Dem Strategist Pat Caddell: Dan Rather May Have Cost Kerry the Election

[Viking]

Friday, Sept. 10, 2004 12:59 a.m. EDT
Caddell: Dan Rather May Have Cost Kerry the Election

Longtime Democratic strategist Pat Caddell said Friday that if documents aired by CBS newsman Dan Rather Wednesday night turn out to be forged, as alleged by experts, the presidential race "is over."

"It would be the end of the race," Caddell told Fox News Live. "It would be the end of the race," he repeated.

"[Democratic officials are] so involved in this," the former Carter pollster worried. "They have gotten themselves so involved in this issue [in] the last 24 hours that somebody's going to, if they're not authentic, they're going to be blamed for it. It's incredible to me that they've gotten in this."

Caddell said he wasn't trying to sensationalize the issue, explaining that instead "I'm trying to save my party, you know, by telling the truth."

He said that forfeiting the presidential race would be the least of his party's problems if Democrats are tied to any forgery scandal.

"The race is over – and we've got bigger problems than that," he warned.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/10/130050.shtml

[freak]

It's about damned time someone from that side of the fence came to their senses and spoke out.

[Viking]

Amen. Conservative Democrats are watching the far Left drink the ideological purple Kool-Aid, and they're starting to hop the fence.

[freak]

Originally posted by Viking
Amen. Conservative Democrats are watching the far Left drink the ideological purple Kool-Aid, and they're starting to hop the fence.

I imagine a bunch of them may even do what this Democrat did in 1992 and wash their hands of the party altogether.

Every party has its' lunatic fringe.

The Democrats, unfortunately, have all but surrendered to theirs.

[FORD]

If a "Democrat" was on FAUX News, it's all but certain they were a DLC shitbag traitor. Which means they want Kerry to lose in the first place.

These sick FUCKS actually called the 1994 election a "liberation" for the Democratic party, and still they are allowed to exist.

I'm proud to be a member of the party of Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Truman, JFK, and Howard Dean. And yes, goddammit, even Bill Clinton!

[Figs]

I knew somehow Hillary would torpedo this election!

Hillary/some southerner vs. McCain/Guiliani in 2008

[FORD]

It will Be Dean/Obama in 08. Whether it will be called the Democratic party or not will be a different story.

And how many lying shit infested neocon corpses have to bleed in the street to take this fucking country back is another story still.

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
It will Be Dean/Obama in 08. Whether it will be called the Democratic party or not will be a different story.

And how many lying shit infested neocon corpses have to bleed in the street to take this fucking country back is another story still.

Temper temper....

[John Ashcroft]

I don't believe it'll be Dean/Obama in '08

It'll be Clinton/doesn't matter. Bill and Hillary are seeing to this as we speak.

Oh, and the Clinton/doesn't matter team will lose just like Kerry/Edwards are going to lose this round. I don't quite understand the Dems infatuation with Hillary, but the more sensible crowd (the rest of the American public) doesn't really care for her. So, go ahead and run her, but be prepared.

I'd rather see Obama run personally, but I think he's messing up by running for Senate (Senators aren't typically elected to President). If the White House is in his goals, he should've run for Governor instead.

[FORD]

FUCK Hillary! She's another DLC traitor sellout. She stood up and clapped when Junior LIED in his last State of The Union address, referring to Iraq as the "central front in the War on Terra®"

If this country were behaving like a TRUE democracy (or republic) that fucking son of a bitch would be in prison for treason for even making such a statement, and she'd be in the cell right next to him.

Geezus, when is enough fucking enough with this fascist traitorous bullshit?

[ELVIS]

Well, Hilary is next in line for your party...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Well, Hilary is next in line for your party...

Most of that hype is coming straight from the Mush Limpdick show. I'm not saying it's impossible, or that the DLC shitbag traitors wouldn't try it, but it's not logical that a one term Senator would be a good candidate for the top job.

If Kerry loses, I don't think there will be another Senator running for some time (assuming there is an election at all. Or even a country to have an election in.)

[ELVIS]

Well, next time maybe your party should think about actually building a formidible candidate who has something to offer...

The 'anybody but Bush' campaign is a recipe for failure...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Well, next time maybe your party should think about actually building a formidible candidate who has something to offer...

The 'anybody but Bush' campaign is a recipe for failure...

