John Kerry's brilliant "fallback plan"

nycflasher

Active Member
Apr 15, 2004
3,078
13
36
CT
Five reasons why John Edwards is the perfect choice -- and will leave Dick Cheney dropping the F-bomb.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Arianna Huffington
salon.com

July 7, 2004 | The choice of John Edwards as No. 2 on the Democratic ticket is the first great decision of the Kerry presidency -- a mature, self-confident choice that bodes well for the Kerry campaign as it kicks into high gear.

It wasn't based on looking at a map and trying to figure out who could deliver the most Electoral College votes. It wasn't based on who Kerry felt most comfortable hanging out with.

It was based on who was the best choice for the country.

Instead of picking a running mate who had the strongest résumé, Kerry picked the one who had the strongest vision for the country -- a vision that can help Kerry bring heart and soul back to American politics.

Here are five things about John Edwards that should be sending a cold shiver down Karl Rove's spine right about now:

1) He can help Kerry make this campaign about what kind of America we want to live in -- a campaign not just about policies and programs but about our fundamental values as a country. Throughout his primary campaign, Edwards showed an uncanny ability to frame his positions in the language of morality and traditional American values.

"I believe we can build a better life for our families," he said during a Democratic primary debate. "But it has to be based on the values of hard work and responsibility, not accounting tricks and corporate greed. I want to bring your values, the values of Main Street America, to Wall Street and then to Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to give this White House back to the American people."

This is a linguistic battlefield that has been dominated by the right since the 1960s. Edwards' ability to speak to core American ideals like hard work, fairness, faith and family -- the values that built America -- will help Kerry reclaim key words and concepts like "morality" and "responsibility" from the recklessly irresponsible and grossly immoral GOP.

It's not by accident that this is the first quality Kerry cited when announcing Edwards as his running mate: "John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle-class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class."

George Bush wants to define this campaign in terms of right and left. John Edwards will help make sure that it comes down to a discussion of right and wrong.

2) Edwards' core theme of the two Americas -- "one for the powerful insiders, and another for everyone else" -- helps sharpen the differences between the two tickets, and underlines that far from being a uniter George Bush has been the ultimate divider. As Edwards evocatively paints it, Bush has created two school systems, two healthcare systems, two economic systems, two tax systems, and even two systems of government, all designed to benefit "those who never have to worry about a thing" -- and at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Edwards has also shown a commitment to putting poverty fighting front and center in his campaign, sending a message that dates back to the beginnings of this country: We are all in the same boat together.

"I want to take a moment to talk about something you're not hearing presidential candidates talk about enough," he said in his signature stump speech. "The tens of millions of Americans who live in poverty. We pass them on the streets in our cities. They are the families that crowd our shelters and turn to our small-town churches for food. In the America you and I build together, they will be forgotten no more."

This powerful and patriotic populist vision stands in direct contrast to the "every man for himself" rallying cry of the conservative movement, which is epitomized by Grover Norquist and the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, founded on a toxic mix of tax cuts and gutted social programs.

As Edwards put it during his presidential run (and will no doubt repeat many times now that he has a much bigger megaphone), "2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas -- one privileged, the other burdened -- has been his agenda all along."

3) Without wearing it on his sleeve, Edwards' comfort with matters of faith, morality and religion will allow Kerry and the Democrats to make an unabashed appeal to the millions of Americans whose spiritual beliefs are central to their lives.

The Bush Republicans have made it clear they believe that God is on their side, blessing everything from the war in Iraq to the president's multitrillion-dollar tax cuts. Edwards' central message of fairness and economic justice puts the question in play: Which is the true political morality? Opposing gay rights and abortion or heeding the biblical admonition "We shall be judged by what we do for the least among us"? During the Democratic debates, Edwards was asked if, like Bush, he felt God is on America's side. He responded by quoting Lincoln, who, when asked in the middle of the Civil War to join in prayer that God is on "our side," replied: "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side."

Edwards' championing of those left behind will help America reclaim the moral high ground we've abandoned in the last three years.

