Bush or Kerry

This poll is skewed. Too many young people on these forums. Young people = liberals. Don't think kerry really has any shot at winning.

If they are old enough to be here, then they are old enough to vote.

In regard to the questions about Bush not responding for 7 minutes after being alerted to the attacks - This is something to take into account. There could have been more attacks coming, terrorists could have been aware of the presidents location, all kinds of horrible things could have ben unspooling for all they knew. Bush should have immediately excused himself from the situation without alerting the children; even a semi-compitent adult could at least make up some kind of excuse ("excuse me kids, I have a very important presidental matter I have to take care of, I promise I'll try to come back and finish the fucking story book.") and leave without alarming the children.

The fact is, by not reacting to the news that there were major attacks occurring on American soil in a swift and decisive manner as soon as he learned about it, Bush, as the commander in chief and leader of our goverment, was compromising the security and safety of our nation and its citizens. A lot could have happened in those 7 minutes, nobody knew what was coming, but it's certain that absolutely no porgress towards defending ourselves would have been made as Bush sat there paralyzed. C'mon republicans, if that had been Al Gore sitting in that chair you all would have been screaming at the top of your lungs from the highest mountain tops in complaint. It was a screw-up, but indicative of Bush's poor capabilities as a leader in general. Face reality - the man didn't know what to do when he learned that our country was in serious danger.

Smallguy44 said:

This poll is skewed. Too many young people on these forums. Young people = liberals. Don't think kerry really has any shot at winning.

Click to expand...

Kerry does have a real shot at winning the election. What do you consider young???


Bush has screwd are reprutation up in the world. bush ani't noting but a good ol boy running shit. Kerry will do a better job for the homeland, which is not somewhere else in the world but it is here in your freaking backyard! We need to focus on America. cause we are now a divided country. and we will fall being that!

No chance of winning? Kerry was actually ahead in the polls, especially in battleground states like WI, FL, and PA. Even Arkansas had Kerry ahead. I saw it on Countdown on MSNBC, and they showed an electoral college landslide towards Kerry. But now b/c of this shit on Kerry's military service, he's down.

Republicans got their convention this week, and something has been bothering me. Why are they tauting the moderates on stage and pretending that they represent the majority of Repubs? B/c they dont. What % of Repubs are pro-choice moderates, like Guiliani and Schwarzeneggar? 20%? Less? Bush represents the Falwell/Robertson/Nascar dad/oil companies, wing of the Republicans. At least the Demmy's show who they are. The Clinton's, Teddy Kennedy, hell, even Michael Moore got a seat next to Jimmy Carter.

I hate the "good ol' boy system". I kinda agree with the "young people liberals" comment. I'd say like 3 out of 4 younguns dont like Bush. Like in my US Relations class in school, just about everybody thinks the Bush Admins needs to go. Young people are more open minded about race, social class, gays in general. But like I said, some kids are Bush supporters, but they tend not to be involved w/ politics as much. I think the more ignorant you are to various issues, the less likely you are to be liberal, progressive, or civil libertarian.

I think Kerry is in bad shape. The DNC was a total dud. He actually lost points after it when traditionaly, every party gains points. For the past months, all the polls have shown that the race is pretty even with Kerry ahead. The weekly or monthly polls show differences in maybe 1 or 2 points at the most. But lately this trend has changed. Now most polls are showing that Kerrry is down around 5 points and Bush is up. Now 5 points may not sound like much, but when the entire race has been +/- 1 or 2 points, this is huge!

And yes, this swift boat business, whether you believe it to be true or not has hurt Kerry. This won't be solved anytime soon, which is great for republicans and terrible for Kerry.

With the RNC coming up, I wanted to know what you liberals thought about the protesting issues. I'm not very current on it, all I know is that they are becoming a huge problem for the police. Hundreds of extra police are having to be moved in order to accomdate all the protesters. Of course, with more police watching the protest there will be fewer to watch the rest of the city, and do their normal jobs, which is protect all the citizens, instead of babysit. I was watching on the news, that there are people actually giving seminars about how to protest and fight the police and riot control. There are also reports saying that these protesters have obtained and are realeasing the locations of where the republican delegates are staying.

