Why the bloody hell did the democratic party get a fool like Kerry to run against Bush? He's boring, stiff- an Al Gore clone. Edwards is a sarcastic bitch. No charisma.

Certainly the democrats could have gotten a better candidate. Why didn't they?
Because the neocons are really leading the democratic party!

Also, why is Kerry focusing on whether he bled enough for his purple heart? THE ELECTION WAS PRACTICALLY HANDED TO KERRY, AND HE BOTCHED IT!! Economy's down, we're at war, Bush is a ninny, and the Kerry campaign gets something made out of nothing?
Seriously, the only thing that Kerry has going for him is that he's not Bush. Kerry's a ridiculously weak candidate. Surely the democratic party has more brains than this. Which leads me to think– maybe it's really not the democrats who're in charge of the party.
Who's really pulling the strings?

Then again the republicans could have chosen several far better candidates then Bush back in 2000.

Then again the republicans could have chosen several far better candidates then Bush back in 2000.

The fact that McCain lost to Bush in the 2000 primaries, is, in my mind, proof positive that the Republican party has simply lost it's mind.

Kerry was nominated in the primaries. Remember?

I did not vote for Kerry, neither did anyone else in my township (in the primeries)

I highly doubt a neoconservative or Republican conspiracy to destroy Democratic candidacies, or the Democratic Party, from within. I don't even think the neocon hold on the Republican Party is assured long-term, without a vicious purge of Republican moderates. In the case of both parties, there may be the troubling conclusion that the American public can't handle reality, and therefore any politician speaking truth will not be accepted.

In the case of Kerry and the Democratic Party, I think this is especially true. America's readiness to reject Howard Dean had much more to do with his outlook than his campaigner-rally cheerleading. Not only in the Democratic Party, but across America, we don't really as a nation want to examine what's going wrong, especially as it pertains to us.

Kerry and W are the packaged products of a society that cannot look itself squarely in the mirror. That's not a conspiracy, because most of America is in on it. No matter who is running the Democratic Party, if Kerry campaigned on facing the present and deep international stigmatization of American policy, on facing up to our most repressive client-states, on facing the looming end of the PetroDollar era (and the unavoidable devaluation of the US Dollar ahead), and on facing the end of American global pre-eminence in productivity, then American voters and committees would be strongly repulsed: We don't want to be confronted with our own wrongs and ignorances, and we don't want to hear about the resulting national vulnerabilities. Instead, we want someone else to blame, and a reassuring, simplified replacement for reality.

Illusion is popularly demanded, and it seems to me the more reality crowds American comfort, the more likely we are to run into the arms of a slick new incarnation of fascism. Under the present American zeitgeist, no candidate for major office has a chance, if he or she speaks directly about the real issues in any detail, because reality will involve difficult changes and choices ahead, many of them unhappy. Tragically, we will entertain only empty rhetoric, and as a result are increasingly prone to following a fascist Pied-Piper to a swifter end as a nation and society.

Since when is this a miss America competition? maybe Kerry is a stiff boob, but I think he will do a good job running the country. I mean who cares if Kerry walks and talks like a gore clone? it does not matter!!!!! who will help our country the most? bush or Kerry? thats all you have to ask. I feel that a red assed baboon would do a better job running this country than bush. However, Kerry definitely has the experience, leadership, and knowledge to run this country great. it doesn’t mean he will, but he has my vote with his resume alone

I too prefer Kerry to Bush, but I think we are going to face many rude awakenings as Americans, regardless of our figurehead. As (small "d") democrats, Americans are asleep at the wheel, and corporate, fundamentalist, and zionist interests have cooperative control, thanks to apathetic public default.

Regarding the Mideast independently of segregationist zionist tunnel-vision (the key to any politico-economic purchase there in the future) Kerry is blind. When an ear for Main Street and not Wall Street is needed, Kerry is deaf. Relating to the need to re-invent our economy for an inexorable globalized, post-petroleum future, he's dumb.

I do hope we elect Kerry the next President, as a lesser of two evils. I think Kerry could buy us a little time, to educate and brace ourselves for the dramatic and eventraumatic changes just ahead. We're past the point of speculating what a Dean, Nader, or Badnarik might have done.

