Sullivan speculates on what would have happened...

by **chiggerbit** » Wed May 10, 2006 12:02 pm

...if Kerry had been elected this past election. It's the exact same thing I've been thinking. It's my opinion that the people who voted for Bush share responsibility with the administration for the mess we are in today because of their gullibility in equating religious affiliation with morality, and for their partisan slackness. When the American public points its finger at corrupt politicians, four fingers on that hand are pointing back at themselves. THEY got what they deserved. Unfortunately, those of us who never voted for these slimes are having to pay the price right along with them. <a href="http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/">time.blogs.com/daily_dish/</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ...One more thought. Can you imagine how battered a president Kerry would have been by now? He'd be stuck with Bush's Iraq mess; he'd be constantly told he's Neville Chamberlain on Iran for doing exactly what Bush has been doing; he'd be ruthlessly attacked by the Hannity right over Teresa, immigration, gays, and any other cultural issue they could exploit. And the GOP would have escaped the responsibility for their fiscal insanity, while Kerry took lumps for raising taxes. As a matter of principle, I do not regret endorsing Kerry. My decision was based on the manifest incompetence and unconservatism of Bush. But in the sweep of history, it is fitting that Bush, for the first time in his entire life, actually face the consequences of his own recklessness. It is also important for conservatives to see up-front what abandoning limited government and embracing fundamentalism leads to: the collapse of a coherent conservatism. There was a silver lining in Bush's re-election: the unsentimental education of conservative triumphalists.<hr></blockquote>

by **Ted the dog** » Wed May 10, 2006 3:45 pm

I kind of thought that back during the 04 elections...that Kerry winning wouldn't be that great a thing, politically speaking. Bush "won", and it's been horrible and disastrous and wretched, no doubt....but at the very least, now he can't be put up on a pedestal as some sort of hero that never made an error. If he had lost, he would have gotten out of there clean, no ties, no closer scrutiny from the majority of Americans that scrutinize him now. Now everyone knows what neo-conservatism can do, has done (and would do again if given the opportunity) to the world. If Kerry had won back in 04 would we be awash in "If only the good ol days of '02/'03 were back! Back when conservatives ruled the roost and everything was great...ahh...those were the days...good ol dubya...he was only here for a short time, and he was the "fixer"...he was the guy that, given just ONE MORE TERM would have fixed everything the clinton administration fucked up..." -type rhetoric? and if we were, would that also mean the danger of some new GOP monster effortlessly grabbing the reins in '08? maybe. who knows? maybe some new GOP monster will still grab the reins in '08 anyway.

by **professorpan** » Wed May 10, 2006 3:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>maybe. who knows? maybe some new GOP monster will still grab the reins in '08 anyway.<hr></blockquote> That monster's name is John McCain. You watch -- if Hillary gets the Democratic nod (and I pray that's not the case), McCain will woo conservative Dems and Republicans en masse with his extremist-in-moderate's clothing shtick. I really, really worry about that scenario.

by **Dreams End** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:09 pm

Kerry wanted to double the number of troops. He was rah rah war all the way. That's why it seems to me the elites really are in some genuine discord here, as why steal an election from someone who wouldn't change things much...no the things that matter, anyway. Yeah, he might let gays marry or something, but still...bombs away.

by **johnny nemo** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:15 pm

I can already envision the annoying talking heads babbling endlessly about.... Is America ready for a woman president? Is John McCain racist? Is Hillary pro-censorship? Personally, I have naght but contempt for both of them, although McCain, at least, has a sense of humor. That shtick he did about how if he was elected president, not only would he NOT fire Alan Greenspan, but, if necessary, would prop his dead body up "ala weekend at Bernies". It was hilarious. Of course, now that Bernanke is running things, it's a moot point.