Now can the MOS liberals concede that these protesting liberals are completely out of line? Are you anti-bush people ashamed of the actions of these people? This is an outrage! At the DNC, I never saw this type of issue. These people are actually threating the lives of the delegates by releasing their locations. How low have anti-Bush people sunk? You tell me.

What are you thoughts on protesting at all? Would you ever protest? WHy do you think only liberals protest on such a grand scale compared to conservatvies?

I haven't read through half the posts on this topic, so I'll just chip in with my 2 cents and be done with it:

Kerry. Most definitely. I don't know enough about the guy to be able to make up my mind about him, but anyone is better than Bush. ANYONE.

How did things get so f--ed up in 2000? John McCain was the best man to be President who ran. But Bush slimed him, just how Kerry is being slimed. The sad shit is that it works. Even Gore would be better. People give Kerry to much shit b/c he straddles both sides of issues. But isnt that GOOD? Dont you want an actual moderate, instead of someone who claims to be a "compassionate conservative", then uses religion to create and influence policy?

Actually there was protesting at the DNC, I even saw someone w/ a sign that said "Kerry betrayed his 'Nam brothers" which is bullshit. The 1971 speech was harsh, and Kerry said he regrets some words, but that speech is always taken outta context by his opponents. I've been to protests before, and I love em. Its great to see a bunch of people who agree with many issues as you do. Some go to far, I concede, but the majority are peaceful voters. For instance many parents will bring their small children to protest.

I've seen the O'Reilly Factor, and he's been harping about protesting, which is probably where Rick got his talking points. And like O'Reilly I say "shut up". If you wanna blame somebody, blame the RNC! They picked New York!?!? Of course their gonna get massive protest! NYC hates Bush!! It will go to Kerry in a landslide. Bush is trying to recreate the moments of 9/11 and the political boost he got from that tragedy. I blindly followed Bush after 9/11, and thats what he's trying to recreate.

But quoting Bush, I say "fool me once, shame on....shame on you,.....but fool me, cant get fooled again"

Ok, this is in need of a response:

Kerry. Most definitely. I don't know enough about the guy to be able to make up my mind about him, but anyone is better than Bush. ANYONE

Click to expand...

It's funny how no one knows who John Kerry is, they only know him by his confusing Vietnam Record. They don't know what he has done in the senate, which is next to nothing, and they don't know what kind of person he is. Another reason John Kerry is going to lose is because his support is just bush haters. He can't win if no one knows who he is, even if he gets votes from bush-haters.

Actually there was protesting at the DNC, I even saw someone w/ a sign that said "Kerry betrayed his 'Nam brothers" which is bullshit.

Click to expand...

I never said there wasn't any protesting at the DNC, but I'm comparing it to that which will happen at the RNC. And when you say he didn't betray his fellow veterans, why do thousands think he did? You said his confessions are taken out of context, how can the words, "I commited atrocities" be taken out of context? The betrayal occured when he came back from Vietnam and accused all the veterans of doing the same atrocities, when many had not. Veterans felt he painted a brush over the entire military.

Kerry isn't a moderate by any standards. Survey's have shown that his stance on a variety of issues are more liberal than any other senator. Don't try to justify is lack of stance, or flip-floping as being a good trait.

If you wanna blame somebody, blame the RNC! They picked New York!?!?

Click to expand...

Now that is just sili. It shouldn't be an issue of safety when you pick a place to have your convention. How can you even say that? The issue isn't whether there will be massive protest, like you said, but if they will be peaceful, like the ones you go too. These are obviously not going to be peaceful. Like I said before, many of these protestors have taken rioting classes where they learn how to fight the police. They have publisized the locations of where the delegates are staying.