For those in firmly Democrat states, I think that it is a proper time to vote for alternative (losing) candidates, if only to assist in encouraging the growth of alternative political parties to the nearly identical Dem-Rep behemoths. For those in contested states, I hope that Kerry wins greater support, because under the present administration, America's reality issues will be compounded, and the blowback accelerated and intensified- probably at a pace at which popular American rationality will never catch up, before there is profound national disaster: The end of our democracy, followed by the fiscal and moral bankruptcy and dissolution of our Sovietesque Union.

You paint a dismal future for America there, hypewaders. More and more these days I too begin to feel something is very wrong. But who will be able to shake up things up as you suggest? And even if this person were to get the white house, I very much doubt that America would go along with any kind of radical changes.

One has to wonder how the Left Intelligencia's political machine has impotently fielded such a weak candidate as its party's shining representative, and the Right Intelligencia's political machine has more successfully fielded its own weak candidate as the better champion of us all.

How embarassing.

If you're smarter, and better, why aren't you performing?

Us Independents want to know.

"who will be able to shake up things up as you suggest?"

It will be events that shake things up. The most prominent personalities so far along the way have not been on the side of freedom and democracy, and our tolerance for radical change strongly favors the authoritarian variety. Thus far, misbegotten war and antidemocratic initiatives such as the Patriot Act have failed to move a significant percentage of Americans sufficiently to personally defend our truer national honor and security from patently fascist tendencies in national leadership, that most of the outside world is cognizant and fearful of.

For the national center of gravity, collective self-examination, and recognition of clear signs of the erosion of our domestic freedoms and international respectability remains complete anathema. Judging by popular American public reaction to blatant corporate welfare, to our sprawling "conservative"-led federal government on an unprecedented deficit-binge, we're mostly OK with it. Judging by popular American reaction to our knee-jerk international belligerence, and to arrogant cronyism and lack of accountability at the top, we are presenting a national state of mind amenable to stupendous abuses of power. Long before a new mood could take over, and effective popular opposition be organized, American fascism (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38301) is possible, that could easily outpaced and outmaneuver a horrified minority within a miseducated, misinfromed majority.

I'm bitterly disappointed in the democratic instincts of my generation of Americans. I expect very turbulent and very lean times ahead for my country, due to factors of geoeconomics and geology (Dollar vs Euro, Dollar vs Yuan, Peak Oil, Peak America, etc). Our irrational, counter-productive national reaction to terrorism does not bode well at all for our reaction to the extremely serious economic threats to the nation just ahead. I am deeply concerned that things are going to get much (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17938), much (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31950) worse (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34761) before they get any better, because we are a nation so deep in denial that we are are likely to react to crisis with infantile embarrassment, and with a vindictive urge to fling our shock and awe mercilessly upon the world outside, while our hate and paranoia takes firm hold deep within, and tears us apart.

"The fact that McCain lost to Bush in the 2000 primaries, is, in my mind, proof positive that the Republican party has simply lost it's mind." Mystech

Could you imagine the spin when comparing war records if McCain was running instead of Bush. I could just imagine the commercials: McCain, was he really captured by the Vietnamese? Who was he actually working for?

Mr G:

One has to wonder how the Left Intelligencia's political machine has impotently fielded such a weak candidate as its party's shining representative, and the Right Intelligencia's political machine has more successfully fielded its own weak candidate as the better champion of us all.

It remains to be seen whether the Right's candidate is more successful than the Left's, doesn't it? We haven't had the election yet. Your opinion is just one of many, and there are plenty of people who think it is the other way around.

How embarassing.

Yes. Perhaps you should have thought more carefully before you posted.

If you're smarter, and better, why aren't you performing?

Huh? Do you have an inferiority complex?

Us Independents want to know.

You're not independent.

If you're smarter, and better, why aren't you performing?

Us Independents want to know.

Because in the United States we don't have a literacy test for voters.

The fact that McCain lost to Bush in the 2000 primaries, is, in my mind, proof positive that the Republican party has simply lost it's mind.

That's because McCain doesn't follow the neocon's views so even his own party character assassinated him so that someone who does follow their views (Bush) gets elected.

Could you imagine the spin when comparing war records if McCain was running instead of Bush. I could just imagine the commercials: McCain, was he really captured by the Vietnamese? Who was he actually working for?

There was actually similar things said about McCain back then. It was something like McCain releasing valuable information while as a POW and other similar stuff. Sad, really.

