http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/245408p-210237c.html


Why Teresa Heinz Kerry is such a flake

In the spirit of the Kerry campaign official who declared Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter "fair game," let us now turn to the question of whether John Kerry's wife is fit to be First Lady.

The issue is "fair game" because of how Teresa Heinz Kerry is behaving. Already wildly unpopular - her approval rating is an anemic 30% - she did the political equivalent of mooning her neighbors last week by insulting First Lady Laura Bush. Said Heinz Kerry in an interview: "I don't know that she's ever had a real job - I mean, since she's been grown up."

The incident, including a quick apology for forgetting Bush was a teacher, librarian and full-time mother, was a one-day wonder because Laura Bush brushed it off. But it was not an isolated event. It fit a pattern Heinz Kerry established with a series of breezy putdowns and oddball rants.

There was the blast at the "scumbags" who criticize her, the claim that "only an idiot" wouldn't like her husband's health care plan and her goofy suggestion that Caribbean hurricane victims "go naked for awhile" until food was delivered.

My favorite came on her recent visit to Nevada to discuss health care. The 40-minute speech, per her usual rambling, it's-all-about-me style, included her remedy for arthritis: "You get some gin and get some white raisins - and only white raisins - and soak them in the gin for two weeks. Then eat nine of the raisins a day."

Got it - not eight raisins, not 10 raisins, nine.

She's a fan of Botox, Armani and Chanel, calls herself "cheeky" and "sexy," but Kerry aides have heart palpitations every time she opens her mouth. Even some New York backers are concerned.

"We could have a bona fide head case as First Lady," said a supporter.

"She's weird," says another. "She looks like she's on Prozac or something."

Radio man Don Imus, as usual, said what others can't: A Kerry supporter, Imus wondered whether Teresa is "too crazy to be First Lady."

I've been wondering myself. After watching her on several occasions and after following her antics on the trail, I've concluded she's not crazy.

She's a rich, spoiled brat.

And because she's so rich - a billionaire, with five houses, a private jet and income of perhaps $50 million a year - she is used to being feared by the help and flattered by supplicants who hope she'll sprinkle a few pennies their way. The recipient of such bowing and scraping naturally begins to feel wise, even superior.

Arrogance is thus born.

Arrogance is what former Texas Gov. Ann Richards spotted in a privileged George H.W. Bush. The former President, Richards said, woke up on third base and thought he'd hit a triple.

But Heinz Kerry's arrogance is different. Worldly and intelligent, she exhibits a presumptiveness that recalls 19th century robber barons who believed their wealth proved they were divinely blessed, and that the poor, too, got what they deserved.

Speeches she's given, including at the party's Boston convention, were mostly about her, as if her life is inspiring. She has a habit of lecturing, skips from topic to topic and tends to speak quietly, so you'll just have to listen harder.

Not to worry - there's not much to hear. Her story, stripped of hyperbole, comes to this: she was the child of privilege, and now she is the adult of privilege. Her doctor father was rich and so was her first, late husband. All her money is inherited.

After her marriage in 1966 to John Heinz, heir to the ketchup fortune, she quit her job as a translator and settled into the pampered world of the super-rich.

So she hasn't had a real job for 40 years.

Oh, yes, she does give away Heinz money. She calls herself a philanthropist.

Not exactly a job ordinary Americans can relate to. Or a First Lady.

I think her and George W would make a better couple! for the white House!

At least she never killed her ex-boyfriend, like the current "First Lady".

Who wrote this, Leflaw.

I don't like her...but at least, she's not a chain smoking robot....look at Laura Bush closely...you can hear the gears!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/codewarrior/laura_bush.jpg

Hey...all three of the newsteam posted in a row...isn't that a record or something?

http://nugeboard.tednugent.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/086253.html
"Claim: While a teenager, future First Lady Laura Bush caused the death of a classmate in a car accident.

Status: True.

This is the story of one of those accidents. It resulted in the death of someone you've never heard of, at the hands of someone you have.

In May 2000, a two-page police report pertaining to a fatal accident that had taken place near Midland, Texas, in 1963 was made public. It Laura Bush contained the information that 17-year-old Laura Welch had run a stop sign, causing the death of the sole occupant of the vehicle hers had struck. According to that report, the future First Lady had been driving her Chevrolet sedan on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on 6 November 1963 when she entered an intersection without heeding the stop sign and there collided with the Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas. Also in the car with Laura Welch was a passenger, 17-year-old Judy Dykes.

How fast Miss Welch might have been driving is open to question. That part of the police report is illegible, although two biographies of the First Lady refer to her as having been going 50 mph at the time of the collision. The speed limit on that portion of road was 55 mph. According to the police report neither driver had been drinking, but no tests were performed. No charges were filed as a result of the accident.

News accounts from 1963 reported the young man as having been thrown from his car and dying of a broken neck; he was pronounced dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. According to various biographies of Mrs. Bush, the boy's father had been travelling in a car immediately behind his son's and witnessed the whole thing.

The two teen girls were taken to the same hospital and treated for minor injuries that amounted to bumps and bruises.

Michael Douglas, the young man who was killed, had been a member of Laura Welch's crowd at high school and her friend. He had been a star athlete, excelling in track and football, and was looked up to by his peers not just for his athlete prowess, but for his personality and intelligence too. By all reports, he was likeable, outgoing, and funny. He was nominated as the school's most popular boy while a junior, an honor that almost always went to a senior.

There has always been speculation about the nature of his relationship with Laura Welch. One rumor asserts the two had never dated, but that Laura had been romantically interested in him. Another claims he had been Laura's boyfriend when he died, and another that he had once been her boyfriend but the couple had subsequently broken up. (The latter theory is advanced in the 2002 biography of the Bushes, George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage, which states Laura Welch and Michael Douglas had dated throughout early and mid-1963, but by the fall of that year Michael was going out with Regan Gammon, one of Miss Welch's closest friends.)"

it's pretty bad when you go after the women. even the mafia had a code of ethics about that

This site is an equal opportunity offender.

I thought we were voting for presidents not first ladies

so true

We're not voting for presidents.

We're voting for the best, most convincing liar. We're voting for the man who can sling bullshit furthest. We're voting for the most deceiving commercial. We're voting for the best illusionist, the greatest snakeoil salesman, the one who most accurately reflects our own personal prejudices.

