Talk Elections

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/33033.htm

October 31, 2004 --  THIS campaign is ending just in time before someone gets hurt. John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents - 'our enemies' - of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.'" Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, "One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state." Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel's "amen corner" in Congress.

This Heinz guy is great! Hilarious.  Bush may not actually be a user anymore, but once an addict, always an addict. 

Well, does Hienz buy cocaine?

If my mother was like his witch mother.....coke would be a relief!!!!!!!!

He may run for Senator of PA in 2006.

Mick,

Take that signature down, now please.

Hell no.  Ic ould complain about your Confederate signatures as well.

Santorum is no nazi you moron.

Just like Wallace wasn't a racist/segregationist.  Come on!

Will he be buying Coke then?

All I have to say is Chris Heinz will beat Prick Snaotrum's ass in 2006.  The effects of Bush's cokehead days haven't woen off yet.  His brain is still fried.

ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HEINZ takes over the FECKLESS CRAPWEASEL award today from fern.

This campaign is really bringing all the assholes out of the woodwork.  Curiously, they all seem to be democrats.

Newsflash- F-U-C-K YOU!!!!!!

Patrick,

I know you are a decent guy, but it seems to me that you have been in a race to be the most beneith yourself lately.

I took insult to that!

Irish you should be banned.

Why???

You shouldn't drop the "F" bomb on here.  You are usually argumentative and substantive on here but never abusive or vulgar to that extent.

I have to agree.  I have no real problem with your signature and you are not vulgar.  Please, keep it clean.  That post proves the point that the idiots are coming out of the woodwork.

 that :)

He may run for Senator of PA in 2006.

I think he'd beat Santorum pretty easily.

Why don't you tell that to Ron Klink (clank, clunk).

hey, relosetobush04, stuff it.

ALERT!!!!!ALERT!!!!!!!!!

RELOSETOBUSH04 has our last worthless CRAPWEASEL award of this election cycle.

ALERT!!!!!!!ALERT!!!!!!!

Why don't you tell that to Ron Klink (clank, clunk).

Klink had a tough time as a western PA Democrat against a pretty solid conservative in Santorum.  Going up against Heinz, who has looks, name, and money would be entirely different.  And if his step-father is president, that would help.  Santorum may be vulnerable as he can no longer be considered a pro-life candidate, thanks to his support of Specter against Toomey.  I used to like Santorum a lot,  was glad to give money to his campaign, and met him.  But he's lost my vote.  Republicans have been disappointing lately.

You better wait until you see how Bush does in the "T."  Klink was one of the more conservative Democrats out there.  Heinz won't do it.

You better wait until you see how Bush does in the "T."  Klink was one of the more conservative Democrats out there.  Heinz won't do it.

The T?  What is that?  I remember the Democrats thinking Klink had a shot because he was a conservative Democrat, a hope that quickly faded.  But circumstances change.  I don't know much about Heinz and whether he even wants it.  But he may be too young.  He would probably be better off waiting for Specter to step down and run for the open seat.

Yeah......he's pretty much a nazi.

The "T" is the state, exclusive of the Greater Pittsburgh and Greater Phila area.  Look at a map of PA and you will see.

Heinz is probably too liberal to run.

Heinz is wacko. He'd get 30% against Santorum.

Hey Shankbear, in the words of Dick Cheney "go  yourself"

Um..no..links? cites? proof?

My the Bushies seem to be cranky. Do you think they've figured out that GWB is gonna lose tomorrow?

BTW Cheney told Leahy "go  yourself"

RELOSETOBUSH04.........Feckless Crapweasel......live it....love it....be it.

Santorum kicks his rich little fanny.  Tough when you're step dad is the disgraced junior senator from Massachusets.

Well that disgraced junior senator is about to whoop the sitting Republican president.

First, WILL YOU ALL PLEASE WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE.

Second, Hienz is "Little Lord Fantleroy," and Santorum already kicked one of these effete types out of the Senate, Harris Wofford.

What makes one effete? Dealing with the complexities of reality?

Actually one characteristic is living in a fantasy world like you, DefectiveInfest.

Well, just an opinion obviously--"proof" not available. Here's a good example, though.

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL

Hey Cheney had to have said that at one point of time too lol. F off. F yourself same thing right