Dean to Topple Bush?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Just read this, thought I'd send it out to you, so you could have a gander...

Gore Supports Dean

"Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire at the grass-roots level all over this country the kind of passion and enthusiasm for democracy and change and transformation of America that we need," said Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 against Bush but lost the all-important electoral votes after a bitter recount in Florida.

Well, I'm going to go ahead and say that 90% of all candidates would be a better choice than bush...sorry to all you right-wingers out there getting p.o'ed at me. heh.

THoughts? Comments?




posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Bush will lose by a land slide!!!!



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by energy_wave
Bush will lose by a land slide!!!!


I sure hope so!

Wishful thinking, eh?



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Bush will WIN by a landslide, ha ha! Reagan-style.

I'm shocked that Gore isn't supporting Lieberman though. What gives? And, is having Gore's backing a good thing? Or, can it hurt Dean?



[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Bob88]



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Bush will WIN by a landslide, ha ha! Reagan-style.

I'm shocked that Gore isn't supporting Lieberman though. What gives? And, is having Gore's backing a good thing? Or, can it hurt Dean?



[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Bob88]


"Reagen Style" is definitely how Bush might win. Some secret negotiations with terrorists to make Bush look good last minute. Or holding back WMD's, Saddam or Osma til next Summer.

The Gore thing, though, is the first refreshing thing I've seen from the "Progressive Party". Not undue Liebermann loyalty, not hanging on Hillary's housecoat... but an independent thought. SHOCKING!

Especially Republicans should like this...It's a snub to old Dem guard Bill & Hill (and their boy Clark). And Dems that are more than just Clinton groupies should LOVE the move.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Bush will WIN by a landslide, ha ha! Reagan-style.

I'm shocked that Gore isn't supporting Lieberman though. What gives? And, is having Gore's backing a good thing? Or, can it hurt Dean?



[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Bob88]



Well, bob, my feeling on that is nothing but good for dean. I mean, Gore DID win the popular election in 2k, so it only goes to figure that he'll get alot of that same support.

Atop of the already decent support for dean, I don't suppose it could be a bad thing for the Demmycrats, so yeah, there's that.

Hopefully, bush won't win, though. The only candidate that could make me any more angry if he won would have to be like, Shaquille O'neal, by write in ballots, heh.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Considering we actually voted for Gore, it can't necessarily be a bad thing...


Dean to Topple Bush?


Not likely to happen... I'm not crazy about Dean either...but at least with someone other than Bush (or hell, almost worse, Clarke), we might stave off WWIII for another 4 years at least....



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 12:27 PM
link   
With Reagan, I was referring to his landslide reelection.

RANT: I agree. imho, I think the Clinton's are bad for the Dem party. So, I am glad to see Gore not throw his weight, if you wanna call it that, behind Dean. Especially because it means Gore won't throw his hat in at the last minute. lol.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Read between the lines folks......
Gore has backed Dean for what reasons?
Gore still has ambitions of being President himself.....2008 ring a bell?
Gore could have chosen to run in this upcoming 2004 election, as did Hitlery.....but did they ?!?!?!? Think about it!


There is political motivations behind everything and anything dealing with politics, and even within political parties...........
The reason neither choose to run for the 2004 is obvious....its not that they couldn't go against Bush....its that the Democratic Party has virtually self-destructed and is on the verge of implosion.
You see...Gore isn't running for President in 2004 because Mr. Gore knows that he would have to reply to endless questions about his campaigning in 2000, about his handling of the Florida recount, about his ultimate concession, about his silence on the Bush tax cut, about etc., etc. You see, Gore is hoping and praying that by 2008, those passionate questions will have drained up and gone away.


If Dean wins in 2004....there is no possible 2008 for Gore or Hitlery....so in short, Gore/Hitlery has to hope and pray that Dean falls flat on his face and loses......in such, Gore is going with what he thinks is the best viable candidate, but be assured, Gore is no fool, and he knows what the 'big picture' is showing......if this thinking is wrong....why has Hitlery and Gore decided NOT to run for President..........


Don't get your hopes up too much fellas and ladies.....the two most powerful and the future "HOPES" of the Democratic Party NOT running in 2004....sends a big message.........





regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Read between the lines folks......
Gore has backed Dean for what reasons?
Gore still has ambitions of being President himself.....2008 ring a bell?
Gore could have chosen to run in this upcoming 2004 election, as did Hitlery.....but did they ?!?!?!? Think about it!


