How a democrat could get into office:

It would cost a little bit of money, but this is what a democrat could do to get into office:

First, they get a list of all registered voters.

Second, they send a check for $100 to each one of them, with a note explaining that if they get elected, in their re-election campaign they will send $200 to each registered voter.

That might get a dem into office...

That might get a Democrat arrested. I don't know.

Hahaha, a democrat in office? Sure if the GOP was finally found guilty of vote tampering, corruption, taking bribes, so forth, but it won't happen for the GOP is rich white males, and they can do anything.

Er...So the democrats aren't rich white males? Which of the democratic front runners aren't rich white males?

Just realized I put this in the scandles, and not mud pit. Could some Mod please move it?

Dennis Kucinich was born in Cleveland, Ohio on October 8, 1946. He is the eldest of 7 children of Frank and Virginia Kucinich. He and his family lived in twenty-one places, including a couple of cars, by the time Kucinich was 17 years old. "I live each day with a grateful heart and a desire to be of service to humanity," he says.

He's a white man but he wasn't born rich. He's more american than Dubya that's for sure.

Strange times. Democrats are against the people and Republicans are for the people. Black is white, white is black. Jesus was a avid conservative, and never said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." Republicans balance the budget and have had the best economy's ever since Eisenhower.

Originally posted by junglejake
It would cost a little bit of money, but this is what a democrat could do to get into office:

First, they get a list of all registered voters.

Second, they send a check for $100 to each one of them, with a note explaining that if they get elected, in their re-election campaign they will send $200 to each registered voter.

That might get a dem into office...

It wouldn't work. Bush already sent each voter $400 (avg). But you're on to something there Jake. The Republicans do deserve a THIRD party to come along and campaign on NOTHING but against those darn Republican TAXES promising a $500 check for votes.

Originally posted by Saphronia
Dennis Kucinich was born in Cleveland, Ohio on October 8, 1946. He is the eldest of 7 children of Frank and Virginia Kucinich. He and his family lived in twenty-one places, including a couple of cars, by the time Kucinich was 17 years old. "I live each day with a grateful heart and a desire to be of service to humanity," he says.

He's a white man but he wasn't born rich. He's more american than Dubya that's for sure.

True. All true. Good post. And Edwards is another real person. Not to mention Clark wasn't born with those Stars.

since we're in the 'pit

How a Democrat could get into office:

Run as a member of the GOP, get elected, then change party

I love the way you think Bob88.

The only hope we have to get someone in office is if we choose a candidate who relates to the people. The dem base will vote in the candidate and will vote in the wrong person because they're so far left, they will choose someone who is too far left to win nationally. You (democrats) keep yelling that things are grey instead of black and white and thats all well and good, but you must also apply this theory to your electorial process. If you could turn loose of your hate for Jews for a second and realize that Lieberman is the right choice, we might have a chance nationally but you won't and we'll send another extremist loser into the national election. Look, just because they look good to a bunch of yuppies sipping lattes at starbucks or promise welfare queens 50 grand per year annual income doesn't mean they're going to appeal to most Americans. Also, until someone steps up like Lieberman and Gephardt and says that we must put security of this nation first or nothing else matters, they aren't going to get the vote. Not only should we admit that the war on terror , removal of Saddam Hussein, and tax cuts were a good idea but we should also begin to take credit for backing these initiatives (which we did) and for helping to bring more of the tax cut to lower income families. Its time we stopped knocking programs that worked and started taking credit for our roles in them. Hell, most of Bush's actions have been taken play by play from great democratic administrations. Are we so pissed about the 2000 election that we're going to blow this one on principle? Why won't we embrace our core beliefs anymore? Just because we feel the enemy has them now we have to come up with something good on the opposite side of the fence? This is stupid, our parties message is riddled with contradiction and sounds too flighty for anyone but the most radical left to support. We can worry about what the rest of the world thinks later, we better worry about what your average American thinks NOW! Until we realize that, we'll have to enjoy the view from the backseat.

Originally posted by astrocreep
You (democrats) keep yelling that things are grey instead of black and white and thats all well and good, but you must also apply this theory to your electorial process. If you could turn loose of your hate for Jews for a second...

That's the most "black & white" thing I've heard all week. Since when do liberals hate Jews all of a sudden? They used to "run Hollywood and the media and drive their ACLU voice down the throat of good Christians", or so Republicans kept telling me.

As for Lieberman, I like him, and I think Dems do overall, in fact a majority of Americans voted for him to be VP last time. I'm sorry for old Joe that he was shafted and still has the stink of "loserman" on him, but that's a largely Republican based moniker. I do watch Fox and realize Republicans like dangling the Lieberman carrot saying, I hated him in 2000, but I promise if you nominate him again I'll vote for him this time... but pardon me if I don't buy it.

I do watch Fox and realize Republicans like dangling the Lieberman carrot saying, I hated him in 2000, but I promise if you nominate him again I'll vote for him this time... but pardon me if I don't buy it.

