billiken_roy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 she was wearing her billikens.com shirt! steve, you are famous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Yes I saw it ... I told my brother who is here from Arlington Tx. that was our shirt. Way to represent !!!! Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Look to the Right of Kerry's head (this is from the NYTimes web site) http://www.billikens.com/images/random/nytimes.jpg Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFAN2000 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 He'll go 2 for 50 steve. Sharpton's gonna win, and then he's gonna lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikenbooster Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Were they asking for your autograph, Steve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 1. Why are you at a political rally and not at the GW game? They had a nice win last night and are playing well. Support your school. 2. Was at the Edwards event last night - if you want to beat Bush that's your guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I was at the Xavier game. We destroyed them inside. And they could not hit the 3. (That Rally was Sunday) Edwards lacks the experience the Dems need. He has the Charisma, but no experience. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 most of the demo (notice how democrat and demon start out with the same first four letters) success is based soley on charisma. (see last demo wacko in the white house.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 ...then why did Gephardt fail? He has had significantly more leadership experience than Kerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFAN2000 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Maybe you and I should discuss politics instead of basketball... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Uh Oh political discussions. This could get out of control quickly. I like Edwards, he has run a good clean campaign and has some very good policy ideas. He will make a good VP candidate. I went to see Kerry at Forest Park yesterday and he did a very good job. Not quite as wooden and robotic as Gore. A Kerry/Edwards ticket will have an excellent chance of beating Bush. I will still be voting for Kucinich though in the primaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 The reason Clinton and Carter--the last Democrat President before Clintion--won the white house was because they could pull votes in the south. Kerry has no chance of winning votes in the south and therfore no chance of becoming President. You are wasting your time Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFAN2000 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I'm sure steve will lean on Edwards as VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 My guess is that Edwards is and has been running for 2008/2112. Health permitting, Bob Graham of Florida will be the Democratic VP nominee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I would have to disagree on the great importance of the South. Carter - Didn't win because he was Southern, he won because he wasn't Washington. After the Nixon era of lack of trust in politics, followed by the Ford Pardon, people were not too trusting of Washington insiders. Hence Carter, no Washington Experience, yet alone much experience at all (If I recall correctly he went straight from State House or Senate to Governor). Clinton - Cold War was over, it was now time to focus on Domestic Policy, and that was the message that he delivered. Admitedly the "Southern Charm" helped them some, but I think it is fair to refer to Al Gore. He may have lost, but if he would have gotten at least his home state (or Florida), he would have won. Now Mass. would go for the Dems no matter what, but it was close, and if anyone argues for Gore's Southern Charm, it is a little ridiculous. But I think Gore Proves the South isn't a MUST for the election. 9/11 Changed the scope of politics. Foreign Policy is something that Bush can Stump on to death (Hmmm, wonder why the Republicans are holding their convention with the backdrop of 9/11???) So who can challenge Bush on Foreign Policy. Lieberman - Bush Lite, he will never get the nomination Dean - Very Anti War, but the "Anger" thing is painted on him too much. He would be a respectable candidate if he didn't give so many absolutes (taxes & Iraq). Edwards - 1 Term Senator from NC that has never touched FP, whether in Combat or Committees. But his favorables in NC are even low. Clarke - Okay, he has Kerry beat in Foreign Policy. Kerry - Vietnam Vet. & on the Foreign Relations Committee. Now Foreign Policy obviously isn't everything, but it is something. But so is Domestic Policy. For the sake of being brief, I am limiting it to Edwards, Clarke, and Kerry. (Dean's campaign is in trouble, he spent $40 million in Iowa and NH and STILL lost both). Clarke - Has no Domestic Policy Experience. NONE. And his tax plan is ridiculous IMO, No taxes for $50,000 or lower income? Yeah that will pass the House and Senate. Edwards - This is where inexperience comes in, he is a Trial Lawyer, 1 term Senator. In the NH Debate he was tripped up twice, once on Gay Marriage and once on Islam (admitedly that question was unfair). He can play the "outsider of Washington card" like Carter, but this is not 1976. I will admit he is a 10 times better speaker than Kerry, but I do not want him going up 1 on 1 with Bush. Kerry- Has 20 years experience in the Senate. He knows the issues in and out. He is Pro-Small Business. Takes a safe stance for Gay Marriage (Civil Unions, not Marriage). And while he can be painted as Washingtonian by Dean, Clarke, and Edwards, Bush cannot do that (President cannot play the fresh face card for obvious reasons). Kerry's Experience in both Domestic and FP makes him the best Candidate. Would I kill for him to have the looks and speaking ability of Edwards? Yes, but I do not trust Edwards going 1 on 1 with Bush b/c he is inexperience. He is an incredible debater, but he has nothing to back him up. And the nation doesn't want someone in there without the know how to protect the nation in this so called War on Terror. Do I have great respect for Edwards? Yes. Would I support him if he beats Kerry? In a Heartbeat (he is my #2 choice). But do I think he has a better shot to beat Bush than Kerry? Not really. And every democrat will say, the important thing is to get that man out of the White House. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I am honestly Torn. Graham = Florida, That is a lot of Votes and VERY Symbolic. But Edwards is very tempting because of his speaking ability and his charisma. I honestly am unsure of which I would take for VP. I wish I was more knowledgible of past influences that VPs had on Races. Some people say they have a big influence (if so, Edwards). If they just deliver their state (if so, I'll take Graham). But I am still on the fence on that one. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Steve, VPs mean nothing. VPs can only hurt a campaign (e.g., Dan Quayle and Admiral Stockdale of Ross Perot fame); rarely do they significantly increase a candidate's chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFAN2000 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 "the important thing is to get that man out of the White House." That's the problem with every dem's campaign but Edwards. They're all running on the platform of "can't get worse," while edwards is running on the "why don't we make it better" platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 If that is the case, Graham is the better choice, but Edwards is VERY VERY VERY APPEALING. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 He is appealing, but I am not sure that the job is appealing to him. VPs realy have very little impact historically, but this year the race will be for only 3-5 states. In that kind of targeted campaigning, a VP candidate that can deliver is more important. This is a flaw with Bush in that he is not grooming anyone (Cheney certainly has no political career beyond this) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I dunno, Condoleza was the only person to go to Iraq with him. That has got me thinking. But who knows, why mess up something that already won once. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Since I used to work for the GOP I still have a number of contacts who feed me inside rumors they hear. I've been told Cheney would "step down" for about 2 years now with Guiliani being the preferred choice. I wonder how the right would accept that (the far right is the reason I've drifted away from the GOP). Worries about Cheney's health and the Halliburton ties. Plus in the aftermath of 9/11 while Bush was hiding underground it was CHeney who was front and center and that made many in the GOP worried that he was overshadowing W. I wonder how the right would accept that (the far right is the reason I've drifted away from the GOP). I've hard Rice's name thrown around long time - her and Jeb Bush as the next ticket. The concensus is that Hillary will be the Dem nominee in 2008 (no GOP supported believes anyone can beat W in '04). The Bush's want to create a dynasty to overshadow the Kennedy's, and to do that they need Jeb to be elected and then his son, George P. to get a high profile office. Then bring in the drunken W daughters and you have the new "American Royalty." By the way, being at a Dem event was quite a change for me - a little bit of uncomfortableness. I am a moderate, lean GOP but vote for the person (was a McCain supporter in 2000). The extremes of both parties scare me. Last night a girl was complaining how CBS refused to carry the MoveOn.org ad comparing Bush to Hitler, calling it censorship. Nobody should ever, EVER be compared to Hitler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MUFAN2000 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Not to mention that it's an inaccurate comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I will believe in Rice when she wins an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.