We're voting the the least scary.

the American way

Then the comedians will love her and want Kerry to win.

The political cartoonists want Kerry too. I wonder how many times he's walked into a bar and had the bartender ask, "What's with the long face?"
My bad.

"and there collided with the Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas."


It wasn't her fault Ralph Nader said it was the unsafe car!

Teresa Heinz Kerry as a woman I'll stand up for her any day. She speaks her mind. And is not afraid to. Most of those that are putting her down don't like women to have that right. They want us just to keep our mouths shut. Thank god for Teresa Heinz Kerry.

And tell me what has Laura Bush done. I think nothing at least I haven't heard of anything she has done in four years.

As a woman I say go Teresa

Any woman who speaks her mind, is intelligent, independent, unapologetic, and fierce is considered a threat in many cultures - even in the U.S. with all it's claims for being civilized, modern, and progressive-thinking.

Before I get accused of being partisan, let me say that I have no problems with First Lady Laura Bush. Contrary to the objectional and questionable governmental policies that her husband has made, I believe that the First Lady and her daughters are decent, good individuals. She's down-to-earth and genuine. However, Laura Bush plays a different role from our previous First Lady - Hillary Clinton, and Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz-Kerry. Yes, Laura Bush has been a working mother. She's been a teacher and a librarian. She even maintains different positions from her hubby Bush - although she does not contradict him in the public arena. (Laura leans more toward the left than her husband, George does. She is pro-choice, while her husband maintains a different position.)

The problem I have with many of the men who attack candidates wives like Hillary Clinton and now Theresa Heinz-Kerry is two-fold. Yes, I can state the obvious that it is, in part ,politically motivated. However, I believe that the attacks are more rooted in "sexism." Heinz-Kerry and Rodham Clinton are feminists and with their own demonstrated independence from their hubbies, tend to redefine the traditional roles of women.

In many societies - particularly ones based on the Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - a woman is supposed to act in secondary roles. She is not supposed to self-nurture herself, be analytical in her thinking, or say no to anything that would be contrary to her role. She is supposed to be "emotional" and "obedient" to anything that the patriarchal society's wishes for her.

Women are supposed to be the nurturers, nursemaids, and helpmates to the men in their lives and society - whether they are hubbies, brothers, or sons,

Ms. Bush is not seen a threat because she's perceived as maintaining this role flawlessly. She doesn't stick her pretty-little head into places where women aren't supposed to go in - like politics, stating their opinions publically, or outshining their hubbies in intelligence or career. Yes, Ms. Bush has started initiatives to help children read more books. But, of course - this role is similar to one of the nurturer - caring for children. Unlike Heinz-Kerry or Rodham-Clinton, the First Lady doesn't political affairs. Nor does Ms. Bush air many inflammatory opinions or political statements that will incite anger. Yes, it could be argued that Laura has a different personality than Heinz-Kerry. Or that she's simplier classier than Mrs. Kerry. But, in all honesty, it's simply because Ms. Bush adheres to the conservative "traditional" societal image of women better.

In the past, I admit, that I believed that Heinz-Kerry was a "spoiled rich" woman. I was never a fan of hers. Nor was I a fan of her husband, of whom I am still skeptical of. But after watching a CNN documentary on Heinz-Kerry's tragic life and her determination in spite of it, I begrudgingly changed my view of both Heinz-Kerry and her husband.

Mrs. Kerry has been through multiple tragedies - including losing her husband - once a Republican Senator in Congress - in a plane crash. She hasn't just contributed money to philanthropic causes. Say what you'd like about her; but, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry has actually "walked the walk" of her convictions - so to speak. She was born in Mozambique to a doctor. She went abroad to South Africa and Switzerland to be educated. She was arrested in South Africa in their effort to help end apartheid in that country. She has also worked directly with organizations that help alleviate hunger and disease for young children in developing nations. Heinz-Kerry - even during her hubby's tenor as a Republican senator - continued to work with environmental groups and help pass environmental legislation in congress. If she was simply content to be a "wealthy" philanthropist, why would she do any of these things? She could have taken trips abroad, slouched off, and become a brain-dead socialite like so many wealthy women have done and not bothered to give a damn. But it's to her credit that Heinz-Kerry did. So what that she has an accent. So what that she's abrasive and "not always nice." If it was a man, Ms. Kerry would be called "strong," "ambitious," or "independent-minded." But, since she's labeled as "unstable" or a "nut."

Although I think that the role of mother IS admirable and definitely the toughest job there ever be in society, women like Heinz-Kerry and Rodham-Clinton have paved the way for other women in this society. Instead of being an "ornament" on their hubby's arm, or a simple nurturers, they're making it okay for other candidates' wives to feel that it is okay for a wife, mother, etc; to be a "rounded" independent person.

I have to agree with gdZiemann.

I've noticed one thing lately...and that is this.
The folks in call-in shows who are backing Bush, seem to be abandoning argument on whether Bush has done many good things for the country or not, and are most often saying this...
"He's a man of God, and I trust him."

Voting for any person usually comes down to a personality contest...to a glorified President of Student Council election...

Do I "like" Kerry? No. But I intensely dislike Bush almost to the point of hating him . But, I'm voting for President on the basis of who I think will "take care of business". And, for that, I will vote for Kerry. Now, if there was a ballot asking if I gave my consent to be governed and there was a yes/no on that....I would check the NO box with a very bold stroke!

Where does this government get its authority to tell anyone what to do, or to levy taxes on them? Consent of the governed? When was the last time anyone asked you if you agreed to be governed?

Taxation without representation...none of the people in Congress that I know of really represents my beliefs...my intersts...my agenda.

In point of fact, it was this belief of mine that this, and all governments are illegitimate...basically bullies with paperwork operating under color of law, that kept me from voting until the Bush-Kerry election, but after being subjected to having that idiot Bush as the governor of this state, legitimate government or not, I felt I had to do whatever I could legally to keep him out of the White House, as did the majority of voters....

I know I often alienate people with my political viewpoints...BUT, my efforts in my websites are born of a serious and unrelenting concern for the future of this country, and because I seriously worry for the welfare of us all, if GWB is allowed to do it to us all for four more years.

End of rant....

