And Quayle too.
And that relates to what I said how???
And, as I said, IF Kerry makes mistakes, he’ll get criticized. Could we maybe at least wait 'til he actually becomes president, and actually makes mistakes, before we begin doing so? What part of that didn’t you understand?
That’s just incoherent babbling.
Actually, it was my point, but I made it earlier. I have no idea what you’re talking about now.
I don’t know why it needs to be stated. To me, this is as obvious as saying, “When you’re hungry, get something to eat.”
I have voted for Democrats, although, like Mr. Moto, never for President. But if the Dems were running Joe Lieberman instead of Kerry, my decision would be more difficult than it is.
Maybe Kerry will be a successful President. I doubt it, but I could be wrong. If he does get elected, I wish him all the luck in the world.
But I suspect my definition of a “successful President” is very different from yours. If Kerry maintains a strong foreign policy, defends the country against its enemies, cuts taxes and reduces the scope of the federal government, reduces the cost of health care, and appoints judges who abide by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, good for him. If not, I will be here ripping him a new one as often as I can spare the time.
He keeps saying he has a plan. We shall see if he does, and if it is worth anything. If so, cool. If not, well, let’s discuss it, shall we?
Don’t think that’s gonna happen. IIRC, nobody since Bush Sr. in 1988 has gotten more than 50% of the vote.
Regards,
Shodan
Nah. In fact, the current Bush threads were then Ken Starr threads. Anti-Clinton (both the president and her husband) threads drew immediate swarms of righteously indignant hysteria. I cannot recall any significant pittage of the Clintons from any of the boards vocal leftists. The groups were split pretty much just as they are now.
I agree that when Kerry gets elected, the media’s spin machine will shift in to high gear. To this day, I still cannot believe all the slanderous stories that cropped up during the Clinton administration. Whose murder did Clinton supposedly order?
Any president should be held accountable for mistakes that they make while in office. Clinton could have handled the Monica thing better (or avoided it altogether). I too think that NAFTA, the family marriage act and the gay soldier silence rules were bad ideas. I still cannot get over all the supposed “gates” taking place during Clinton’s presidency. How many of those accusations turned out to be based on fact?
Before I start sounding like a Clinton apologist, I would like to talk about criticism aimed towards our current president. For the first few years of this presidency, the media and many Americans kept their criticisms of Bush to a minimum. Yes, we struggled with the effects of 911. Many Americans rallied behind Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq.
Criticisms of Bush’s policies have increased over the past year, especially in the media. Is it because Iraq has become a mess? How does the election year play a role?
What do I expect to happen after we elect our next president? If Bush is elected, the media will probably quite down their criticisms of the president. Bush will stop talking to the media like he did for the first three years of this past term. People who align themselves to the left will continue to become more active.
If, and hopefully when, Kerry is elected, let’s look at his decisions and policies with a critical eye. This should be the public and media’s role with any president. I really hope that we won’t revisit the media circus that we watched during Clinton’s time. Then again, we still have the war to focus on.
One thing I would like to see Kerry reform is the FCC rules that allows mega-corporations to own so many media outlets. I would also like to see news stations held accountable for their stories and sources. Either provide news or, if you’re going to editorialize, show both sides.
One good thing if BUSH wins…it will be the best thing to happen to the left since the 60’s.
But it’s still not worth the price.
If Bush wins, there may not be a ‘left’ left.
If Bush wins, there may not be a “USA” left.
“This one goes to 11!”
Ahh, my favorite kind of post. One in which Brutus whines about partisanship.
As anyone with even a shred of honesty realizes, it’s not a black and white issue. Some very small number of people are blindly partisan (in both directions). Some very small number of people are 100% fair and honest about everything. For instance, there’s Cecil, and there’s me 
And there’s a bell curve in between those two extremes.
What I really fear is that the following will occur: Right now, there are a large number of people on the left who truly thing that Bush is an absolutely awful president. Not just that they disagree with his positions, not just that they think he’s made mistakes, not just that they always think that about Republican presidents, but that they truly believe that he’s one of the worst presidents in American history. They may be right, they may be wrong. But they do have that opinion, they’ve come by it more or less intellectually honestly, and they are willing to express it. What I fear is that if Kerry is elected, and does a moderately decent job, there will be a feeling that, in order to balance the cosmic scales, in order for things to be fair, Kerry will also have to be called “one of the worst presidents in American history”.
I mean, if he’s elected, and if you honestly do believe that he is that terrible, by all means, express that. But I hope that the high level of vitriol, and extreme severity of accusations being thrown around right now, won’t mean that we won’t be able to calm back down to the level of politeness shown back in, say, the GHWBush administration.
What if he maintains a strong foreign policy, defends the country against its enemies, makes fiscal choices that differ with yours but which do reduce the deficit, reduces the cost of health care and appoints judges whose ideology you disagree with?