4) Edwards can help Kerry ride the wave of idealism that was unleashed after Sept. 11. Rare among populist politicians, Edwards radiates optimism and inspires hope. "This election is not about what we are against," he said before the Iowa primary, "it is about what we are for ... We offer a new beginning for America based on hopes, dreams and endless optimism -- not fear, greed and attack politics."

This spirit is the perfect antidote to the pessimism the GOP is desperately trying to tag Kerry with. And it doesn't hurt that Edwards has got charm and charisma to burn, is the most natural politician the party has to offer, has a great story of humble beginnings and triumphing over adversity and personal tragedy, and can move an audience to tears with his heartfelt oratory.

5) Edwards has made a very successful career out of eating folks like Dick Cheney for lunch in courtrooms all across America. He'll know exactly how to wield Halliburton like a stiletto. I give Cheney 30 minutes before he drops his first F-bomb. I can't wait.

The Republican attacks on Edwards as "unaccomplished and inexperienced," "out there in left field" and, above all, "Kerry's second choice," sound like wishful whistling past the graveyard. Edwards' selection has not only energized the Democratic base -- which was pretty energized anyway -- it has, more important, the potential to arouse the dormant passion of the 50 percent of eligible voters who have given up on voting.

All in all, not a bad payoff for a fallback plan.
 
Hey Flasher, he's rocking so far. Kerry's down more in North Carolina, than before Edwards was on the ticket! Sure talk is coming, 'The people that know him best....' :usa:
 
Kathianne said:
Hey Flasher, he's rocking so far. Kerry's down more in North Carolina, than before Edwards was on the ticket! Sure talk is coming, 'The people that know him best....' :usa:

i like the spin

"somebody he likes being around" = somebody he can control

and realizing that Edwards is NOT going to help them, they are now spinning it "that he didn't choose him based on gaining electoral votes". Already trying to cover their asses. :boobies:
 
freeandfun1 said:
i like the spin

"somebody he likes being around" = somebody he can control

and realizing that Edwards is NOT going to help them, they are now spinning it "that he didn't choose him based on gaining electoral votes". Already trying to cover their asses. :boobies:

All's well that ends well... come November rain.
 
1) He can help Kerry make this campaign about what kind of America we want to live in -- a campaign not just about policies and programs but about our fundamental values as a country.
You mean the kind of America where out of touch celebrities are considered to be the heart and soul of America? No thanks.

Edwards' core theme of the two Americas -- "one for the powerful insiders, and another for everyone else" -- helps sharpen the differences between the two tickets, and underlines that far from being a uniter George Bush has been the ultimate divider. As Edwards evocatively paints it, Bush has created two school systems, two healthcare systems, two economic systems, two tax systems, and even two systems of government, all designed to benefit "those who never have to worry about a thing" -- and at the expense of ordinary Americans.
I'll never understand why they stop at two. It would seem like you could come up with as many divisions as you see fit. For example, I don't think I'm on Kerry's level or Edwards level. At the same time, I'm definitely not poor. There also are divisions of poor. Many poor people have TVs, a car, air conditioning, a microwave, and many other things. That's better than the poor in most other countries.

This powerful and patriotic populist vision stands in direct contrast to the "every man for himself" rallying cry of the conservative movement, which is epitomized by Grover Norquist and the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, founded on a toxic mix of tax cuts and gutted social programs.
Yeah, let's keep raising taxes. That's good for small businesses who employ a good percentage of Americans. :rolleyes:

This spirit is the perfect antidote to the pessimism the GOP is desperately trying to tag Kerry with.
Trying to tag him with? It's the truth! He's always talking about how horrible the economy is and how Bush misled everyone and how he's ruining everything.
 
Several points i just have to ask:

1)If Edwards connects with the people so well, why didnt he win the nomination?

2)If Edwards is bringing the vision doesnt that mean Kerry doesnt have a vision to begin with? And if he doesnt have a vision why should we vote for him?

3)Who the heck cares if Edwards is an eloquent speaker. This is something i cant figure out about you Democrats. You seem to go just for image. Just because someone speaks eloquently doesnt mean they are saying anything we should hear. While i know Edwards made his milliions in court because of his speaking ability i cant help remembering the debates when Edwards was spanked by all his Democrat opponents because he didnt know or understand the issues.

