TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Who will be Kerry's b1tch?
Who will be Kerry's b1tch?
(Vice President)
Hopefully Clark, imo he's the best candidate to come to any political party in the American system in a long time.
Wouldn't be suprised if it is Clark, seeing as how he was the first front runner to submit and support Kerry. I would be happier if it was Edwards though, even though he is the working mans b**ch
I'm still going to hope it is Al Sharpton. 
Ok honestly people. Kerry was like 3 rows behind Fonda 2 years before she went to Hanoi. I've been to war protests, and you're lucky if you know the person next to you, let alone someone 3 rows behind you. I can't believe the right is trying to slam his war service just because he exercised his constitutional right to protest. I guess it just means ya'll are worried 
Sorry for the threadjack, I hope Clark, probably will be other. Clark would also be an awesome secretary of state.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus for a sec I thoguht it said "Florida" instead of "Fonda for some reason... and I was like ya, I guess I could see how the democrates would really want to win Florida - this time solidly considering all that happened to them with that state. on t.: ya I want Sharpton for Vice President, he'll keep the late nigh comics happy - and when they are happy I am happy. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by surferfb Ok honestly people. Kerry was like 3 rows behind Fonda 2 years before she went to Hanoi. I've been to war protests, and you're lucky if you know the person next to you, let alone someone 3 rows behind you. I can't believe the right is trying to slam his war service just because he exercised his constitutional right to protest. I guess it just means ya'll are worried |
I'd say it's either going to be Edwards or a no-name - I don't think it's going to be any of the other candidates. Even if Clark was approached to be VP under Kerry (which I would consider to be unlikely) I doubt he'd take it, given that earlier in the campaign he'd suggested that he was only interested in the presidency, not the vice-presidency (this was just after he entered the presidential race, and the rumours of a Dean/Clark ticket were still around).
Could do worse than a Kerry/Edwards combination though imho. :-/
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade I doubt he'd take it, given that earlier in the campaign he'd suggested that he was only interested in the presidency, not the vice-presidency (this was just after he entered the presidential race, and the rumours of a Dean/Clark ticket were still around). |
bah how couldn't I of seen this sooner..
Hill-avery Clint-Clingon !
Update the poll!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Hill-avery Clint-Clingon ! |
Guess I'm the only one who voted Gephardt. Oh well as long as it isn't Liberman I'll be happy 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rizen Guess I'm the only one who voted Gephardt. Oh well as long as it isn't Liberman I'll be happy |
Tonto, so he can get the Native American vote!
[[[smoke]]]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka That's what they all say. It would be political suicide to stand up and say you're cool going for the VP post b/c that's exactly how seriously the voting public will take you. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus bah how couldn't I of seen this sooner.. Hill-avery Clint-Clingon ! Update the poll! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ Exactly. I hope it's Clark, but it could also be Edwards or Graham from Florida. I have a feeling Clark would be a part of the administration in some way, shape or form. But, if Edwards stays in the race long enough, he could practically force a VP position. Kerry is so boring when he speaks, and has slightly more charisma than Al Gore and a block of wood. *Yawn* Thus he needs somebody like Edwards. |
| quote: |
She's the kiss of death. Please no. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Yea I think a Kerry/Edwards matchup might be unbeatable come November given the latest pollings: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...poll/index.html Oh she most certainly is. I doubt I would ever vote for her |
This is all the more stupid considering the millions of sportsmen angered at Bush for his scorched Earth environmental policies. That�s the only main thing that annoys me about (some) of the democrats, but by and large they will be much better for our civil liberties than Ashcroft.
IIRC Kerry said his VP choice would be Gephardt and vice versa, so hope no one got the idea I actually wanted Gephardt to be VP. I don't want either to be P/VP 
Gephardt is so boring, but of course it would be a tactical move to try and win some of those key Midwestern states that a Northern candidate must win.
The non-urban part of Missouri tends to be quite conservative, but the state has lost some 70,000 jobs in the last 3 or 4 years.