There is political motivations behind everything and anything dealing with politics, and even within political parties...........
The reason neither choose to run for the 2004 is obvious....its not that they couldn't go against Bush....its that the Democratic Party has virtually self-destructed and is on the verge of implosion.
You see...Gore isn't running for President in 2004 because Mr. Gore knows that he would have to reply to endless questions about his campaigning in 2000, about his handling of the Florida recount, about his ultimate concession, about his silence on the Bush tax cut, about etc., etc. You see, Gore is hoping and praying that by 2008, those passionate questions will have drained up and gone away.


If Dean wins in 2004....there is no possible 2008 for Gore or Hitlery....so in short, Gore/Hitlery has to hope and pray that Dean falls flat on his face and loses......in such, Gore is going with what he thinks is the best viable candidate, but be assured, Gore is no fool, and he knows what the 'big picture' is showing......if this thinking is wrong....why has Hitlery and Gore decided NOT to run for President..........


Don't get your hopes up too much fellas and ladies.....the two most powerful and the future "HOPES" of the Democratic Party NOT running in 2004....sends a big message.........





regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Seekerof]


Very well said and right on the money!!

Hitlery....



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Don't get your hopes up too much fellas and ladies.....the two most powerful and the future "HOPES" of the Democratic Party NOT running in 2004....sends a big message.........



That's like saying Bob Dole and McCain are the most powerful "HOPES" in the RNC come 2008? That aint gonna happen.

The power stuggle in the DNC is less between Dean and the Old Guard, as between factions in the old guard (Gore v Hillary) competeing for relevance.

Gore and Hillary do not get along. She screwed his relevance in 92. This is just payback.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Thats great and all Rant.....still haven't answered the question posed three times:
Why is Hitlery and Gore not running for Presidency in 2004?

Certainly would love to hear a response to that one, especially in light of Hitlery's "doings and going ons" behind the scenes.....
If Hitlery isn't either setting herself up for a 2004 run or a 2008 run...why the trip to Afghanistan and Iraq? No other Democratic candidate did it?
Yeah...................Gore and Hitlery know that Dean is going to be the Democratic Nominee and that he will loss to Bush in 2004.......
Thats why they have abstained from running in 2004.
They don't want to see Dean win because it will hamper what they are setting themselves up for in 2008.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Seekerof,

you are all correct but there are things that you do not know,

like who is really making the decisions,

like how Bush will win and how and why,

like how Hillary will be President in 2008 and take us into the anti-christ era.

Heck she may even get the nod as anti-christ.

then all the lefties will be so happy they won!

but in the end it has nothing to do with the political spectrum but the spiritual one.

regards Dean lest you think I am not interested in this topic, a good overall choice but what does he have to offer?

his party's platform will sink him faster than it took for Baghdad to fall.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well NEO,
To be honest.....it is only my opinion mixed with some factual stuff, but mainly an asserted opinion.

As to "who" or "whom" is making the real, behind the scenes, world decisions.....your guess would certainly be more comprehensive and better than mine would. I am but a mere citizen and pawn.... I try to make a difference where I can but thats like trying to whoop the hell out of Wolverine and that adamantium structure of his and regenerative abilities.........


I, in all honesty and with out being biased, cannot give a statement(s) on what Dean, in particular, has to offer other than he has and will pretty much become "a sacrificial lamb...being lead to the slaughter" by and for the Democratic Party.....unless things drastically change within a year +/-..........



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Seekerof]

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Thats great and all Rant.....still haven't answered the question posed three times:
Why is Hitlery and Gore not running for Presidency in 2004?


I didn't mean to ignore the question; I watch Fox and realize it's the favorite obsession of RNC strategists... but I assure you it's less of an obsession with Democrats than Republicans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have believed Gore since his concession in 2000 that he is "done". He's going the Carter route to remain relevant. This is slick posturing for efforts to come way down the road (IMO). Hillary I concede, has aspirations, but I liken them more to those of Karl Rove.

Both feed more on the speculation of the oppostion that they are the puppet masters than any real adoration of supposed groupies. They remain relevant only in the conspiracy theories of the oppostition.