Then get set for another 4 years of Bushy. The people will not vote in a radical leftist..and I don't blame them.

If Clark and Dean would quit bumping each others' egos, and get on a joint ticket....the problem would be solved...

Not that they aren't scary in their own rights, but it's the lesser of two evils (versus having Shrub there again)...

I doubt it will happen though, if this keeps up, and we'll be stuck with Shrub for another 4 years...

I can hear the drums of WWIII just a pounding away.....

...but the GOP is owned lock,stock & nbarrel by the Far Right.
All arguments to the contrary are moot, because they're based on ideology that has not been put into practice.
Keep trying to think logicaly; we most certainly have " Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely" in this 3 branch 1 party ownership.
BALANCE will be restored and logical debate will at least be in the ballpark with a Dem president. Else, Bush is a goose step away from rapid speak Italian, shiny boots & wild hand gestures.

Originally posted by Bout Time
...but the GOP is owned lock,stock & nbarrel by the Far Right.
All arguments to the contrary are moot, because they're based on ideology that has not been put into practice.
Keep trying to think logicaly; we most certainly have " Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely" in this 3 branch 1 party ownership.
BALANCE will be restored and logical debate will at least be in the ballpark with a Dem president. Else, Bush is a goose step away from rapid speak Italian, shiny boots & wild hand gestures.

Neither of the parties are owned by their extreme believers, but they are steered by them.(quite effectively too) Unfortunatly, what many of the dems want now, after and because of Bush, is a very liberal candidate.

I believe balance should be preserved, and could easily be done with a 'hands-off' president who slashes taxes and spending dramaticly, and let's the system fix itself while we concentrate on more important things. I don't want a president who slashes taxes and then has to raise them again because his spending creates a huge deficit. I also don't want a president who hikes up the taxes, then thinks he can spend more. Both of them are the same #ing thing! You know something went wrong when you're voting for two people who are going to do the same thing with the economy.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Then get set for another 4 years of Bushy.

For the most part I am. Conceded that a while ago, with the hope that another 4 years of Bush will herald 2008 the year of the Liberal LANDSLIDE. No pandering, no pulled punches, but a mandate on principles alone and the official DEATH of Reagenomics and dispassionate conservatism.

I'll gladly let Bush manage the messes he created all over the world another four years, in trade for 8 to 12 years of progress and prosperity down the road by a real domestic manager, not just another press handler.

Think about it. Bush edges another "victory" or steals one. Meanwhile, we know everything sucks and will continue to under him, if not in fact get worse. The Progressive Radio network (which just signed Franken opposite Rush) will be but one of many new ventures banking on Bush blunders to come. Saturday Night Live and the like continues to be funny... shaping a whole new generation of voters "growing up Bush". More and more people are grounded from taking flights because of terror effort fiascos, coding systems, and the like. Ashcroft finds new ways to punish dissent and invade personal freedoms. Thousands find themselves unemployed or in mandated rehabilitation busted by new drug enforcement. Robertson and the like keep shilling their fundamental insanity, as do "I've done more for human right than any President in History" dry drunk Bush. If he's not off the wagon yet, expect a new term to push him there. Even better, maybe the SOB will finally get his dream and outlaw being GAY and the RIGHT TO CHOOSE for women!!!

And expect that same term to usher in a new era of liberalism and revolt. Change swings hard when you let it. Why should libs have to always be the nice guy, sane moderates? If Republicans want to move reicht, let them.

I'm dead serious about this. Either Bush will bankrupt the country in his next 4 years of unbridled spending or he himself will raise taxes JUST LIKE HIS DADDY to fix Reagen's mess. I don't want a Dem to have to raise taxes (which is why I back Edwards) let Bush do it. I'm sick of this tax pandering even being an issue when it's just a cycle and nothing more. Let the babies have their bottle, then some Kennedy or Hillary type or freaking SOCIALIST will sweep the floor with whatever numnuts Rove/Cheney run to replace Bush 2008. "Bring it on" Republicans. VOTE BUSH!!!!

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by RANT]

Hmm. a very deep thought there. So what you're saying is let him win and do everything we can to push the economy down to the point that the most socilaist candidate will be appealing to the masses? To be honest, if you're ever going to get this country to accept socialism, that might be the only way. It does go against the grain of most Americans, democrat or republican or independant to willfully hope for or even participate in the worsening of life in America. My friend you may have just unwittingly let the cat out of the bag and its a damn good thing not many in the country will read those words. ..or is it?

If the party I have backed these many years intends to sell me socialism (something we were never about btw..until the radical hi-jacking) by running down everything else to make it look better, then I think I'll opt out now.

Thomas, any room in the Constitutionalist party?

I don't actively back Bush, but can objectively see the direction he will take the Republican Party and a silver lining in even the worst of circumstances.

In all honesty, there will either be a Democratic moderate President 2004 or a Democratic liberal 2008. It's really up to the Republicans to decide.