Politics > Politics-USA > Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"abdul rahim" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2003 10:47:43 PM |
| Object: |
Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
Too bad the Democraps are reduced to running a bunch of Senators, a
defeated House minority leader, and an out-of-office governor of a
puny state.
The decimation of Democratic governors occurred as POTUS 1993-2001
consumed the party to save himself. Governors have always been the
bench from which Presidential material has emerged---the only Senator
in historical memory to become Pres. was JFK. Too bad that POTUS
1993-2001 cared only for himself and not a ***** about his party's
future. Ever since his self-centered reign, the big states of NY, CA,
FL, and TX have kept or chosen GOP governors. RFK's daughter couldn't
even maintain a 34-year stranglehold on the Maryland statehouse. The
"promising" governor of Georgia was tossed out, first Democrat to
lose since Reconstruction.
Clinton himself came from the ranks of Demo governors who have paid
the price for their party's adoration of their worthless leader. Now
what possible Demo governors could be Presid. contenders? Richardson
of the 5 electoral votes? Granholm, she who was born in Canada?
Rendell and Blagojevich run big states, but you don't hear a PEEP from
them.
That's why the Demos are stuck with VERY-small-state Howard McGovern.
.
|
|
| User: "George Grapman" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero,POTUS 1993-2001 |
30 Nov 2003 11:13:33 PM |
|
|
abdul rahim wrote:
Too bad the Democraps are reduced to running a bunch of Senators, a
defeated House minority leader, and an out-of-office governor of a
puny state.
The decimation of Democratic governors occurred as POTUS 1993-2001
consumed the party to save himself. Governors have always been the
bench from which Presidential material has emerged--
1948
Truman-Senator before becoming VP
Dewey- Governor
1952-1956
Eisenhower- military
Stevenson-Governor
1960-
Kennedy-Senator
Nixon-senator before becoming VP
1964
Johnson-Senator
Goldwater-Senator
1968-
Nixon-Senator before becoming V-P
Humphrey-Senator
1972-
McGovern-Senator
1976-
Carter-Governor
Ford- Representative before becoming VP
1980-
Reagan-Governor
1984-
Mondale-senator before becoming VP
1988-
Bush-Representative
Dukakis-Governor
1992-
Clinton-Governor
1996-
Dole-Senateor
2000
Bush-Governor
Gore-Senator before becoming VP
As you can see there is hardly a preponderance of governors but it
appears that you used all of your brain cells in cursing and so cleverly
misspelling Democrat.
-the only Senator
in historical memory to become Pres. was JFK. Too bad that POTUS
1993-2001 cared only for himself and not a ***** about his party's
future. Ever since his self-centered reign, the big states of NY, CA,
FL, and TX have kept or chosen GOP governors. RFK's daughter couldn't
even maintain a 34-year stranglehold on the Maryland statehouse. The
"promising" governor of Georgia was tossed out, first Democrat to
lose since Reconstruction.
Clinton himself came from the ranks of Demo governors who have paid
the price for their party's adoration of their worthless leader. Now
what possible Demo governors could be Presid. contenders? Richardson
of the 5 electoral votes? Granholm, she who was born in Canada?
Rendell and Blagojevich run big states, but you don't hear a PEEP from
them.
That's why the Demos are stuck with VERY-small-state Howard McGovern.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete one c from paccbell
.
|
|
|
| User: "abdul rahim" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
01 Dec 2003 01:44:55 PM |
|
|
who among all those politicians was a SITTING senator and became prez?
only JFK.
and a whole bunch of nominated losers on that list too, like dole.
it's nearly impossible to come off as a tough executive when you're a
compromised legislator with several thousand votes. but POTUS
1993-2001 let his party's bench of governors be exterminated.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NotBush2004" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
30 Nov 2003 11:27:26 PM |
|
|
abdul rahim wrote:
Too bad the Democraps are reduced to running a bunch of Senators, a
defeated House minority leader, and an out-of-office governor of a
puny state.
The decimation of Democratic governors occurred as POTUS 1993-2001
consumed the party to save himself. Governors have always been the
bench from which Presidential material has emerged---the only Senator
in historical memory to become Pres. was JFK. Too bad that POTUS
1993-2001 cared only for himself and not a ***** about his party's
future. Ever since his self-centered reign, the big states of NY, CA,
FL, and TX have kept or chosen GOP governors. RFK's daughter couldn't
even maintain a 34-year stranglehold on the Maryland statehouse. The
"promising" governor of Georgia was tossed out, first Democrat to
lose since Reconstruction.
Clinton himself came from the ranks of Demo governors who have paid
the price for their party's adoration of their worthless leader. Now
what possible Demo governors could be Presid. contenders? Richardson
of the 5 electoral votes? Granholm, she who was born in Canada?
Rendell and Blagojevich run big states, but you don't hear a PEEP from
them.
That's why the Demos are stuck with VERY-small-state Howard McGovern.
Dean will make a better president than Bush.
The Democrats and liberals have a problem with discipline and organization.
They think the right will fight fairly, FL 2000 should have killed that
delusion, unfortunately it doesn't appear so.
Politics ebb and flow. We can only hope the US and the world for that matter
survive this rightwing blitzkrieg.
--
"Iraq is a rallying cause for al-Qaida - it's allowed them to attract new
recruits," said Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the
Congressional Research Service, the think tank for the House and Senate.
"This was an organization that was under enormous pressure. Iraq has put
new wind in its sails, definitely."
