Re: swift-boating Obama
- From: Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:00:05 GMT
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:48:22 -0500, Gary <none@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:57:54 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:01:56 -0500, Gary <none@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:33:17 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Karel on Obama
Karel, on the radio, says that the Republicans have
nothing to lose this coming election, because they know
it will be an uphill battle. He says that if Obama is the
Democratic nominee, he'll be swift-boated for absolute
certain. For example,
Did he attend a muslim school
Is his middle name Mohammed
Has he ever snorted cocaine
"They will chew him up and spit him out, and Middle
America will buy it."
I wasn't thinking in those terms, but Karel is very
shrewd about politics, and my god, that does sound
plausible.
Sure they will throw mud on him. But that won't be the reason he
will lose. He will lose because the majority of Americans don't want
him. That's why they lost in 2004. The Democrats have a
masochistic streak. It gives them pleasure to see their candidate
get the crap slapped out of him. That makes them feel good and PC.
They need to nominate a candidate who can win instead of one who is so
far out and looney that only a left winger can love.
In 2004 they had the election won with just about any candidate they
chose -- EXCEPT that mop headed, goofy gigolo from Massachusetts.
300 million people in this country and they had to select Dubya's
lanky fraternity brother.
Kerry was stiff, but there was nothing much wrong with him.
There was nothing right with him. Kerry was stupid.
Kerry isn't stupid, Bush 2 is clearly dumber. It might be argued
that the Bush 2 team had more street smarts, but that's the team,
not Bush himself.
"Reporting for
Duty"! I wish he had reported for action -- but he didn't.
That was retchworthy, but not as retchworthy as all the
presidential candidates this time around tumbling over each
other trying to show that they're the ones most in tune with
Jesus.
I haven't been much watching the so-called debates, of
either party, because they're mostly just a circus.
Just
about any other Democrat candidate could have beat Bush in 2004.
And I hold that phantasmal apparition of a moron personally
responsible for losing.
Kerry would have won easily, if the American people
hadn't bought the Swift Boat stuff. The American people
did, though, and they got what they deserved.
Even so, Kerry would have won but for the fraud in
Ohio, like the fraud in Florida that put GWBush in the first time.
It was the Swift-boating and other jibes that did him in. Every
candidate will have some weaknesses,
Kerry seemed to be having flashbacks to that casket where the Bonesmen
lie for their initiation. It's been said that they lie there and
masturbate while the older members look on. I'm sure Dubya enjoyed
that. And knowing Dubya, he probably took pictures --- which might
explain how that mop headed idiot from Boston lost.
You're pretty hung up on that. I'm not. Yeah, Kerry
and Bush are both "aristocrats" with all the smarm that
goes with that, but they're what we got to choose
between - excluding Nader.
and if the American
people are so stupid they're willing to wreck the country with
somebody like GWBush on the basis of lies and sleaze
dumped on the opposition candidate, then I guess they got
what they deserved.
My solution is to re-assemble state representatives at
Appomattox, and go over that treaty again.
I ran across a quote I had never heard a couple of years ago that made
me stop and think. Woodrow Wilson (I wish I could remember a site
but I can't) said something like this : "The Constitution we live
under since Appomattox is not the same as the one our father's
revered". I have no doubt he was right and Woodrow was no
crackpot. I'd love to see him expound on that.
Obviously it was
really botched the first time. Maybe we can break the South
off into a completely separate Confederate States of America
this time.
A few years ago I would have been the first to applaud such an effort.
But in my quest to get a little wiser as I get older -- and my
reading of Southern history for the past four years -- I have come
to realize that had the CSA won the war, we in the South would still
have slavery. I am saddened to say I prefer to stay in the Union.
Well quit voting for these dufuses into congress and the
presidency, and dragging the whole country down with
you then! It might be termed "The revenge of the South".
Everybody will be happier, and you'll have lots of oil.
You can have Kansas too, as a parting gift, and maybe a few
other places.
Bloody Kansas has always been crazy. I'd highly commend the book
"What's the matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank. He figures out Red
Nation pretty good.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: swift-boating Obama
- From: Capitalist Pig
- Re: swift-boating Obama
- References:
- swift-boating Obama
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: swift-boating Obama
- From: Gary
- Re: swift-boating Obama
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: swift-boating Obama
- From: Gary
- swift-boating Obama
- Prev by Date: Re: Delightful Diversion
- Next by Date: Re: Huckabee demands a stronger Military-Industrial Complex
- Previous by thread: Re: swift-boating Obama
- Next by thread: Re: swift-boating Obama
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|