I meant Bush-Gore election...got so worked up on the topic I couldn't type straight...lol

"ornament" on their hubby's arm,??

if that's the role a woman wants to have in her life why is that bad? doesn't she have the right to choose what she wants. My wife is quiet, timid, mother of three, spent most of our married life at home with the kids and taking care of the house. that was her choice not mine and it's just as honorable. I would strongly suspect Mrs Bush would take issue with the ornament on his arm statement, strongly. "Liberated" women always tend to critzice the lifestyle many other women choose just because it's not politically correct with the liberated awareness.

Good points Gibd and MerylStryfe ...

I don't like her, but I can respect her I guess.

But I intensely dislike Bush almost to the point of hating him .

I couldn't tell. Almost?????? I think you've gone there already.

But I do agree with merylstryfe about Therea Hines. I don't personally care for her but she's a strong forceful woman to be respected

She sounds like a perfect woman to represent the general population of American wemon... Doesn't work, opininated, uses artificial means to achieve a model's ass and a hand full of fake titties, and doesn't care about anyone but herself. I can't think of a more fitting first lady for our great nation. Oh and before any wemon out there get all uptight and call me a sexest pig... Go turn on MTV and study it carefully for a little while.

As a texan I can't say anything nice about Bush. He makes all us texans look bad. I try and not say to much because I wouldn't be as nice as some on here have been. I just slap my hands when I go to type anything about Bush. And my hands are in great pain right now.

I try not to hate him because of what the Bible says comp...but, if you check out my many blogs...you certainly would see I have nothing but a feeling of disgust for this retard!
Here's just a few blogs I expose Bushy's actions on...
http://codewarriorz.blogdrive.com
http://codewarriorz.tblog.com
http://codewarrior.tblog.com
http://codewarrior.blog-city.com
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com
http://www.blogontheweb.com/codewarriorz
http://www.codewarrior.zoomshare.com/
http://Codewarriorz.iUplog.com
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=176285
http://22blog.com/CodeWarrior/

you certainly would see I have nothing but a feeling of disgust for this retard!

nope doesn't sound like hate at all

But, even if I hated him personally...if I thought he was best for the nation, I would vote for him.

Apparently comp...hate for me is far more of an extreme emotion than seemingly it is to you...that's the way I talk about people I despise and loathe...hate is the extreme on a continuum...I won't say what I would do about someone I hated.

I rarely say anything in public about someone I truly hate.

compmore said" if that's the role a woman wants to have in her life why is that bad? doesn't she have the right to choose what she wants. My wife is quiet, timid, mother of three, spent most of our married life at home with the kids and taking care of the house. that was her choice not mine and it's just as honorable. I would strongly suspect Mrs Bush would take issue with the ornament on his arm statement, strongly. "Liberated" women always tend to critzice the lifestyle many other women choose just because it's not politically correct with the liberated awareness".

Again, compmore, sometimes I doubt you read anything I write with any comprehension. And why should I not be surprised that you'd do this. You select a single line - out of context, I might add - in my argument and set up a strawman one(i.e. a "false" argument for me so you can attack it easily.) Instead of addressing the content of my post with discretion, you also revert to using infamous "hot-button" words to reduce the context of my argument to a superficial label - i.e. pulling a "Limbaugh" and stating that my arguments are merely associated with "political correctness." Political correctness allows minority or disenfranchised groups (like women) to define their own terms instead of allowing the dominant society to do so. They are redefining themselves. (Of course conservatives couldn't think of treating anyone other than the image that they'd already preconceived, so Rush Limbaugh coined the term "political-correctness" to ridicule the concept that people should reclaim their own definition.)

But your use of the term "political correctness" is a red-herring to deflect from the real issues at hand. Since when do arguments dealing with feminism fall into the arena of "political correctness" - a completely different area? And if I was to go further, I have a pet peeve with many conservatives whom I believe are hypocritical in respect with "labeling". They are the first ones to revert to using political labels to "simplify" and "demean" an argument to caveman terms in order to attack their opponents more effectively. Unfortunately, since much of American society has a 6-th grade reading level, and depends on five-second sound bites to define the issues, it works most of the time. (See journalist standards for writing. This is a known fact.)

You selected the last quote from my post. Why didn't you use the previous sentence?

previous quote from my post before the one you selected"

"Although I think that the role of mother IS admirable and definitely the toughest job there ever be in society, women like Heinz-Kerry and Rodham-Clinton have paved the way for other women in this society."

Anyway, compmore, it's not pertinent to this discussion, nor the issue at hand. At least pretend to argue in an effective way.

If you read my post - with any clarity or comprehension - I said there was nothing being wrong with a wife or a mother, which I said is the hardest job there is. But, women are expected to stay in these roles in society. They aren't expected to be strong or independent-minded. Thus, we hear the rhetoric of a Rush Limbaugh who calls women like Hillary Clinton a "feminazi" and other kinds of rhetoric. Women are expected to be limited to these roles. And women are criticized when they break from these traditional roles and do something that is not expected from them.

Why should women "stay in their place"? We have minds and intelligence like our male counterparts. I stand by my point that women are criticized for being "liberated" or "independent thinking."

Of course, compmore, you conveniently neglected all of my previous points and never addressed this. Are you skirting the issue by intentionally quoting me out of context - or just intellectual dishonesty? Yet, as cynical as I am, I'm not suprised - but I suggest you unlearn this bad habit of creating strawmen arguments that really don't hold up under analysis.

Thanks Code.

At this point, with the most sincerest reflection...I do not hate George W. Bush, in the serious meaning of the word.

I find him a pathetic , parasitic creature, a personal coward, a liar, and dangerous to the future welfare of this republic...but hate him? Naaaaaaaah...

I "almost" hate certain insurance attorneys I've met though
< wink >
If I were to rate my personal negativity toward Bush...on a 0-100 scale (0 would be someone I really, really like, and 100 would be someone I hated...right now, Bush is around an 89.97516. He steadily moved toward a "90" with his corporate tax break he signed on Air Force One to the tune of 136 BILLION....I rate ONE insurance attorney I know at around a 94.99996 .

Comp...you should read the book..
"If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him "
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?endeca=1&isbn=0553278320&itm=4

IF YOU MEET THE BUDDHA ON THE ROAD, KILL HIM! --- THE PILGRIMAGE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY PATIENTS by Sheldon B. Kopp. Bantam Books, 1972
"PART 4 --- If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him! (p185-214)


1) Learning to learn (p187-197)


Whether pilgrims or wayfairers, while seeking to be taught the "TRUTH" (or something), disciples learn only that there is nothing that anyone else can teach them!