Bush is gonna win, but regardless of who gets elected, it doesn't really matter as they all have the same agenda. These are some fun times. :rolleyes:

- N

I find that your analysis of Kerry is the typical of one who has only gotten to know him through Bush ads, and gossip. I got into the Democratic primary race around the early summer of 2003, right before Dean really took off. I loved reading about what Kerry did throughout his life: war hero, peace activist, environmentalist, bipartisan worker, etc. I didn't like Dean because I felt he was merely words compared to Kerry's deeds, regardless of the ill-fated IWR vote. Plus, I found his internet supporters to be almost sheep-like in their reverence for this newly christened champion of liberalism. I felt that Kerry was the more liberal of the two and was getting a lot of bad flak for one vote which seemed to unfairly cancel out a history of worthy accomplishments. When JK won Iowa, that was a great day for me.

Firstly, Kerry was never handed the election. There are many smart Americans, but there are also a great deal of stupid ones. Almost half think that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Bush's support in 2003 against "Democratic Candidate X" was so strong that some thought the Dems would bring Hillary Clinton into the picture. Or even draft Al Gore. For most of 2004, Kerry was either even or slightly ahead of Bush, which meant that he did a good job in erasing a big Bush lead previously. Bush got a spike after his convention, but nowadays, things are more or less back to normal. Bush has polarized America, meaning that for every vehement Bush hater, there's a vehement Bush supporter (mostly fundie "Christians", ignoramuses, and right-wing nutjobs). Provide me with any evidence that Kerry once held an insurmountable lead against Bush early on, only to have it dwindle to the dead heat it is now.

You're right, the Democratic party is not the one who chose its candidate. It was the people who voted in the primaries. OK, to be fair, the Iowans and New Hampshirites had more say than Californians, but it was the people's choice.

for every vehement Bush hater, there's a vehement Bush supporter (mostly fundie "Christians", ignoramuses, and right-wing nutjobs

I don't know, I'd say the Left has more than it's share of nutjobs (anarchists, Unibomber, PETA to name a few). It is intelectually lazy to proclaim that those who don't agree with you are either nut jobs or ignoramuses. Surely you can do better than blanket ad-homs.

Conspiracy theorists think that Kerry handed out election to GW because he's GW's blood brother in skull and bones. It's satanic. It's big, big conspiracy to build a world government. My impressions is that far right (people close to militia) hate GW more than Kerry. No left pundit is so vehimently against Bush's wars, USA meddling everywhere as far right folks. The Left does not come close to them. Fundies are on the right but there are righter folks than fundies. BTW, Kerry and Bush are cousins too (11th cousins). They had the common male ancestor in 17th century England.

Left has more than it's share of nutjobs

That's true, and I'm not trying to say that every left-leaner is intelligent and sane, because they're not. Right-wingers like Richard Nixon and Karl Rove are probably much more intelligent than your average war protester. But it is the right-wing who are the ones who consist of people who couldn't care less that tens of thousands Iraqis (you know, those dark-skinned people?) are dead, as long as Bush claims he's a Christian. Hmm, I wonder if Jesus would've wanted a warmongerer for his representative.

the right-wing who are the ones who consist of people who couldn't care less that tens of thousands Iraqis (you know, those dark-skinned people?) are dead, as long as Bush claims he's a Christian. Hmm, I wonder if Jesus would've wanted a warmongerer for his representative.
The purpose of US foriegn policy is to further US interests. We didn't worry much about German or Japanese casualties either. Nevertheless, what about the millions killed by Saddam? See this quote from the New York times:

Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.
Where the comparison seems closest is in the regime's mercilessly sadistic character. Iraq has its gulag of prisons, dungeons and torture chambers
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773

So it's not like we invaded Utopia, the place was a hellhole being run by a madman before we invaded. Hopefully, things will improve and, like Germany and Japan, Iraq will be better after a US invasion. If not, at least we've removed a madman from power and given the Iraqis a chance.

Yes but there are a lot of other countries that are hell holes rules by madmen, many of whom have commented even great atrocities and are far more threatening to world security then Sadam was.

Yes but there are a lot of other countries that are hell holes rules by madmen, many of whom have commented even great atrocities and are far more threatening to world security then Sadam was.