It's hard to imagine the turnout for Bush would be very enthusiastic among many conservatives.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ Gephardt is so boring, but of course it would be a tactical move to try and win some of those key Midwestern states that a Northern candidate must win. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ Obviously if the election were held today the Dems would surely win, but what about in November? I wouldn't be so sure. What are the indicators for the job market saying? Is there any way that even half of those lost jobs could be recreated within the remaining time span until November? Not that I'm at all worried about the "Nascar vote," since only 2 percent of them voted in 2000. GWB reminds me of a bar bubba who wants to go kick everyone's ass that looks at him cock-eyed, so he does appeal to that aesthetic. The question is, will enough of those people go out and vote? Also Kerry is an idiot for saying, �the democratic party shouldn�t be for the NRA.� There goes W. Virginia, and perhaps Arkansas again (even though those are democrat states). This is all the more stupid considering the millions of sportsmen angered at Bush for his scorched Earth environmental policies. That�s the only main thing that annoys me about (some) of the democrats, but by and large they will be much better for our civil liberties than Ashcroft.Also, the democrats have not elected another Northern candidate since 1960. The South still will not easily trust a Northern candidate from either party. This is how you win Nationally: http://www.chandlerforcongress.org/ Endorsed by the NRA, and Sierra Club and LCV. It's not that hard. Catch on already. Chandler's opponent ran as a GWB clone, and she lost badly. Good. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DaveSZ What are the indicators for the job market saying? Is there any way that even half of those lost jobs could be recreated within the remaining time span until November? |
| quote: |
Published on Thursday, Febraury 19, 2004 by Yahoo! News Job Loss, Rising Inequalities Dog Bush Administration by Emad Mekay WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb 18 (IPS) - The wealth gap between the rich and poor and the sluggish job market in the United State are looming as major problems for President George W. Bush (news - web sites) as he campaigns for another term in office, analysts here say. According to the latest figures, the wealth gap has been growing over the past decade, despite a boom in housing and the stock market, while the job situation, another important economic indicator, has also worsened. There is a significant, and growing, wealth gap between lower-income households and the rest of America, said a report released Tuesday by the Consumer Federation of America, Credit Union National Association and the National Credit Union Foundation. Between 1992 and 2001, the net wealth of low-income U.S. households increased by only seven percent--from $6,261 to $6,720. By comparison, the net wealth of all U.S. households increased by 42 percent--from $60,695 to $86,100, said the report. In 2001 the net wealth of the typical poor household was $6,720 compared to $86,100 for the typical U.S. household, a wealth gap of thirteen to one, it added. While the findings are unlikely to feature highly in the ongoing heated debate between Democrats and Republicans in the run-up to the November presidential election, experts say it is likely to have a psychological effect on consumers already worried about job losses. Increasingly the focus in debates between Democratic contenders for Bush's job and between the president and the opposition has been the unemployment rate. Under Bush's presidency, the unemployment rate has shot up from 4.2 percent in 2001 to 5.6 percent now, a 33 percent increase, and above the five percent rate that many economists consider to be the natural jobless rate. The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that at the current rate of job creation it will take two-and-a-half more years just to regain the jobs lost under the current administration. The center also says that Bush could become the first president in more than 70 years to accumulate a net loss of jobs during his term. Today some eight million Americans are out of work. And although Bush told workers this week there is an undeniable sense of economic optimism across the country, a new ABC News/Money Magazine poll found that consumer confidence took its biggest plunge in more than 18 years of polling. On everything from shipping U.S. jobs overseas, to stripping worker protections, to rewarding companies for reducing health benefits for their employees, the Bush administration has racked up a spectacular record of exacerbating the already difficult economic challenges Americans are facing, said the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank founded by members of the administration of former President Bill Clinton. This week, the administration received sharp criticism over its approval of the growing trend of companies relocating U.S. jobs overseas. Many of these firms move their production lines to developing countries, where they profit from cheaper labor cost. Many U.S. technology companies, for example, use Indian tech workers instead of their more expensive U.S. counterparts. Late last week Democratic Senator Tom Daschle introduced a bill that would hamper the offshoring of jobs. The legislation requires any company that plans to lay off 15 or more workers and send those jobs overseas to disclose how many jobs are affected, where the jobs are going and why they are being offshored. Firms would also be required to give dislocated workers three months warning and notify federal and state agencies responsible for helping laid-off workers. Embattled administration economist N. Gregory Mankiw on Tuesday had to defend comments he made last week praising the shipping of jobs abroad as a long-term benefit for the U.S. economy. Economists and non-economists speak two different languages, Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, told the National Economists Club. Republicans, including House of Representatives Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, joined forces with opposition Democrats to criticize Mankiw for describing outsourcing of jobs as a new way of doing international trade. Creating an environment for robust job creation is a paramount goal of the president and his economic team, he added. Bush took the same message last weekend to Florida, a swing state whose votes in 2000 helped put him in the White House. The president said the economy under his watch has become lively, and could be further boosted with tax cuts, one of his favorite economic measures. But Democrats were quick to point out that the President, who promised that tax cuts would create 131,200 jobs in Florida, failed to mention that only 61,800 jobs have emerged, a shortfall of almost 70,000 jobs in the state. Other administration officials followed the same script in early campaigning for the vote. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Labour Secretary Elaine L. Chao, and Small Business Administrator Hector Barreto are now visiting the U.S. northwest, one of the regions hardest-hit by job losses, to promise that their plans will eventually create jobs. On Wednesday, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan stressed Bush's record on job creation. At a press briefing in Washington he told reporters that more than 366,000 jobs were created in the last five months. The unemployment rate continues to decline, he said. It is now at the lowest point it has been in two years, and it is below the average of the '70s, '80s, and '90s. But the U.S. Labor Department reported that only 1,000 jobs were gained in December, far below the expectations of some experts, who had predicted growth of 150,000 posts. The White House on Wednesday refused to repeat forecasts that the administration will be able to add 2.6 million jobs to the economy by the end of this year. When asked whether the White House still stands behind the forecast issued nine days ago by the Council of Economic Advisors, McClellan declined to back the figure. I think that people can debate the numbers all they want, he said. The President is focused on acting on policies to create as robust an environment for job creation as possible, so that we can help those who are hurting because they are looking for work and cannot find a job. The Democrats strongest contender to date for Bush's job, John Kerry, poked fun at the prediction. George Bush is saying he's going to create 2.6 million jobs this year alone--and his advisers are saying, 'what, you didn't actually believe that did you'? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.