Sound Destruction: IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN...

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


where would you all stand?

Image Hosted by

mccain-kerry ticket


Blogger Doug said...

McCain-Kerry I'd vote for.

Kerry McCain would pretty much have to be running against GWB.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

I'd stand on my feet.

11:09 PM  
Blogger Mike V. said...

hopefully with a pair of those red shoes.. :)

I like McCain.
I can't see how he can get behind Bush at all on anything after getting smeared by Rove in 2000.

1:33 AM  
Blogger SheaNC said...

I'd stand to the left...

2:06 AM  
Blogger Chris Woods said...

It'd all depend on the field of candidates, I suppose. But on face value, its a good ticket--especially against GWB, like Doug said. Unfortunately, we're not up against him in 08...unless Bob Woodward is right and Dick Cheney is going to come out and surprise us all by running. Then again, I think it'd be more likely for us to find out that Bob Woodward is just getting senile before Cheney decides to run.

2:13 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Chris, did Woodward really say that? He'll have lots of company in the Cardiac Care Unit, I suppose.

7:16 AM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

I want some new, fresh faces.

Pitt-Alba: Democrat ticket. Alba must remain in a bikini the entire campaign. Pitt has to disclose bedroom games with Aniston and Jolie.

Prinze,Jr.-Gellar: Republican ticket. Buffy and the bad actor. Need I say more?

8:58 AM  
Blogger araider said...

I like McCain and hate John Kerry.
It depends which one will be pres and vice. McCain for pres and Kerry vor vice then I would probably get on that bus

9:10 AM  
Blogger Sar said...

Mike - I could support McCain if he had the right platform (these red shoes are very particular about what they'll stand on!)

You've all heard me rant on and on about the division in our nation, and I think McCain is not only just moderate enough but also intelligent enough to take the steps necessary towards reuniting our nation. I also agree with Doug and Araider that Kerry is better suited for VP. But as Mike pointed out, whoever the GOP canidate is, they would be wise to distance themselves from GWB.

Shea - clever and fairly predictable. Does that make me clever too?

CW - no way Chenney will run. He's got too many skeletons falling out the closet.

Nedhead - I like your thinking! Oh and that was a great comment too. I'd vote Pitt-Alba for the disclosure, er um, because they're the democratic ticket.

10:48 AM  
Blogger araider said...

i would not vote for Cheney.
He reminds me of Dan Quayle but with a better vocabulary

10:59 AM  
Blogger Chris Woods said...

Yeah, I don't think Cheney will run either. But twice in the last 6 months, Bob Woodward has said that Dick Cheney is a "possible darkhorse candidate" for 2008. The first time was on Chris Matthews' Sunday panel show. The second time was earlier this week in Colorado at a speech or something. Like I said, senility is finally kicking in...soon he'll look and act like Mark Felt too.

11:47 AM  
Blogger araider said...

I actually think by 2008 he'll be dead with all his heart problems.
Probaly shouldn't worry much about him

11:55 AM  
Blogger tlm said...

Woodward just wanted some press. No chance in hell of Cheney running or McCain teaming up with a liberal. Party loyalty is one of the few admirable traits McCain has left, frankly.

McCain/Snowe, McCain/Chafee, etc. are a few very scary possibilities though. I could see it.

By the way, not to derail the subject of this thread, but could any of you obviously very intelligent people tell me what the difference between a "progressive" and a "democrat" is? (I think I'm the only one who doesn't know!) :)

12:09 PM  
Blogger araider said...

isn't it when a democrat sees the light and progresses to a republican?

12:16 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I'd vote for McCain/Kerry but only if McCain was in the top spot. Kerry, in my opinion, is little more than a cipher. At least McCain seems to stand for something.

12:46 PM  
Blogger araider said...

How about Clinton-Kerry.
Kerry would Hillary's bitch

1:00 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

TLM - I'm not at all qualified to answer and I'm hoping that the others will play clean up, but to me Progressive is a way to refer democrats/liberals in a more positive way since the GOP has strived to give the term Liberal a negative connotation. Plus it also implies we're looking to progress forward instead of giving in to the quagmire of problems imposed by this administration.

CW - Cheney's dark alright, though I'm not sure about the horse part.

Chris - I agree. I'd actually prefer a McCaine-Obama ticket, since as CW previously put it, Obama's a little too green to lead in '08. At least it's not that he's a little to black. Boy, that ticket would run the visual gammet!

Araider - Kerry/H. Clinton, why that's completely for the dogs (female).

1:27 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

"isn't it when a democrat sees the light and progresses to a republican?"

pretty damn funny.

Progressive or democrat or liberal.
Conservative or republican or neocon. Hey, throw in moderates!

So many labels. What do you mean by difference? And in comparison to what? Are you looking for dictionary meaning, or what they mean to the individual who is labeled as such?

I've heard the term Progressive Republican used before, so I would think that Progressive would lend itself to its dictionary definition as an adjective, in lieu of a twisted definition (as in repub, dem, neocon).