Well that doesn't matter - they don't have oil, and they didn't try to kill the Shrubs daddy! :cool:

The purpose of US foriegn policy is to further US interests. We didn't worry much about German or Japanese casualties either. Nevertheless, what about the millions killed by Saddam? See this quote from the New York times:



So it's not like we invaded Utopia, the place was a hellhole being run by a madman before we invaded. Hopefully, things will improve and, like Germany and Japan, Iraq will be better after a US invasion. If not, at least we've removed a madman from power and given the Iraqis a chance.

I think if we (the U.S. government) were interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people, we would have supported their rebellion against Saddam after round one. Or, hell, not pulled the strings that got him into power in the first place!

Chomsky: Very well. Up until the day of the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a fine guy. It wasn't secret. The U.S. and Britain were providing him with aid, they explained the reasons, it wasn't a secret. This was well after his worst atrocities, the Halabjah gassing and so on. It was long after the war with Iran and had nothing to do with Iran. The reasons were officially explained: We were providing Saddam with aid including technology for development of weapons of mass destruction out of responsibility to U.S. exporters, and supporting Saddam will improve the condition of human rights and stability in the region.

And that went on virtually up until the invasion of Kuwait, and then he became a bad guy all of a sudden, once he disobeyed orders. Then after the invasion, the U.S. is in total control and there is an uprising led by rebelling Iraqi generals, who didn't ask the U.S. for help. They asked for access to captured Iraqi equipment and wanted the U.S. to prevent helicopters and so on from destroying them. The U.S. just backed off and effectively authorized Saddam to destroy the rebellion.

The rebellion might have overthrown him, in which case Iraq would have been run by Iraqis and that's not tolerable. It's to be run by either a client or by us. And there were explanations which were public but today people are very careful not to report them. Take for example, Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. He now explains in his columns that he was in favor of this invasion because it was a moral obligation, and what drew him to it was discovering the mass graves from the repression after the uprising. He is careful not to tell and others are polite enough not to report what he said at the time when he knew all about the mass graves. The atrocities were perfectly clear to everyone. The rebellion was crushed with U.S. authorization for reasons which he said were good reasons... "The best of all worlds" for the United States would be an "iron-fisted" military junta ruling Iraq the same way Saddam did [NYT, July 7, 1991] and much to satisfaction of the U.S. allies in the region, and of course, the bosses in Washington. But we couldn't find another iron-fisted military junta so we had to settle for this one.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc3633.html

I would say that Kerry was one of the best candidates that the dems could have picked if they actually want to have a chance at winning this election. Kerry is a lot more moderate then Dean or Gephardt, Lieberman was also very moderate but probably more right wing then left (whats he doing in a liberal party anyways). I agree McCain would have been a MUCH better choice for the GOP, but neocons and racists will always vote for their cowboy (Bush).

Because the neocons are really leading the democratic party!

Most neocons are Jewish (Krugman, Kristol, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Friedman, et al).

The biggest contributor to the Democratic party is the American Jewish lobby.

Are you being anti-Semitic(tm) here?

:m:

So just because some of the Neocons are Jews, and the Jewish lobby is obviously Jewish, does not mean that both are one and the same. Jews are not a collective super organism with one single objective and alliances, believe it or not they are completely human and have individual opinions separate from each other

Here a nice article explaining the power of the jewish lobby:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2020/stories/20031010000906000.htm

Though I think one of the reasons that Fundy Neo-Con's support Isreal unquestioningly is because such support fits with their view of the "2nd Coming".

Kerry is a lot more moderate then Dean or Gephardt

That is simply not true. Dean became Liberal of the Year due to his stance on the Iraq War, but other than that, he and Kerry are almost exactly the same. Let's go over them issue by issue.

Gay marriage: Both support civil unions but opts to leave gay marriage up to the states. Kerry has said it is his personal opinion that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, but he has not used that as an argument for things such as the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Iraq: Kerry supported authorization to use force, so did Dean in some ways (see the Biden-Lugar bill). Whatever their positions were, they both support staying in Iraq and cleaning up the mess in there.

Abortion: Both are pro-choice, duh.

Free Trade: Both support NAFTA but thinks it needs tighter laws.

Patriot Act: Both support amending, not scrapping, the PA.

