1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas, but yes, the name certainly did lend to his viablity.Originally posted by Busyman@12 August 2004 - 09:01
1. No, but it was convenient. Clinton, who was vastly popular, couldn't run again. What better timing. Bush wasn't drafted but "attributes" make a candidate attractive. Bush's name was one. Kerry's military service record is another.
2. Most likely. I like Edwards also. He's a very good choice (now) for VP.
3. Once we arrive at the Dem or Republican candidates, they are both propped up. Before Dean wigged out, I heard little mention of Kerry as the front runner; especially with his stance on the war differing from most of the Democrats.
We get the Conventions which are a big ball sucking festival. I watched Clinton talk and that was it.
He didn't start as one of my faves, and he still isn't, but I feel that 9/11 changed the landscape to an extent none of us will be able to gauge with any degree of accuracy for years to come.
I see Kerry as a pre-9/11 business-as-usual type of Democrat, with nothing more than a nodding acquiescence to the current circumstances; he seems to think that "Tried and True" methodologies will carry the day for the U.S.
I don't agree.
2) Dean is an idiot.
If he had become the candidate, I think the Republican landslide would out outpaced Reagan's 1984 win over Mondale.
Edwards speaks well, which I attribute to his legal training and experience, however, I would urge you to pay very close attention to any forthcoming debates between he and Mr. Cheney.
Edwards is gonna get smoked.
3) Kerry would have risen to the top of the Democrat heap sooner or later; it happened sooner due to the Dean scream.
As to the conventions, I agree totally, however I will watch the Republican convention 'cuz I'm shopping candidates for -08.
Mitt Romney looks good from here, but time will tell.
You never know; maybe Jeb Bush will run.
Bookmarks