Kerry hires Mike Dukakis' campaign Manager...

[angus]

Sasso has a pretty impressive resume.  On the other hand, he comes recommended by Terry McAuliffe.  If Kerry had any sense he'd get down on his knees under Bill Clinton's desk and say, "I'll do anything you want me to if you'll help me get elected."  In the end, he won't, and I think that spot may just be occupied by Hillary these days, since she'll need her husband's connections in 2008 after four years of economic growth and prosperity.

click here for more:  http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/04/03/loc_loc1apollkerry.html

Fox version adds a paragraph or two:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116036,00.html

To the NYT he's an afterthought:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/03/politics/campaign/03DONA.html?8br=&pagewanted=all&position=

[angus]

two points.  I'm glad you seconded my observations on clinton.  Obviously as a fairly neutral observer your comments on Clinton will have more weight than mine.  (I'm anything but neutral since I was a two-term Clinton voter, now I'm a Bush supporter.  Being on both sides seems the natural antithesis of being on neither side.)

Secondly, while Democrats and Republicans both like to take credit for the 90s boom (easy enough since both sides controlled just enough of our divided government to do so legitimately), it was gridlock that forced the government out of the way of business and technology.  I have no argument with anything you said.  The Dems made a mistake of keeping him in a box in 2000, and seem set to do so again in 2004.  I'd enjoy a fairer fight.

[angus]

two points.  I'm glad you seconded my observations on clinton.  Obviously as a fairly neutral observer your comments on Clinton will have more weight than mine.  (I'm anything but neutral since I was a two-term Clinton voter, now I'm a Bush supporter.  Being on both sides seems the natural antithesis of being on neither side.)

Secondly, while Democrats and Republicans both like to take credit for the 90s boom (easy enough since both sides controlled just enough of our divided government to do so legitimately), it was gridlock that forced the government out of the way of business and technology.  I have no argument with anything you said.  The Dems made a mistake of keeping him in a box in 2000, and seem set to do so again in 2004.  I'd enjoy a fairer fight.

WE seem to agree that divided government is a good thing, if only to somewhat limit the damage the Washington Village Idiots convention does to the economy...

The House of representatives is so Gerrymandered that out of the 435 seems there are, and this is stretching it, perhaps 25 legitimately competative seats, I don';t think anybody figures the House will go back to the Dems.

With the breakout of the seats, the GOP also seems very likely to hold, if not expand, their lead in the senate.

Given the "divided is good" theory, would not Kerry and 4 years of gridlock be a good thing...?

And if not, why not...

Well, you'd have me cornered, no doubt, if that were my only consideration.  You can rest assured I'll be voting to reelect my congressman, Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), in support of divided government.   And in the spirit of divided government, I wish John Kerry well in the senate, and hope he keeps his seat.  I have mentioned before that I voted to reelect him in '96, and, should I find myself a resident of MA in 2008, I may very well vote to reelect him to that office again, as I feel he is superbly qualified to represent the good people of the commonwealth in the US senate.  Unfortunately, John Kerry's voting record does not recommend him to the office of Commander-in-Chief of our armed services at this time of heightened anxiety regarding foreign affairs.  His contradictory statements regarding Iraq, which I posted in the General board, and his refusal to vote for the 87 billion dollar financing of the occupation, and his neglect of military R&D and maintenance makes it tough for me to support him.  I feel it just isn't a good year to put Kerry in the white house.  Don't get me wrong, I think in a nation of 292970243 people we could have done better than Bush in 2000, but I feel that given that we started an ill-advised invasion of a sovereign nation which has alienated a number of foreign ministries, we'd better see it through.  I'd rather look like a bully than a fool.  Or, as Carol Moseley Braun said, "we broke it so we should fix it."  I think, for me, foreign policy trumps divided government this time around.  Actually, I'm feeling a little flush and I don't think my own finances stand to loose greatly in either case.  Also, I finally broke the six-figure barrier, so the thought of GOP controlling both houses and the presidency doesn't offend me as much as it did ten years ago.  I think Bush will leave off his protectionist experiments once he's re-elected, and now that productivity is well over 4% and holding, congress won't want to play too much.

[angus]

just admit you are pro Bush...come out and say it...it is obvious why are you so afraid to say it.

admitting it is step 1 to recovery

His profile has a Canadian email, so maybe he is able to look at the whole thing without being forced to be pro-this or pro-that.

this is an important point that I tried, unsuccessfully, to make before regarding other foreign posters.  It is entirely appropriate for them not to pick any color, as they are neither R nor D nor DTS nor Other, wrt American politics.  It is also entirely appropriate for them to pick a color, if they want to be open about sympathizing with one group or another.  Picking certain states is a bit off-putting though, and I wish Liep would offer foreigners a way to pick a color without picking a state, since they're obviously not residents.

[angus]

CaliforniaDreamer,
it is possible to be one, or the other, or neither, or both.  For example, you are Red, but you have this fantastic picture of a Republican bimbo who ran for governor.  Nobody asks you, "well, which is it?"  Leave it alone.

[angus]

The Ayn Rand stamp tells me all I need to know.  

[angus]

Yeah, the signature tells you something about the poster, if you only read it.  Given Vorlon's, I'd have guessed Libertarian.  Mine has caused consternation because I had forgotten it's also a line from "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" and had to answer questions about that.  For the record, "Don't Panic" is the title of a Physics textbook.  Lunar's signature is about as telling as it gets.  Opebo's is too, in its own way.  

[angus]

I'd have also guessed smart-aleck.    

[angus]

So Vorlon, are you going to be voting for the Libertarians again this year?

Yup... I waste my vote most years... At least I know I am doing it...

The only wasted vote is a vote not cast.

[angus]

Looks like Bush was in pretty decent shape in Ohio as of last week.  Of course, that was before the Rasmussen Poll showed the Bush collapse nationally over the last couple of days.

When a poll consistantly shows a race frozen for 6 wks and then the bottom falls out, you know there is real movement.  For the first time, I believe Bush is in serious trouble.  So much for good economic news.....Jobs report meant nothing.

I guess its Iraq - the American people are shockingly wimpy about war nowadays.

I'm not sure that's right.  I will vote for Bush but I was a serious and vocal opponent of the Iraq war.  In fact, those who think spending all that money on Iraq was a grand idea will like Bush.  Those who don't split along the lines of the Dean/Kucinich faction (We should bail out now) and the Carole Moseley Braun faction (No, now we're stuck, so let's do it right.  Better to look like bullies than fools.)  I fall more into the latter category.  I'm not sure if there's any data on which group better describes antiwar Republicans.

Bush will rise and fall based on economics, at least that's what 73% of you said, out of 19 respondents to my poll on this forum regarding that exact question.