Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:18:54 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I read
the editorial page of _The Wall Street Journal_ too even
though it can cause nausea.

Really? I find it uplifting when I get a chance to read it.

d;op

Now, Fox News, *that's* where you should be. vbseg

Now, clearly, the boys (both of whom, remember, have stuck sharp things in
their eyes to become invisible) either believe this exchange proves, once
again, that they are witty, urbane, well informed and clever.....or they are
willing to pretend to believe it. Any thoughts on which of the
possibilities is the more pathetic?

stevie?

chuckie?

mikie?

freddie?

jonnie?

dicklet?

Seriously.

Wolfgang

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:02:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Jon.

The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker. And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?
Heck, even if the Dems have the "meltdown" that is looking more and more
possible, I can't see McCain doing better than about 55%, maybe a little
better if he picks a strong veep AND the Dems continue into a
cluster**** of a convention that Hillary takes AND Obama ****s down his
leg and settles for veep and politics as usual. I can't imagine Hillary
getting more than about the high 40s, Obama being the current probable
best of two not-so-good choices, probably in the 48-52% range, depending
on who he picks - if it's Hillary, it'll be President McCain. The US is
simply too polarized and the candidates simply have too many weaknesses,
real or manufactured/perceived.

About the only way any "stomping" might occur would be if, ahem, it were
a McCain-Obama ticket stomping the field. Since that isn't really
likely, anyone who predicts landsides might as well, oh, I don't know,
promise they'll have all the troops in Iraq out in two years or
something stupid like that...

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:02:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 21, 9:10 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Jon.

The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker. And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?
Heck, even if the Dems have the "meltdown" that is looking more and more
possible, I can't see McCain doing better than about 55%, maybe a little
better if he picks a strong veep AND the Dems continue into a
cluster**** of a convention that Hillary takes AND Obama ****s down his
leg and settles for veep and politics as usual. I can't imagine Hillary
getting more than about the high 40s, Obama being the current probable
best of two not-so-good choices, probably in the 48-52% range, depending
on who he picks - if it's Hillary, it'll be President McCain. The US is
simply too polarized and the candidates simply have too many weaknesses,
real or manufactured/perceived.

About the only way any "stomping" might occur would be if, ahem, it were
a McCain-Obama ticket stomping the field. Since that isn't really
likely, anyone who predicts landsides might as well, oh, I don't know,
promise they'll have all the troops in Iraq out in two years or
something stupid like that...

Wow! Well, that's what we pay your for......hard nosed analysis of the
tough stuff that nobody else will touch.

Wolfgang
still, the utter boldness and clarity of it all is staggering.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

And I don't think I'm being too sanguine.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:51:39 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:18:54 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I read
the editorial page of _The Wall Street Journal_ too even
though it can cause nausea.

Really? I find it uplifting when I get a chance to read it.

d;op

Now, Fox News, *that's* where you should be. vbseg

Dave

Air America and Michael Moore...

....and the NYT except when they screw up and say something that might be
construed as denying that Obama is the second coming...I can hardly wait
to see the Times if McCain picks Lieberman...it'll be like free
ham...yeah, yeah, yeah, calm down, it's just a joke...

I thought it was pretty interesting that a Hamas leader "endorsed"
Obama, noting that he seemed a lot like John Kennedy...of course, these
are some of the same folks who think Hitler was a whole lot better than
John Kennedy...

TC,
R

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

And I don't think I'm being too sanguine.

No, no, not a bit of it. A tad uxorious or quotidian perhaps......even
superamalgamated or just a soupcon flammulated......but no, never sanguine.

Wolfgang
hey, when the boy is ripe, he's ripe.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:24:59 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Just a friendly warning: it was _exactly_ this attitude that lost Gore
the election 8 years ago...

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

Um, he didn't win...three times in the same election...

And I don't think. I'm being too sanguine.

There, that's better...

HTH,
R

HAT TRICK!!! HAT TRICK!!!

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:24:59 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

Gore lost. Live with it.
He *should* have run away with it, but when you lose your *own
state*.........

So did Kerry. Live with it.


Dave

wrote:
And I don't think. I'm being too sanguine.

There, that's better...

That's just like a small town guy in Mississippi. He
gets so bitter he clings to misquotes.

LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry