nearly as unifying as a Kerry-McCain ticket.

 

I understand what you were implying, Barb, but neither ticket would be unifying. McCain rejected it because he knew as soon as the election was over, Kerry would have shoved him off to the side. It was an attempt at Reagan/Ford 1980. Co-Presidencies don't work and McCain isn't the type of man to stand for such a thing. Also included is that McCain believes we're at war with terrorism whereas Kerry thinks it's a law-enforcement issue. That's a serious difference.

 

Yes, that is a serious difference but is that really an accurate statement? Has Kerry really had the balls to say it's a law enforcement thing and not a war? Because if he has, then I think I might actually have to volunteer to work on his campaign.

But I'd be really surprised if he had the balls to say it that explicitly.

 

Boy, it sure is! Or, it would be, if it were true.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland/plan.html

In fact, I strongly encourage you, and every reader, to spend a lot of time at johnkerry.com, and really get to know this great American. After all - he cares about you!

Vote for John Kerry in November. Jesus would, if he were an American citizen. But He can't. So you'll have to do it for Him.

 

As I suspected.

 

“[The War on Terror] will involve the military now and then, but will primarily be an intelligence gathering, law enforcement operation.” John Kerry

Barb, it's not a law-enforcement issue. We took that approach for about 9 years and look where it got us. Don't view the approach that W has taken as the only alternative to approaching it as a law-enforcement issue. For an example of how wrong it is to view it as a law-enforcement issue, SecDef.Cohen about the USS Cole bombing said that is wasn't a significant enough loss of life to warrant a response. If you wan't to continue to take that approach, be my guest. Ignorance is bliss.

That's Kerry's own words. Care to refute it Dan?

 

You'll have to do better than Newsmax, my friend.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/1/02522.shtml

Your quote, by the way, didn't exactly blow Google away:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...enforcement+operation"+John+Kerry&btnG=Search

Mostly because it was a misquote from the Newsmax article.

Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation."

Knowing Newsmax, this was probably separated by several paragraphs. If he said anything like it in the first place. I'm not able to find any trace of this that didn't originate from Newsmax. Pardonnez-moi mon skepticism, as they say in Freedom.

 

Hey! Here's a wild idea: maybe it's both.

Maybe sometimes we have to attack another nation - like Afghanistan - that harbors terrorists. But maybe most of the time we have to go after individuals to try to put them in jail. Oh wait, that might require extending those we capture some human rights. Even worse, we might be required to present evidence of their crimes to a judge.

Nope, can't have that. This is war, baby. The Constitution is antiquated and burdensome so we'll just ignore it. But we're doing it to keep America safe.

 

Guess what, I've never been to the newsmax site in my life. I view it as big a waste of time as the democraticunderground site or slate.com. It's not a misquote. You just repeated the quotation word for word after calling it a mis-quote.

Barb-
Going after individuals to put them in jail is a law-enforcement action. Yes, sometimes it's both, but Kerry views it as a majority law-enforcement issue. That's not only from his quotation but also the word from some of the largest Democratic party donors in the state of Oklahoma. (I don't read newsmax, but it's funny that the link you use mentions his quotation as being before Oklahoma City firefighters. Now before you go and dispute my claims of OK fundraisers, where do you think they would get such an impression?) Terrorists view themselves at war against us. Until we do the same, we are not only at a disadvantage, we will lose.