Here's my last word on Iowa

[FORD]

Since 1972, Only one winner of the Iowa caucus has been elected President - Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Junior also won the Iowa caucus, but of course, he wasn't exactly elected.

Even if you want to count him, that's 2 in 32 years.

You think Reagan, Clinton, and Poppy give a shit about Iowa??

Why should Dean? :D

[John Ashcroft]

I believe I concurred with that statement in the other thread. You're right on this one, but it was still funny watching the reaction of the press. Talk about "Shock and Awe"! I'll bet Judy Woodruff is in tears.

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
I believe I concurred with that statement in the other thread. You're right on this one, but it was still funny watching the reaction of the press. Talk about "Shock and Awe"! I'll bet Judy Woodruff is in tears.

Why would Judy be sad? She's the second biggest Bush Jr groupie on CNN. Only Candy Crowley is worse. Paula Zahn comes in a close third.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Since 1972, Only one winner of the Iowa caucus has been elected President - Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Junior also won the Iowa caucus, but of course, he wasn't exactly elected.

Even if you want to count him, that's 2 in 32 years.

You think Reagan, Clinton, and Poppy give a shit about Iowa??

Why should Dean? :D

Um, can we stop with this Bush isn't the President bullshit?

He was elected, selected, appointed, whatever.....The process was still a provision of the Constitution and if Gore were the one who won that way YOU'D be running around claiming it was fair.
You're just mad (and it's been 3 years now) because your Gorinch wasn't successful stealing the election.

Oh, and would you leave Mrs. Bush alone and stop calling her Pickles?
She is a swetheart that has done absolutely nothing to you and doesn't deserve that shit... (I think she is a babe, an older babe but still a babe)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD

You think Reagan, Clinton, and Poppy give a shit about Iowa??

Why should Dean? :D

You probably ride a bicycle backwards better than you do fowards...:rolleyes:

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Why would Judy be sad? She's the second biggest Bush Jr groupie on CNN. Only Candy Crowley is worse. Paula Zahn comes in a close third.

Put the crack pipe down dude...:cool:

[conmee]

Gentlemen,

I'm no fan of the courts getting involved in elections, but Bush didn't steal anything: Gore LOST the election. If he'd done a better job connecting with the average American, would have embraced the somewhat tarnished legacy of Clinton who was still quite popular, and been more succinct and direct about his vision, he would have won the election handily. The Supreme Court, the illiterate dumbshits who can't figure out how to punch out a chad in Florida, the lawyers, pundits, press, etc... none are to blame for Bush being in power but Gore himself.

I'm still not sure if the Demos hate the Supreme Court, Bush, conservatives in general, or Gore and themselves more. They have only Gore to blame for the loss. And once again, the Demos are looking like a party in disarray trying hard to pander to every special interest group and demographic, fringe or otherwise, so that most of America views the whole lot of Demo candidates as a travelling circus side-show. At some point, Demos are going to need to regroup, refocus on their core constituents. After all, neither Bush Sr. or Jr. would have made it into office if the Demos didn't make themselves and their candidates look like bumbling idiots...

I'll even go so far as to say that the Republicans haven't won any election since Reagan's first term, but rather, the Demos have LOST elections... Geraldine Ferraro = LOSS - c'mon folks, understand the climate of the times, and read the tea leaves... America wasn't ready for a woman in an office that high (VP), so Reagan wins a 2nd term; Mike Dukakis = LOSS - the goofy picture and lack of charisma handed Bush Sr. the election on a platter--this was the election Gephardt was the best Demo and should have emerged from and won; Al Gore = LOSS - didn't galvanize constituency and leverage positive aspects of Clinton legacy. Now it looks as if the Demos can't agree on a damn thing, and all their seemingly directionless spinning and posturing will get them another loss, particuarly if any of the following three things occur: Bin Laden is capture, WMD are locate, the economy improves.

So enough with blaming the Supreme Court and the Electoral College process. Like a pro basketball player bemoaning a game-losing buzzer beater, who had 15 turnovers, was 1-20 from the floor, and no assists... and blaming the ref for a questionable tho' legitimate foul call... it wasn't the last second shot that lost the game, it was the execution of the game from beginning to end that lost the game... so too with Gore's loss... if that fool would have brought his A game from Day One, the election wouldn't have ended the way it did. And if that WAS his A game, he didn't deserve to win anyhow.

That all said... all Howard Dean was missing was a very bad mustache, a swastika, and a Sieg Heil! lol

I came, I saw, Icon.

[Cathedral]

Im not sure if i should agree or disagree, lol.

Made me wanna vote though!....;)

Gore didn't have an A game at all. I did actually sit down and watch both him and Bush, and was open minded and not fixed on GW. The Debates were what broke Gore in my eyes.
Bush was a fighter everytime he stood up to talk. Gore tried to make him look bad, and as dumb as GW looked he fired right back with a valid and unique response.

Bush is no dummy, to think so would be selling him so short regret is just around the corner.
I sit here today not knowing who i'm voting for, still alot of time betwixed now and then and a decision today would be premature.
I'm not happy with the man 100%, but to me he has the best game in town, he has the ONLY game in town for that matter.

Howard Dean...what can be said about him that hasn't already been said?, lol. nuff said...

I dunno folks, you got time to get the facts and form your own opinion. we all want different things from our Government and instead of trying to see eye to eye we only seem to be turning away from each other.

It will get very interesting...

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Why would Judy be sad? She's the second biggest Bush Jr groupie on CNN. Only Candy Crowley is worse. Paula Zahn comes in a close third.

Here's some gems from "the seccond biggest Bush Jr. groupie"...

CNN’s Woodruff Frets About Bush Speech Overshadowing Democrats

CNN’s Judy Woodruff on Monday afternoon expressed exasperation that President Bush scheduled his State of the Union address for the day after the Iowa Caucuses in order to distract news coverage away from the Democratic presidential candidates. She complained to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: [B]“The rest of year and for the last three years the President has dominated the news. Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?” Not satisfied with Frist’s answer, she followed up three times.

Woodruff pressed her agenda, MRC analyst Ken Shepherd noticed, during a January 19 Inside Politics segment with Frist who was in Iowa as part of a surrogate speaking effort to back Bush.

Frist told Woodruff, who was also in Iowa: “I'm here today to say that the nightmare is going to be over shortly, to my Republican base. Right now, President Bush with his vision, with his commander-in-chief aura, has been at a real disadvantage here because of all the Democratic activity. So today, I'm meeting with Republicans all over the state, to energize that base, to begin that organization for the next ten months. And that's the sole purpose that we're here today.”
Woodruff countered: “But, the rest of year and for the last three years the President has dominated the news. Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?”

Exactly what was she "countering" here?

Frist replied: “You know, they do. But imagine right now of having to watch for the last several months, if you are a Republican, with those conservative principles, who admire President Bush, what you've had to suffer every day on the air. And that is, a Democrat saying that the President is not leading, or he's using the wrong principles to lead....”

After quizzing Frist about the challenge of not knowing who Bush’s opponent will be, Woodruff returned to the timing of Bush’s address: “A Republican close to the White House quoted in the New York Times this morning is saying the State of the Union was timed to come after the night of the Iowa caucuses to take attention off of the Democrats. I mean, you are the one who's involved in setting the time of the President's State of the Union. What about that? Why do that?”

I don't know you dumb bitch, why do you think?

Frist answered: “Well, I think it makes for sort of good talk and good conversation. The President's speech really isn't a political speech. It's political in the sense that he is commander-in-chief.”

Undeterred, Woodruff demanded: “But I'm talking about the timing of it?”

Frist: “No, I know. But the timing really doesn't matter. We always do it sometime between a couple of days ago and say five or six days from now. The specific timing, if it were a political speech, I think would make sense. You can say that's the strategy itself. But this is not a political speech. It's a policy speech. In fact, I think the President will go to great effort not to throw politics into this speech at all.”
Woodruff came at him once more: “But again, it's a sign the Republicans worried the Democrats getting too much air time, is that what we're talking about here?”

Gee you glistening pearl of ignorance, maybe it's to counter all of the airtime you fuckwads in the press give to these ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims from the left about Iraq without so much as even raising one question of their validity! I mean, aren't they supposed to be journalists? What does that mean anymore?

Link: Do I call 'em or what? (http://www.mediaresearchcenter.com/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040120.asp#2)