A Republican friend of mine made a great point today (2008)...

[nickshepDEM]

"The modern Democratic party, always searching for that next JFK and never the next FDR. Image over substance."

Does this quote make any sense to you? Because it really hit home with me.

And no, Im not using this quote to push my candidate (Mark Warner). I actually believe Russ Feingold fits this mold pretty well.

[AX10]

1. Bullshit! The GOP is always looking for another "Reagan"

Tell your "friend" that.

:eyes:

[rfranklin]

11. A gracious airhead?

Propped up by all the weasels like Rove and Cheney and Negroponte, etc.

[acmavm]

25. And Reagan was an evil rotten selfish petty senile piece of shit.

.

[democracyindanger]

2. Makes no sense to me

Besides, we already had the next FDR from '92-'00.

[trumad]

3. Image over substance

Are you implying that Senator Kerry and John Edwards had no subtance. Bullshit!

[Enquiringkitty]

4. In the election of 2000 the people of America voted for image and

we got bush over a man of substance. I hope they have learned something from it.

[Greeby]

5. Hmm

JFK was such a threat to the warmakers that they had him killed. If that's not substance, I don't know what is.

[emulatorloo]

6. Gore and Kerry are pretty damn substantial -- Reagan, Bush not so much

EOM

[RobertSeattle]

7. Oh Pulease

George Bush is all image.

Faux Ranch
Faux "Career" that made him a mutli-millionaire
Faux National Guard Service
Faux Christian if you think it takes works to be a true Christian.
Faux "Hero" of 911

[Cocoa]

8. he has hit the nail on the head

George W. Bush beat Al Gore and John Kerry because he was so much more SUBSTANTIAL than those two flambyoant fakers. :sarcasm:

[marmar]

10. The really sarcastic part of that is...

that Bush beat Al Gore and John Kerry.

[gumby]

17. That all depends on what 'beat' means.

Bush was NEVER elected by the voters. The Supreme Court and the Voting Machines may have 'beaten' the voters on George's behalf, but George never "beat" anyone on his own.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. If the fokkers could elect this.... they would... come to think of it,

they already have....

[skids]

12. * is beside the point, here.

What repugs vote for is beside the point... it's what Independents will vote for. Personally I think Kerry had a good level of substance, but the question does remain:

Do the Dems pick candidates that the Independents think are "all image, no substance?"

[djg21]

13. From the party that . . .

gave us the Potemkin Cowboy President, complete with a faux-ranch and rented livestock, and Ronald Reagan, a B-list actor who napped through his two terms in office, this is ironic. That being said, both parties are equally guilty of this.

[snowbear]

14. I don't agree with your friend.. but I do think voters are more likely

..to go for a center of the road Democrat than for an extremely liberal candidate in 2008. According to the polls we see.. it just seems to be a fact of life right now. :shrug:

And I know a lot of people cringe at that thought, but personally.. I just want to see a DEMOCRAT elected in 2008. If we're going to lose with a Kerry or a Kucinich, then I'll take a centrist Democrat over another Republican ANY DAY of the week!!!

:mad: -- NO MORE REPUBLICANS !! -- :mad:

I still don't know anything about Mark Warner other than hearing that he's interested in running.. But yesterday when someone posted the latest Governor's approval ratings on here, I sent you a message on that thread telling you how happy you'd be with his numbers in Virginia.. (See how you are.. you weren't even around! )



Speaking of numbers.. the guy isn't hurting too much financially, is he? :o !!

[nickshepDEM]

15. Yes, he is extremely wealthy. But unlike Dubya, he worked for his money.

His money will be plus in 2008. Personally, I believe he is the only candidate capable of keeping up with Hillary when it comes to fundraising.

Thanks for the update on his approval rating. I recently saw a poll that suggested Governor Warner would carry VA in a presidential election, even if he was facing Sen. George Allen.... Very, very impressive.

[wallwriter]

16. Fat fucking lot of nerve for someone

from the party that elected * to criticize the Dems, nominators of Gore and then Kerry, about style over substance.

On reflection, this makes no sense at all.

[dajoki]

18. i d say we had plenty of substance in '00 & '04

ignorant people and cheating, that's why we lost.

[against all enemies]

19. Would FDR have won if the TV was in everyone's homes?

Things are different today, unfortunately. Need some one that has JFK's appeal and FDR's compassion. People are too stupid to read nowadays.

[EC]

20. The Republican's seem to be the ones running the MOVIE STARS...

N/T

[snowbear]

22. EC.. Yep, they run the Hollywood types, but at the same time..

...they also bash the Hollywood types for being so-called liberals.. :crazy:

Speaking of Hollywood.. who was it that was thinking about running for the D-ticket for California Governor?

I still don't think Ah-nold will run again. And it's not just because he's tanking in the CA polls.

If he ran, he wouldn't be able to weezle out of the debates like he did before. Remember-- he has NEVER once debated with the exception of the only debate that allowed candidates to review the questions beforehand.

That's like handing him a movie script. His "people" gave him the answers and ~whala~ the networks all said he did great.

No way he'd debate and show his ignorance in real debates!

It still blows my mind that Californians elected him for who he is, and not for his political background! Just INSANE :crazy:

[wisteria]

21. Funny, I was thinking John Kerry!

Kerry has more substance than either Warner or Feingold.

[geckosfeet]

23. errr,,,,,,,,, Regan,,,,, Swarzenager (you know who I mean),, Romney

[agincourt]

24. The modern democratic party needs to find substantial boots,

to kick the pig-boy GOP in it's nuts until it drops, instead of listening to RW framing issues. The GOP is in power precisely because of image over substance.