They learn --- once they are willing to give up being taught --- that they already know how to live, that it is implied in their own tales. The secret is that there is no secret!

Everything is just what it seems to be. This is it! There are no hidden meanings.

The Zen way to see the truth is through your everyday eyes. It is only the heartless questioning of life-as-it-is that ties a person in knots. People do not need an "answer" in order to find peace. They need only to surrender to their existence, to cease the needless, empty questioning. The secret of enlightenment is when you are hungry, eat; and when you are tired, sleep!

The Zen Master warns: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" This admonition points up the fact that no meaning that comes from outside of ourselves is real!

The "Buddhahood" of each of us has already been obtained. We need only recognize it!

Philosophy, religion, patriotism, all are empty idols. The only meaning in our lives is what we each bring to them.

Killing the Buddha on the road means destroying the hope that anything outside of ourselves can be our master! No one is any "bigger" than anyone else. There are no "mothers" and "fathers" for grown-ups, only "sisters" and "brothers!"

We must each give up the Master, without giving up the search for TRUTH!"

Reviewing the article briefly (if I missed something, don't flame):

Teresa Heinz Kerry is not running for president - her husband (the smarter half by the looks of it all), John Kerry is.

As nice a lady as Laura Bush is (the smarter half by the looks of it all), she is not running for president, her husband, George W. Bush is.

Although I would consider my mind made up, for the people who are still undecided, you should be considering the two people who will be on the ticket, not their spouses.

Earlier on in the campaign, Tah-RAY-sah could be seen as a "loose cannon." Now it seems they have her under control, for the time being.

I would rather have Kerry as pres accepting his wife as a first lady then a liar who abanded his own country.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/652014/posts


this 2002 article says he was dissapointed his immigration bill didn't make it and had to explain it to the Mexican pres. Dam what about 1 1-2 millinon jobs lost right here during his administration ? Did he do a good job of explaing that to the American people during the debates? If Congress worked so hard on the wellfare reform act Why now are we opening the gates to illegal ailens and terrorist? to suck more money out of the pockets of Americans who paid the price to be here?.....what the hell is going on here....can anybody explain?
George Bushs homeland security and patroit act is a big farse!

I'm listening to John Edwards' wife in a townhall meeting format...and she is EXCELLENT...I would vote for her for President if she were on the ballot...she is addressing issues that none of the other folks have....she is lieable..straightforward...and down to earth...

GREAT!

Elizabeth Edwards,,,,ROCK N ROLL LIZ!


Hell...it's time that half of the population has a representative of their gender as President....
they couldn't do worse than the little Bush boy!

GO THERESA!

I do NOT hate immigrants! My grandfather came here from sweden in the early 1900's But he went through a process legally and didn't break immigration laws. The laws were upheld and it took some time to become a US citizen. Now , no one cares who the hell comes in and who pays for the expenses.
And to top it all off are we really safe under King George?

Swedish people ROCK!

I agree with freeforall!

Thank-you Code.....you rock on this site!

This use of these specialized terms by Bush creeps me out.
I'll be 52 next month, and when I was younger...one never heard the term "Homeland" unless it was used by the Nazis or the Stalinist Russians.

This "culture of life"...I do not think comes from the Catholic quote...but instead, from http://www.christianity.com/cultureoflife

and this "Faith based"...where the hell does that crap come from...

Both my parents were ministers, and we never heard of "faith based" when I was young....

This seems to be a bunch of Newspeak code words for Neo-Con agendas and right wing religious money handout schemes....

But, to me, the scariest of them all is that "Homeland" crap...I hear that and I feel like we are supposed to extend our arm, locking out our elbow, in front of us at an elevation of 120 degrees and start hollering "Sieg Heil"...
to the Bush Reich.

CodeWarrior said: This seems to be a bunch of Newspeak code words for Neo-Con agendas and right wing religious money handout schemes....

I completely agree code.

I did read your whole post merylstryfe. you made compelling statements I agreeded with. I even complimented you on your statements about theresa. you must've overlooked that in your zeal. you use inflamatory terms in conjunction with your balanced arguments and can't understand why there's disagreement. orniment hanging on her husbands arm is hardly a description of the wonderful balanced view you described previously. I don't believe society expects women to be the way you mentioned and cliche's and remarks like that only demean those who choose the alternate life.

sorry code, I don't care how intellectually you make it sound, when someone talks about people the way you do, that's hate, pure and simple. this whole political season has brought out left winged and right winged extreamism so badly it makes me shudder to think of either side getting in power. on this site it's certinly not the right winged extreamists. I'm going out to finish painting my house.

compmore said: I did read your whole post merylstryfe. you made compelling statements I agreeded with. I even complimented you on your statements about theresa. you must've overlooked that in your zeal. you use inflamatory terms in conjunction with your balanced arguments and can't understand why there's disagreement. orniment hanging on her husbands arm is hardly a description of the wonderful balanced view you described previously. I don't believe society expects women to be the way you mentioned and cliche's and remarks like that only demean those who choose the alternate life.


When you put it like that, compmore, now I understand what you were talking about. I agree, that last line was inflammatory - and I will try not to use cliches like that in the future.

compmore said
"sorry code, I don't care how intellectually you make it sound, when someone talks about people the way you do, that's hate, pure and simple. this whole political season has brought out left winged and right winged extreamism so badly it makes me shudder to think of either side getting in power. on this site it's certinly not the right winged extreamists. I'm going out to finish painting my house"

I know when I hate someone. I don't "hate" Bush. To me, hate is an extremely personal matter. I don't hate someone unless they fuck with me personally.

If Bush were to do so, then yes, my intense dislike of him could become hate...but, it is clear you really don't know me well Comp.

In my personal life...people usually become aware when I dislike them...but those I absolutely hate...rarely know it.

Those I dislike in my personal life become aware of it because I try as far as possible, to pretend they do not exist, and avoid as much contact with them as possible.

I certainly have lived with myself long enough to know when I hate someone...and, I am the final arbiter on my own feelings...so I think it is a bit disingenuous (if not outright condescending) to say I hate Bush when I don't.