So where is it that Dean is so much more liberal than Kerry? I won't even get into Gephardt. Sure, he opposes NAFTA, but so does Pat Buchanan. And Ross Perot.

nbachris2788, that is true they are very similar on the issues, but Kerry had a much more moderate image then Dean, shown by this poll:


Nearly half the voters were liberals, and Dean and Kerry ran evenly in this group. (Among "very" liberal voters, it was Dean by 41-30 percent). But Kerry more than came back among moderates; as big a group, they supported Kerry over Dean by better than a 2-1 margin, 43-18 percent.


Vote preference
Political leaning: Kerry Dean
Liberal (46%) 36 35
Moderate (45%) 43 18
Conservative (9%) 33 14


So strictly on the issues they are very similar, although Dean vowed to never cut medicare in a democratic primary debate, and Kerry was the one who directly confronted him on this issue.

"The biggest contributor to the Democratic party is the American Jewish lobby.", Neoclassical

Actually the largest contributers are lawyers, some of whom are Jewish, but the vast majority are WASP's

madanthonywayne said that "anarchists, [the] Unibomber[sp]" were liberals. However, Anarchy is extremely right: they are for no government, where liberals support more government (social security, welfare, education, etc.)

The Unabomber Manifesto http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una1.html#section1 declares leftism (same as liberalism)a serious issue facing modern society. The Unabomber, since not left, and certainly not moderate, must be right. Right?

Actually, this is a false dichotomy. Anarchists can't be squeezed into the left or right, since they are not it support of any government. Would Saddamn Hussein be considered a liberal or conservative? What about Osama bin Laden? It'd be silly to try and pigeonhole them to either.

PETA is indeed a bunch of crazies, but I wouldn't compare SUV vandalism with firebombing abortion clinics. Timothy McVeigh associated with the far, far right.

nbachris2788, that is true they are very similar on the issues, but Kerry had a much more moderate image then Dean, shown by this poll:

Yes, that is true as well. However, what would you rather have: a perceived moderate who's actually more liberal or a perceived liberal who's actually more moderate?

I think all this conspiracy nonsense about Kerry has been laid to rest after he routed Bush on the debate.

I have no love for PETA as well. I see them as the pro-life movement of the left.

I think all this conspiracy nonsense about Kerry has been laid to rest after he routed Bush on the debate.

Amen, brother. But it raised another conspiracy: the Conservative Media has constantly portrayed Kerry far weaker than he is.

All I knew of Kerry was through soundbytes on NPR, reading various AP articles, letters to the editor (from both left and right), and Newsweek articles. I've never seen the man on T.V., until the presidential debate on Thursday.

After that, I realized how much his campagain has been skewed to the Right's lies. Unless of course, he really is a nincompoop who didn't get his act together until last night, which I can't really believe.

Bush consistently comes off as a moron: why the man and his men can't seem to keep Saddam and bin Laden straight! Kerry is poised and well-spoken, but somehow Bush is the stronger of the two candidates? Is it because Bush is consistent and Kerry's not? Well, Bush happens to be consistently simple, and consistently wrong. Kerry on the other hand appears to know the nuances of politics a bit better than Bush.
Incompetency is not a sign of strength, unless of course the Right decides it is. Which it has.

Incompetency is not a sign of strength, unless of course the Right decides it is. Which it has.

Yep, unfortunately the righties - a party of shallow machismo these days - now would take it as a needle to the gasbags of their ego's to dare even admit that their leader is a fool and puppet. And so, no matter what happens, no matter what is said - its only likely to entrench them even more in their support of idiot-boy.

We are making a serious mistake in regarding Bush's (or Cheney's) Republicans as "conservatives". Conservatives are for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and less foreign intervention. Bush is exactly the antithesis of that trinity. He spends far more than his budget allows, he heightens the government's authority a la the Patriot Act, and he starts invading wrong countries. If they can look past divisive issues such as abortion and gay rights, Kerry's actually a better fit for conservatives than Bush. Hell, Kerry's a better fit for everybody.

For those of you who did not watch the Democratic National Convention, Kerry gave an outstanding speech which garnered the praise of many critics. It was much better than the Bush borefest about OB-GYNS and his folksy schmaltz. But nobody watched it, that was the problem. The great thing about Thursday's debate was that people really cared, and over 60 million of them watched.