Bush is trying to recreate the moments of 9/11 and the political boost he got from that tragedy. I blindly followed Bush after 9/11, and thats what he's trying to recreate.

Click to expand...

Of course he got a boost, america had to rally around him at a time like 9/11. But it seems as though 9/11 annoys you more because it created a stronger base for Bush. What would you have done instead of follow the president during 9/11? What else was there to do? And by having his convention in NY doesn't qualify as "recreating" 9/11. We can all agree that 9/11 defined this president.

On Protesting - Obviously if anybody checks the news headlines today, the protesting was peaceful and organized. It in no way created any real panic, and may cities have harbored protests of greater scale with less planning. In a case like this where tens of thousands of people are expected to show, protest organizers and city officials work closely to make sure there is as little room for physical threat or property damage as possible. Despite the blubbering of a few conservative mouthpieces who attemtp to discredit the effectiveness of any kind of demonstration by calling it a threat before it even occurrs, the number of tragedies that actually result from demonstrations are small - and most often the people who are harmed are the protesters themselves if the police or army feel they have become too unruly.

As far as suggesting protesting isn't acceptable or somehow unpatriotic? Are you joking? Ever hear of a little event most commonly known as the Boston Tea Party? Actually I think be today's standards that would be closer to terrorism than protest, but you get the idea. It is a clear and intended constitutional right to be able to organize and protest the government, and in truth un-American to suggest otherwise. Our government's philosophy was founded on the concept of public descent from values that we consider to be less than our standard for democracy. It's naive to say that the framers wanted all the power in the hands of the mob, but they intended the public voice and consciousness to act as a serious check on the powers that be, and to allow them to be heard, influencing elections and policy.

Now, in this matter, I'm not much in favor of protesting as it is clearly what the conservatives want. They would love nothing more than for brutal riots to break out just like the WTO incident in Seattle a few years ago. Holding th convention New York in proximity to ground zero was clearly an incindiary move. News flash images of 'wild looking' dreadlocked hippies tearing apart cars and combating police is perfect press for Bush, as such things scare the shit out of middle America and further convinve them that anybody on the left of the Bush adminstration's positions are anarchist communists bent on letting terrorists use our nation for target practice. It's a well laid ploy meant to give Bush any extra boost he can get in this critical time, and bravo to their cunning. But so far they've failed, as the protests have been peaceful and organized.

On Kerry - I have seen no polls that put him five points behind in a battleground state, I believe you may be looking at old polls factoring in Nader, where some would place Kerry as much as 4 points back if he were on the ballot. Fortunately Ralph didn't make it on the ballot in any crucial states. Right now it's usually about a dead heat with Kerry often holding on with a one point lead. Traditionally, for an incumbent president to ever trail in the polls this late means certain death on election day. The fact is, Bush barely won before (if he won at all), and a good deal of the people that just voted ticket republican (and basically against Clinton) last time have turned against him due to the war, the economy, concerns about his secrecy, all the usual criticisms. Besides a newly energized democratic base who will turn out in greater numbers for fear of another 2000, Bush has lost some of his support base, plus independent voters favor Kerry over Bush in all polls to date. Compound this with the fact that the biggest ever youth voter turn out is expected (we already established that something in the neighborhood of 3 out of 4 young people detest Bush) and you have serious problems for the Bush team, and many republican politicians and officials admit as much. It's not wishful thinking, it's a political reality. It's generous to Bush to suggest that things are even tied right now.

So far as Kerry not getting a great bounce after the convention, consider a few things. He was already hugely publicized before the convention, and the media suggestions of a 15 point jump are ludicrous as that has rarely happened in the last several elections, nor is the bounce ever usually a permanent increase. A 15 point jump, which is the figure I heard most often used, is the maximum that could more or less ever be expected, and in truth not much of a realistic figure. He had already announced his VP choice of John Edwards as well. On top of this, nobody can deny that this election has a huge amount of energy and popular involvement and the anticipation has been building for more than a year. The DNC didn't generate a huge boost in numbers because voters are already energized and polarized. John Kerry had already been well introduced to us, and the people likely to vote in this election are already well aware of their choices. Combine that with the whopping five or six hours of TV coverage it recieved, and I don't see how it's reasonable to expect it vault Kerry into a 10 point lead all over the country. It was no failure, it was business as usual.