If you really want to believe I hate him because of my rhetoric...go ahead...doesn't take any skin off my nose...but if you believe that, you are misinformed about my feelings...and will stay that way as long as you insist on thinking that way.

LOL..saying I hate Bush when I don't is like me saying....
No, Compmore...you are not going to paint your house...you only think you are painting your house....you actually hate your house and this is a sublimated effort to cover it with paint , in a symbolic gesture of covering it up, thus, out of sight out of mind....

See what idiotic claptrap that is?

If I really hated Bush on a personal level..his name would never be mentioned online by me.

CodeWarrior stated the belief system according to 'Zen-ology'
(sometimes referred to as enlightenment through introspection):
"The 'Buddhahood' of each of us has already been obtained; we need only recognize it.
Philosophy, religion, patriotism, all are empty idols. The only meaning in our lives is what we each bring to them.
The Zen Master's admonition points up the fact that no meaning that comes from outside of ourselves is real.
We must each give up the Master, without giving up the search for truth."

My initial response:
I once heard about a professor who told his students, "There are no absolutes."
I would liked to have had a chance to ask him how his very statement wasn't an absolute.

My more measured response:
[Logic: If p, then q. If not p, then not q.]
The Master warns: In the search for truth, WE CANNOT CONSIDER ANY MEANING FROM OUTSIDE OURSELVES AS BEING REAL.
Since the Master is outside ourselves, WE cannot logically consider any meaning from him to be real.
And since his meaning cannot be considered real for us, it is not logical for us to follow his advice.
Hence, in the search for relevant truth, we are not obligated to restrict ourselves exclusively to internal sources of meaning -- leaving us the freedom to search for truth outside ourselves as well as within ourselves!
(In other words, common sense triumphs over "the Master".)

My anecdotal response:
Master: "Son, are you ready for the most important advice to guide you for the rest of your life?"
Student: "I hope I'm ready, sir."
Master: "Fine. Once I help you internalize the simple wisdom of Buddha, then you are to rely on yourself as the only source of meaning."
Student: "But, sir, with all due respect -- in relation to ME, aren't you actually an outside source of meaning?
Master: "Technically, yes, but just this once will be the only exception you will ever need to make. AFTER that, THEN you are not to consider any source other than from within you alone as having value in the search for truth. In essence, you will be trusting your life to yourself from then on."
Student: "Sir, I can't help but wonder..."
Master (interrupting): "Son, I can see you aren't quite ready to accept the necessary initial premise of Buddhism yet. Once you do, THEN you can be 'free' to question and reject all outside sources for meaning in your life.
Hmm, in the meantime, you may need to spend more days in meditative yoga position atop yon snow-covered mountain...."

got my painting done. merylstryfe I get so wraped up in my emotions I don't always see or even make myself clear sometimes. I don't know what's happened to me here lately but it's not like me to be so confrontational. I do understand the points you're making even though I may not act like it. I can't imagine living in society when society pressures makes it difficult for many to achieve their goals. in a way intentional sexism or racism is easier to identify and fight then something built into a society where people like me don't even realize it.

Society is what it is regardless of how those within it view it.

I thought (as said before) that we were voting for the president, not his wife. Kudos MerylStryfe, good point earlier about Teressa.

Codewarrior, for someone that professes to not "hate" Bush you sure do cry an awful lot about him. Could you be any more extreme in your views? Some people here seem to like you and want to kiss your ass for acceptance. I find you completely out in left field and borderline insane.

LOL....
"so it goes"
-Kurt Vonnegut...

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result
-Albert Einstein...

Have a great election everyone!

Just curious Code. If Bush gets re-elected are you going to pull a Baldwin and claim you're moving to Canada only to go nowhere?

Nah, we'll stay here and fight the bastard. (not to speak for code, but for Bush-despisers).

dont' forget Terezzzzzzzzzzzaaaa, claimed Laura Bush never had a real job (boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black), but then quickly realized what a complete ASS she'd made of herself when reminded Laura had real jobs as a teacher & librarian, which I doubt paid her anywhere near the $$$ Terezzzzzzzzzza earns (doing what, I have no clue).

The looney liberals never fail to amuse.

Question for leflaw:

Did you purposely use a bad picture of Terezzzzzzzza Hines Kerry or is that pic pretty much par for the course? The first time I saw THK is from a still with Laura Bush, I thought it was just a bad take, but after seeing her pic here, I realize all the shots at her physical appearance weren't exaggerations.

The "first lady" is not the president or the policy maker. Talk about misleading spin.

Nah, we'll stay here and fight the bastard. (not to speak for code, but for Bush-despisers).

if Kerry were to win would you want those who hate Kerry to fight him or work with him for the betterment of the country.

Every time its the same thing...everyone can do a better job. Kerry is no different. If he wins, we'll all be bitching bout what he did wrong. All liars and thieves.

If Bush were working for the benefit of this country, I would not attack him.
He's not, he has set it on the road to ruin.

And what about all those Republicans who hated Clinton and worked so hard to bring him down.

"The "first lady" is not the president or the policy maker. Talk about misleading spin."

carla,
that didn't stop Hillary Rodham Clinton from trying back when she was First Lady.

And what about all those Republicans who hated Clinton and worked so hard to bring him down.

agreed and I supported clinton and hated what the republicans did. doesn't make it right to do it back to them. Like my mother says, two wrongs don't make a right. this type of extremeism on both sides is what's destroying and polorizing the country, not any ONE person.

CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST HOSPITALIZED WITH THYROID CANCER
http://abcnews.go.com/

we need to get behind whoever is elected and work toward the future. this sort of juvinile, playground, I'll take my ball and go home attitude is very unbecoming for adults

Comp, if Bush is reelected, Ashcroft will continue his attacks. Bush will appoint more anti-abortion judges. Halliburton will continue to show huge profits. More reservists and enlisted men and women will be told that their military commitments will be extended. Drug companies will show staggering profits.
More people will be forced to take lower paying jobs in order to earn a living.

want me to counter that with a long list of what Kerry will do? working with the president doesn't mean letting him always have his way nor letting his oppisition have their way. it means WORKING together without both sides being pig headed. that's what this country used to do.