I just dont get you guys. If you liked Edwards so much. Why didnt you make him the candidate.
 
nycflasher said:
Five reasons why John Edwards is the perfect choice -- and will leave Dick Cheney dropping the F-bomb.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Arianna Huffington
salon.com

July 7, 2004 | The choice of John Edwards as No. 2 on the Democratic ticket is the first great decision of the Kerry presidency -- a mature, self-confident choice that bodes well for the Kerry campaign as it kicks into high gear.

Oh dear, it's pretty obvious why he's the select candidate for V.P.

He was #2 in the Primaries after Kerry, and state-by-state his popularity would do the most good for Kerry's chances against Bush, as opposed to any other running mate. It's all a numbers game, in the main.

His image and reputation is also relatively flawless, although as we've agreed his experience in government is next to nil. That can be a good thing, though.

I agree completely, that if the V.P. choice is the only exciting aspect of the current Democratic campaign, they're in a heap of trouble come November!
 
Ah Flasher. It saddens me to see that, in your desperation to find support for your candidate, you have been reduced to such a sorry state. Seeking solace and support in statements by Arianna Huffington is truly an indication of increasing panic. As November approaches and the Democratic ship continues to sink lower into the water, you will grab anything that looks remotely like a life jacket, but I'm afraid that in this case, you've latched onto an anvil.

nycflasher said:
Five reasons why John Edwards is the perfect choice -- and will leave Dick Cheney dropping the F-bomb.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Arianna Huffington
salon.com

July 7, 2004 | The choice of John Edwards as No. 2 on the Democratic ticket is the first great decision of the Kerry presidency -- a mature, self-confident choice that bodes well for the Kerry campaign as it kicks into high gear.

It wasn't based on looking at a map and trying to figure out who could deliver the most Electoral College votes. It wasn't based on who Kerry felt most comfortable hanging out with.

It was based on who was the best choice for the country.

Let's see - kerry went to Viet Nam, put himself in for several medals whose basis were highly questionable, used that as a springboard to cut his tour by two thirds. Then he came home, found that he couldn't sell himself as a war hero, so he jumped on Fonda's anti-war wagon and proceeded to fabricate "atrocities" so that he could gain media attention. Next he marries money, then divorces and marries MORE money.

Now Ms. Airhead Huffington expects us to believe that kerry, a shameless opportunist and self-promoter, picked Edwards for altruistic reasons because it "was the best choice for the country."

bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha. Excuse me. Got carried away there.


Instead of picking a running mate who had the strongest résumé, Kerry picked the one who had the strongest vision for the country -- a vision that can help Kerry bring heart and soul back to American politics.

Good God, this gets funnier by the second. Now Ms. Airhead condemns Edwards with the only true and factual statement in her little puff-piece. "Instead of picking a running mate who had the strongest resume'". AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!! My dog has a better resume'. She thinks that the American public will fall in love with a shyster who has made a living raiding corporate coffers. I don't believe that most Americans view his activities favorably, but that's just my opinion. November will tell the tale.

Here are five things about John Edwards that should be sending a cold shiver down Karl Rove's spine right about now:

1) He can help Kerry make this campaign about what kind of America we want to live in -- a campaign not just about policies and programs but about our fundamental values as a country. Throughout his primary campaign, Edwards showed an uncanny ability to frame his positions in the language of morality and traditional American values.

Okay - this is code for "This guy doesn't have a single concrete issue in his head, but he's a great bullshit artist.

"I believe we can build a better life for our families," he said during a Democratic primary debate. "But it has to be based on the values of hard work and responsibility, not accounting tricks and corporate greed. I want to bring your values, the values of Main Street America, to Wall Street and then to Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to give this White House back to the American people."

What the hell was that? Vague, non-specific pablum for those starry-eyed boosters of liberalism. Comes up awfully short in the concrete idea department.

This is a linguistic battlefield that has been dominated by the right since the 1960s. Edwards' ability to speak to core American ideals like hard work, fairness, faith and family -- the values that built America -- will help Kerry reclaim key words and concepts like "morality" and "responsibility" from the recklessly irresponsible and grossly immoral GOP.