As a senator, Kerry has contributed qutie a bit. Senators do much more than just author and push bills through congress. Some of the most busy bill writers very rarely see anything passed in its intended form or purpose. A primary way for senators to serve their country is to use their position's privelages and incluence to investigate and publicize certain issues. Kerry, the "traitor," co-lead an investigation into the possibility of POWs still being held in Vietnam with John McCain (another war hero who got labeled a "traitor" by the Bush team when he ran against them. See a pattern? Veteran runs against Bush, they're a traitor!). This gave solace and finality to many families who lost loved ones in the war as well as beggining a new phase of recovery and cooperation with the Vietnamese government, helping to heal the wounds of a terrible war on both sides. He also lead the investigation that exposed Norega and the depths of the Panamanian and Sandanista scandal. He also has very significant and accomplished committee service that have given him national security and foreign relations experience. Anybody with a working knowledge of Washington and congress understands that to making politics work and incluencing policy involves much mroe than drafting out an endless series of bills and punching in the occassional vote. If only it were so simple.

In a previous post I already explained that it is a complete falsehood to label Kerry the most liberal senator - the publication from which this statistic is taken has publicly denounced the frequent quotation of the "most liberal" title - they are a non-partisan organization. I believe that his first term in office he was in the top five, but throughout the 90s he's hovered somewhere around 15th overall unless I'm mistaken. But 15th most liberal just doesn't scare the shit out of quasi-conservatives dissatisfied with Bush but fearful of mocha-slurping volvo driving liberal socialists, so naturally the Bush team has stuck to the #1 ranking. One thing about Kerry - he doesn't lie when he goes after Bush - he doesn't have to.

Despite the blubbering of a few conservative mouthpieces who attemtp to discredit the effectiveness of any kind of demonstration by calling it a threat before it even occurrs, the number of tragedies that actually result from demonstrations are small - and most often the people who are harmed are the protesters themselves if the police or army feel they have become too unruly.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to descredit them, I just think that police men and woman would be better off protecting the city rather than having to babysit protestors. Whether they have, or will do anything physically harmful doesn't matter at this point. When protesters release the wherabouts of republican delegates, that says something. How do you justify that? Even if delegates are not harmed, how do you justify them releasing the locations of those hotels?

As far as suggesting protesting isn't acceptable or somehow unpatriotic?

Click to expand...

Never said that.

It is a clear and intended constitutional right to be able to organize and protest the government, and in truth un-American to suggest otherwise

Click to expand...

I think people should be able to protest all they want. I'm simply raising the question, if it costs extra police men and woman to watch these protesters, is that fair to the rest of the city or state?

Now you try to justify no gain after the convetion, something about 15 points. But the fact still remains, even after announcing Edwards and the DNC, there was NO gain. I mean... pitiful.

As a senator, Kerry has contributed qutie a bit. Senators do much more than just author and push bills through congress

Click to expand...

Maybe you could provide the numbers, because I'm not entirely sure. But didn't Kerry miss the most senate votes or something?

And about him being the #1 most liberal. Why do all the major news broadcasters say that, are they liars like Bush too?

One thing about Kerry - he doesn't lie when he goes after Bush - he doesn't have to.

Click to expand...

There you go. But apparently he does lie about other things, like Vietnam. I mean, here is a simple one. He said he threw his medals away, then he said he didn't, then he said he did, but they were someone elses, and he was doing it for them, then he can't produce his medals, but now all the sudden we find out they are locked away at his house. I mean, what is going on here?

Ah, the police may have better things to do, but there are tens of thousands of cops in New York City, and the extra guards are making a nice overtime wage. The city will not be depleted of public protection. There are huge events in New York all the time that require extra security. The DNC in Boston had an enormous amount of security as well, and they weren't even expecting some kind of demonstration. The expenditure of public resources over the protests is really a very minor point in the debate. The business about releasing the whereabouts of delegates I haven't heard about. Where did you learn about this? Who exactly was responsible? I'm not saying that is an appropriate or necessary tactic, as I said I haven't got the facts, but one might be inclined to believe that the thousands of delegates in attendance wouldn't really be that hard to track down in downtown New York in the first place if somebody were so inclined. I get the sense that many conservatives have tried to pain their convention as some kind of hot zone where the brave delegates are risking their lives to enter such a risky venue to support their patriotic cause, but honestly that convention is protected by a veritable fortress of defense. You'd be in far greater danger driving your car down the highway than standing in the midst of the GOP convention floor.

I didn't mean to imply you personally disapproved of protesting or civil liberties Rick Santoro, but I thought you had asked for people to explain how and what they thought about protests in general. I have heard some of my favorite morons like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and especially Ann Coultier, denounce any kind of protest against government as various crimes ranging from ethically unsound stupidity to high treason punishable by death (obviously Ms. Coultier), and my comments were more or less directed at the crowd who easily buy into such mindless sentiments.

As far as the bounce in numbers goes, perhaps I wasn't clear. I believe Kerry didn't recieve a large bounce because the masses of voters that are normally energized for the election by the publicity surrounding a VP nomination and the convention were already politically active and already interested and aware of their candidate. This is not only a time when politcal involvement amongst normal people has broken a decades long lull to reach new levels of personal committment, but the nation is also insanely polarized on the issues. The people that support Kerry and intend to vote for him were already aware of Kerry, familiar with Kerry, and excited for Kerry. It didn't take a convention or VP announcement to catch the interest of Democratic voters, they were already in the fold. It's not really pathetic at all. What is ominous news (for Bush) is that an incumbent president does not hold a good lead in any significant swing states at the end of the summer. If this election goes for Bush as it has for all others that have ever been in his position, he'll be riding his bicycle back in Crawford in no time.

I haven't heard any major newscasters describe Kerry as the most liberal senator. Who described him as such? Are you sure they weren't quoting somebody else? All major network news departments work quite hard on fact checking and accuracy as it's their only real currency in the marketplace and they are voraciously watch doggged by not only the public but each other and various agencies that keep track of such things. I explained where the #1 ranking comes from and how it is a falsehood in the other post - I didn't make it up, anybody can look it up for themselves. Kerry did miss a good deal of votes last year while campaigning, though I fail to see how this informs upon his ultra liberal label. Bush has taken the most vacation days of any president in history as well as worked the shortest hours. If he were a better president I wouldn't mind so much. In fact, Kerry's large number of missed votes is what resulted into his getting ranked as the most liberal senator in one category last year, as he was ineligable in the other fields they use as criteria to formualte the ranking. Once and for all - he does not have the most liberal voting record in the senate, not even close - and fiscally he's very conservative.

What is this business about the medals? I hadn't heard of this issue either. Whatever the case is though, I frankly don't care too much. They're his to do with as he pleases. If he lied about what he did with them, then well I suppose I'll have to forgive him that as I still think he's a better man for the office. I suppose I'm more offended by the fact that I think Bush likely lied about going AWOL while serving in the National Guard, while Kerry was off volunteering to fight in Vietnam. I think dragging out shit like this for ad hominem attacks on Kerry is a stupid move by the Bush, as Kerry has an irrefutably stronger service and personal record than Bush. Bush want's to keep the focus off the issues and on any little scandal that he and karl Rove can stir up. With all the problems facing our nation and all the different directions each candidate could take our country what is the big debate right now? Did John Kerry deserve all of the five medals he was rewarded? It's madness. If only the Democrats would have the balls to attack back like Clinton did in '92 this race wouldn't even be close. Unforunately Kerry seems to think the high road will deliver swing votes, and that plays right into Karl Roves hands.

