Edwards win South Carolina

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Dont Hurt Me, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #1
    Cnn is reporting as is everyone else that John Edwards has won South Carolina's Primary. I think its pretty cool since he has kept to a positive message even from the begining when Dean and the others where attacking each other. Way to go John.:cool:
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    my personal opinion is that edwards is gunning for the VP spot. it'd be a nice southern counterpart to kerry's (e.g.) NE roots.
     
  3. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    The best part of yesterday's results was Lieberman's withdrawal. I can easily support Kerry, Edwards, Clark, or Dean. It does look like Dean needs to win a primary in order to make it to Super Tuesday.
     
  4. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #4
    i don't think i could support clark... i mean, ultimately, i would support him over bush, but something about his two facedness doesn't sit right with me

    i could support any of the other three

    i have liked kerry from the getgo... he was more outspoken about the war than the others prior to the whole primaries thing... of course, dean wouldn't have really been in the news back then, so that's part of it

    anyways, dean can be a little nutty at times, though i like that he looks out of place... makes him more real. down to earth. and kerry has that scary nader like appearance.... which didn't keep me from voting for nader, so who knows. hah

    kerry/edwards would be pretty sweet

    what's encouraging is the numbers about kerry, clark, edwards... all vs bush... from what i saw, any of them would win as it is right now...

    one can hope
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    I think we will see a Kerry Edwards ticket, cant tell you how dissappointed i have become with the Republicans. seems like all they care about is Big business,HMO's and the Defense Dept. What a let down. well we voted them in we can vote them out.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Well don't get too excited over the Democrats either, they'd be spending like the proverbial drunken sailor if they had the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supremes on their side. The best way to stop the spending spree is to have a divided government. Between the WH and Congress, each side has to have control over at least one of them or we get too much of this no-consequences BS.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    What do you know, somebody agrees with me on the divided government thing!
     
  8. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #8
    The worst deficits have come with a republican president/democratic congress: Reagan and Dubya. The best situation (imho) is to have a democratic president and a republican congress. That way the congress won't pass atrocious spending bills and the president can veto atrocious social legislation.
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    most people think bureacracy is a bad thing, but it does serve a purpose: to slow down decision-making.

    had the iraq pre-war crap gone through a proper bureaucracy, we probably could have avoided the whole thing. a rush to judgement is not a good thing. especially in a democracy. doubly-especially when the administration might have a hidden agenda.
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    True it seems a divided Govt is the only way to keep these clowns in check with our money. Republicans had a good opportunity to do some things but they ended up spending like drunken sailors, and still have done nothing about our illegal Mexican freinds sneaking across the border. But they are looking out for those Haliburton executives and those big Pharmaceutical companies and the Oil companies are happy. Meanwhile more and more jobs going overseas. Even the other day i heard someone who had to contact apple on a problem and where talking to someone in India. Seems like they are for everybody except the American worker. Vote their butts out along with George.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Sadly the days of government inaction seem better than the alternative.... But keeping the government divided is a band-aid solution at best.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    The real cure is serious campaign finance reform and a multiparty system -- but for now, I can live with a band-aid.

    I would like to see control of the houses of Congress divided again. Not only would spending be more in hand, we wouldn't have this miserable situation where one party controls the entire legislative agenda. The Democrats can't even call for a Congressional hearing as things stand now, if the results might not be favorable to the Republicans. This is subversive to the cause of democracy.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    As i said before keep this crap up and we will vote all you bastards out. I urge everyone to register and let their vote be heard. Our Govt isnt for the people anymore, its for the special interest and the lobbiest contributing to your campaign or backpocket. Something that i liked about Edwards is when you listen to him he really comes across as careing about people and wanting to put America's people first not the big corporations that are moving our manufactoring base overseas.
     
  14. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #14
    Hidden???
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    some people don't seem to see it, so yeah.
     