Couldn't agree with you more on that one. We had the best candidate since RFK running, and those fucking traitorous shitbags sabotaged him :(

Since the overhype of the Iowa bullshit and the resulting manufactured disaster, Howard Dean has been proven right again and again on everything the DLC and the mediawhores slammed him for. I sincerely believe that Dean would be at least 15 points ahead of Junior right now if he were the nominee.

[ELVIS]

Yeah, but nobody was really warming up to Dean either...

[freak]

Dean had about as good a chance as Pat Robertson did. Read: none.

If the Dems would just nominate a moderate they'd have a chance.

Clinton waltzed right into eight years by simply pretending to be one.

[monkeythe]

The anybody but strategy doesn't work for anyone. In Ny a few years ago, the senate race was Clinton vs some guy that his entire platform was I'm not Clinton. Needless to say who won.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
If a "Democrat" was on FAUX News, it's all but certain they were a DLC shitbag traitor. Which means they want Kerry to lose in the first place.



Does that apply to Michael Moore's interview with Bill O'Reilly as well? :confused: :rolleyes: :gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
Dean had about as good a chance as Pat Robertson did. Read: none.

If the Dems would just nominate a moderate they'd have a chance.

Clinton waltzed right into eight years by simply pretending to be one.

Kerry's to the RIGHT OF FUCKING REAGAN on foreign policy. Is that not "moderate" enough for you?

Voted for the Iraq war... kissing Israel's ass. Has yet to condemn the PNAC agenda. Never mind what he did in 1971, for the last 4 years, there's been no measurable difference between Kerry and Holy Joe Lieberman.


And in reality, it was DEAN who was the true moderate. The mediawhores only were able to tag him as "liberal" because he made acommon sense decision and legalized civil unions in Vermont after the state's highest court ruled on the issue.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Does that apply to Michael Moore's interview with Bill O'Reilly as well? :confused: :rolleyes: :gulp:

Michael Moore's not a registered Democrat, as far as I know. And he definitely has no official position in the party.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Kerry's to the RIGHT OF FUCKING REAGAN on foreign policy. Is that not "moderate" enough for you?

Voted for the Iraq war... kissing Israel's ass. Has yet to condemn the PNAC agenda. Never mind what he did in 1971, for the last 4 years, there's been no measurable difference between Kerry and Holy Joe Lieberman.




Yet, you're still voting for him...

I used to think you had more integrity than that...

:)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Michael Moore's not a registered Democrat, as far as I know. And he definitely has no official position in the party.

What's your official position ??

:elvis:

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
Kerry's to the RIGHT OF FUCKING REAGAN on foreign policy. Is that not "moderate" enough for you?

Enlighten me. How so?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Michael Moore's not a registered Democrat, as far as I know. And he definitely has no official position in the party.

Is that why he was in the Presidential booth at your convention? :confused:

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Is that why he was in the Presidential booth at your convention? :confused:

He was at your convention too. Does that make him a Republican? ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Yet, you're still voting for him...

I used to think you had more integrity than that...

:)

I'm voting against the BCE. period.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What's your official position ??

:elvis:

I haven't had an official position since I resigned as chair of the local Young Democrats chapter in 1997.

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
I'm voting against the BCE. period.

You'll never get what you want unless you demand that a more than token candidate is promoted.

Look at 96. All the Republicans did was an anyone but Clinton campaign. Thhhhpt! They should have stayed home for all the good it did them.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
Enlighten me. How so?

Reagan didn't practice pre-emptive wars. Kerry voted to enable Junior to do so, and has said he would do it again, even KNOWING Iraq had no weapons.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak
You'll never get what you want unless you demand that a more than token candidate is promoted.

Look at 96. All the Republicans did was an anyone but Clinton campaign. Thhhhpt! They should have stayed home for all the good it did them.

The big difference between 1996 and now is that the country was doing very well under Clinton and Republicans really had no reason to complain, let alone elect a guy who was way too old for the job.

BTW, you never heard Clinton say anything against Bob Dole's war record either ;)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
The big difference between 1996 and now is that the country was doing very well under Clinton and Republicans really had no reason to complain, let alone elect a guy who was way too old for the job.

The country is doing roughly the same economically as it was in 1996...

BTW, you never heard Clinton say anything against Bob Dole's war record either ;)

..and you never heard George Bush say anything against Kerry's war record...






:elvis:

[FORD]

Swift Boat Liars Against Truth have numerous connections to the BCE. Two members of Junior's campaign have already resigned because of their involvement. One of them was dumb enough to actually appear in the ad!