1. He's a decorated war hero, and he volunteered to go.

Click to expand...

Lol common misconception. He sent in a letter of differment, but as REJECTED, so he enlisted because he would have been drafted anyhow.

Bush is a piece of sh*t. Pardon my f*cking French.

especially Ann Coultier, denounce any kind of protest against government as various crimes ranging from ethically unsound stupidity to high treason punishable by death (obviously Ms. Coultier), and my comments were more or less directed at the crowd who easily buy into such mindless sentiments.

Click to expand...

I think many of what these talk show hosts are talking about is language bordering on treason or sedition. I think we can agree, out of the thousands of protestors at the GOP convention, there will be at least one who will go as far to say Bush should be assasinated. If not among the protesters, then possibly at the "Kill the president" or whatever comedy show? But nonetheless, to even suggest such a thing as murdering the president I would side with the talk show hosts and say that definently crosses free speech and any who say such a thing should be locked up.

They may have said protesting should be shut down and Michael Moore should be thrown in jail with others for statements saying he and others think America should fail in our mission in Iraq. Whether you believe we should be there or not, it crosses the line to say we should FAIL. When you say we should fail, that endagers the lives of Americans over in Iraq, it is wishing for their death and misery in a sense. If you don't want them to succeed how can you not be hinting at their death?

Rick Santoro - The issues which you are addressing are touchy indeed, and fundamentally tied into our constitutional sense of free speech. The current and only limitations of our constitutional free speech are more or less defined by the great turn of the century supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., how outlined the old "you can't shout fire in a crowded movie theatre" doctrine as the only reasonable limitation on free speech in America. This interpretation, which still stands, more or less dictates that only when speech puts lives in imediate and intentional danger should our freedom of expression be compromised in any fashion. The only modern example of a visitation to the principle is the necessary closing of media broadcasts which might disclose our troop movements via worldwide interceptable broadcasts, starting with the Vietnam War. In this case the news media had restricted press access to pre-knowledge of major troop operations as their broadcasts could possibly be intercepted by enemies and used against us in combat, i.e. the freedom of access and expression would have put our troops in immediate danger, without question.

Now, unless I am reading you wrong, you are suggesting it is somehow outside of legal boundaries to express the desire for the president to be assasinated. As misguided as this sentiment may be, it's certainly not against the law, and certainly doesn't pose a direct and imminent threat to the president. You may be interested to know that there is a current bestseller on the shelves by a prominent author what outlines and details a young man's desire and plans to kill our current president. The book is on teh shelves, fully legal, and I can assure you is highly critical of Bush. The danger of somebody expressing this view in protest is no greater than somebody proclaiming it at a bar, mentioning it in conversation, or shouting it aloud on the street at random. The expression of the sentiment, wrong and useless as it may be, is in fact entirely legal. If somebody were to be arrested for such a thing (wrongly), it would never make it to the supreme court because they would refuse to hear such a case as it would be a clear and unanimous decision in favor of the accused. I could say right here, right now, in HTML for the world to read, that I truly and passionately wish somebody would off the president, and it would be entirley legal. Not a court in the wide land could convict me of a crime.

The same goes for those who might say they wish us to fail in Iraq. They pose no direct danger to anybody by expressing these opinions and are free to do so, no matter how poor of a statement you might find it. To me this debate is similar to the old flag burning arguement, in which those who wish to outlaw flag burning describe the act as a slap in the face to the veterans and casualties of foreign wars. On the other hand, many veterans, despite finding it useless and offensive, will say that the reason they fought for their country was so that there would always be a place in the world where people are free to burn a flag if they choose to do so. So, you may find it in bad taste or stupid that protesters wish for us to fail in Iraq, but in the end the only truly un-American action is to suggest that they are somehow not allowed to do so. As they say, it's a free country. Somebody wishing that we don't have our way in Iraw might not be patriotic by conventional standards, but is their privelage as a citizen to feel this way. The only true crime would be to suggest otherwise. The contention of the protesters is that with our current administration, we may not always have these fundamentally American freedoms. One need only take a short walk back through the history of the 20th century to see that dogmatically supporting a nation's government regardless of its ideals is a recipe for disaster.