However, progressive political parties tend to a more socialist mindset. Support the average joe, equality for everyone, protect the environment type s***. They may sound similar to the Democrats in many ways, but they tend to strongly disagree with the campaign financing of the major parties (Dems and Repubs are both guilty of the same crimes in that degree). They want control back to the people, instead of special interests (again, Dems and Repubs guilty as charged).

You want more than that, find someone with actual facts and who is not full of shit.

2:20 PM  
Blogger tlm said...

nedhead- I'll clarify. Yes, I'm actually looking for a dictionary-type definition. Not something like... "Progressives are for clean air, and responsible government, and happiness, and puppies and kittens!..."

Something more concrete, like "Democrats are [blank], but Progressives are not." And vice-versa.

3:07 PM  
Blogger tlm said...

And, I should mention, there have been at least 3 "Progressive" political parties in American history, tho I don't think any of them are relevant here. (I think they were all conservative-based parties.)

3:09 PM  
Blogger Maine said...

I'd be down for a McCain/Hillary ticket. I don't mind voting for a Republican if he's an inclusive Republican like McCain. I don't care for the Republicans that seem to think compassion should only be given to the few.

And I can't support any ticket that has Kerry on it. He lost to GWB in an election where even Terry Schiavo would have been guaranteed 40% of the vote just because the people were so polarized against W. That's a real loser right there. He only had to win over like 2000 people, and he couldn't do that. Loser.

Gimme McCain. Gimme Obama. Gimme Hillary. Give me someone with some brain and enough charm to sell it.

3:38 PM  
Blogger araider said...

If McCain teams up with hillary, he might as well commit self-righteous suicide because that's just sick.
Now if McCain teamed up with Mary Carey then that's a diffrent story.
I'd vote triple

3:48 PM  
Blogger Nedhead said...

But puppies and kittens are cute!

Progressive means just that. Forward thinking, new policy endorsing, change embracing, adaptable to new thought. I think Vermont has a current Progressive Party that is liberally inclined.

So one would be a progressive "______". At least in my opinion.

But tlm, you already have a definition in your head: Progressive = Democrat. As I said before, if you want to label someone as a progressive, they would have similar ideologies as a Democrat, with a more socialist bent. Because no matter what the Dems say, they are about big money as much as the Repubs.

In the end, it is just another label that can be used to either insult or compliment someone, depending on where it comes from.

McCain-Obama, although McCains fealty to Bush is sickening, considering what happened when McCain ran for prez.

4:38 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:26 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

Sorry folks, my previous comment was simply too typo-ridden. Take two...

Hillary Clinton in '08, hmmm. Is she smart? Hell yeah. Is she effective in getting things done? History would indicate so. Is she presidential material? Not in my opinion. First off, the right will never back her (just ask Araider and TLM!). Secondly, we've come a long way as a country, but there are still small-minded idiots who don't believe women should hold opinions of their own, let alone positions of power. She is simply too outspoken and powerful for their taste.

And again with Kerry, I totally agree with Maine. If you can't beat GWB (especially following the debates which showcased Dubya's incoherent babble), you're branded a loser for life.

5:37 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

tlm, you've actually hit a really interesting point. The historical progressive movements have come from both the traditional left (ailinsky, Rauschenbusch, etc) and conservative parties (T. Roosevelt, notably) but all involved the expansion of government to correct social programs (poverty in the leftist cases and monopolism in Roosevelt's case) so all were liberal in the modern context. It's why I say there are no conservatives anymore: The Democrats continue to pursue government intervention in the labor market and trade while Republicans are pushing government intervention in sexual morality and commerce. I think contemporary American politics are divided between trade/labor progressives and commerce/sex progressives which is why I'm a pissed-off unrepresented conservative.

5:42 PM  
Blogger David Schantz said...

I wouldn't trust McCain or Kerry if they were selling used cars so I sure wouldn't vote for them to hold any political office. You'll find some of my reasons for feeling this way at .

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

8:46 PM  
Blogger tlm said...

doug- In some ways, I think you're absolutely right. That's why I rarely refer to myself as a Conservative, but rather a Republican. I might risk another 'fuck-off' here, but adhering to a strict conservative philosophy is profoundly un-American. This isn't Afghanistan... America didn't become the greatest country in the world by not changing.

sar- Is Democrat now really a bad word? I know we ("R"s) successfully demonized the word "liberal" to the point where only the bravest of wacko lefties will admit to being one.
I'll disagree with you on Hillary not being Presidential. She very much is, in my opinion. She's outspoken, very effective, and very flawed. All important qualifications. And with the exception of some loony Religious Righties who think you ladies should be several steps behind us at all times, I don't think most of us give a damn about the gender of our presidents.

nedhead- Thanks for the education. I'd suspected "progressive" referred to some forward thinking faction of the Dem party. As an outsider, I'd guess Howard Dean is included in that movement, but I'm not sure where Bill, Hillary, Kerry, etc. fit in. (To use a phony term, Bill Clinton was a self-proclamed "New Democrat"... But he's from an old administration. Very confusing. I can see why there's an internal power struggle.)

