WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry says he deserves a second chance if he decides to take another crack at becoming president. The Massachusetts Democrat, who lost to President Bush in 2004, said it is a basic principle that "Americans give people a second chance. And if you learn something and prove you've learned something, maybe even more so. Now, I don't know what I'm going to do yet. We'll make that decision down the road." Ronald Reagan twice unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for president before he got it — and won two elections for the White House. "John McCain, their leading candidate — didn't he get kicked around South Carolina by the same president because he wasn't patriotic enough as a prisoner of war? He's now their leading candidate for president," Kerry said of the Republican Party. " Richard Nixon seemed to get kicked around pretty badly both running for president and governor, turned around and came back and got elected president." Kerry faces a major challenge trying to convince Democratic activists that a recently defeated candidate can still carry his party's hopes for recapturing the White House. If Kerry runs, he would have to overcome other Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. The list of potential opponents also could include New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Indiana Gov. Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, and even Kerry's ex-running mate in 2004, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
You got that right Quigs. This country needs to pull itself out of the toilet when it comes to politics and party differences. I cannot see that happening with liberal democrats and their ideals. If we could just get someone in office that will defend all of everyone's constitutional rights, as well as, increase economics, and defend this country from it's enemies, we might be able to pull ourselves up out of the craphole that we've been in for last few years.
The Liberal/Democratic party doesn't back proven losers. Kerry disgraced himself, and brought a black eye to his party - they won't forget that. He has no chance. He is no "Heir Apparent" to Camelot. Neither does Algore have a snowball's chance you-know-where. My money says they will back the Hildebeast. With her latest pandering to the "moderates", she's itching to run. Question is, does the GOP have anyone with the name recognition and relatively clean record to oppose her? I had been hoping for a Klinton/Rice catfight, but no dice. Condi won't run.
Right now they are investing a lot in trying to make people remember the Billary years fondly and yearn for a return to that time. I don't think there is any doubt who will be on the DNC side of the ballot. And of course all of the good little Republicans will come out in droves and vote for whatever idiot the GOP puts forward this time, reassuring themselves that they are doing the right thing not because they are electing the right (wo)man for the job, but because they are defeating the Clintons. In the last presidential election, I counted six candidates on my ballot if memory serves. The one I voted for is somebody that 95%+ Americans never heard of, because they believe only a Democrat and a Republican are running (and nobody else counts). So really you're either voting for a Communist or you're voting for a Fascist. Doubt me? Mussolini had nothing on GWB, kids. Look into what fascism really is, beyond what the propaganda films of the WW2 era had to say about the subject. We currently live under a fascist regime, now, right this minute. This isn't something that might come to pass; we're already here! As much as Mussolini would have loved the Bushes, Marx would have loved a lot of prominent Democrats, especially Kerry, especially Ted Kennedy, and who really knows what Hillary thinks because she can never keep one opinion long enough to know what she really stands for (before her own rise to power, she was a volunteer for the Republicans!!) So you can vote for a Republican or you can vote for a Democrat. Either way you're going to get someone who doesn't give a rats ass about the Constitution, and either wants to steal your privacy and individual freedom in the name of national security or they want to steal your paycheck, your faith, and your guns in the name of the common good. Either way, we're going to lose. Choosing between the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. There are other options, and they don't involve violence or bugging out.
Hope you're not just figuring that out! Yes, that's called "throwing your vote away" because you're voting for someone with no chance of winning. I just LOVE all the Libertarians on gun boards - there's "so many" of them yet they can't get anyone elected. I will be a "good little Republican" because I don't like my gun rights taken away and so far liberals have caused much more harm yet the wrong Repub. ain't no help at all. We have to face the reality that no candidate proposing rolling back gun laws will ever make it to the big election - so we have to get someone who doesn't screw us even more like even Reagan and Bush Sr. did. McCain would be a disaster as would Guliani, but Hillary would be as close to a Nazi regime as you will find.
Anyone that whimpers about "deserving" something such as a second chance (or a handout from dot gov) bears watching closely. I'll decide if Kerry deserves a second chance, thank you, and I've decided he does not. He hasn't earned it yet. (Probably can't, either.)
I might just vote for the worst candidate (Hilary?) in the hopes that things will go to pot that much faster and wake more people up to the reality that the Republic has fallen while We The People were asleep at the wheel.
Well said, and unfortunately true. The main problem with voting for someone who's not a Republican or Democrat is, that they can't get enough votes from the public to get them into office. Most of the public has been brainwashed for so long now by the Republican and Democratic parties, that they can't see the light if it hit them in the eyes. If either party wasn't so damn extreme to the left or right, but instead hit middle ground, then we might find someone worth voting for. I'd like nothing better than a candidate that would uphold every letter of the constitution, let us keep our gun rights, fight crime, build up our military so they can actually fight enemies foreign or domestic, lower taxes, increase the labor market, etc. Too many people in either party have liberal ideals and that spells trouble no matter how you look at it.
This would of course fly in the face of the history of the GOP, which itself is a Third Party. Remember; before it was Democrats and Republicans, it was Democrats and Whigs (remember them?) The Republicans were the upstarts, and they had an issue. The People were passionate enough to risk their votes on a third party. Maybe if the right issue makes itself apparent, it will be enough for our society to "remember" that it is possible to completely change the power structure in D.C.
Our system of politics has evolved into what can only be a "vote for the lesser of the two evils", because, if you throw in the third party it usually causes the lesser of the evils to lose - thus we end up with the worst possible choice. Remember, Klinton had his Parrot. Regardless how bad the lesser is, we probably stand a better chance of preserving our rights(???) under that selection than ending up with the worst candidate. Me? I vote the gun issue as well as I know it, every time! OTT, I think this party should replace the Republican party. http://www.constitutionparty.com/