[FORD]

And the economy is NOTHING like it was in 1996. Clinton didn't lose 3 million jobs, finishing with a net loss of 1.5 million like George Herbert Hoover Bush Jr.

[ELVIS]

I don't judge the job market by who is in the white house...

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
And the economy is NOTHING like it was in 1996.

Thank God for that. Idiots pouring venture capitol into .COMs damn near collapsed our entire economy.

You won't believe some of the bullshit sales pitches I heard during that time.

[freak]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't judge the job market by who is in the white house...

The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of fools who thought the Internet was a money making machine.

[Viking]

Originally posted by FORD:

I'm proud to be a member of the party of Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Truman, JFK, and Howard Dean. And yes, goddammit, even Bill Clinton!

:rolleyes: FORD...........Jefferson, Truman, and JFK would be considered moderate Republicans by today's standards. Even Clinton, for all of his character flaws, looks appealing when held up in comparison to what is left of the Democrat Party. And BTW, Howeird Dean and Jefferson have VERY LITTLE in common. Don't usurp the legacy of one to burnish the reputation of another. It's an obscenity and an insult to Jefferson.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Viking



:rolleyes: FORD...........Jefferson, Truman, and JFK would be considered moderate Republicans by today's standards. Even Clinton, for all of his character flaws, looks appealing when held up in comparison to what is left of the Democrat Party. And BTW, Howeird Dean and Jefferson have VERY LITTLE in common. Don't usurp the legacy of one to burnish the reputation of another. It's an obscenity and an insult to Jefferson.

Well said.

[Warham]

Kennedy was for tax cuts, Reagan was for tax cuts, Bush is for tax cuts

Sounds like the Republican Party is the party for Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. :D

[Lqskdiver]

Time to take your meds, FORD.

Somehow I think 20 years you'll still be hearing those words, long after the 2008 election and long after the demise of the Democratic party.

[Warham]

Clinton was in office when the recession started. FORD probably forgot that, though.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton was in office when the recession started. FORD probably forgot that, though.

Not so. The recession started in March 2001. And I got that from an "unimpeachable" right wing source. (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=March+2001+recession&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=March+2001&as_oq=&as_eq=Clinton&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.foxnews.com&safe=off)

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Not so. The recession started in March 2001. And I got that from an "unimpeachable" right wing source. (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=March+2001+recession&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=March+2001&as_oq=&as_eq=Clinton&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.foxnews.com&safe=off)

Yes, it did start in March of 2001..and Bush was in office for 1 1/2 months....and Clinton was in office for the previous 8 years....so instead of being just a partisan try to be logical.

[jacksmar]

What you’ve missed in this entire discussion of your disdain for anything related to President Bush, Ford, is very simple: during the debates, the candidates with no chance of winning shaped what the 2004 election would be about and they picked Iraq. The current democrat party has more trouble separating politics from reality than anything previously seen in US politics. The want to be the anti-war party and clearly,( there isn’t a soul that wants any type of war), that’s not where the world is at. Look at Russia most recently.

The world religious shit stirrers and the despots are finding out that the world is simply tired of their bullshit. So when candidate Dean says he's against our actions in Iraq, he’s not taken seriously and never will be. Would you be out stumping for Mosely right now if she had the Democrat nod? Kucinish? Can you take former VP Gore seriously?

The larger problem with democrats right now is where their reality line is. They justify their own ruthlessness by presuming that the opposition is boundlessly corrupt, a presumption their own inquisitions disprove time and time again. It leaves them with the “empty bag”. They waste time on banal drivel and bleat daily about what’s wrong and fail time and again to provide any insight, conclusion, or corrective action.

So you say you’re voting to remove President Bush but fail again to say you’ve found a candidate that is anti conservative/Christian/corporate. That’s what you want. That’s how President Bush has been defined by the Democrats. You think the democrats on domestic issues have the more sound and popular positions. So why were the discussions during the debates based around war and Iraq? I know what I think my answer is but give us your take, because the answer is definitely related to the issues of war records, for example, that we're having currently.


:confused:

[fanofdave]

If you don't like John Kerry's position on a particular
issue, just wait a couple of hours. He'll change it to
suit you. flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.....

[JCOOK]

Maybe you libs will finally get it. When it comes right down to it most Americans are tired of the far left Kerry, Hillary, Jesse, Howard ,Ted,Tom,Charley,Barney and the rest of them.Run out some new people who arent' socialists.