And with nearly everyone in this room being of the Progressive mindset, I expect no worshipping of washed-up old school Dems like Ted Kennedy. :)

9:31 PM  
Blogger Chris Woods said...

I really like Doug's most recent answer on what a progressive is, at least historically. For a more modern take, Wikipedia's definition here is pretty good:

"Progressivism refers to two political phenomena:

Populist Political Progressivism

Historically, this represents distrust of concentrations of power in the hands of politicians and corporations, as represented by the candidacies of Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull-Moose Republicans, and in the early nineties by Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and the Reform Party. In modern terminology this is generally called Populism.

Ideological or Modern Left Progressivism

This is a cluster of political and media organizations including The Progressive magazine, the American Prospect, and many democratric socialists."

Hopefully that'll clear things up.

9:34 PM  
Blogger Alice: In Wonderland or Not said...

No I wouldn't be " down with it"; I'd be standing on the toes of whoever made that stupid decision.

10:34 PM  
Blogger SheaNC said...

Wow, lotsa comments! I'm just arriving, so I am responding only to the original post.

I am originally from AZ, and I have learned that McCain can't be trusted - he will sell out for the republican party when it is in his interests, and he puts those ahead of his constituents.

I supported Kerry in 2004 and he betrayed us all. A skull-n-bones-man along with the Bushes.

I want Barbara Boxer for president. Or, perhaps Al Gore, who was justly elected in 2000, could assume the office that was stolen from him!

1:06 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

TLM, you won't get an FU from me but it does sound like you and I come from the opposite sides of the same side of the aisle. I obviously disagree with the latter part of your comment, but I would like it noted that a proud Republican declared conservatism to be un-American. Steno, would you read that back? Yes, once more, please. Thank you. As I suspected.

Wow, Sar and Strider, this is one happening joint.

1:51 AM  
Blogger Sar said...

TLM - I never thought Democrat was a bad word, nor do I think Liberal is. In terms of party labels, I do find it ironic that we live in a democratic society that promotes democracy, yet we shun republics. ;)

Okay David & Alice, fair enough. But who would you like to see run?

Thanks as always for the enlightenment, CW.

It sure is, Doug thanks to everyone's input even TLM & Araider. ;)

10:23 AM  
Blogger tlm said...

cw- Ah, thanks. That's a good definition as well.

doug- Now, now... Don't put words in my mouth. I meant unrestrained conservatism. (Same goes for unrestrained liberalism... Just imagine the tax burden we'd all have if you libs had a blank check!)

1:00 PM  
Blogger Maine said...

I swear to God... I love these comments sections. It's the only place on the web where you can hear opposing political points spoken logically and facutally. There's no anger and name-calling. Just philosophy and discussion. This is wonderful. Now, if only we could be governed by people so sensible.

1:40 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

TLM - I love seeing you commenters "tawk amongst yaselves"!

I swear to God...that was an awesome compliment, Maine, and one I'd have to agree with (see previous note to TLM). And while I share your delusion, er, wish for sensible governing, sadly I'm not sure there is such a thing as a sensible politician.

2:29 PM  
Blogger araider said...

all politicians are greedy, crooked, selfish bastards. That's why I can't ever be one.

2:40 PM  
Blogger GABRIEL C. ZOLMAN said...

Putting two Nam vets in charge of the government might be too much "grizzle" --I mean, come on...there's only room in the White House for one violent flashback at a time. Before you know it, the Dept. Of Treasury would come out wearing a necklace full of ears.


3:04 AM  
Blogger Jet said...

For what it's worth, Kerry will never take the second position IMO.

McCain chucked his spine as far I'm concerned when he came out an stumped for W after Rove engineered that false character smear against him. It told me he doesn't have the inner fortitude for the job.

I'd like to see John Conyers make a run for it. If he got the nod, I'd like to see him run with Bill Nelson. Nelson did a fine job in Florida as insurance commisioner after Hurricane Andrew, and he could pull the south Florida vote out from under Jeb.

I like Hillary fine, but she is so polarizing; this nation needs to pull itself back together before we self destruct.

3:12 PM  
Blogger tlm said...

jet- Bill Nelson will have a tough enough time keeping his Senate seat. He'd have practically no chance of carrying Florida in a Presidential race (especially against Jeb.)

4:09 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

Araider - riiiiiight.

Gabe - might have served us well if the current Prez was capable of having such a flashback rather than simply his drunken escapades.

Jet - this nation needs to pull itself back together before we self destruct - I agree completely.

TLM - I forgot you're from them there parts. Thanks for your insite.

2:03 PM  
Blogger Mike V. said...

Sar and Chris, this one's for you:

3:38 PM  
Blogger Sar said...

Mike - I actually saw it & left a comment earlier, but for some reason it didn't register in comment count (ie 0 comments). It's there now. :)

9:33 PM  
Blogger Toad734 said...

Kerry needs to move on

10:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter