So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:11 -0500, Jeff wrote:


wrote:



......there's more, but i suspect these will be sufficient for
your critique and counterpoints.


Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give
me a rational, objective reason as to why I should...

TC,
R

youth, intelligence, tolerance, gifted, persuasive, redemptive,
inspiring, unifying, empowering, thoughtful/insightful,

problem-solving skills

hope, hope, hope, symbolic power, listens, collaborative,
notbush, nothillaryclinton, notmccain, respect for balance of powers in
federal system, adapts and adjusts effectively, small government/big
government experience in elected office,

understands/recognizes racial.and socioeconomic problems from a
unique perspective,

OK...elaborate on the two singled out, above - convince me that it's not
just some grandiose idea or just something you pulled out of your ass
that sounds good.

not a washington dc insider, objective...

it's clear you want something specific in terms of qualification or
ability,

And it's becoming clear that many folks who I'd have thought felt the
same way, don't...unfortunately...

but seem unwilling to accept this guy is capable of doing the
job.

Um, how do you figure? I've said plain and direct - "convince me with
some facts" and thus far, I've gotten laundry lists of unsupported,
subjective opinions and a reminder that he wrote a book...heck, he
wrote, or "wrote," at least two, but I'm not sure what that has to do
with it...Paris Hilton wrote at least one, too...

mccain meets your criteria?

Entirely? No.

hillary?

Not even close. But admittedly, she has a VERY limited number of
qualities that would serve a POTUS well.

there are 3 choices available.

Um, well, right now, there are NO choices available, but on election
day, there is unlimited choice, including the choice not to vote at all,
available to voters.

who do you choose?

If I were voting today, and the (practical) choice was McCain or
Hillary or Obama, I'd say McCain.

why?

The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

what compels, inspires or persuades your vote?

Why do you assume and take it for granted that I am a US voter?

give us your rational, objective reason.

See above.

assuming you could pick the one living person who you believe is the
one, among all others, who meets your criteria...who is it??

I doubt anyone that qualified would have any real interest in or take
the job, but off the top of my head and in the current situation, I'd
offer folks such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, or maybe even
Haley Barbour (Gov. of MS). Of the recent crop of candidates, I'd say
Richardson and McCain, flip for POTUS, was probably the "best" possible
choice in the pack. Heck, I'm completely serious when I say I think
Obama would be a good choice as veep with McCain - I think it would give
him a chance to show his stuff (or not, as the case may be) and give a
mandate-level vote to _some_ "team." As I've also said, completely
seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.



seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

and this much I do agree with. Somewhere along the way, something of a
consensus has to be built, or the nation will continue to blunder forward,
to the detriment of us all.

Tom

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

Traitor? When was Kerry convicted as a traitor? Or are your feelings enough
to convict a person of high crimes?

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Just in case you are not familiar with the legalality of the term "traitor":
"As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged
with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by
evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt
act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason
will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution
minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the
possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/traitor

Op

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:07:30 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Where did I say anything about *Swiftboats", Mark? I am talking about
is lying, under oath, before congress, while still in uniform. I am
talking about his trip to Paris to meet secretly with the deligation
from North Viet Nam, while still in uniform. Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy. The man did not receive an
honorable discharge from the Navy (which has nothing to do with
treason, but *does* speak volumes of his character).

Davie

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy.

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

oh, sure, Scott....jump on the easy exampleg!
Tom
p.s. Why is it that that event hasn't been questioned more?

On 17 Feb 2008 17:49:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

You're reaching, Scott. Our fight is not with his family.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

.....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:40:59 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.


Bush received a larger percentage of the vote in 94 than Clinton ever
did. He beat Kerry. He is the president. Live with it for a few
more months. Then you can begin bitching about McCain. d;o)