Why is it that some men always try to put us women down. If we speak something they don't like they put us down. And the other thing they try to do is pit us against each other. Why is that JohnCarlton02 do you want us women to fight each other and also I ask this of leflawWhy is it that some men always try to put us women down. If we speak something they don't like they put us down. And the other thing they try to do is pit us against each other. Why is that JohnCarlton02 do you want us women to fight each other and also I ask this of leflaw you wrote this piece why put the women down they are not running for office. I would really like to know. Are you afraid of us women is that why you like to put us down.

"Pig headed" is what Dubya is, comp. Admitting you made a mistake is an adult thing to do. No one's perfect. But he blames everyone else. How can you work with someone who's never been wrong? With someone who believes God is on his side? What compromises has Bush made?

Sorry I lost it and then it redid it.

Why is it that some men always try to put us women down. If we speak something they don't like they put us down. And the other thing they try to do is pit us against each other. Why is that JohnCarlton02 do you want us women to fight each other and also I ask this of leflaw you wrote this piece why put the women down they are not running for office. I would really like to know. Are you afraid of us women is that why you like to put us down.

both sides think they are the only ones right. that's my point and why nothing gets accomplished anymore. like the Isreali/Palistinian issue. both sides blame the other, both do things that are wrong, and neither side can remember what really started it since it's been going on so long and neither side wants to work together.

Working together...
That would be nice, Comp, but when the same party controls the Congress and the White House and appoints judges...

I agree with you compmore.

Its time we did work togther. I don't think that will happen if Bush stays in office.

It's not just a matter of working with the opposition for the good of the country. Bush and his cronies are different. They are dangerous. And they do NOT attempt to work with the opposition.

Laura should have divorced Bush when she had the chance. She sold out.

and the opisition won't work with him. if Kerry wins the extremists on the republican side will do the same thing as the extremists who hate bush

If Kerry wins, we will have SOME balance, comp.

keep thinking that. I doubt it very much

Clinton signed the DMCA. In 2003 the RIAA began to interpret part of it as a license to subpoena kids who download music on the internet. Orrin Hatch keeps proposing ridiculous bills. Ashcroft and the Justice Department have now decided to "help out" with the prosecution of all these "criminals". We need a change, comp.

different parties doesn't make it a balance, only deadlock. if we continue to be reactionary toward everything we'll never work together. I sincerly believe Anti bush extremists and anti liberal extremists are so blinded by their hate they can't see that

I think Kerry can work with the republicans He is very good friends with Sen. John McCain who is a republican. And they have work together on a lot of things. And he does want to work with them. Bush doesn't.

You've said it before, comp. You're not a Bush supporter. I'm not going to ask you to defend Bush or his administration.

I don't doubt your sincerity compmore, but you're wrong
There is objective proof of what harm Bush has done. It's not just what he stands for (why some may hate Kerry), it's what Bush has already done.

that may be true carla and I don't doubt that. but if the change happens there will be continued gridlock. Kerry doesn't represent all dems any more than McCain does. I've lost faith that the two parties can accomplish anything together

Look who's voting for Kerry now....

http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com/pages/1/index.htm

compmore said: "got my painting done. merylstryfe I get so wraped up in my emotions I don't always see or even make myself clear sometimes. compmore said: I don't know what's happened to me here lately but it's not like me to be so confrontational. "

:Nods: I tend to be quite confrontational, compmore, to be honest, for several reasons. Whether in chat, in my "real" life, and when I'm presenting an argument in a literature paper - I'm used to having to debate and present evidence for an argument. If I seem really feisty or hyper-defensive, it's only because I'm used to having to present evidence for my case often. I don't mean to be overbearing; but, I do tend to analyze and question others arguments and motivations.
I also fight from my emotion - and my logic as well. But, it's okay to point out flaws in my logic. I do welcome them because it does help me to keep on my toes when presenting an argument.

I do agree with you that the two-party system will only ensure deadlock whoever becomes president. There's too much money at stake in both parties.

Democrats and Republicans are beholden to their campaign contributers and push legislation based on who contributes the most money to their coffers. This time, however, when faced with the choice of the lesser evil, I'm leaning toward Kerry. I wanted to vote third party -either Badnarik or Cobb - but, I could not because I feel that civil liberties in this country have severely been eroded under this present administration. I'm not comfortable with Bush's administration erasing the line that divides church and state, nor do I like the secrecy of this administration - unprecedented since the Nixon administration - or unwieldly power that Cheney holds.


compmore said: "I do understand the points you're making even though I may not act like it. I can't imagine living in society when society pressures makes it difficult for many to achieve their goals. in a way intentional sexism or racism is easier to identify and fight then something built into a society where people like me don't even realize it."

I think that's most people, compmore, even myself. That's why discussions like these are excellent ways to learn about other's opposing viewpoints.

compmore said: "got my painting done. merylstryfe I get so wraped up in my emotions I don't always see or even make myself clear sometimes. I don't know what's happened to me here lately but it's not like me to be so confrontational. "

::nods:: I tend to be quite confrontational, compmore, to be honest, for several reasons. Whether in chat, in my "real" life, and when I'm presenting an argument in a literature paper - I'm used to having to debate and present evidence for an argument. If I seem really feisty or hyper-defensive, it's only because I'm used to having to present evidence for my case often. I don't mean to be overbearing; but, I do tend to analyze and question others arguments and motivations.

I also fight from my emotion - although I try to base most of my arguments in logic and fact. But, it's okay to point out flaws in my logic. I do welcome them because it does help me to keep on my toes when presenting an argument.

I do agree with you that the two-party system will only ensure deadlock whoever becomes president. There's too much money at stake in both parties.

Democrats and Republicans are beholden to their campaign contributers and push legislation based on who contributes the most money to their coffers. This time, however, when faced with the choice of the lesser evil, I'm leaning toward Kerry. I wanted to vote third party -either Badnarik or Cobb - but, I could not because I feel that civil liberties in this country have severely been eroded under this present administration. I'm not comfortable with Bush's administration erasing the line that divides church and state, nor do I like the secrecy of this administration - unprecedented since the Nixon administration - or unwieldly power that Cheney holds.


compmore said: "I do understand the points you're making even though I may not act like it. I can't imagine living in society when society pressures makes it difficult for many to achieve their goals. in a way intentional sexism or racism is easier to identify and fight then something built into a society where people like me don't even realize it."

I think that's most people, compmore, even myself. That's why discussions like these are excellent ways to learn about other's opposing viewpoints.

other's = others'

sorry that posted twice. Before I had a chance to edit the previous copy

Great find ShadowMom. Keep up the great work.