Karl no more RULES the NWO than Hillary, but to answer: I doubt the idea of Hillary running 2004 was ever much more than idle fantasy on her part... But the rampant RNC speculation about 2008 makes this a more likely concept for her to explore than any symbolic Dem support for the notion. Just my observation.

I really can't see her or Gore being even a little bit sad if Dean beat Bush. I think either would support my Cat over Bush. But that doesn't mean Hillary can't be working on a back up plan. Anyone potentially running 2008 has a good idea already that they are. (Again IMO).



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Thanks Rant....
Here is my reasoning, and its very simple....it starts with this:
Does anyone dispute that if Hitlery had run for the 2004 Democratic Party nomination or for 2004 President, that she would not, at least, totally whoop the current opposing Democratic nominations....and quite easily become the Democratic choice for rival to Bush? Or for that matter Gore?

I see this:
2008, Hitlery and Gore will either team up, pres. and vice pres., or both will be going head-to-head, or one will and the other will not....
The first two are the most plausible choices.....

Publically Rant.....
I agree, I see neither being sad over a possible Dean defeat of Bush......
Behind closed doors......Hitlery will be going flat out OFF

Gore.....he will be a bit more neutral on this but if he does have ambitions for the White House....he will also be quite unhappy.....but, again, this is my honest opinion, and as such....is certainly open to criticism, condemnation and the awaiting Bout Time comment.



regards
seekerof



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Also by putting the spotlight on Dean,he will be the one taking the most flax in the press. Kerry and Gephardt are still in this.
It is possible that the second place finshers in the Iowa and New Hampshire will end up gaining more votes in the long run. Rember Clinton was second in those primaries, and went on to win the presidency.
I think Dean is being set up to lose.



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Seekerof-

I see what you're saying overall. And can easily see Hillary being torn.

But I have to say again Gore is done. Anything could happen, but if I place myself in his shoes...I see one thing stopping Gore from running EVER again. Humiliation.

Right now, approximately half the country thinks he was robbed. He can forever take whatever solace exists in the popular vote. Furthermore, he didn't have to deal with 9/11. It's like winning the Presidency of continued relevance, but not having to deal with anything. He's in a postion of potential influence where the only 'wrong' he could do...is run and lose. Really lose. Like no dispute, lose. (Cite: Watch Liebermann fade away. Fade Liebermann fade.)

I think in the long term he'll replace Carter as living Patriarch of the "Left"...without the aspect of humiliating defeat Carter 'enjoys'.

But, even if everything you say is right about Hillary...speaking as one Dem, I won't fall for it. I'm not necessarily even pro-Dean, but I'm definitely not pro-Hillary. (To be re-evaulted 2008
)

Let me ask you though since we're in 2008 speculation mode: Jeb Bush? (Cheny is OUT!)



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyeff
Also by putting the spotlight on Dean,he will be the one taking the most flax in the press. Kerry and Gephardt are still in this.
It is possible that the second place finshers in the Iowa and New Hampshire will end up gaining more votes in the long run. Rember Clinton was second in those primaries, and went on to win the presidency.
I think Dean is being set up to lose.


Very well could be. The only prediction I have been willing to bet on, is Sen. Edwards will be the VP nomination.

I'm in NC. He really is a good guy. Even Republicans here are furious with our Carpetbagger Libby Dole quitely enjoying her retirement in the Senate at our expense. The newspaper catchphrase: Where is Libby?

Edwards is a real person, real roots, real ideas, total outsider (and lacks support accordingly). IMO

Added: and yes the old gaurd division has been drawn on the extremes ~ It's Gore/Dean versus Hillary/Clark... I still think if the inertia of extreme reaction to extreme Bush isn't too great, a quiet moderate like Gephardt could sneak under the wire to win. And would stand the best chance of quietly defeating Rant n Rave Bush.

[Edited on 9-12-2003 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 9 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   
A lot of people are overlooking the symbolism of Hillary being president. A woman and a liberal and a feminist. Also she was a former first lady and a shady lady too.

Regards Gore, don't know about the rest of you but I hear he is as much blue blood if not more than Bush ever thought of being. He is a player that is for sure.

Again nothing against Dean but he hasn't a chance.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join