  16. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #16
    I think Edwards is more electable than Kerry so I'm voting for him. Plus he is a very good speaker though any of dem would be fine with me.
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    I voted for him, when he talks it sounds like its from the heart, not political spin,party propaganda,etc. when Kerry was attacking Dean when Dean was the leader Edwards was talking a positive message and didnt go down that road. after the Dean screaming Kerry and all the others changed their face but Edwards didnt have to. I like Kerry but he seems like such a darn politician and i hate that crap. Kerry has taken more special interest money then half of congress so this means he is a insider. I would rather an outsider run the Whitehouse. Edwards seems down to Earth.
     
  18. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    Edwards is the best public speaker I've heard since Clinton at his best. It is easy to see how he was a very effective trial lawyer. I'm very impressed how he connects to average working people and speaks to issues of jobs and economic dislocation on a almost personal level.

    That's the good side of Edwards. I do have some concerns. I don't like his position on Iraq (his vote for the resolution and he says little of what he will do to end the war.) I'm very uncomfortable with his position on the Patriot Act (as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he authored part of it.) And lastly, his lack of foreign policy experience and military service make me wonder about his ability to take Bush on about foreign policy questions.

    I agree Kerry is an "old style" politician. He has spent an awful lot of time on Capitol Hill and that is never a plus with many voters. He maybe the best compromise candidate for the Democrats and I will happily support him warts and all.

    For me Clark is the most intriguing of the candidates, but he has shown his flaws as a new politician. Being an outsider to politics is good as long as you don't show you don't know how to play the game. He has done that too many times and that might cost him a shot at the nomination. He must win Tennessee or Virginia and make a strong showing, if not win, in Wisconsin. Unfortunately for the Democrats, he maybe the candidate with the best chance of defeating Bush, but an increasingly small chance at getting the nomination.

    Dean's campaign is in such a shambles it is hard to see how he can turn it around. Saturday's race in Washington and Wisconsin will show a lot about whether he can right the ship and get through to California. He has a chance to win here if he does well in the the former two races.

    edit: triva question for today - Kerry would be the first person in a long time to win the White House (assuming that he is succesful) to do so as a sitting Senator. Who was the last person to do so?
     
  19. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #19
    we've seen mixed results from Senators from MA. 1960 was a win. '68 (transplanted to NY) ended in tradgegy though he was in the lead and 1980 was a bust. [spelling]

    I think Edwards/Clark would be a can't lose ticket. That's what I most care about at this point. I'm an ABB. Let's all decide to vote for Edwards!
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    JFK. And what do you know, he was from Massachusetts. Does lightening strike twice in American politics?
     
  21. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    25 brownie points IJ! I hope lightning does indeed strike twice if Kerry is the nominee.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Now that Gephardt's out of the race, my sister has managed to get her bad self down to Virginia where she is now employed by the Clark campaign. Her impressions of it are not good. Apparently is is highly disorganized, with tons of money being wasted left and right. She's getting paid to go to bars and hand out Clark material for pete's sake. Anyway, regardless of how you feel about Clark as a candidate, her opinion is that his ship is sinking fast, and he won't be around much longer. It looks to me like his late entry into the race has been a major problem, even with the blessing of the Clintons and a large number of Clinton's staff working at high levels of his campaign, many of the top organizational people had gone to different campaigns already, and Clark was left to some extent with a 'B' team.
     
  23. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #23
    maybe I was too subtle.
     
  24. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #24
    Not as subtle as the Republicans are going to be when they tear into his long record. They have a lot of things to bring up on his voting record and defense. In fact Kerry wanted to kill almost every major weapon system the pentagon has wanted. Im not for the Defense Dept running everything but they have needed some of these weapons that Kerry voted no on. He is a greasy politician but no less greasy then George.
     
  25. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    "No less" greasy? I can't think of a man that defines greasy sleaze as much as GW Bush. You can't listen to anything he says, because it's invariably the opposite of what he does or will do.
     

Share This Page