It's not by accident that this is the first quality Kerry cited when announcing Edwards as his running mate: "John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle-class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class."

Wooooohoooo! Arianna, baby! You need to cut down on the peroxide, honey. It's starting to soak into your brain. A "linguistic battlefield" dominated by the right since the '60's. I guess she forgot about Slick Willie. Or perhaps she would rather forget that he used his gift of gab mainly to lie, cheat and obfuscate investigations.

George Bush wants to define this campaign in terms of right and left. John Edwards will help make sure that it comes down to a discussion of right and wrong.

2) Edwards' core theme of the two Americas -- "one for the powerful insiders, and another for everyone else" -- helps sharpen the differences between the two tickets, and underlines that far from being a uniter George Bush has been the ultimate divider. As Edwards evocatively paints it, Bush has created two school systems, two healthcare systems, two economic systems, two tax systems, and even two systems of government, all designed to benefit "those who never have to worry about a thing" -- and at the expense of ordinary Americans.

You may notice that Edwards' discussion of the "two Americas" is embarrassingly short on specifics and long on colorful rhetoric. If the assertion is true that Pres. Bush "has created two healtcare systems, two economic systems, two tax systems and even two systems of government" for the benefit of the wealthy - WHERE THE HELL ARE THESE TWO SYSTEMS???? Where is the health care system labelled "For Po Folks only"? Where is the economic system which caters solely to millionaires? The closest comment that rings even remotely true is the assertion regarding two tax systems - yup, the rich are taking it in the shorts. Don't you find it just a little strange that, until Edwards invented it, no one noticed that there were "two Americas"? But now, suddenly, the eyes of libs have been opened and Edwards' invention has gained the status of factual statement.

Excuse me again. Waaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry. It just comes over me.

And one more thing Ms. Airhead ignores - just how did GW accomplish all this in three short years. Two health care systems, two economic systems, two tax systems and two systems of government. All this while bringing the economy out of depression and fighting a war against terrorism. My God, the man is without a doubt the most prolific and efficient president in our history.


Edwards has also shown a commitment to putting poverty fighting front and center in his campaign, sending a message that dates back to the beginnings of this country: We are all in the same boat together.

"I want to take a moment to talk about something you're not hearing presidential candidates talk about enough," he said in his signature stump speech. "The tens of millions of Americans who live in poverty. We pass them on the streets in our cities. They are the families that crowd our shelters and turn to our small-town churches for food. In the America you and I build together, they will be forgotten no more."

Hee hee - excuse me, while I regain my composure. Ms. Airhead has the same myopic vision of helping the poor as most libs. She sees more government programs as the solution to everything. She fails to understand the concept that the best anti-poverty program possible is a sound economy. That has been at the forefront of the Republican agenda and it's working. But this caviar-sucking dingbat would return us to the days of the Great Society.

This powerful and patriotic populist vision stands in direct contrast to the "every man for himself" rallying cry of the conservative movement, which is epitomized by Grover Norquist and the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, founded on a toxic mix of tax cuts and gutted social programs.

As Edwards put it during his presidential run (and will no doubt repeat many times now that he has a much bigger megaphone), "2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas -- one privileged, the other burdened -- has been his agenda all along."

I'm always amazed at how adept lefties are at blaming the right for the very problems that they themselves have created. Conveniently forgotten are the libelous and slanderous statements tossed out like rice at a wedding. Ignored are the underhanded tactics like playing the race card. No, Republicans have been uniting people by enabling them to achieve a better life. Democrats are the dividers with their screeching rhetoric, racist accusations and their arrogant attitude toward those, like me, who disagree with their positions.

3) Without wearing it on his sleeve, Edwards' comfort with matters of faith, morality and religion will allow Kerry and the Democrats to make an unabashed appeal to the millions of Americans whose spiritual beliefs are central to their lives.

Now this doesn't merit much of a comment. We all know it's simply code for "He doesn't have any religious convictions that he's not willing to sacrifice on the altar of liberalism". Like kerry, Edwards appears to have the ability to cherry-pick those religious beliefs which do not conflict with his ambitions.

