Its looking grim

From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that. Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close. Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

"George Adams" wrote in message
...
From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that.
Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done
so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and
the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take
advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the
first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close.
Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has
been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have
trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you....or that you've been
informed....that the U.S. now has the largest population in it's
history. Messages are being sent all the time. You've just sent
another very clear one. People ARE listening. Many understand your
message all to well. It will be interesting to see whether anyone
attempts to explain it to you.

Wolfgang
good luck, ya'll.

George Adams writes:

Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close. Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.


Well said, George. I would add, get rid of McAuliffe.

Here is a post from another ng.

"Senator Kerry has given a graceful and positive concession speech,
for which I know the country is grateful.
The gimmick of "provisional voting" just didn't have
the steam to throw us into another legal fight, and
we can all hope it will be thrown onto the ash heap of
failed tricks along with "hanging chads."
I will presume to present a few points
to my fellow citizens who happen to be Democrats.

The country continues to turn more and more Republican.
This is not because you didn't get your message out,
or turn-out was too low, or someone rigged the machines,
or the Court "selected," or
Martian aliens on nuclear jet skis hypnotized the voters or
any other such nonsense.
It is because the views of the Democratic Party
are reflected by an ever-shrinking minority.
Please consider these points:
Most people do not support abortion.
In fact, most people are repulsed by partial-birth abortion.
Most do not hate and distrust the military.
Most think that people kill people, not guns.
Most people think criminals should be punished, and swiftly.
They believe they don't owe a damn dime to a person
just because their great-great-great granddaddy was a slave.
Most people are sick of being force-feed stupidity
in the guise of "political correctness."
Movie stars and rock stars are not respected political voices.
The major media can no longer buy elections for you
(Let's be adults, OK? The early exit polls showing
a Kerry landslide were intentional attempts to
sway the election, just like the early calls in 2000).
Tricks and gimmicks used to stuff ballot boxes no longer work;
honest and straight-forward elections with good candidates are better.
Most people still believe in God, honor the flag
and say grace over their meals.

I could go on, but you get the idea.
Unless and until the Democratic Party stops blaming everyone else
for its troubles, until it looks at itself in
the mirror and says: "My problems are *my fault,* and *I*
need to work to fix them," it will continue to wither
until it becomes an irrelevancy.

Democrats, look back at the party of Hubert Humphrey, Edwin Muskie,
Harry Truman. They were decent men who had a different vision
than we on the Right, but it was sincere and honest and we could
work with them.
Demagogues and opportunist have taken your party and are killing it.
Get back to the days when your party put forth men of principle,
and you'll see the voters come back to you.

D.S."

"George Adams" wrote in message
...
From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that.
Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done
so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and
the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take
advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the
first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close.
Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has
been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have
trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you....or that you've been
informed....that the U.S. now has the largest population in it's
history. Messages are being sent all the time. You've just sent
another very clear one. People ARE listening. Many understand your
message all to well. It will be interesting to see whether anyone
attempts to explain it to you.

Wolfgang
good luck, ya'll.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:02:10 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:

(snipped)

Ballots could have had two boxes in this
election, FOR BUSH and AGAINST BUSH, because Kerry brought nothing to
the table to vote FOR.

I don't know if he did or not. I couldn't figure out what he was
really for. And the one ad I heard had him saying something so dumb
Quayle would have been able to say it.

Since I can't stand Bush, didn't see anything great about Kerry and
was in the booth anyway, I voted Libertarian.

No, it wasn't a wasted vote. My state went, as I had figured, for
Kerry. And I like to remind the major parties that there are those of
us out there who think the two party system is okay sometimes and
sucks other times.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
riverman wrote:
TL,
Tim
(who is obviously some hick farmer from the South or Midwest, and, if he
was from the South or Midwest would be ****ed at having his vote and
opinion lessened by the "educated elite" who "know better".)

No, I think if you were some hick farmer from the South or Midwest, you'd
have no idea of what just happened, but you'd be overjoyed that you were now
personally safe from having a DC10 crash into your local WalMart, and proud
as hail that your nephew was protecting America by making Haliburton rich.
You'd not understand the fundamental crime against Capitalism it is to allow
Ken Lay and others to cut and run. And you'd find some way to blame the
screaming national debt and deteriorating foreign relations on Clinton. And
you'd probably say things like "Heck, the ice caps aren't gonna melt in the
next 4 years" and "Who needs wilderness areas anyway...no one ever goes
there!" And you'd think the French are a bunch of silly, inferior furrin
dimwits with foreign accents, and that the AyeRabs are all terrorists. And
you'd have no idea how much the "educated elite" you just re-empowered were
leading you around by the nose.

--riverman

EOT? Not even close. We all gotta LIVE with this one.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:02:10 -0500, "Tim J."
wrote:

(snipped)

Ballots could have had two boxes in this
election, FOR BUSH and AGAINST BUSH, because Kerry brought nothing to
the table to vote FOR.

I don't know if he did or not. I couldn't figure out what he was
really for. And the one ad I heard had him saying something so dumb
Quayle would have been able to say it.

Since I can't stand Bush, didn't see anything great about Kerry and
was in the booth anyway, I voted Libertarian.

No, it wasn't a wasted vote. My state went, as I had figured, for
Kerry. And I like to remind the major parties that there are those of
us out there who think the two party system is okay sometimes and
sucks other times.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

From: "Tim J."

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that. Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about).

By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done so.
Kerry offered neither quality.

100% on the money. Bush was very vulnerable in this election, and the
democratic party is so effed up, they not only couldn't take advantage of the
situation, they handed Bush the largest popular vote in history, the first
clear majority since 1988, and the electoral vote wasn't that close. Also,
there were significant Republican gains in congress. A message has been sent,
but I bet nobody is listening.

Here's a hint: If the dems want to beat Rudy in 2008, don't have trash like
Franken, Moore, and P. Diddey campaigning for you.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

riverman wrote:
George Cleveland wrote...
Dave LaCourse wrote:
GC writes:

Whaddya think? A Jeb and Hillary match up?

Nah! A Rudy and Hillary makes more sense.

Do you think that the conservative Republicans will vote for him in
the primaries.

I suspect that they'll do whatever God and their President tell them
to do.

In your present condescention mode, you *would* suspect that. Here's
what you *should* be considering, IMHO: The Dems offered no viable
alternative to Bush (which was all this election was about). By all
rights, someone with some uniting capabilities or a little charisma
should have been able to defeat Bush, and clearly would have done so.
Kerry offered neither quality. Ballots could have had two boxes in this
election, FOR BUSH and AGAINST BUSH, because Kerry brought nothing to
the table to vote FOR.
--
TL,
Tim
(who is obviously some hick farmer from the South or Midwest, and, if he
was from the South or Midwest would be ****ed at having his vote and
opinion lessened by the "educated elite" who "know better".)

Oh, and, for the greater good, EOT for me.
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj