Why is John Kerry and Nancy Polosee the best the democrats can do?

Answer 1

That is THE question the democrats need to answer. There are a ton of Republicans like me who'd really, really like to have a choice in the 2008 election. With Kerry, Polosi, Hillary as the candidates, why would a Republican change parties?

The Democrats have NO DEFINITION. Republicans tend to coelesce around a small cluster of objectives and issues. Democrats are basically just another way of saying "everyone else": they have no message, no objectives, no issues that they all agree on except that they are not Republicans.

In fact, it seems like there really is no Democratic party; it is just an umbrella for a wide, wide range of people who are not Republicans. The democratic party might actually be three or four separate groups that would be much better off independent than forced together.

Partly because of this, they have no plans. They're really good at complaining -- which makes sense; if you don't agree with your fellow Democrats the only thing you CAN agree on is that you don't like what the Republicans are doing which means that the only thing you can do consistently well is complain about them. But beyond that they have nothing to offer. Give us something to work with, guys and gals.

The Dems can do better than Kerry and Polosi. Why would you ever run Kerry again? He's not liked and he's not likeable. He's a whiner. He already lost to someone who may go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. Hillary is just a side-show. Polosi is only suited for Congress; she has not shown she can do much more than badger democrats -- and not too successfully, either -- and yip and yap like an annoying little dog about the Republicans. Howard Dean? Please.

What about Al Gore -- who I now wish I'd voted for in 2000? Where are the guys like Dick Gephardt?

Answer 2

regardless of what others have written consistent with this question, the Demons and the actual nut-activity lefties like Slobbo Moore referred to as W a liar for this invasion. One poster known because it undesirable intel, and that's the story that the well-known public has been given, and especially customary. The legal reasoning for the attack became Iraq's failure to fulfill multiple UN resolutions. united states of america might have been better served by ability of imposing a destruction venture that centred the Iraqi military and infrastructure. on the top of that purpose we ought to consistently have packed up and waltzed on back residing house leaving the carnage for the Iraqi's to freshen up. This act might have effectively castrated Saddam and left different paltry regimes to contemplate if an identical might desire to happen to them. there will be no wins in Iraq or Afghanistan because of the fact faith and a loss of training won't enable it. the US is dropping money and lives by ability of pretending substitute can rather happen there.

Answer 3

I'm a republican but I vote based on the individual running not party lines, and I have to agree. It's just plain scary!

An even better question is, why haven't the republicans taken advantage of this and gotten things done? Why are we fighting illegal aliens, have out of control spending and why can't Bush stand up for himself! The whole thing is screwed up.

Answer 4

Nancy Polosee is an idiot.
She has no idea what is going on.

Answer 5

wow, you have the nerve to ask that question. have you heard your leader speak. preschoolers speak better english then he does. and his policies are a failure and he continues to tell the truth about absolutely nothing. for the kerrry bashers- he sure did outclass and whip your boy george in the debates.

Answer 6

Both parties have some real lightweights running the show.

Answer 7

That's the demoncrats (yes spelled that way on purpose) for you

Answer 8

Because one is a lier and the other one is a wanna bee?

Answer 9

They have to match the competition

Answer 10

Who says they are?

They beat the hell out of any crazy crypto- t Republican.