Let's just skip the next little diatribe as this is getting rather long, so I will cut it from the quote for the sake of brevity. Except for the following statement:

Edwards' championing of those left behind will help America reclaim the moral high ground we've abandoned in the last three years.

Haaaaaaaaaharharharharharharharhar. "Abandoned in the last three years"?????? That takes my breath away. JFK was moral? Lyndon Johnson was moral? Teddy Kennedy is moral? Slick Willie? The only Democrat president with moral fibre was Jimmy Carter. Too bad he was also a weak-kneed, watery-eyed, limp-wristed, gutless wonder. We're still paying for his stupidity today.

4) Edwards can help Kerry ride the wave of idealism that was unleashed after Sept. 11. Rare among populist politicians, Edwards radiates optimism and inspires hope. "This election is not about what we are against," he said before the Iowa primary, "it is about what we are for ... We offer a new beginning for America based on hopes, dreams and endless optimism -- not fear, greed and attack politics."

Okay, enough already. I can't stand any more without deteriorating into laughing hysterics. This is standard boiler plate cut from thousands of political rah-rah speeches. Perhaps cheerleading is the real reason kerry picked Edwards. Well give the shyster a pair of pom-poms and teach him how to do back flips. And of course, there is the obligatory swipe at the opposition who is instilling fear, greedy and engaging in "attack politics". No sir, the Democratic party is not trying to instill fear in minorities, poor people and the elderly. Their politics have been on the highest ethical order. Their accusations of lies, inventing the war, inventing intelligence data have all been based on carefully researched factual data. Oh yeah, you bet.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Ah Flasher. It saddens me to see that, in your desperation to find support for your candidate, you have been reduced to such a sorry state. Seeking solace and support in statements by Arianna Huffington is truly an indication of increasing panic. As November approaches and the Democratic ship continues to sink lower into the water, you will grab anything that looks remotely like a life jacket, but I'm afraid that in this case, you've latched onto an anvil.

You called it... I mean this is hilarious coming from Arianna Huffington, no less.

The fact she was a staunch Republican backer of her now divorced husband and only now emerges into public on the radical left demonstrates a woman of either massive hipocracy or emotional instability.

Let's understand clearly this women married into the money she now claims in the divorce. And furthermore, her position on increased taxation on personal and business income has almost no affect on her personal fortune.

Which brings us to the amassed and untaxable fortunes of Kerry, Edwards, and most of the Hollywood Liberals, who all wail over the unfairness of it all, and understand the need to increase income taxes out of fair play to the less fortunate... :boohoo:

Knowing all along their own assets are secure alongside their lifestyle... at the very least ensured as glamourous, if not powerfull as well. Liberals are sick in the head for feeling these are examples which best represent their needs.
 
Comrade said:
You called it... I mean this is hilarious coming from Arianna Huffington, no less.

The fact she was a staunch Republican backer of her now divorced husband and only now emerges into public on the radical left demonstrates a woman of either massive hipocracy or emotional instability.

Let's understand clearly this women married into the money she now claims in the divorce. And furthermore, her position on increased taxation on personal and business income has almost no affect on her personal fortune.

Which brings us to the amassed and untaxable fortunes of Kerry, Edwards, and most of the Hollywood Liberals, who all wail over the unfairness of it all, and understand the need to increase income taxes out of fair play to the less fortunate... :boohoo:

Knowing all along their own assets are secure alongside their lifestyle... at the very least ensured as glamourous, if not powerfull as well. Liberals are sick in the head for feeling these are examples which best represent their needs.


Great point Comrade. Hey you could be describing JFKerry's wife, Therezzzaaa! :dev3:
 
With that shinning appriasal from Arianna why isn't Edwards the nominee?

Really is Edwards so appealing and energetic that he will overshadow Kerry's dull persona? And how good is that for the campaign?
 
MtnBiker said:
With that shinning appriasal from Arianna why isn't Edwards the nominee?

Really is Edwards so appealing and energetic that he will overshadow Kerry's dull persona? And how good is that for the campaign?

