If you guys wanted Bush out of the office, why didnt you come up with a better canidate. I think Kerry is a joke, a 'baby' killer for president??? How could someone who stomped on his fellow soldiers ever get elected? Plus the guy never shows up for work, and it is rumored he has very little support in his own state...

My guess is this is a ploy to not have him in there, and get Hillary in the race in the next 4 years. That way they dont have an incumbant.

The polls here indicate that he will not only win Massachusetts comfortably but all of New England, including possibly New Hampshire (new Hampshire went fo Mr.Bush last presidential elections).
    I don't know where you got your information about Mr.Kerry losing Massacusetts, but it is wrong.

I agree with Stilltryin. I am also from the northeast and your info is incorrect. It seems the only state that is even close is NH, and after Zel Millers hate speech many more New Englanders have sided up with Kerry.


"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."
-- George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2, 2000

Given the environment we are in, both domestically, and in the world, Kerry is the perfect candidate.  He will win this election.

I don't know why Zell's speech is referred to as "hate" speech.  The man speaks his mind and if it doesn't agree with your opinions, its hate speech.

Zell has nothing to gain by supporting Bush(other than a better, stronger country).  The guy is pissing off everyone he has been working with and being disowned by his own party. Why would he do this?  No Republican will vote for him, and now no Democrat will either.

It must be because this is the way he truly feels.  I've always aligned myself with more Democratic ideologies, but the past few people they have put in office have left a very bad taste in my mouth.  They are going WAY TOO FAR LEFT.

By the way, why is it not hate speech to compare Bush to Hitler; or insinuate Bush knew(and could have stopped) 9/11; or accuse Bush of falsely putting out Terror Alerts, or say he is a traitor?

Just like Kerry, the Democrats are trying to ride both sides of the fence.  I'm pretty tired of it all and wish they would get their acts together.

I don't like Bush, but right now, he's our only real choice.

You may be sniffing some bad glue.  It is my analysis that your prediction is 180 out.

Bush: a coward whose sole accomplishments in life was getting sober, finding Jeeezus, and bravely running away.  Look at his reactions the morning of 9/11.  He hasn't changed.  

And, why didn't you impeach Bush when he deceived the nation into war with Iraq?  You went after Clinton for a BBBJ, disguised as perjury.  You had the chance to raise the bar there.

A lobotomized gerbil is more qualified than Bush. Moreover, Kerry wants to clean up Bush's mess, and hasn't been appointed by Bush.  Kerry surpasses the minimum qualifications Republicans have recently set, and this is understating it.

Moreover, he's a far better man than you conservatives are capable of realizing.  

/Zin

I do know it was filled with distortions, half truths and outright lies.  
For example, Miller falsely claimed "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," when in fact Kerry said  "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.  Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." That's the opposite of what Miller said Kerry "made clear."

Another example is that virtually all of the weapon systems Miller said Kerry was against were either recommended for elimination by Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney or were included in a pork laden Defense appropriation bill.

That is why when it happens, mainstream Democrats move quickly to denounce such statements and disassociate themselves from whoever makes the comparison.  On the other hand check out George Bush's website:

http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/Default.aspx

and play the video entitled "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed" and tell me which campaign is running ads comparing the opponent to Hitler.

Excuse me if I'm wrong on this matter, but Bill Clinton lied under oath because if he didn't, it would show a pattern of behavior that could have been used against him in a potential court case.  No one forced him to say anything under oath, but he chose to lie anyway.  I ask this question to all democrats on another matter.......if Bush had been in Vietnam and had said and done the things Kerry has said, the media would have been all over him calling him a baby killer.  But anyone who is intelligent knows that the liberal media is, as always, giving the democrats a free pass.  I suggest that you get your political information from somewhere else besides MTV.

I'll correct a lie that you've parroted: we don't know why Clinton lied. Perhaps he lied due to his complete anger with Ken Starr, who jailed one of his friends, Susan McDougal, with no charges for two years, because she wouldn't sign an afidavid which Starr falsified about Clinton. (I guess coercing a lie isn't a lie?)  Maybe he lied knowing that Monica Lewinsky's life would be ruined if he didn't. Or, perhaps he lied because he is a pathological liar?  My question is: oath aside, how many people don't lie about sex?  

