newspaper: RE: [Anti_Bush_Database] *the point is that we DID run three liberals, and lost*

Not really shunk, I believe he is saying we all get what we sow.

Jude

From: Anti_Bush_Database@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Anti_Bush_Database@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ShunkW
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 6:55 PM
To: Anti_Bush_Database@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Anti_Bush_Database] *the point is that we DID run three liberals, and lost*

According to your theory they will get what they want.....

jerseyshoreweb@optonline.net wrote:

the democrats are only getting what they deserve

----- Original Message -----
From: Jude
Date: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:10 pm
Subject: RE: [Anti_Bush_Database] *the point is that we DID run three liberals, and lost*
To: Anti_Bush_Database@yahoogroups.com, 4UnitedWeStand@yahoogroups.com, impeachbush@yahoogroups.com, issuesonline_worldwide@yahoogroups.com, 'Outofthe FryingPan' , SECULARHUMANIST@yahoogroups.com, 'american-politics'

> But democrats are well divided now so say sig Heil to McCain.
>
>
>
> Jude
>
> _____
>
> From: Anti_Bush_Database@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Anti_Bush_Database@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy
> tomfornewsSent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2:37 PM
> To: 4UnitedWeStand@yahoogroups.com; impeachbush@yahoogroups.com;
> issuesonline_worldwide@yahoogroups.com; Anti Bush; Outofthe FryingPan;
> SECULARHUMANIST@yahoogroups.com; american-politics
> Subject: [Anti_Bush_Database] *the point is that we DID run
> three liberals,
> and lost*
>
>
>
> If the Democrats do not unite behind a candidate,
>
> the next president will be John"Panama Jack" McCain.
>
> He advocates 100 more years in Iraq, and
>
> he has stated that he does not understand the economy.
>
>
>
> Think people, Think.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Tommy
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: hapi22
>
> Date: Mar 13, 2008 7:27 PM
> Subject: [Democrats_2008] *the point is that we DID run three flaming
> liberals, and lost*
> To: undisclosed-recipients
>
>
>
> The Obama supporters are living the happy high-life usually
> reserved for
> Republican candidates.
>
> Think back to the presidential election in 2000. Which candidate
> was the
> media's darling then? George W. Bush.
>
> And which candidate was the target of media ridicule,
> defamation, scorn and
> bashing? Al Gore.
>
> Think back to the 2004 presidential election and try to recall which
> candidate got the favorable press? George W. Bush.
>
> And which candidate got the scorn, ridicule, and bashing
> treatment? John
> Kerry.
>
> I always seem to be on the side of the candidate getting the
> scorn, ridicule
> and bashing treatment, and I still am this year. But for the Obama
> supporters, they are at last on the same side as the very press
> corps that
> swooned over the "manliness" and "authenticity" of George W.
> Bush, in two
> elections, and Ronald Reagan, in two elections.
>
> I am sure -- no, I know -- it is more fun and a happier day when
> one can
> open a newspaper or turn on the TV news and hear nice things,
> protectivethings about one's candidate. So, it must be nice to
> be part of the same
> club that installed Bush in the White House, twice, and
> installed Saint
> Ronnie in the White House, twice. As the media people put it --
> Bush and
> Reagan were "real" men, "Marlboro" men, "authentic" men,
> "optimistic" men,
> "big smile" men, and their Democratic opponents were not.
>
> So, Obama supporters, I'm glad for you that you have this same
> adoring press
> corps swooning over Your Boy the same way they swooned over
> George W. Bush
> (another "uniter" who assured us he would "reduce the
> partisanship" in
> Washington) and Saint Ronnie (who said it is "morning in
> America"). But
> this same press corps also loves John McCain -- "Mr. Straight
> Talker" and
> "Mr. Straight Shooter" -- so who knows how they will divide
> their "love" in
> November.
>
> In 1972, the most activist liberals in the Democratic Party
> wanted and got
> George McGovern as the Party's presidential nominee because he
> was "for" all
> the values we Democrats cherish. McGovern ran on a platform
> that advocated
> withdrawal from the Vietnam War in exchange for the return of American
> prisoners of war, and amnesty for draft evaders who had fled the
> country.The problem for McGovern came to be that while the
> Democratic left really
> liked him, the great majority of Americans did not. McGovern, a
> thoroughlynice, decent, smart and brave man (and a
> liberal/populist), was exactly
> right for the leftwing of the Democratic Party but he apparently
> was not
> what the great majority of Americans wanted. Mr. McGovern lost
> the electoral
> vote by 520 to 17 (till then, the second worst defeat in American
> presidential history); his only two electoral vote victories
> came in
> Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. (McGovern didn't even win his
> own state
> of So. Dakota.)
>
> 1972 is the year when at least some of the Democratic Party's
> leaders began
> to think there had to be a way to bring some rational thinking
> to the
> nominating process, so that the country might elect a Democrat
> as president
> again. After President Carter failed to win re-election in 1980
> (he lost to
> Ronald Reagan), the Party leaders understood that nominating
> someone who
> appealed to the most left-leaning part of the Democratic Party
> was not a
> sure bet for getting a Democrat elected president. (And so,
> superdelegateswere created to be the "cooling saucer.") From
> the time Richard Nixon first
> won the presidency in 1968 (when Nixon defeated Hubert
> Humphrey), until Bill
> Clinton was elected in 1992 (a 24-year period), we had a
> Democrat in the
> White House for only four of those years. The Republicans had
> started to
> believe the White House BELONGED to them.
>
> For most if not all of those years, the press corps accepted
> this notion.
>
> Here's how it went as the Democrats nominated the most liberal
> Democratsyear after year after year -- and lost.
>
> 1968 - Hubert Humphrey - liberal (lost)
> 1972 - George McGovern - liberal/populist (lost)
> 1976 - Jimmy Carter - liberal conservative (won)
>
> "On human rights, civil rights and environmental quality, I
> consider myself
> to be very liberal. On the management of government, on openness of
> government, on strengthening individual liberties and local
> levels of
> government, I consider myself a conservative. And I don't see
> that the two
> attitudes are incompatible."
> -Jimmy Carter
>
> 1980 - Jimmy Carter (lost)
> 1984 - Walter Mondale - liberal (lost)
> 1988 - Michael Dukakis - moderate (lost)
> 1992 - Bill Clinton - liberal centrist (won)
>
> "When we put aside partisanship, embrace the best ideas
> regardless of where
> they come from and work for principled compromise, we can move
> America not
> left or right, but forward."
> -Bill Clinton
>
> "The choice we offer is not conservative or liberal. In many
> ways its not
> even Republican or Democratic. Its different. Its new. And it
> will work."
> -Bill Clinton
>
> 1996 - Bill Clinton - liberal centrist (won)
> 2000 - Al Gore - centrist (lost)
> 2004 - John Kerry - liberal centrist (lost)
>
> Many may not agree with the political labels I have written
> here; I'm not
> entirely sure of them myself. But the point is that we DID run three
> flaming liberals: Humphrey, McGovern and Mondale and not one of
> them got
> even close to the presidency. That may account for the fact that
> in recent
> years, Democrats have shied away from the "liberal" label and describe
> themselves as progressives or centrists.
>
> Carter and Clinton quotes are from: http://www.independ
>
> entnation.org/centrist_quotes.htm
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> ----------------
>
>
>
> --
> Together, We Can Change The World, One Mind At A Time!
> Have a great day,
> Tommy
>
>
>
>