BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!

[SD Jarhead]

Even as a staunch Republican I can't see how you could possibly believe Bush is doing better than Kerry would have.

 

Hear me clearly...I'm not defending Bush. Yes, he's an idiot who has made some terrible choices as President. But if you believe he is great at marketing his administration I think you're mistaken.

 

I don't know how good Kerry would've done, no one does. But if wasn't such a santimonious prick he might've been elected and maybe we would know.

 

When will the Democrats self examine as to why they couldn't beat the weakest President in years? Oh, yes, I forgot...It's that "Evil Genius" Karl Rove...

 

Edit: I am a staunch conservative (more fiscal than social)- The Republican party is as corrupt as the Democrats. So there isn't much of a discernable difference between the two, although I do align more closely with their core ideals (or what they used to be).

[OCinBuffalo]

The main issue:

 

THE GROSS NEGLECT/INCOMPETENCE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE STEADY EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY BECAUSE OF THIS NEGLECT/INCOMPETENCE

WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN AND IF WE DECIDE TO LET GOVERNMENT BE IN CHARGE OF THINGS.

 

McCellan is political appointee, but he is also a fine example of thousands of government employees/political hacks who end up in jobs they aren't qualified for, never mind that they don't get paid very well. They have too much power and responsibility, but they have no chance of being able to handle either. The sheer size of the job they are trying to do is so far overblown, because the size of government is overblown, that you need to be top 5% person to be able to handle it, and you need to know how to operate in a massive organization.

 

But, McCellan's, like most, talent level/skill set was so far below what is required, he was doomed to failure. People that are qualified are making 3 times what he is and therefore will never leave their jobs to do his. The government is so inordinately large that it automagically promotes the unqualified out of necessity. So you end up with the lowest common denominator at the highest levels, and the result is things like the Iraq WMD intelligence or the Katrina response or Madeline Albright as the Secretary of State. It's a perfect storm of stupidity.

 

And when they fail, as they have been set up to do, they get angry, as anybody probably would, and they go out and write tell all books as a way to make $$$, because they a.) won't be working in government again, b.) probably won't be working in industry, c.) want to take a misguided shot at their old boss, or boss's boss, when it's not even their fault really.

 

The real fault lies in all of them trying to propagate a myth = that large government can be efficient. The founding fathers blatantly said that government is supposed to be inefficient. And that makes sense. Example: How do you tell a state social worker whose job it is to tell people that they have AIDS to be more efficient? Honestly. Tell the patient faster? Cut their grief time? Send them emails? Do a GoToMeeting? Who else is going to do that job besides the government?

 

But, by definition, the larger the government the larger the inefficiency. This is why we need to stop using the word efficient and/or "run government like a business", and start using the words effective and accountable. If McClellan was effective, which he wasn't, or accountable, he wouldn't have blatantly failed, and there would be no book.

 

The solution? Do what the military did and reduce your force in terms of quantity, but compensate in terms of quality. If 20 people can put a man into space(X prize), then 500 people could easily run a government department, in terms of administration, instead of 5,000. Obviously you leave the people in the field who actually do the work the same. And, think what the salaries would be if you cut the admin jobs, got rid of ineffective departments, and cut the scope of what government was responsible for only to the things it can be effective at. Government has no profit motive, so all the money you don't give back to the taxpayer stays right where it is, and can be used to actually pay competitive or higher wages, which attracts the best people, which means more effectiveness.

[SD Jarhead]

Stop making sense OC!

[/dev/null]

WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN AND IF WE DECIDE TO LET GOVERNMENT BE IN CHARGE OF THINGS.

 

But but but...Motherment knows best

[Kelly the Dog]

WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN AND IF WE DECIDE TO LET GOVERNMENT BE IN CHARGE OF THINGS.

 

McCellan is political appointee, but he is also a fine example of thousands of government employees/political hacks who end up in jobs they aren't qualified for, never mind that they don't get paid very well. They have too much power and responsibility, but they have no chance of being able to handle either. The sheer size of the job they are trying to do is so far overblown, because the size of government is overblown, that you need to be top 5% person to be able to handle it, and you need to know how to operate in a massive organization.