Ken Starr ***lied*** in saying that his line of questioning had anything to do with Whitewater: the real estate case he was investigating.  How did this BJ in office have anything to do with this?  True, Starr wasn't under oath, he was outside of the reach of the law, nevertheless, he lied to set up Clinton.  Clinton called his bluff.

I applaude Clinton's balls in doing this, BTW.  He should have never been put in that position to begin with.  There is no argument about that. Who should have been questioned under oath here?

"Establishing a pattern of behavior?"  Starr up to that time had a staff of dozens, tens of millions of dollars, a paper trail, and years to work, and still, with all of that, he's putting his suspect under oath "to establish a pattern?"

I don't believe this for a second.  Starr wanted to assassinate Clinton, but Conservative Christians might been shocked by Starr using a rifle, so he used skullduggery instead, which they fall for unquestioningly every time, and you've obviously been sucked into that.    

/Zin

-- Modified on 9/7/2004 12:14:16 AM

The news I get, I read from the internet, from different sources.  For magazines, I read those hot sheets of liberal opinion, "The Economist," and "Foreign Affairs."  Television is a non-issue with me.  Take it to a different liberal, please.

You use three hypotheticals in setting up your case 1)"If Bush had been in Vietnam" (if only) 2) "If he had said... the things Kerry has said" and 3) if he had done the things Kerry had said. That is in an alternate universe with three degrees of separation from the real one. You might as well not get too angry when you think an unfair media in such a distant universe, because anything you say based upon this is nonsense.    

Besides the fact that it's fairly well established that not even Kerry did the things he said!  At least Kerry had a Vietnam career to exaggerate, and an imagination to exaggerate them with. Whereas Bush only had a prodigal upbringing and a failed love-affair with the bottle.

/Zin

-- Modified on 9/6/2004 10:25:22 PM

-- Modified on 9/6/2004 10:26:08 PM

Zell Miller is full of hate that is why. His delivery was angry and hateful, and is what I can only imagine what a KKK rally would be like.

Furthermore he wants to return to medieval times so he can duel with Chris Mathews. Zell Miller is IMO a hateful moron.

The Democrats never ran and ad comparing Bush to Hitler. The repubs however do have an ad with Hitler in it. And you are right, that is also hateful.

I am with you on getting their acts together. The problem is politicians lie, always have, always will.

"Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something." - Bush was asked to name something he isn't good at by Talk magazine, September 1999 issue.

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."— George W. Bush, Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.

Kerry voted to authorize the war.  He says, knowing what we know now, he still would have voted for the war.  Where is the deception?  Bad intelligence, yes.  Deception, no.  You hatred of Bush ("a lobotoized gerbil is more qualified") has apparently taken away your ability for rational thought.

The only Democrat that would have gotten my vote was Lieberman, but of course he didn't get the nomination.

I don't think it went over well in Bible-rich Poplar Bluff, though.

/Zin

Fait pas l'idiot!  Perhaps you have heard of Pork Barrel politics.  A renegade legislator who sucks up to the party in power is likely to get better terms on his pork items than a line toer.

He and his administration exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq, and so did Tony Blair.  There was no intelligence that said Iraq was ready to launch WMD's in  45 minutes.  Colin Powell even admitted that the intelligence he used for his case before the UN was weak.  If Collin Powell, in retrospect, admitted that, what was wrong with his boss?  After it was all up, even the Economist called Bush and Blair "Sincere Deceivers" on its cover, saying that they sincerely believed Iraq harbored WMD's even though the intelligence they had was weak, so they both went on a campaign to puff it up.

I remember at the time thinking that the arguments they gave were weak.  I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan.  I'm not a peacenik.  I gave Bush the BOD, thinking that, given this administration's secretiveness, they were hiding their best intel.  Little did I know...

Perhaps Kerry thought the same thing, or like me, gave Bush the BOD?  I could understand a yea vote.  Who would have envisioned that Bush was lying?  If democrats wanted a peacenik in office, Howard Dean would have been the shoe-in.

/Zin