Also, so far as calling for failure in Iraq, this is the old conservative trick of suggesting that not supporting war decisions by the government is the same as wishing death upon our troops. I promise you that no protesters wish any harm upon the men and women that serve in the armed forces, and I also promise that many of the people protesting in New York have family in the services. The army does not decide what wars they will fight. They aren't calling for the death of troops, they're calling for the ousting of an adminstration that they feel put our troops in harm's way for no good reason. Cliche as it is, there are no winners in war, and in this case we may be losing two fold.

I am reminded of a certain radio show I caught in which a very cosnervative radio broadcaster called Nick Berg's (you remember, the American contractor beheaded in Iraq this spring) father a 'jerk' and a 'scumbag' because he attended a rally for peace in Iraq. He called him a traitor to his nation for supporting an end to a conflcit that he didn't agree with. Patriotism is more than just agreeing with whatever the government does.

Kerry is another Bill Clinton. Actually he's more like Hillary. They tell you what ever you want to hear as long as they get elected. Bush will tell you what you should hear and need to hear, and what he honestly believes.

Take your choice and live with your decision; or die with it as may be the case.

LevitraKid said:

Kerry is another Bill Clinton. Actually he's more like Hillary. They tell you what ever you want to hear as long as they get elected. Bush will tell you what you should hear and need to hear, and what he honestly believes.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like how he promised that whole "compassionate conservatism" thing, yeah he really followed up on that. It's good to know he wasn't just telling us what we wanted to hear when he said he would be a "uniter, not a divider". I feel like he's really upheld his rhetorical promises. Thanks to his "reaching across party lines" we can all faithfully say that Washington and the nation as a whole are more united than they've ever been. Oh and remember the "<a target="_blank" href="http://searcHydromaxiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Education">education</a> president"! How wonderfully he's followed through on that, it's great to see somebody put their money where their mouth is - I'm sure that No Child Left Behind bill is going to put this nation on the right track. Oh wait, he didn't fund it at all?? Well jeez, it's the thought that counts after all. We're in a war people, the rules are different or something! Anyway, on to my favorite one - "restoring dignity to the White House". It was a disgusting thought to imagine our own president blowing his load in the Oval Office, but there's nothing more dignified than using that office to lie to the American people, our soldiers, and the world at large to fight a war for corporate America. Nothing more dignified than promising conservatism and fiscal responsibility, then piling on outrageous debt by driving up the deficit to record levels - after record surpluses, no less. Nothing more dignified than taking advantage of the nation's greatest tragedy for political gain at almost every turn. I dont know about you, but I'd rather have my president sh*t all over the American people, sh*t all over the world and then blow his load on the Iraqis before I have a repeat of the Clinton fiasco! lol don't get me started on all the <a target="_blank" href="http://searcHydromaxiracle.com/text/search.php?qq=Sex">sex</a>ual overtones of the war...

Christ, most of those were just the lies he told us *before* he was elected. Hah, elected. Anyway, you could go on and on with the bullsh*t. May I suggest if you're going to talk about credibility, that you never fool yourself into thinking any politician is anything less than a whore who will say anything to get elected. Because believe me, they all do it, the old stereotype is true. In addition, if you're going to talk about credibility, make sure you're never trying to support Bush at the same time. Whether he is re-elected or not, history will prove this administration to be one of the most corrupt and despicable this country has ever had. Remember how loved Harding was before the truth came out after his death? Please stop the jingoism, there is no good politician. Only one who is less likely to run our nation into the ground for good, and that is John Kerry. I don't care what he tells me, I know he's not going to f*ck me over like Bush is. I mean, if THIS is how Bush acts when he knows he's facing re-election, then what's he willing to do when he has free reign for four more years? It's frightening.