by **Sepka** » Wed May 10, 2006 4:39 pm

I can't see Kerry (or any plausible candidate) pursuing a substantially different middle eastern policy than Bush's. Kerry would have been free to admit that the initial projections were mistaken, and have been able to massively increase the numbers of ground troops without the political liability that would accrue to Bush if he did that. That alone might have been worth electing him. His style of leadership also seems more acceptable to the Europeans, which would have had value. Personally, I'm hoping for Cheney, McCain or Rice for the next President, in roughly that order. I'm guessing we'll get Rice. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **StarmanSkye** » Wed May 10, 2006 6:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Personally, I'm hoping for Cheney, McCain or Rice for the next President, in roughly that order. I'm guessing we'll get Rice.<hr></blockquote> -- Sepka the Space Weasel Man, what PLANET are you on, Sepka? You say the most astonishing, way-out-there, impossible-to-understand things sometimes. Cheney, McCain or Rice are going to cause even more untold suffering and hardships and needless lives, perhaps ushering in a global catastrophe (if Bush doesn't do it first). Cheney and Rice are about as unAmerican, pro-corporate/military and criminally-aligned as one could imagine. But perhaps America's coming-of-age, learning the lessons of self-reflection, humility, personal/national accountability and integrity is better gained sooner than later, before the point of no return is reached. Anyway, I think America won't be ready for a wise, principled, decent President --and on-board officials-- fully committed to social justice, global peace and international cooperation for at least a generation -- waaay too many Americans think the nation deserves a free-pass for its century+ of neocolonial pillaging and undermining genuine autonomous movements of liberation and self-empowerment, sabotaging democratic legitimacy for the sake of elite power, wealth and privelege. A step in the right direction would be to disband the Republican Party, the CIA and the Pentagon -- they're beyond reform, and have become the elite institutions of opposition to citizen-rule based on equitable rule of law. For 2006, all but a handful of Incumbents have earned the people's respect and deserve to be re-elected to Congress. For 2008, I have little doubt the most principled vote will consist of 'None of the Above.' A mass boycott signalling a Vote of No Confidence would probably be among the most forceful statements the citizens will be capable of, esp. given a thoroughly corrupt and broken election system. Even the Palestinians have much to teach a proud, headstrong, arrogant America something about legitimacy and following the Will of the people. But unfortunately, America seems stubbornly predisposed to follow the dead-wrong legacy of its ham-fisted intereference in the Middle East, notably its criminal, despicable overthrow of Iran's Mossedagh in 1953. Crisis and Catastrophe and violence in the Middle East today are the clearest examples of Blowback there are for any nation exempting itself from the civil obligation to respect International conventions and the rule of law. I fear America has further to go to be humbled by it's leader's conceits and the moral failure of its people to hold them acountable. Hypocrisy can NEVER facilitate the path to peace and justice. Those who either vote for or accomodate opportunistic self-absorbed zealot warmongers will have ample occasion to be thoroughly reviled by their children and future generations for their betraying humanity. Starman

by **Sepka** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You say the most astonishing, way-out-there, impossible-to-understand things sometimes.<hr></blockquote> Basically I think for myself, and don't parrot the cynical peace-at-all-costs agenda that seems to pass for reasoned dissent these days. We need change in this country - that's a fact. There needs to be more emphasis on economic opportunity for the poor and for equal rights for gays. There needs to be free education, and affordable medical care. There most emphatically needs to be massive spending on basic scientific research, and on the exploration and exploitation of space. We ought to not only do these things at home, but encourage them abroad also. However, to focus on any of those things until the threat from militant Islam has been dealt with would be folly. You don't shampoo the carpets while the house is on fire. You deal with the immediate threat first. Cheney et alia would do that, I feel confident. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **Gouda** » Thu May 11, 2006 4:41 am

Cheney has done such a great job with the war on terror, I would vote for him too. However, the <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor05062006.html">Democrats</a> are still happily on <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/sirota05052006.html">board</a> with the <a href="http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STR407A.html">Program</a> and are pretty kickass too (<a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll105.xml">FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 105 - BILL TITLE: To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran - 397 yea, 21 nay</a>), so I am having a hard time deciding. Perhaps a McCain-Cheney or Jeb-Cheney (Cheney, handler of presidents) thing would be just the ticket, but I might just hedge my bets with the <a href="http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051006/news3.html">K-street Lobbyists</a> who are swinging Donkey this year - they know best who will protect and grow their capital during the long war (on terror).

by **stickdog99** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:30 am

Personally, I'm torn between Cheney, Hitler and Satan.

by **sunny** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:56 am

_________________________________________________ We need change in this country - that's a fact. There needs to be more emphasis on economic opportunity for the poor and for equal rights for gays. There needs to be free education, and affordable medical care. _________________________________________________ And how exactly does this set of principles square with wanting Darth Cheney as president? I can see a possible passive tolerance for equal rights for gays, but free education and affordable medical care? You have got to be kidding. Wow. Just wow.

by **greencrow0** » Thu May 11, 2006 12:31 pm

The 2004 election was fixed and a fraud. Even Kerry knew his campaign was doomed. He was blackmailed over his S & B background into silence. The United States is now under the control of a dictatorship in the hands of a fascist cabal. As before wwII, the only way out is to defeat them. Never thought I'd be hoping for Russia, China, et al. The letter from the Iranian President and the non-reaction from the west says it all. The white hats are in the other saloon. We're in the black hat saloon.

Sullivan speculates on what would have happened...

Sullivan speculates on what would have happened...

yeah...

Re: yeah...

Re: yeah...

That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Re: That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Re: That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Re: That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Re: That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Re: That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Re: That's exactly how I see it, prof.

Kerry was never going to be president

Who is online