Thread: If I were advising John Kerry...or, the VP candidate the GOP fears most

Democrats dont look for COO's, they leave that to the capitalist pigs. Democrats just want someone who can get them the most votes.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Democrats dont look for COO's, they leave that to the capitalist pigs. Democrats just want someone who can get them the most votes.

Well, if they want to win, they need to select someone who will get them the most votes in certain battleground states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia and New Mexico.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Democrats dont look for COO's, they leave that to the capitalist pigs. Democrats just want someone who can get them the most votes.

What great, intelligent insight!

-Will

Man, you guys are tough. I try to stir some shit up and no one bites.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Man, you guys are tough. I try to stir some shit up and no one bites.

Who do you think Kerry will pick?

Edwards, but I just read that.

Yup I think hes gonna go with Edwards. I am glad, I dont like anyone else the The W House. Thats why I stay away from politics.

The last guy I even remotely liked, that was running for anything, was McCain and look how well that turned out. I might vote again if Guiliani ever runs for Prez. Short of that fuck em all.

Regardless of who wins the election, the possibility for change ended decades ago.

America is a corporacracy with PACs and Interest Groups driving the legislation which affects all of us.

Originally Posted by MaxMirkin

I might vote again if Guiliani ever runs for Prez.

I'm still holding out hope that Cheney will bow out and GWB will add Rudy to the ticket. Not only would that almost guarantee his victory this November, it would set Rudy up to beat Billary in '08.

Bush is in talks, as we speak, with Hitler's corpse. Who better to assist and advise him on how to strip people of their rights than the founder of Nazism? I'm still waiting to hear the response.

i dont understand why pple think florida is a swing state..its not..its mainly democratic

If I was advising Kerry I'd advise him to take a long walk off a short pier.

Originally Posted by tomas101

i dont understand why pple think florida is a swing state..its not..its mainly democratic

Florida is considered a swing state because of the closeness of the polls.

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

Florida is considered a swing state because of the closeness of the polls.

Yeah, in 2000 they were so close people used the wrong machines (One man voted with a stapler) and we didnt get counted.. Thats how we work.. one year we swing in for the vote, next year we swing out..

Originally Posted by tomas101

i dont understand why pple think florida is a swing state..its not..its mainly democratic

The state is mainly democratic, but they have a Republican governor, and during the last election, they did a sweep of all voters prior to the election and took out all the "invalid" voters. I don't really know the specifics of it, but apparently you can't vote with some type of criminal record, I believe with a felony, not sure. I guess some were taken out incorrectly, but it is there responsibilty to fix it and if they don't, boo-friggidy-hoo.

Originally Posted by tomas101

i dont understand why pple think florida is a swing state..its not..its mainly democratic

It went GOP in 2000 (granted by only 600 votes)

It has a popular republican governor, who was RE-ELECTED overwhelmingly AFTER the 2000 debacle

It is in the south, which is Bush country in general

Originally Posted by ALBOB

I'm still holding out hope that Cheney will bow out and GWB will add Rudy to the ticket. Not only would that almost guarantee his victory this November, it would set Rudy up to beat Billary in '08.

I think Rudy is way too liberal for Bush to put on the ticket. I think Cheney stays right where he is until after the election, then maybe 1 year into the 2d term he steps down.

As someone who many times votes as a democrat, it was smart of Kerry to choose someone who can harvest some Southern votes. However,if Edwards hopes to be Vice President someday then I would suggest that he learn three important lessons:

#1. Manipulating the system for the benefit of a hand picked few does not mean that you are a defender of the poor and downtrodden.

#2. Attacking and exploiting important sectors of our society such as health care and insurance for the benefit of a small subset of the population is bound to have bad, unintended consequences that will affect everyone.

#3. Being Vice President of the United States means that you are a leader to all Americans not just victims of Cerebral Palsey or the poor or the unemployed


There are exceptions to this generalization, however, but as a trial lawyer, He/her will often put the client’s interest above the greater good. That is the nature of the lawyer/client relationship and of trial law in this country.

I believe that lawyers like John Edwards undermine our legal system. They can ignore data, science and greater good, and they do regularly. They are doing their job - and Edwards does that job well.

I admire his skill, but I disdain what his cases do to our legal system. I do not blame him, but I do not want someone with his attitude about the law as my vice president and potentially, president.

We need tort reform, and not just in medicine. Our legal system in so many aspects of society bog down and hinder production. Small business owners can't even survive some insurance premiums and protection umbrella systems that is now necessary. With Edwards in second in command, any hopes of reform will probably vanish. The court system, as used in this country, does not protect the public good.

We need a change from Bush but since Edwards represents the current sorry state of affairs, he scares me




And to add a further rant, Edwards made his money suing doctors who 'didn't perform C-sections soon enough' and thus 'condemned the children to suffer cerebral palsy.' The argument makes the science surrounding global warming seem like Gospel Truth. As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

How charming that Edwards cares about cerebral palsy babies...look at his legislative record in North Carolina: Edwards was one of the leading opponents of a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have established a fund for all babies born with cerebral palsy. So instead of all disabled babies in North Carolina being compensated equitably, only a few will win the jury lottery -- one-third of which will go to trial lawyers like Edwards, who insists he doesn't care about the money.