 

But, McCellan's, like most, talent level/skill set was so far below what is required, he was doomed to failure. People that are qualified are making 3 times what he is and therefore will never leave their jobs to do his. The government is so inordinately large that it automagically promotes the unqualified out of necessity. So you end up with the lowest common denominator at the highest levels, and the result is things like the Iraq WMD intelligence or the Katrina response or Madeline Albright as the Secretary of State. It's a perfect storm of stupidity.

 

And when they fail, as they have been set up to do, they get angry, as anybody probably would, and they go out and write tell all books as a way to make $$$, because they a.) won't be working in government again, b.) probably won't be working in industry, c.) want to take a misguided shot at their old boss, or boss's boss, when it's not even their fault really.

 

The real fault lies in all of them trying to propagate a myth = that large government can be efficient. The founding fathers blatantly said that government is supposed to be inefficient. And that makes sense. Example: How do you tell a state social worker whose job it is to tell people that they have AIDS to be more efficient? Honestly. Tell the patient faster? Cut their grief time? Send them emails? Do a GoToMeeting? Who else is going to do that job besides the government?

 

But, by definition, the larger the government the larger the inefficiency. This is why we need to stop using the word efficient and/or "run government like a business", and start using the words effective and accountable. If McClellan was effective, which he wasn't, or accountable, he wouldn't have blatantly failed, and there would be no book.

 

The solution? Do what the military did and reduce your force in terms of quantity, but compensate in terms of quality. If 20 people can put a man into space(X prize), then 500 people could easily run a government department, in terms of administration, instead of 5,000. Obviously you leave the people in the field who actually do the work the same. And, think what the salaries would be if you cut the admin jobs, got rid of ineffective departments, and cut the scope of what government was responsible for only to the things it can be effective at. Government has no profit motive, so all the money you don't give back to the taxpayer stays right where it is, and can be used to actually pay competitive or higher wages, which attracts the best people, which means more effectiveness.

That's a pretty good post, and I agree with most all of it.

 

But this story has a lot more elements to it than you just described. One of Bush's main problems IMO is his insistence on loyalty over competence. Bush put McClellan in that position he wasn't nearly qualified for not because of big government and unqualified candidates but because he valued yes men more than smart competent men in that job. Tony Snow was decent and very qualified for it. Ari Fleischer was a decent guy and pretty good at it but I felt sorry for him. Dana Perino IMO is just like McClellan and horrible. Granted, it's a thankless, lousy job, and it's hard to be good at it. But Bush should never have put a guy like McClellan in there and has to take some responsibility for it.

[blzrul]

But Bush should never have put a guy like McClellan in there and has to take some responsibility for it.

When has Bush EVER admitted a mistake OR taken responsibility for a poor decision?

[DC Tom]

When has Bush EVER admitted a mistake OR taken responsibility for a poor decision?

 

When's the last time any president did? Clinton did with Lewinski...but he had to be brow-beaten in to it. Before that...I don't know, Nixon? Hell, when's the last time ANY politician admitted a poor decision without being brow-beaten in to it? And even then sometimes..."wide stance", anyone?

 

And as I recall, Bush admitted about a year ago that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was a bad idea - minor in the grand scope of things, but huge for him.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's a pretty good post, and I agree with most all of it.

 

But this story has a lot more elements to it than you just described. One of Bush's main problems IMO is his insistence on loyalty over competence. Bush put McClellan in that position he wasn't nearly qualified for not because of big government and unqualified candidates but because he valued yes men more than smart competent men in that job. Tony Snow was decent and very qualified for it. Ari Fleischer was a decent guy and pretty good at it but I felt sorry for him. Dana Perino IMO is just like McClellan and horrible. Granted, it's a thankless, lousy job, and it's hard to be good at it. But Bush should never have put a guy like McClellan in there and has to take some responsibility for it.

That's true too.

 

What I was shooting for was the fact that McClellan was promoted rather than "being hired". He worked for Ari as a deputy. So, like everything else in government, he had a "right" to be promoted, as he was already part of the big machine. This sometimes happens in business too(I have come across a significant # of VPs, etc., in my travels that are only there because of seniority, no way they were there for talent). But, I would love to know how many real recruiting searches are conducted with real recruiting firms for mid-level on up managers, vs. promoting from within/choice of one promotions, in the government.

 

The bottom line is I am sick to tears of the big government = good government by default mentality. I would love to hear a Democrat talk just once about holding government, or themselves, accountable(say, the fact that they haven't done 1 thing they promised, and have made many things worse), because they don't seem to have any problem talking about holding everybody else accountable. I would also like a shift in general to looking at what is working = US Military, vs. what is not = DEA and the drug war, 5 separate intelligence agencies that we know about anyway, etc., and get rid of the ineffective stuff.(do I even need to mention NOT creating a Health Care monstrosity that is DOA effectiveness wise?)

[DC Tom]

That's true too.

 

What I was shooting for was the fact that McClellan was promoted rather than "being hired". He worked for Ari as a deputy. So, like everything else in government, he had a "right" to be promoted, as he was already part of the big machine. This sometimes happens in business too(I have come across a significant # of VPs, etc., in my travels that are only there because of seniority, no way they were there for talent). But, I would love to know how many real recruiting searches are conducted with real recruiting firms for mid-level on up managers, vs. promoting from within/choice of one promotions, in the government.

 

The bottom line is I am sick to tears of the big government = good government by default mentality. I would love to hear a Democrat talk just once about holding government, or themselves, accountable(say, the fact that they haven't done 1 thing they promised, and have made many things worse), because they don't seem to have any problem talking about holding everybody else accountable. I would also like a shift in general to looking at what is working = US Military, vs. what is not = DEA and the drug war, 5 separate intelligence agencies that we know about anyway, etc., and get rid of the ineffective stuff.(do I even need to mention NOT creating a Health Care monstrosity that is DOA effectiveness wise?)

 

Don't think for a minute the military's working all that well ($700B budget, and they claim they're strained to fight two rather small wars? Good thing the Soviets aren't planning on invading Europe anytime soon...)

 

And it's probably closer to 17 different intelligence agencies. CIA, NSA, NRO, State has their own, Treasury has their own (Secret Service), Homeland Security probably has a couple (TSA probably has one, and I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard does, given what my sis-in-law's sister used to do), Justice has at least one in the FBI (and probably another in DEA), DoD has four that I can think of (DIA, Army, Navy, Air Force). I'd even bet that DOE has one (considering they're tasked with safeguarding the old Russian nuclear stockpiles), and even HHS (for bioterrorism purposes).

 

Come to think of it...who the hell doesn't have an intelligence agency? OSHA?

[OCinBuffalo]

Don't think for a minute the military's working all that well ($700B budget, and they claim they're strained to fight two rather small wars? Good thing the Soviets aren't planning on invading Europe anytime soon...)

 

And it's probably closer to 17 different intelligence agencies. CIA, NSA, NRO, State has their own, Treasury has their own (Secret Service), Homeland Security probably has a couple (TSA probably has one, and I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard does, given what my sis-in-law's sister used to do), Justice has at least one in the FBI (and probably another in DEA), DoD has four that I can think of (DIA, Army, Navy, Air Force). I'd even bet that DOE has one (considering they're tasked with safeguarding the old Russian nuclear stockpiles), and even HHS (for bioterrorism purposes).

 

Come to think of it...who the hell doesn't have an intelligence agency? OSHA?

First of all, you have to be kidding me about the military. They began their transformation in the 80s under Reagan. They had some hiccups = Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but most of those were from programs that were carry overs. The were told in no uncertain terms by Reagan that they had to start running things better, and they responded. First, by RIFing a whole lot of dead weight and training the remaining STRAC people intensively, second, by changing how they bought stuff, third, by combining weapon systems.

 

The JSF is the best example of this. You don't need 6 different types of fighter bombers, you need 1 with a superior design that can do everything at a high level. They saved billions with that project already, and they haven't even gone into full production yet = long term they will save trillions. In fact, they are so efficient now, they are turning down spending project that they don't need. Like John Murtha's pork barrel spending project for tankers/C130's that the Air Force didn't want, or the destroyers the Navy didn't want. When Murtha was asked about it, he basically said: "Well, they are only thinking about fighters and I think they need to think about supply planes" what BS.

 

It is politicians doing "favors" and forcing crap on the military that is the only thing left to fix. And, um, let's not forget that there's these little problems like fighting 2 land wars going on right now. I think that might have something to do with the budget being where it is right? Besides, it is DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared with the behemoth entitlement programs(75% of the budget). Which means that the entire defense budget, fit's into the 25% part, along with everything else that isn't an entitlement program.

 

Name one other government agency that is turning down equipment or $$$ today and not always bitching for more instead.

