LOL!!! House Democrats choose Hoyer

Originally Posted by oracle80

Are you truly ****ing serious? You can't possibly be.
The Dems have been rooting against the war hoping to get back to pwer with its failure. Nothing like rooting for deaths of American soldiers to make me wanna sing "America the Beautiful"
The repub is right. For all the nonsense and propaganda the Dems just spread, the fact that the first thing they attempt to do in house is embarrasing to them shows they have no united party ideals or structure makes some folks realize that maybe the "vote on the war" should have been examined against exactly what you were voting for, rather than just against. It also showed that they haven't learned a ****ing thing in 12 years on the sidelines, and with 6 since having any control of the agenda whatsoever.

NO Sh it Sherlock. Some Demo's relished our failure. Sick.
Read the post.
And if you dont think the Republicans act the same way... the swamp land thing buddy, I got more than an acre for you. A few good people on both sides but mostly a bunch of hacks that have more ability to get reelected than to make good policy. Dont fool yourself and think Republicans have some leg up.

Kerry is a goner.

Its Hillary. She is smart, shes got ideas, and has done some incredibly Republican type things with the business community in New York. She can buck the often-times outrageously unworkable policy the Demos try.

Its McCain. He speaks his mind and can go against Republican stupidity and not get hurt. He is as close to an independent as one can get. These may be the two most electable people from both sides at present.

[Danzig]

mccain, edwards, kerry, gore. all losers in past races. if they really had what it took, they'd have been elected. far as i can remember, only bush one and nixon had failed campaigns and got elected later. bush benefitted from reagan choosing him as his running mate, altho historically vp's are no shoo-in.

the eventual winner may not even have his name in circulation right now. it's not as tho clinton was a household name when he decided to run.

hillary has a lot of baggage. a ton, and i'm just not sure that she can win a national election.
obama imo doesn't have enough experience.
i can't believe it's two years out and we're already discussing this.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

mccain, edwards, kerry, gore. all losers in past races. if they really had what it took, they'd have been elected. far as i can remember, only bush one and nixon had failed campaigns and got elected later. bush benefitted from reagan choosing him as his running mate, altho historically vp's are no shoo-in.

the eventual winner may not even have his name in circulation right now. it's not as tho clinton was a household name when he decided to run.

hillary has a lot of baggage. a ton, and i'm just not sure that she can win a national election.
obama imo doesn't have enough experience.
i can't believe it's two years out and we're already discussing this.

i agree completely with your assessment. Most of the names being thrown around now are losers not capable of winning a general national election.

As far as not believing that we are discussing it? I'm not surprised at all.
This is a board where the day after BC day we start discussing the Kentucky Derby. It's never too early!!