Here is something interesting, most democrats don't like John Kerry.  Some are going for Ralph Nader, others are going to hold their noses while voting for him.  He is no-doubt the most liberal senator around, and has little chance of defeating Bush.  So if you could do the democratic primary all over again, would you still pick John Kerry, or someone else?  BE HONEST PLEASE.

Let me also say that the democrats in the poll are in no logical order.  I put them their in order they came to my mind.  If you would like to know what dems. think of Kerry please visit www.johnkerryisa*bagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com  --You should know what the * stands for, but i'm not going to put it because it might not abide by the guidelines.

Lieberman strikes me as the least partisan of the people on your list, so I'd go with him.

The rest of them would sell their souls for a vote.

GET THIS (now this is funny!!!!!)

Not a single American polled by the Pew Research Center for the People in the Press chose the word "honest" to describe John F. Kerry in one word.  Kerry had to be disappointed that only 18% chose "honest" to describe him in February, but now he's down to 0%!

"Honest," by the way, is the one word those polled choose most often to describe President George W. Bush more than any other – "even as incompetent has gained ground."  Knowing this, consider Kerry's trip to Orlando on Wednesday when he called the war in Iraq "a failure" and claimed "a shakeup is needed to end the Bush administration's mistakes and incompetence." Kerry droned, "Responsibility for the abuse of prisoners in Iraq extends all the way to the oval (orifice) and that Bush must accept responsibility for setting a tone that allowed the abuse to take place."


Kerry went on to say that "a few low ranking soldiers shouldn't be made scapegoats for a broader policy that led to the abuse," leading to this response from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot: "To blame the abuse on Bush and the armed forces is to blame all of America for the disgusting actions of a few. It's striking to see the ease with which John Kerry thrusts an important moment into the campaign's daily spin cycle compared to the president's steady leadership and focus on doing what he believes is right."

Boy, if that isn't aid and comfort for the enemy, I don't know what is. We have to get rid of George W. Bush? The president's responsible for this? The president "set the tone" for this? This from a guy, John F. Kerry, who committed far worse atrocities in Vietnam -- and admitted it -- than what we've seen in these pictures from Iraq so far, and because of that, we've got to throw Bush out of office and elect Kerry. Just stop and think of that.  --Source: www.rushlimbaugh.com

I'm not voting in your poll.  I am not a fan of Kerry, but I'm voting for him.  The Bush Administration is earning us hatred around he world, and shredding our domestic fabric.  Even sanctimonious Joe would not appoint these "Project for a New American Century" war-mongery zealots to his administration.
The faith of George W. Bush is hogwash.  He has not the mental capacity to understand the world in more than black and white terms.  The best his supporters can say of him these days is that he's a "frat boy."  'Nuff said.

Um...yeah.  George Bush for one does believe in God, anyone with a brain knows that.  So does 90% of America.  He is going to win, just wish some democrats could get over it.

I wouldn't vote for ANY of them :P

Okay he only has 2 college degrees from Yale and 1 from Harvard. 

WGAF?  After listening to the guy, you'd need to be terminally credulous to believe that he'd have got into either of those institutions without having overwhelmingly influential parents.



Between George Bush and John Kerry, who do you think Osama wants to win? 

I'd say GWB, no question: he's been the best recruiter they've ever had.

And who in their right mind, if asked to summarize GWB in one word, would ever, EVER use the word "honest"?

WGAF?  After listening to the guy, you'd need to be terminally credulous to believe that he'd have got into either of those institutions without having overwhelmingly influential parents.





I'll agree with that.  He doesn't have very good speaking skills in my opinion anyway.  Now how did he get into the 2 best colleges in America, maybe even the world?  Well for one in high school Bush had a GPA of 3.83333 and got a 1,200 of his SAT.  Now I know a 1,200 doesn't sound like much, but some experts say getting a 1,200 back then is like getting a 1,400 today.  You be the judge on that.

I honestly don't know who I would vote for.  November will be here soon enough.  Maybe by then, I will have made my mind up.   :-\\

Agreed.  Let's not forget that Bush has failed to find Osama in almost 3 years.

Oh, and GPA and test scores might mean something to get into Harvard and Yale now, but it didn't have much weight back then.  My neighbor (who is 57) has a doctorate from Harvard and his GPA was around 3.0, don't know about his SAT scores.  BUT, his father was an alumni, which he says was all he needed.