Kerry is not doing as well as expected with the Women's vote. My wife thinks it is because of Teresa.

Comp, read the last post on the site that ShadowMom posted. It's by Samuel Prescott Bush House (Delmar, NY).
http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com/pages/1/index.htm

I'm a woman and I think Teresa is great not all of us think she is hurting Kerry.

Btw, I don't think this article is a putdown of ALL women, just two women, both very much in the public eye. Their strengths and weaknesses are our business, just as their husbands' are. I like Teresa myself, she's like a breath of fresh air in politics; but she has great potential to do a lot of damage, too.

Who was the "perfect" First Lady?
Jackie Kennedy? She was young, attractive, intelligent, soft-spoken, well-dressed, and from what I remember, she stayed out of the politics. Is that what we as Americans want? The men on Capitol Hill certainly showed Mrs. Clinton (as First Lady) that they didn't want her interference with real issues, such as healthcare.

the best first lady was Dolly madison. I love her cupcakes. Lachatte we want people to run our government who was elected or appointed constitutionally. Hillary was neither. she meddled in things she had no business doing. Just like a wife or husband going to their spouses place of employment and start working.

"If change (of administration) happens, there will be .... gridlock."

Hopefully.

Ooooo. "meddled in things she had no business doing." In other words, "Pose for the photo, pick out the china, and organize the Easter Egg Hunt". A First Lady (even if she's qualified) can raise issues, but not try to solve them. Is that what you're saying, comp?

nope. she's not an elected or appointed official. she had no business taking a leadership role in a government she wasn't legally a part of. don't confuse that with sexism

advisor, counselor yes, policy maker, no

Hillary was highly qualified (so is Elizabeth Edwards) and the Clintons advertised their presidency as a partnership.
I'm sure that stuck in yer craw.

Some of the following quotes (in no special order) are indicative of a lively discussion:

"Hillary was highly qualified (so is Elizabeth Edwards), and the Clintons advertised their presidency as a partnership."

"The 'first lady' is not co-President or a policy maker. Talk about misleading spin."

"She was not an elected or appointed official. She had no business taking a leadership role in a government she wasn't legally a part of. Don't confuse that with sexism."

"That didn't stop Hillary Rodham Clinton from trying back when she was First Lady."

"I'm sure that stuck in yer craw."

"Why is it that some men always try to put us women down. If we speak something they don't like, they put us down. And the other thing they try to do is pit us against each other. Why is that you want us women to fight each other, and also I ask this of leflaw: You wrote this piece. Why put the women down who are not running for office? I would really like to know. Are you afraid of us women? Is that why you like to put us down?"

Hmm. This is tough to harmonize. As Carla noted, Hillary's type of 'partnership' phenomenon was hinted at in advance. Eventually, this phenomenon appeared to evolve into future political aspirations on her part (which ultimately became evidenced in a run for an office of her own). Critics could postulate that she had designing plans all along to later capitalize on her position as first lady, something which would be difficult to refute; and (in retrospect, after the fact) might detract from part of what (otherwise) may have been worthy to be deemed as intrinsic value of her 'active first-lady' role at the time...even though her lack of success in pushing national health care can't be discounted as a negative of sorts.

The issue that seems to deserve consideration, therefore, involves her motives -- was her goal to be helpful just for the sake of wanting to assist in service to our country, rather just be a kind of token on her husband's arm (like someone else had previously alluded to)? Or were self-serving plans in the offing? And, even if there were, (gender notwithstanding) whoever said potential politicians were altruistic, anyway (not to even mention the ones already having been elected)? Gracious sakes! The very word 'politician' is somewhat akin to 'used car salesman' in that it conjures up visions of opportunistic inclinations of a self-serving nature -- perhaps that's a reflection of just how corrupt our present governmental system has become.


Question: "Why is it that some men always try to put us women down?"

Answer: They're unenlightened, male chauvenist, sexist pigs!

Comp said: "we want people to run our government who was elected or appointed constitutionally."
OK. So, we want the president to be a married man. We want to see and judge the first lady to see what kind of influence she may have on her husband.
You think that the president should confide in his wife (pillow talk), but she should not speak her mind - at least not in public. She should not be interviewed by the press (hardball questions) or asked to comment on important issues. So, in your opinion, comp, she should be seen and not heard. Correct? But can you ever really predict what kind of influence the first lady will have?

Did anyone expect that Betty Ford would speak out in support of Roe v. Wade or admit her fight against cancer and alcohol addiction?http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_1_1/ai_80605885

No one doublted Nancy Reagan's devotion to her husband. But I guess she thought Ronny needed extra counseling. The public didn't know that Nancy hired an astrologer to guide his entire life. http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/divineguidance.htm

I think Teresa Heinz Kerry has proven that she is NOT a politician. She obviously loves her husband, wants to see him elected president, and has strong feelings about this administration.
Laura Bush reads scripted speeches. It's so obvious that Teresa doesn't.

I just read an article about Jimmy Carter that said this about his first lady:
"Rosalynn, who had taken an active role as first lady—not only acting as an adviser to the president but also attending cabinet meetings when the subjects under consideration were of interest to her..."
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9020545

"Laura Bush reads scripted speeches. It's so obvious that Teresa doesn't."

But in view of some of Teresa's quotes (as contained in the editorial, "Why Teresa Heinz Kerry Is Such a Flake"), it's not easy to construe her style of communication as a political asset, insofar as the Democratic cause is concerned!
Hmm; maybe SHE could use a little advanced scripting, too....either that or talk less to reporters.

hold on a sec., we said bush was an idiot?

P.S. You know what they say about it being better to remain silent
than to remove all doubt....

Then George should never open his mouth again....

"Hold on a sec., we said bush was an idiot?"

Possible devil's advocate response: ill-advised actions can be decidedly worse than ill-advised words.

Oh, spit it out, DemandRelevance--if nobody here said Bush (not bush) was an idiot, we have been remiss in our duties today...

"worse" = having greater negative impact

"If nobody here said Bush (not bush) was an idiot, we would have been remiss in our duties today...

... at least until CodeWarrior got around to fulfilling that 'duty', right?

"maybe SHE could use a little advanced scripting, too....either that or talk less to reporters."
Exactly, D.R.

