Leaving the community

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."

That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
percentage points.

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of
Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

With Barack Obama for VP, of course. Too soon for him to run for Prez. but
he's going to get there sooner or later unless he has an intern problem.

2008 will be a slugfest extraordinaire. First in 50 years that you'll have a
completely open race with neither an incumbent nor VP on either ticket.

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
....snip...
The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

....snip...
My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...

It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:44:52 -0500, "Icebound"
wrote:


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
...snip...
The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

...snip...
My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...

It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...


This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts. For
reasons that I cannot fathom, this country is not even close to being
ready for that scenario. We'll accept female governors, supreme court
justices, CEO's, etc, but not president or vp. We are way behind the
rest of the world in that regard.

Rich Russell

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

Personally, I would want a woman with a distinguished military combat
arms command or intel experience. A woman with either of those
backgrounds would eliminate most arguements.

Richard Russell wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.


Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vOqid.353905$MQ5.219330@attbi_s52...

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Bright? Yes, but that's a morally-neutral statement.

-cwk.

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I think Jean Kirkpatrick could have been elected, possibly in a landslide.
Her "Blame America First" speech created a lot of support for her.

Most democrats I know are HYPOCRITES who espouse public education for everyone
else while they and their descendents enjoy an all expenses paid trip to the
IVY LEAGUE
where they polish their liberal agendas for the "common man".
Greg PP-ASEL-IA