Do you think Kerry will find him?  Bush is pulling out everything he can to catch Osama, especially now.  If Bush catches Osama, he wins, no-doubt.  Like it or not Bush catches Osama he wins.  He knows this himself, he is trying.  Its not exactly easy with all them caves, and Pakistan being a...um...rhymes-with-rich.  Osama wants Kerry to win, I think most people KNOW that.  And today their was a HUGE rally in Havana in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro attending, with over 100,000 people all rooting for a Kerry victory.  Do you want to vote for someone Castro wants?  A communist!  Spin it how you like, thats a bad sign.

And today their was a HUGE rally in Havana in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro attending, with over 100,000 people all rooting for a Kerry victory.  Do you want to vote for someone Castro wants?  A communist!  Spin it how you like, thats a bad sign.


Please explain how that's a bad sign. How does the opinion of Fidel Castro affect you at all? Most of Canada want Kerry to win as well. How does that affect you? It shouldn't.

Several points have been raised here.
Mr Bush is seen as honest - yeah, right! Iraqi weopons of mass destruction, ties to Al Quida and attempts to buy nuclear fuel?  BIG lies!

Kerry committed "war crimes"? According to Rush, but Rush is the biggest lier on the radio - he makes it up as he goes along and states rumor and inuendo as truth.  In Kerry's case the truth is a silver star, two bronze stars, and three purple hearts.  Meanwhile, our "hero president" was awol from the Texas Air National Guard, defending us (when they could find him) against Mexico (and how come he jumped to the top of the list to get in?).

Clinton did nothing to stop Al Quida.  Nonsense, not only did Clinton use the military in a show of force, he authorized the CIA to do everything they could to get Bin Laden, and during the transfer warned the Bush league of the danger posed not only to our overseas interests but also to the home land.  Too bad the Bush league was preoccupied with Iraq.

Kerry is too liberal.  When poled on real issues, like civil rights, worker rights and protection, the Bill of Rights, etc.  The overwhelming majority of U.S.ians espouse liberal beliefs.  It was liberalism that brough us the National Labor Relatrions Act, which gave legal protect to the right to form unions, and the Social Security Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Occupational Saftey and Health Act, and the Civil Right and Voting Rights Acts, and the Pure Food and Drug Act, and Clean Air/Water Acts, and the list goes on.  Liberalism has made this country a tolerable place for the working class to live.  Conservatives have opposed all of these social protections and the Bush league is trying its best to undermine them.

If you want to go back to unbridled 19th Century capitalism, vote  for Mr Bush.  If you want to continue to advance the real values of real U.S.ians, the only choice is Kerry.

Having said al;l that, I must admit that Kerry is not a panacea, but than, no politician is.  Neverthe less, the choice is clear.  Mr Bush and his right wing idiotologs have to go.

And today their was a HUGE rally in Havana in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro attending, with over 100,000 people all rooting for a Kerry victory.  Do you want to vote for someone Castro wants?  A communist!  Spin it how you like, thats a bad sign.


Huh?  Can you cite a reputable news source for this one?

Clinton did nothing to stop Al Quida.  Nonsense, not only did Clinton use the military in a show of force, he authorized the CIA to do everything they could to get Bin Laden...

Yea, and yet he is still on the loose. ::)

So many people condemn Bush for not capturing Bin Laden, well if Clinton did all he could and also failed, where is the condemnation for that?  I have yet to hear it.







If you want to go back to unbridled 19th Century capitalism, vote  for Mr Bush.  If you want to continue to advance the real values of real U.S.ians, the only choice is Kerry.

Oh puuuhlease.

So the "real values" of us U.S.ians is to marry a mutli-billionaire wife and then try to act like he is for the working class?

Gimme a break.  John Kerry is so not in touch with working people its not even funny. 

Huh?  Can you cite a reputable news source for this one?


I heard it on the radio today.  It was on Rush Limbaugh's program.  He might have a link to it on his site or something, or google it.  Anyway www.rushlimbaugh.com  --If you are interested.  And to the person above, if Castro backs Kerry or Canada its no big deal?  Alot of people consider themselves independents or liberals, but not communist and socialist.  Is that who you want, someone the communist back!?

  And to the person above, if Castro backs Kerry or Canada its no big deal?  Alot of people consider themselves independents or liberals, but not communist and socialist.  Is that who you want, someone the communist back!?


Canada isn't socialist.

And this isn't the 1960s. So you can can it with the communist scare tactics. We're talking about Cuba here, not the former Soviet Union for crying out loud. Besides, if communists were so bad would the U.S still be doing business with China?

And so what if Castro would like Kerry to win. You make it sound like Kerry has been putting that in his campaign slogans.

And so what if Castro would like Kerry to win. You make it sound like Kerry has been putting that in his campaign slogans.


Considering the fact that no less than 12 hours after the beheading of our soldier the other day, his campaign began sending letters and emails to thousands of supporters connecting the behedaing with a plea for donations to the Democrap National Party...I wouldn't put it past him.

I heard it on the radio today.  It was on Rush Limbaugh's program. 

C'mon.  Seriously now.  Did you hear it from a reputable source?  Inflated junkies don't count.

Considering the fact that no less than 12 hours after the beheading of our soldier the other day, his campaign began sending letters and emails to thousands of supporters connecting the behedaing with a plea for donations to the Democrap National Party...I wouldn't put it past him.


I really hope that isn't true. Because if it is that is pretty despicable.

Quote from: GWBush2004 on Today at 11:01:12am
Okay he only has 2 college degrees from Yale and 1 from Harvard. 

WGAF?  After listening to the guy, you'd need to be terminally credulous to believe that he'd have got into either of those institutions without having overwhelmingly influential parents.



Quote from: GWBush2004 on Today at 11:01:12am
Between George Bush and John Kerry, who do you think Osama wants to win?

I'd say GWB, no question: he's been the best recruiter they've ever had.

And who in their right mind, if asked to summarize GWB in one word, would ever, EVER use the word "honest"?
Yay Philbo!  Three cheers for Philbo!  It wasn't Rush who came up with the Osama question, it was Bill O'Reilly.  Typical Fox Newt tactics.  Come up with the dumbest questions ever, and then expect people to answer them.  "Who would Osama want to win," guffaw, you've got to be kidding!

I'll agree with that.  He doesn't have very good speaking skills in my opinion anyway.  Now how did he get into the 2 best colleges in America, maybe even the world?  Well for one in high school Bush had a GPA of 3.83333 and got a 1,200 of his SAT.  Now I know a 1,200 doesn't sound like much, but some experts say getting a 1,200 back then is like getting a 1,400 today.  You be the judge on that.
The SAT is and was more prep than anything.  It depends on how much tutoring you can afford.  The SAT has been pretty much discredited, and universities are starting to drop it from their requirements.
Ever heard of the legacy case and the gentelman's "C."  These were serious institutions back in the day.  Things have changed a bit at the Ivy Leagues since early '70s, but for most of these institutions' histories, your family's rank in society carried a lot more weight than earned merit alone.  That's why it's hypocritical for Bush to oppose affirmative action.  Affirmative action was great when it helped rich white kids, Like Dubya, but it's bad when it gives poor blacks a leg up!

If you want a scholarship to Yale, be prepared to have the best d@mned transcript in your class.  If your father, uncle, and brother went to Yale, and each one gave the college a million dollars, they'll admit you in a coma!

I have conversed with intelligent people who have speech difficulties, they don't sound like Dubya.

C'mon.  Seriously now.  Did you hear it from a reputable source?  Inflated junkies don't count.


Rush was reading it out of a newspaper.

Quote from: GWBush2004 on Today at 11:01:12am
Okay he only has 2 college degrees from Yale and 1 from Harvard. 


Yay Philbo!  Three cheers for Philbo!  It wasn't Rush who came up with the Osama question, it was Bill O'Reilly.  Typical Fox Newt tactics.  Come up with the dumbest questions ever, and then expect people to answer them.  "Who would Osama want to win," guffaw, you've got to be kidding!


Well duh its an O'Reilly question, if you hate him so much you wouldn't be watching him either.

Canada isn't socialist.

And this isn't the 1960s. So you can can it with the communist scare tactics. We're talking about Cuba here, not the former Soviet Union for crying out loud. Besides, if communists were so bad would the U.S still be doing business with China?

