I don't remember... I guess I probably switched (from L) around 2000.

I'd go independent to make a stand, but since you can't vote in the primaries, and since most of the local Rs get elected around this zone, I'm R for the time being. If I lived in town I'd go D.

Yes, I'm certainly glad we fine citizens of Pennsylvania will be able to make our voices heard in choosing a Democratic presidential candidate. We have so much influence, with a late April primary....

Let you in on a secret... Iraq had nothing, NOTHING to do with 9-11. Bush's pals :doit: in Saudi Arabia did the job. Yes, we killed some Arabs so NASCAR lovin meatheads could feel like we got our revenge, but that little game hasn't really paid off now that the constitutional fig leaf has blown off. It's time for Republicans to freaking wake up to the fact that Shrub is no conservative.

edit: Arabs Persians whatever...they're all the same to American imperialists.

"This country has traditionally been made better and stronger by the dialectic that occurs between the right and the left, but the right have gone so egregiously far off center that they've become a liability to themselves and to this country."
--Moby

Hey! Sharpton still has a chance!

But they are far off center. That's why they're (we're) the right.

I don't get it ...

People, people...when will you learn that it simply doesn't *matter* who we elect.

Bush is a moron, and you can't trust morons, because they don't understand what they're doing.

Kerry is a Catholic with a taste for a hairstyle more suited to a Baptist preacher. If he doesn't have good hair sense, how can he run the country?

I'm going to base my choice on the pronunciation of the the word "nuclear".

Bush the moron has, by not-fully-explained-means, managed to get the shell of a democracy-friendly government in the heart of the middle east. The hardline Shia faction in Iran will have a fairly secular buffer between them and the rest of the region - a stabilizing influence, no? And as long as we keep each other happy, we get to stage out of baghdad when eating syria's lunch.

That's where the WMD's are, you know. Those that they couldn't get to Lebanon and Libya for laundering.

Kerry's record will speak for itself. I think it's too liberal for our country, and I think a majority of people who are hanging their hopes on Kerry to beat Bush in 11.04 are gonna have to fire up their microbusses and make a peace train out to D.C. JK gonna need the support of his friends.

Government works best when politicians meet in the center. The politicians on the Right have moved away from that center.

Um...well...I really don't think hair (or lack of) should enter into it.:rolleyes:

The democracy shell is there for now. The Shia are apparently accepting the constitution...let's see what happens after we hand over the reins.

Or, maybe they're in Canada...or Zimbabwe...or under the White House...

The real race has just begun...and I imagine there are a lot of people where the "liberal" record of John Kerry isn't that big of a deal. And some (maybe many) will recognize that he represents a fairly liberal state. What he's done in the Senate doesn't necessarily translate to what he might do in the presidency. I think there are a lot of liberals and moderates (and probably some fiscal conservatives) who don't like the direction of the country under Republican executive and Republican legislative branches of government, and are ready for a change.

I'm waiting for my Kerry bumper stickers to arrive by mail...I'm sure his campaign will start hitting me up for money soon. :)

Re: Re: Is Kerry really electable?
 

I would vote Bush.
We have seven states here with 'independent' government but overruled by federal laws. The good ole USA is no different. Why should the world turn without an ultimate set of laws. We can't function as a country without them so why should we expect the globe to differ.
Yeah, I know, I'm, yet again, oversimplifying but that's often a pseudonym for 'the bottom line'.
I would be content, not happy, content with a world government. Bush is aware of this need. He can hardly be expected to produce the perfect model but he's on the right track.
The "other 100+" countries allegedly alienated is simply a bunch of irrelevant folk who feel perfectly safe dissenting. The man doesn't drop on those who don't need droppin' on. Why would he?
He was ferociously heckled when he adressed Aus parliament last year and his response?
" This is why I love free speech"
Does anybody truly believe Dubyaisms are for real. Maybe the first one coulda possibly slipped through the spin machine but, honestly, nucular? If you want votes you gotta tap into the lowest denominator. The 'machine' knows this.
He may not be the smartest leader but he's not so dumb as to assume he's got all the answers. He's happy to listen to smarter people.

Re: Re: Re: Is Kerry really electable?
 

Actually, I have heard him pronounce 'noo-kyoo-leer'. I personally don't give a damn about that, considering it just a regional variant.

As far as him listening to 'smarter people', my opinion is that he only listens to smarter people who reinforce his biases. In other words, "yes" men.

I am becoming more of an anti-federalist lately. Not really a Libertarian, but with a belief that beyond the core constitutional issues like civil rights, defense, and national infrastruture, the feds should pay more attention to the 10th amendment and allow for differences between states, as long as they do not infringe on personal liberties.

I like the idea that people can go to Mobile, Alabama and have a different experience than people who go to San Francisco.

I don't like activist liberals who pass laws telling people how to act. I really don't like activist conservatives who pass laws telling people how to act.

Once Bush starting flummering about a 'Marriage Amendment", I knew that he had lost it.