Bush's campaign actually did a favour to Kerry. Their relentless negative ads pulled down his image so much that anything but a nervous breakdown would've instantly salvaged his image. Bush benefited from low expectations in 2000; the tables turned in 2004. People expected a resolute and straight-forward Bush; what they got was a broken record and a smirking demeanor.

Yes, that is true as well. However, what would you rather have: a perceived moderate who's actually more liberal or a perceived liberal who's actually more moderate?

I think all this conspiracy nonsense about Kerry has been laid to rest after he routed Bush on the debate.

I have no love for PETA as well. I see them as the pro-life movement of the left.

I'm pretty sure I would want a perceived moderate who's actually more liberal... Seeing as I am a pretty extreme liberal in most of my views and much of the country does not see eye-to-eye with me. Kucinich for pres in 2008 pls!!! ;)

Roman: Amen, brother. But it raised another conspiracy: the Conservative Media has constantly portrayed Kerry far weaker than he is.
*************
M*W: "Conservative Media?" What planet are you on?
*************
Roman: Kerry on the other hand appears to know the nuances of politics a bit better than Bush.
*************
M*W: Of course he does! He's been a slick but non-productive member of the Senate from Massachusetts. Massachusetts! That says it right there. Kerry slid in on the pockets of Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts is probably the MOST liberal state in the Union. Remember the legend of Dukakis?
*************
Roman: Incompetency is not a sign of strength, unless of course the Right decides it is. Which it has.
*************
M*W: Bush is definitely not a slick speaker like Kerry. Kerry knows how to schmooze the crowds with lies coming out from both sides of his silver-forked tongue. Bush may mumble and stumble over words, but even the ones he spits out wrong are at least the truth.

I served my country during the Vietnam Era, and I didn't have a Daddy who would or could get me out -- you know why? I'm a woman who served my country because my country needed me. I was no war hero, well, let's say I was not a war hero decorated like a Mexican general, but to so many soldiers out there, I was their hero. My country gave me an education, not just in the Medical Corps, but in life, and I can tell you that I would proudly serve under George W. Bush regardless of his fumbling his National Guard stint. So what if Daddy H.W. Bush could pull strings. That's what happens, and I can guarantee that Son W. Bush was not the only rich kid who had strings pulled for them. What happened 35 years ago really isn't the issue today of who will make the better president. What does matter is that John Kerry made a mockery of his four-month tour, his four-month tour! He saw no "action" until the cameras were rolling -- yes, the cameras he had following him in pursuit of his "war-hero" persona. His "tour" in Vietnam was nothing more than a slick photo op. He was born and bred to be a slick-tongued politician. What does this country want -- a slithering slick snake who cunningly lies through his fangs -- or a plain-spoken down-to-earth guy who speaks the truth regardless of how roughly? That's the way we do it in Texas.

Except -- he is NOT from Texas. He is a Cowboy hat wearing Connecticut yankee. And a BIG time slithering snake . . . except not a cunning one, its his puppeeters that are cunning. His Crawford Ranch? Built right before the election in 2000 specifically for image purposes. He was bought into Yale as a Blue Blood, so was Kerry - but hell, he at least had the grades and intelligence for it!

*I* was born in Texas, and know that city boy's who pretend to be cowboy's for political purposes usually have the nastiest agendas of all. And they way they skewed the Texas GOP platform during his years as governor shows that. These guys are not conservatives, they are radicals!

Family of mine in Texas who were long and proud Republican Party members, for fiscal and defense related issues - have been scared out of their wits by this hijacking of their party.

Have you ever seen that Texas GOP platform that Dubya was with before being selected prez? It is *REALLY* scary.

-- "We support the abolition of ... the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor. We also call for the de-funding or abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts, and Public Broadcasting System."

-- Drop out of the UN, bring Federal Funding to Biblical based education and slash it for those that are not so based, privatize *everything* including the Military (Halliburton and Enron's in charge of our Nukes? Nice!).

Check it out for yourself at: Texas Republican Party Platform (http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf)

Thanks for serving our country, too bad these nutcases are not serving you back! Hell, they are slashing funding for things like Veterans health care!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ashcroft went on to say that our way of life is being threatened by a group of radical religious fanatics
who are armed and dangerous. Then he called for prayers in the schools and an end to gun control."
--Jay Leno