And so what if Castro would like Kerry to win. You make it sound like Kerry has been putting that in his campaign slogans.


Canada isn't socialist?  This is a joke right!!?!?!?!?  I didn't say either that it was a big deal with Castro, but most people aren't communist, and if a communist backs a person (Castro has never done this before) then people should at least notice it.  And about Kerry putting this in his campaign slogans...it just happened today, you never know...

I really hope that isn't true. Because if it is that is pretty despicable.




Its true, and yes very dispicable.

After news of the incedent became known, the Dem Campaign sent out thousands of letters to various registered people on the newsletters and so forth condemning how the Bush Administration "allowed" this kind of thing to happen.  Then at the bottom of the letter, was a campaign donation request to the Dem National Committee.

It is sick, and Kerry obviously feels no remorse over it, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

ResinChaser wrote:
Canada isn't socialist.
Canada is too socialist.  Your country commits the cardinal sin against free market ethics of not saying "tough sh*t!" when a citizen needs healthcare!

The documentation of atrocities committed agains Vietnamese civilians by American soldiers is thorough and complete.  It happened.  Not in isolated incidences.  Atrocity was the method used to route the Viet Cong.  Our forces were placed in an unwinnable guerilla warfare battle environment.  In such a volitile milieu, all bets are off.

Listen, the GOP operatives are SHAMELESS when it comes to partisanship.  I've heard right-wingers call Senator McCain a "RINO" (Republican in name only) simply for differing on the Bush Administration's party line.  McCain spent years in the Hotel Hanoi, and he has pledged unequivocal support for Dubya's re-election.  No matter.  If you dare deviate from this Administration goose step, be prepared to be ridiculed.  It's just like the way that GOP campaign ad adjoined a photo of Max Cleland to a picture of Osama.  Max Cleland, as you know, lost three limbs fighting for our country whilst Dubya was boozing it up and getting l@id!

McCain may be a RINO, but Zell Miller is a "DINO," Democrat in name only.  DINO, as in dinosaur, fossilized and obsolete.  Ditto Joe Lieberman.

Why'dya think I say "Fox Newt"?  'Coz they've got Newt Gingrich on their payroll, they've got Newt Gingrich on their "news analysis" panels, and their political outlook sounds like talking points from Newt Gingrich's office.  THAT's why I say "Fox Newt"!

If Bill Clinton was that wrapped up in CNN, the right-wingers would have reason to call it the "Clinton News Network."  He isn't; they do anyway.

Okay first you say the GOP makes fun of McCain because he does not fit in with the rest of the Bush party.  But then you attack Zell Miller and Joe Liberman who deviate from the democrats.  Unreal you are doing what you speak out against!  UNREAL!  How does the acranem DINO stand for dinosaur, fossilized and obsolete.  That would be DFO and sometimes DFAO.  You attack Zell Miller because he heads democrats for Bush, a group which goes past the partisanship you speak out against.  You are the most hypocritical person here Maxwell''Smart''!

LOL! Sorry for the confusion.  I meant DINO as a truncation of DINOsaur, you know, like on "The Flintstones."  This was after thought to Democrat In Name Only, DINO, a corollary to RINO, Republican In Name Only.  I could put forth a harrowing diatribe on the outright backstabbing perpetuated by Miller, versus the mild criticisms offered by McCain, but some people are expressing a distaste for all this back and forth vinegar.  Suffice it to say, I was merely engaging in some wordplay.  I think you're letting yourself get a bit too irritated here.
:)

Well I thought John Edwards would have been a safe bet. Too bad Kerry won over him and I'm still not too sure as to why, really. Maybe it was the whole "I'm a war hero" thing or "I'm older and more experienced". Kerry winning is a bit of a screw-up, IMO. I don't like Kerry a whole heckuva lot, but he can't do any worse than Bush, IMO. At this point, a great percentage of people will vote for Kerry, even if just to get Bush out of office. I truly believe that. And that's my opinion on that.

HERE...read This:

Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.

Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch Fox News are ignorant retards.

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq � by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks � a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox News Channel.

Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was � in the words of CIA director George Tenet � a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children � handguns or buckets?)

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" � basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

� chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

� reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

� new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

� a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

� long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

� documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

� facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of, most recently, "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."

Ann Coulter tells it like it IS!