 

And, I thought CIA meant single, all encompassing, intelligence agency, hence the word CENTRAL! But, aren't we talking about the government here? So why should we be shocked that we are talking about useless waste and redundancy, again.

[Steely Dan]

Because John Kerry "had a plan".

 

Seriously. This administration sucks at marketing. They tried to sell a war by giving NINETEEN different and often contradictory justifications for it, and instead managed to get the entire world to support a dictator that EVERYONE hated. They still can't explain their counter-terrorism policies. They have purposely and intentionally alienated the media. They can't even begin to explain Guantanamo detainments beyond "Well...they're bad men." Despite actually forging a multi-national diplomatic effort to resolve both the Iran and North Korean nuclear issues, and despite having ambassador-level talks with Iran for the first time in 30 years, they still can't figure out how to explain to the public that yes, they actually ARE pursuing alternatives to invasion. Despite supplying, financing, and equipping multinational African forces to police Darfur, people still ask "When are you going to do something about Darfur?"

 

And to run against an administration THAT completely incompetent at getting their message across, the Democratic party nominates the ONE candidate who's actually MORE clueless than George W. Bush. Freakin' amazing. A carrot could have beaten Bush. How do you !@#$ up that race?

 

I think it was a lot of Democratic stupidity and a lot of Republican brilliance.

 

 

Probably lying then. The job description of a press secretary isn't to tell the truth, it's to deliver the statements you're given to deliver, and do it with a straight face.

 

So I don't hold it against him...the fact that he was lying then would indicate a certain integrity of sorts, in that he did his job as it was supposed to be done. It's the task that's slimy, not the man.

 

Very true. I believe the reason he left is because he couldn't deal with the constant lying. I have no trouble believing what he says is true. As for the timing of the book I think anyone here would want their book released during a time when it will make the most money.

 

 

White House Press Secretary has got to be one of the worst jobs in the world. You're just a ventriloquist dummy out there, paid to lie (as well as your better definition up top), can't say what you think, a lot of times can't even stick up for yourself, everyone knows you're full of schitt, and you get no credit for anything. Sign me up for that job.

 

Well summarized. It is a thankless job.

 

 

Hear me clearly...I'm not defending Bush. Yes, he's an idiot who has made some terrible choices as President. But if you believe he is great at marketing his administration I think you're mistaken.

 

I don't know how good Kerry would've done, no one does. But if wasn't such a santimonious prick he might've been elected and maybe we would know.

 

When will the Democrats self examine as to why they couldn't beat the weakest President in years? Oh, yes, I forgot...It's that "Evil Genius" Karl Rove...

 

Edit: I am a staunch conservative (more fiscal than social)- The Republican party is as corrupt as the Democrats. So there isn't much of a discernable difference between the two, although I do align more closely with their core ideals (or what they used to be).

 

President Bush, despite his many problems, strikes most of the American people as a pretty nice guy — the kind of guy they would feel comfortable with if he showed up at their front door. The more standoffish Kerry projects little warmth.

 

A recent Zogby/Williams Identity Poll reflected that. It found that 57% of undecided voters would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry. (In Bush's case, it would be a nonalcoholic beer.)

 

While both were raised with silver spoons in their mouths and both went to Yale, Bush comes off as less pretentious and more down to earth. Kerry sounds like he is lecturing people rather than holding a conversation with them.

 

Linkage

 

 

Kerry was only sanctomonius to the people who believe that east coast intellectuals are sanctamonius. I think he's just extremely intelligent and not someone "you'd like to have a beer with." (I'm not saying you believe that but the poll showed a lot of people made that response while answering why they would vote for Bush over Kerry.) I've gone drinking many times and believe me I haven't met anyone in a bar I'd want running the country. Intelligence is necessary for the job. Not personality.

 

You can't really believe the Dems are as corrupt as the Republicans can you? All you have to do is look at this administration to see the scorecard has the Republicans wayyyyyyyyy ahead.

[DC Tom]

First of all, you have to be kidding me about the military. They began their transformation in the 80s under Reagan. They had some hiccups = Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but most of those were from programs that were carry overs. The were told in no uncertain terms by Reagan that they had to start running things better, and they responded. First, by RIFing a whole lot of dead weight and training the remaining STRAC people intensively, second, by changing how they bought stuff, third, by combining weapon systems.