I have absolute faith that Code will be here sometime today in full riot gear...and if you haven't checked out George's site today, he has a new study on there that supports the idea that a majority of Bush supporters are mentally challenged. It's the other ones who scare me, because if you see it's evil and still support it, you must be aimin' to git to heaven sooner rather than later.

Speaking of Code, check out his blog: http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/ Today he had a story about the latest Bush ad - "Wolves".
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5560.shtml

http://factcheck.org/article291.html

this is exactly why this country is falling apart. I blame the hateful extremists who has to have everything their way or no way. that's all I've heard on these political threads. politicians just do what comes naturally to them. we deserve the kind of government we got

Comp, are you reading ANY of the links I've given?

If George had said to us, at any point since the invasion of Iraq began, that he made a mistake and would do his best to rectify the situation, I would have had more respect for him than I do now. But over and over and OVER he repeats the same lies, the same excuses, the same fairy tales that got us into this mess. Comp, did you read the study at George's website? Or are you just reacting to our observations? Or do you believe the rest of the world is wrong, but George is right?

(I've got too many Georges in there--I'll have to call him Bush from now on!)

That would be the polite name to call him, ShadowMom.

I could always refer to him as Dubya--would that help?

I'd rather have a nut for a first lady than a nut for president.

"I'd rather have a nut for a first lady than a nut for president."

(That observation may be the defining moment for this entire thread. It's almost as if we could conclude with that perspective, right here and now.)

I have read many pros and cons about this. most everything that's been posted I've already read or heard of. the thing is, there is another view with just as many compelling facts and LINKS that supports Bush's side. I've heard it all and thats why I'm cynical and confused as is most of the electorite. Looking at a set of links that supports only ONE viewpoint isn't going to clear the air for any of us independents. We don't hold the extremests views where we believe something then go out and find the facts to support it and ignor the rest. Just because I don't always support the views here doesn't mean I'm ill informed. I read a lot and listen to many different views. I just come to different conclusions. The partisan extremests have control over the idealogy's of both parties and corporate lobbist's have control over both parties purse strings. doesn't leave much room for the average american.

getting back to the voting thing. I've said it before and I firmly believe it.... If you vote for Kerry because you truely belive in him and his message and honestly think he'll do a good job I have all the respect in the world for you. that's how a citizen should vote. If your voting for Kerry simply because you have personal anomosity for the current president, it's a wasted vote as surely as if you don't even go to the ballot box. I can't respect that.

You think factcheck.org (that Cheney alluded to in the debates) is biased?

But our view is not extremist. Bush is a unique case. Many, many people in this country are worried about what he has done and what he could do. Thousands and thousands of people have registered to vote because they are scared. We are not the extremists. We are aware.

I heard Bill Clinton say that there are two cultures in America, 45% for Kerry, 45% for Bush. Interesting word, "culture." Because I think the "ordinary" (not special interests or business community) people supporting Bush are missing a big picture. I believe they are mentally deficient in the way they interact with the world.
The undecideds are just borderline 'tards.

If Bush is reelected we will sink into the abyss. It's not hatred of him. It's reality.

carla said "If Bush is reelected we will sink into the abyss. It's not hatred of him. It's reality."

I argree completely, carla. That's I couldn't vote this year for a Third Party candidate - as much as I'd like to. I was torn until the past week after I read about a young woman who was beaten, and herede off of the president's motorcade route because she was a protester. I believe think that Kerry will be perfect - I'm not definitely not a fan of his - but I'm willing to give him a chance over this administration which has constantly manipulated the public and abused its trust.

I'm too upset with the unchecked secrecy, lies, and criminality of the Bush administration. I also dislike the subverting of our civil liberties, constitution and bill of rights. They are too numerous to count. Jon Stewart, even said in his 60 minutes interview, Sunday that this administration the scandals under this administration should have "GATES" added many times over.

And Bush never admits responsibility - which if he was a true Christian - would readily admit to since Christians are supposed to confess their mistakes to the Almighty. He blames it on "inherting" problems from the prior administration. Well, sorry Mr. Bush, but Clinton handed you a surplus. You gave it all away with the "tax rebate" thing, by tripling the government, and the war-profiteering machine.

The only thing that has protected Bush and his colleagues from being impeached, thus far, is his stonewalling, a Republican-controlled congress, an apathetic public, and a compliant media.

herede = herded

I believe think that Kerry will be perfect - I'm not definitely not a fan of his -

Supposed to be: I don't believe that Kerry will be perfect - but I'm willing to give him a chance.

That's right...and in four years, if he doesn't do the job, then we throw his butt out in the cold, too.

And Bush never admits responsibility

very true, I've never seen a politician yet who's made it that does.

You think factcheck.org (that Cheney alluded to in the debates) is biased?

nope. but how the facts are used can be. I check that site out too and see things about Kerry as well.

How about this -- 2008, McCain versus Kerry. That would be hard to decide (for me). But at least I wouldn't feel the desperation I do now if Bush gets another term.

carla60626 said: "How about this -- 2008, McCain versus Kerry. That would be hard to decide (for me)."

I actually like McCain. Until his fervent support of the president in this election - even after Bush did everything in his power to smear his reputation - I thought McCain would be a decent candidate for president. His congressional record indicates that he has pushed legislation in the past that's pro-common man in this country. I've also read his memoirs.

I can't understand why McCain would support Bush's campaign, other than he's considering his own run for president - once again - in 2008. But, I've lost respect for him since. Maybe he thinks that supporting Bush in this general election will ensure that he'll have the Republican base's support or his party's blessing come next election. Of course, by then he'll have Arnold to contend with.

That's right...and in four years, if he doesn't do the job, then we throw his butt out in the cold, too.

And I thnk they all go that route eventually..the only President I ever liked was mudered in the street.

thnk-think
mudered-murdered
I knew their was a reason I wasn't posting today

McCain Vs Cary? no contest, hands down it'll be McCain. He'll never get it because he voices his view on things that are contrary to the power elite. The only reason Dems like him is because he goes his own way against the republicans. don't think he'll follow the democratic line as a result either.

I particularly love his view on the election reform. I saw McCain on a newshow interview and he said there was a rulling the election commision made that was challanged in court. the supreme court knocked down the ruling but the election commision disreguarded that and said it was going to do it anyway. McCain is against all that.