I forgot who I was listening to on the radio yesterday, but he said that listening to John Kerry speak was worse than being in the dentist chair, with all the droning! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
 
MtnBiker said:
Perhaps a new campaign tatic for Kerry "I'll make your Dentist visits more appealing by comparision". :D

:eek2: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
 
nycflasher said:
Five reasons why John Edwards is the perfect choice -- and will leave Dick Cheney dropping the F-bomb.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Arianna Huffington
salon.com

Here are five things about John Edwards that should be sending a cold shiver down Karl Rove's spine right about now:

I don't know about Rove, but clearly Arianna want's a piece of that Golden Boy for herself. Edwards is richer than her last hubby, the Republican, and she already :suck: him dry, every asset from that relationship in her ownership.

Power and Money or Looks and Pinachee? Who would she do, Kerry or Edwards? :gives:

1) He can help Kerry make this campaign about what kind of America we want to live in -- a campaign not just about policies and programs but about our fundamental values as a country. Throughout his primary campaign, Edwards showed an uncanny ability to frame his positions in the language of morality and traditional American values.

"I believe we can build a better life for our families," he said during a Democratic primary debate. "But it has to be based on the values of hard work and responsibility, not accounting tricks and corporate greed. I want to bring your values, the values of Main Street America, to Wall Street and then to Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to give this White House back to the American people."

She moves here from Greece as an adult and marries into money and suddenly she's all about "our" values and Main Street America. Bitch, what the hell do you know about hard work?

This is a linguistic battlefield that has been dominated by the right since the 1960s. Edwards' ability to speak to core American ideals like hard work, fairness, faith and family -- the values that built America -- will help Kerry reclaim key words and concepts like "morality" and "responsibility" from the recklessly irresponsible and grossly immoral GOP.

Blah blah blah so again, being an irresponsible and immoral GOP member for most of her life, she can't speak for values she herself never knew.

It's not by accident that this is the first quality Kerry cited when announcing Edwards as his running mate: "John understands and defends the values of America. He has shown courage and conviction as a champion for middle-class Americans and those struggling to reach the middle class."

Again I'm astounded how any of Kerry, Edwards, or Huffington speak for the Middle Class while spending most their life as anything but.

George Bush wants to define this campaign in terms of right and left. John Edwards will help make sure that it comes down to a discussion of right and wrong.

What a unique and interesting play on words... wow, such a brilliant writer! Aheh.

2) Edwards' core theme of the two Americas -- "one for the powerful insiders, and another for everyone else" -- helps sharpen the differences between the two tickets, and underlines that far from being a uniter George Bush has been the ultimate divider. As Edwards evocatively paints it, Bush has created two school systems, two healthcare systems, two economic systems, two tax systems, and even two systems of government, all designed to benefit "those who never have to worry about a thing" -- and at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Okay here's the thing which I don't understand about Liberals. Kerry and Edwards and Arianna and a host of has been liberal Hollywood elite all run this taxation issue as if they are guilty and willing to self-sacrifice their own wealth in the process of change.

But we're only speaking of one change, that is, to income tax, which they will of course increase for higher brackets.

Now each and every one of these "leaders" of this tax change themselves have a fortune, that is, a wealth ammassed net of taxes and free of any future changes to potential high income earners. None of them speak for their own money, only for income to be earned by others on thier way to wealth. Why do they speak for Liberal "values" when they have none to offer, and why do Liberas let them? Anyone in the Dem party want to answer?

Edwards has also shown a commitment to putting poverty fighting front and center in his campaign, sending a message that dates back to the beginnings of this country: We are all in the same boat together.

-choke- BWAAHAHA! "We are all in the same boat" but Arianna ain't giving up her first class cabin, know what I'm saying?

"I want to take a moment to talk about something you're not hearing presidential candidates talk about enough," he said in his signature stump speech. "The tens of millions of Americans who live in poverty. We pass them on the streets in our cities. They are the families that crowd our shelters and turn to our small-town churches for food. In the America you and I build together, they will be forgotten no more."

Give up your millions and don't tax honest American income, then, or fuck off. That's what I say.

This powerful and patriotic populist vision stands in direct contrast to the "every man for himself" rallying cry of the conservative movement, which is epitomized by Grover Norquist and the Leave-Us-Alone Coalition, founded on a toxic mix of tax cuts and gutted social programs.

Who the fuck? No, seriously, who is this guy, I pay attention to news but this is way off the mainstream. Some personal dig against a guy who pissed you off, huh Arianna? You crazy ho.

As Edwards put it during his presidential run (and will no doubt repeat many times now that he has a much bigger megaphone), "2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas -- one privileged, the other burdened -- has been his agenda all along."

WTF? Didn't you just divide America, Edwards? What the hell do you blame Bush for if you just went ahead and did it already? I'm really confused that this is supposed to make sense? God damn if you are not all idiots.

:gross2:

3) Without wearing it on his sleeve, Edwards' comfort with matters of faith, morality and religion will allow Kerry and the Democrats to make an unabashed appeal to the millions of Americans whose spiritual beliefs are central to their lives.

Oh LOL! Here, take all the really stupid half-assed Christians, you can have them! See, look how the Democrats just adore your beliefs... they will fight for them, promise!


The Bush Republicans have made it clear they believe that God is on their side, blessing everything from the war in Iraq to the president's multitrillion-dollar tax cuts. Edwards' central message of fairness and economic justice puts the question in play: Which is the true political morality? Opposing gay rights and abortion or heeding the biblical admonition "We shall be judged by what we do for the least among us"? During the Democratic debates, Edwards was asked if, like Bush, he felt God is on America's side. He responded by quoting Lincoln, who, when asked in the middle of the Civil War to join in prayer that God is on "our side," replied: "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side."

Oh jeez, like the Democrats are going to argue the bible. Puuuleeez.

Edwards' championing of those left behind will help America reclaim the moral high ground we've abandoned in the last three years.

If those "left behind" translates literally to "Commie assholes" then, sure, he'll fight for them.

4) Edwards can help Kerry ride the wave of idealism that was unleashed after Sept. 11. Rare among populist politicians, Edwards radiates optimism and inspires hope.

What idealism, nuking Afganistan or blaming America for 9-11? Hating Bush? I don't know, what was the optomistic and hopeful "wave" she was talking about from 9-11? Anyone remember?

"This election is not about what we are against," he said before the Iowa primary, "it is about what we are for ... We offer a new beginning for America based on hopes, dreams and endless optimism -- not fear, greed and attack politics."

Saying your not against fear, greed, and attack politics while making this an accusation is not logical. It's just downright embarassing to be so stupid about clearly contradicting oneself in one speech. Or it should be embarassing, to y'all.


This spirit is the perfect antidote to the pessimism the GOP is desperately trying to tag Kerry with. And it doesn't hurt that Edwards has got charm and charisma to burn, is the most natural politician the party has to offer, has a great story of humble beginnings and triumphing over adversity and personal tragedy, and can move an audience to tears with his heartfelt oratory.

Why not a little :suck: to get rid of the :sleep: from this sappy sloppy seconds to Kerry. Kerry needs some pickup too, not just Edwards.

5) Edwards has made a very successful career out of eating folks like Dick Cheney for lunch in courtrooms all across America. He'll know exactly how to wield Halliburton like a stiletto. I give Cheney 30 minutes before he drops his first F-bomb. I can't wait.

Eating Dick or sucking dick, it's all the same to a hoe turned Democrat from Republican once the money situtation was favorable. It's no wonder that she can't wait for the next "Fuck". What am I being lewd? Well she started it.


The Republican attacks on Edwards as "unaccomplished and inexperienced," "out there in left field" and, above all, "Kerry's second choice," sound like wishful whistling past the graveyard. Edwards' selection has not only energized the Democratic base -- which was pretty energized anyway -- it has, more important, the potential to arouse the dormant passion of the 50 percent of eligible voters who have given up on voting.

50 percent undecided? Edwards is not inexperienced or left leaning? Passion in the graveyard? Someone slap some sense into this loon.

The most bizzare claim is that Edwards is "Kerry's second choice"... was there a first choice he was supposed to have chosen? What say this crazy ass Greek harpy? Who's the shadow candidate, herself?

All in all, not a bad payoff for a fallback plan.

What's your plan with Edwards, Arianna?

:ssex:
 

Forum List

Back
Top