 

The JSF is the best example of this. You don't need 6 different types of fighter bombers, you need 1 with a superior design that can do everything at a high level. They saved billions with that project already, and they haven't even gone into full production yet = long term they will save trillions. In fact, they are so efficient now, they are turning down spending project that they don't need. Like John Murtha's pork barrel spending project for tankers/C130's that the Air Force didn't want, or the destroyers the Navy didn't want. When Murtha was asked about it, he basically said: "Well, they are only thinking about fighters and I think they need to think about supply planes" what BS.

 

It is politicians doing "favors" and forcing crap on the military that is the only thing left to fix. And, um, let's not forget that there's these little problems like fighting 2 land wars going on right now. I think that might have something to do with the budget being where it is right? Besides, it is DROP IN THE BUCKET when compared with the behemoth entitlement programs(75% of the budget). Which means that the entire defense budget, fit's into the 25% part, along with everything else that isn't an entitlement program.

 

Name one other government agency that is turning down equipment or $$$ today and not always bitching for more instead.

 

And, I thought CIA meant single, all encompassing, intelligence agency, hence the word CENTRAL! But, aren't we talking about the government here? So why should we be shocked that we are talking about useless waste and redundancy, again.

 

 

You're right. What the !@#$ do I know. Retatta, anyone?

[Bishop Hedd]

Not to mention their incredible wit with such snappy one liners as RepubliCON and Colin Cancer Powel

 

 

The term "RepubliCon" is what it sez...Republican Conservative, shortened for the sake of brevity when we all know that faction is pretty retarded. Proof? Oh the last eight painful years.

 

 

Colin Powell deserves every insult for sitting before congress with the supposed "yellow cake uranium" card, playing the neocon stooge and being discredited over and over again.

 

 

Sounds like a cancer to me.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What...? You need Scott to tell you this now... Maybe all the dumbasses around here that think they know it all should have listened to ME (ya, this big dummy) back in late 2002/early 2003!

 

 

Take some advice from the Riddler next time... LISTEN! My "puzzles" aren't that hard.

 

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

The term "RepubliCon" is what it sez...Republican Conservative, shortened for the sake of brevity when we all know that faction is pretty retarded. Proof? Oh the last eight painful years.

 

 

Colin Powell deserves every insult for sitting before congress with the supposed "yellow cake uranium" card, playing the neocon stooge and being discredited over and over again.

 

 

Sounds like a cancer to me.

 

 

Who do you think you are foolin? Ex-con, neo-con. Con?

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

con4 Audio Help /kɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, verb, conned, con·ning, noun Informal.

–adjective 1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick.

–verb (used with object) 2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.

3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.

–noun 4. a confidence game or swindle.

5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk: He had a dozen different cons for getting out of paying traffic tickets.

 

Yeah, like that's not what your side is trying to convey.

[ExiledInIllinois]

When will the Democrats self examine as to why they couldn't beat the weakest President in years? Oh, yes, I forgot...It's that "Evil Genius" Karl Rove...

 

No self-examing here. Just a look back on how dumb most everyone was to follow these guys (Bush)... It wasn't my burden to beat them... Almost comical how it played out, anybody with half a brain could have figured it out back in 2002/2003. One will never win when the other side plays the "nationalistic card"... The patriotic lemmings just fall right into line... You just let them have it.

 

If lust and hate is the candy,

if blood and love tastes so sweet,

then we give 'em what they want.

 

It is because most Americans are dumb as stumps and somehow get all bent out of shape emotionally when the "nationalistic card" is played.

 

I sat here on this very board back in 2002/2003 telling people that they WOULDN'T find a thing and that this administration was playing everyone a fool. Amazing what hysterical talk about national security will get accomplished... Nobody asks questions like I did... They just follow like lemmings when the drums of war are beat.

 

My thanks? I was brand a "troll" that was just "stirring" the pot. There were very few here that spoke out in those terms... In fact, EVERYONE of you fools trusted the intelligence... They'd surely find something people thought... Right or left and even the independents.

 

Where was the so-called "liberal media" we here so much about back in 2003?

 

Most of you guys wanted this war and this president... No fault of mine when I tried to inject some logic and reason into all of the stumps.

 

So now does your heart pitter pat with a patriotic song

when you see the stripes of Old Glory waving?

 

 

This stuff is pretty damning... Who will be the next "troll" to say that all this was started in vain? Guess what? I will... Because it was!