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
01 Dec 2003 05:47:20 AM |
|
|
"NotBush2004" <notbush@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:3fcad14c$0$60262$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
abdul rahim wrote:
Too bad the Democraps are reduced to running a bunch of Senators, a
defeated House minority leader, and an out-of-office governor of a
puny state.
The decimation of Democratic governors occurred as POTUS 1993-2001
consumed the party to save himself. Governors have always been the
bench from which Presidential material has emerged---the only Senator
in historical memory to become Pres. was JFK. Too bad that POTUS
1993-2001 cared only for himself and not a ***** about his party's
future. Ever since his self-centered reign, the big states of NY, CA,
FL, and TX have kept or chosen GOP governors. RFK's daughter couldn't
even maintain a 34-year stranglehold on the Maryland statehouse. The
"promising" governor of Georgia was tossed out, first Democrat to
lose since Reconstruction.
Clinton himself came from the ranks of Demo governors who have paid
the price for their party's adoration of their worthless leader. Now
what possible Demo governors could be Presid. contenders? Richardson
of the 5 electoral votes? Granholm, she who was born in Canada?
Rendell and Blagojevich run big states, but you don't hear a PEEP from
them.
That's why the Demos are stuck with VERY-small-state Howard McGovern.
Dean will make a better president than Bush.
Only if he can manage somehow to get the people to vote for him. He now
trails behind Bush by 9 points. His puny web site (which was ballyhooed by
Dean supporters as showing how "in touch" Dean is) has only been able to
collect 1/10th as many supporters and email addresses as Bush's web site
has. And the picture Matt Drudge ran this weekend of Dean was priceless -
Dean's face was twisted with anger and hatred. But yes, that IS the face of
today's Democrat Party.
.
|
|
|
| User: "White Rhino" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
01 Dec 2003 12:35:01 PM |
|
|
Bushy's web site has so many more E mails because people
like you are doubling up the addresses to give the illusion that
he has a lot supporters, in actuality you and several other
Republicans are running so scarred and humiliated over the imminent defeat
of American forces in Iraq, you are resorting
to desperate, and futile may I add, means to support a dying
Government who has not had this type of un-popularity since
Nixon. With a deficit, a lost war, and aggrovating the middle east, this
could be one of the worst regimes in American history, maybe even the death
of the Republican party......
BW <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in article
<8TFyb.273806$ao4.943133@attbi_s51>...
"NotBush2004" <notbush@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:3fcad14c$0$60262$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
abdul rahim wrote:
Too bad the Democraps are reduced to running a bunch of Senators, a
defeated House minority leader, and an out-of-office governor of a
puny state.
The decimation of Democratic governors occurred as POTUS 1993-2001
consumed the party to save himself. Governors have always been the
bench from which Presidential material has emerged---the only Senator
in historical memory to become Pres. was JFK. Too bad that POTUS
1993-2001 cared only for himself and not a ***** about his party's
future. Ever since his self-centered reign, the big states of NY, CA,
FL, and TX have kept or chosen GOP governors. RFK's daughter
couldn't
even maintain a 34-year stranglehold on the Maryland statehouse. The
"promising" governor of Georgia was tossed out, first Democrat to
lose since Reconstruction.
Clinton himself came from the ranks of Demo governors who have paid
the price for their party's adoration of their worthless leader. Now
what possible Demo governors could be Presid. contenders? Richardson
of the 5 electoral votes? Granholm, she who was born in Canada?
Rendell and Blagojevich run big states, but you don't hear a PEEP
from
them.
That's why the Demos are stuck with VERY-small-state Howard McGovern.
Dean will make a better president than Bush.
Only if he can manage somehow to get the people to vote for him. He now
trails behind Bush by 9 points. His puny web site (which was ballyhooed
by
Dean supporters as showing how "in touch" Dean is) has only been able to
collect 1/10th as many supporters and email addresses as Bush's web site
has. And the picture Matt Drudge ran this weekend of Dean was priceless
-
Dean's face was twisted with anger and hatred. But yes, that IS the face
of
today's Democrat Party.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoettaB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
01 Dec 2003 03:36:53 PM |
|
|
"White Rhino" <WhiteRhino@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01c3b839$e7c80d40$3a56059a@carlin1...
Bushy's web site has so many more E mails because people
like you are doubling up the addresses to give the illusion that
he has a lot supporters, in actuality you and several other
Republicans are running so scarred and humiliated over the imminent defeat
of American forces in Iraq, you are resorting
to desperate, and futile may I add, means to support a dying
Government who has not had this type of un-popularity since
Nixon. With a deficit, a lost war, and aggrovating the middle east, this
could be one of the worst regimes in American history, maybe even the
death
of the Republican party......
Actually, Bush makes Nixon look good.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "BW" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
01 Dec 2003 12:39:13 PM |
|
|
"JoettaB" <joetta_l_bragg@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L6edndqz5uPRF1ai4p2dnA@wideopenwest.com...
Actually, Bush makes Nixon look good.
And Bush makes Gore and Dean look bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoettaB" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is there no Democratic presidential bench? ---blame your hero, POTUS 1993-2001 |
03 Dec 2003 12:05:50 PM |
|
|
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lVLyb.381870$Tr4.1118892@attbi_s03...
"JoettaB" <joetta_l_bragg@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L6edndqz5uPRF1ai4p2dnA@wideopenwest.com...
Actually, Bush makes Nixon look good.
And Bush makes Gore and Dean look bad.
You wish! lol
Hell, Bush would make the devil himself look like a saint in comparison.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