 

[Bishop Hedd]

Who do you think you are foolin? Ex-con, neo-con. Con?

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

con4 Audio Help /kɒn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, verb, conned, con·ning, noun Informal.

–adjective 1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick.

–verb (used with object) 2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.

3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.

–noun 4. a confidence game or swindle.

5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk: He had a dozen different cons for getting out of paying traffic tickets.

 

Yeah, like that's not what your side is trying to convey.

 

 

What's up with u RepubliCons being so prickly lately? I know stuff ain't goin' yer way but a dictionary reference? C'mon!

[SD Jarhead]

No self-examing here. Just a look back on how dumb most everyone was to follow these guys (Bush)... It wasn't my burden to beat them... Almost comical how it played out, anybody with half a brain could have figured it out back in 2002/2003. One will never win when the other side plays the "nationalistic card"... The patriotic lemmings just fall right into line... You just let them have it.

 

If lust and hate is the candy,

if blood and love tastes so sweet,

then we give 'em what they want.

 

It is because most Americans are dumb as stumps and somehow get all bent out of shape emotionally when the "nationalistic card" is played.

 

I sat here on this very board back in 2002/2003 telling people that they WOULDN'T find a thing and that this administration was playing everyone a fool. Amazing what hysterical talk about national security will get accomplished... Nobody asks questions like I did... They just follow like lemmings when the drums of war are beat.

 

My thanks? I was brand a "troll" that was just "stirring" the pot. There were very few here that spoke out in those terms... In fact, EVERYONE of you fools trusted the intelligence... They'd surely find something people thought... Right or left and even the independents.

 

Where was the so-called "liberal media" we here so much about back in 2003?

 

Most of you guys wanted this war and this president... No fault of mine when I tried to inject some logic and reason into all of the stumps.

 

So now does your heart pitter pat with a patriotic song

when you see the stripes of Old Glory waving?

 

 

This stuff is pretty damning... Who will be the next "troll" to say that all this was started in vain? Guess what? I will... Because it was!

 

 

OK, You're a genius (In the Joe Theisman mold)! I'm not defending Scotty nor saying he is wrong in his assessments. He is a money grubbing whore though...just sayin'

 

The whole Iraq/WMD horse has been beaten to death, so pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel good. The fact remains that your boys (the Democrats) couldn't beat the weakest President in decades during the past election cycle. Again I ask, why? The point has already been established that the Bush Admin. sucks at marketing.

 

The funny thing is it looks like the Dem's are repeating history all over again with the Messiah. Another election, another lightweight. The schit would be funny if it wasn't such an important time in our history.

 

Oh, and nice use of song lyrics to prove your point...it really adds gravitas to your argument!

[Wacka]

If you think Bush was a conservative, you are nuts.

 

I'm gone all day so I wont be replying until maybe tonight.

[Kelly the Dog]

OK, You're a genius (In the Joe Theisman mold)! I'm not defending Scotty nor saying he is wrong in his assessments. He is a money grubbing whore though...just sayin'

 

The whole Iraq/WMD horse has been beaten to death, so pat yourself on the back if it makes you feel good. The fact remains that your boys (the Democrats) couldn't beat the weakest President in decades during the past election cycle. Again I ask, why? The point has already been established that the Bush Admin. sucks at marketing.

 

The funny thing is it looks like the Dem's are repeating history all over again with the Messiah. Another election, another lightweight. The schit would be funny if it wasn't such an important time in our history.

 

Oh, and nice use of song lyrics to prove your point...it really adds gravitas to your argument!

The difference this year IMO is your assessment of the Democrats' problems. The "lightweight" in the last two elections has easily been the Republican candidate. And you're right about the fact the Dems couldn't beat the weakest President in decades when IMO Bush was the weakest Presidential candidate even before he imploded. The problems for the Dems wasn't that the candidates were lightweights, it was that they were criminally terrible candidates, personalities and campaigners. Kerry and Gore were highly qualified, they just sucked ass as candidates and I don't even think most Democrats liked them at all, they just liked the majority of democratic stances versus Republican stances.

 

This year, the candidate is a very good candidate, terrific personality, and ability to get people excited. That's why this year should be a lot different. Gore and Kerry just sucked ass. You may hate Obama's policies and think he never did anything and doesn't deserve to be where he is but he's a fabulous candidate, speaker, campaigner, organizer, etc.