Darviathar

The liberals have a new spin on the "vote or die" slogan "If you didn't vote for John Kerry...THEN DIE!!!!" (but they are still the party for love and peace, mind you)

The Gay Marriage issue had its day at the polls in 11 states. The final tally? 11 losses. Even in liberal Oregon. Basically, the people have spoken, and they are vehemently against this. Case Closed. There is no need whatsoever to push an unpopular mandate (that would benefit about 2% of the population) down the throats of the mass majority that clearly opposes it.

Bush "stole" the election, huh? Yeah, those criminals in Ohio sure did John Kerry in by not counting votes. But shhhh...good thing that Bush hasn't noticed how close Michigan and Pennsylvania were....Don't tell him! Or he might want a recount THERE. After all, those two states were BOTH closer than Ohio was. Second thought, let's recount EVERY SINGLE state. At LEAST 4 times. Yeah, the Al Gore method: If you don't like the results, keep counting

The democrats simply don't get it. They simply do not get the fact that the great majority of America despises the far-left wing. That people like Michael Moore, George Soros, and the rest of the liberal "elite" do nothing but turn stomachs and sway voters to George Bush. They think that losing gives them the right to resort to thuggery, yet would claim that its REPUBLICANS threatening people and trying to disenfranchise minorities. Plenty of anti-

You are a complete moron, Dubz. You're just espousing the usual democratic party-line rhetoric, and grasping for weak excuses. You say we are "going to get hit by a terrorist attack, because the whole world is mad that Bush is in office"??? Listen to yourself. Do you think the United States needs to refrain from electing strong leaders that act decisively, simply because it *might* upset the bad guys? What kind of American are you? (not much of o

A Map of county-wide voting is shown on Hannity.com in case you are interested. That John Kerry lost the race should not be any great surprise. Let's be honest here; The Democrats have fielded ONE strong candidate since John Kennedy, and that it is of course Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that extreme liberalism simply doesn't ever wash in this country. Take a look at the successful Democratic presidents. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Kennedy...n

Hope you enjoy the wonderful Canadian tax brackets as well, But then, as Kerry supporter, you should already be in favor of high taxes. YOU are in the wrong country if you think the USA will ever elect a far-left liberal to the White House. Take a look at the electoral map for clarification of this.

Oh, I wasn't aware that John Kerry himself could meet your 150k jobs/month quota. What was his "plan" for that? (we know all about his plans...) Was he going to create 150k new jobs at Heinz every month for out of work Americans? In any industrial society there will always be those that are out of work. Some by no fault of their own, but many..... Well, you get the picture.

Isn't it about time you face the fact that your party needs to turn away from Leftist Psychos, like George Soros and Michael Moore? That the American people (outside of California) don't give a rip which Hollywood star or has-been rocker endorses you? That obstructionists (Tom Daschle anyone?) who put partisanship ahead of patriotism simply won't be tolerated any further. If you have any sense whatsoever, you'll dump Terry McAuliffe, and tho

Why did Kerry lose? Because his campaign had no heart. No message other than "Don't vote for Bush". He spent the last year trying to paint himself as some heroic figure, without remembering the fact that true heroes don't blow their own horn. He tried in vain to convince the country that he's something that the record indicates that he clearly isn't. He'd have us believe that he'd make this country stronger, but in what way? By cutting defense an

Wow. Nice comprehensive list. Although its hard to see many of those candidates (Bill Bradley....remember how poor his 2000 showing was?) As a republican, I'd love to see a long, bitter Democratic primary, featuring heavyweights Kerry, Gore, and Hillary Clinton. Those three would tear each other to shreds long before November 2008 rolled around.

Kerry is nothing if not canny. He fully realizes that (unlike Al Gore in 2000) that he still has a presitigious job, one that will keep him near the spotlight for four more years. By avoiding a repeat of the 2000 election, Kerry paints himself as a noble, dignified candidate. His senate career obviously continues, and I for one would not be shocked to see Kerry running in 2008.

Or maybe, just maybe, the Redskins are a really bad team with an aging, weak-armed quarterback and a lackluster defense? A team that had no business beating Brett Favre regardless of the political situation?

Democratic Candidates in 2008? I don't think you'll see Gephardt run again. He's run several times now, and never had anything but a dismal showing. Since Kerry just bowed out gracefully, there is a good possibility that he will run again. I think you can say with some certainty that John Edwards will run. Would be interesting to see him square off against Kerry again.

No one, least of all George W. Bush, considers US military personnel expendable. But the bottom line is when you enlist in the US Military, you do so with the explicit knowledge that you may be called on to serve in a combat zone. If that is a problem, then seek employment elsewhere. The VASTmajority of the US Military wants to get the job done in Iraq. I would imagine that very few of the soldiers (if polled) would be in favor of withdrawing. </f

Where can I get JFK for download?

I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in my life, but I'll be damned if (as a big-time Dallas Cowboys fan) I'll pull for Washington against anyone.

You believe in Kerry if: You think the budget for the US Military is a joking matter, and vote against vital weapons programs, such as the AH-64 Apache Helicopter. You pledge 100 billion of social programs, but have plans for only 20 million of it. You have a "plan" for Iraq, but won't tell anyone what it is. You think its funny to tell outright lies to the American people, such as "If Bush wins, you'll be draft

I too am wondering about the logic behind level 3 (but not level 2) HQ's. That million $ is a big chunk of change at any point in the game. The awareness bonus they give is nice, but it ends fairly early on. What you are left with is about 40k per turn extra income, and a political operative that adds only one awareness per turn. I'm starting to think that the million $ spent on those level 3's is far better spent flooding the airwaves with more TV

I finally did get past Washington with Bill Clinton, mainly by realizing that Texas was a lost cause to me, and putting smear merchant/spin doctor combos in the swing states. Accepting the fact that I wouldn't be even remotely competitive in most of the states, I took my 274 points happily, even though I lost the popular vote by about 8 million.

I regard Jimmy Carter as the WORST president in recent (i.e. since World War 2) history. His only real competition there would be LBJ, but definitely takes the "crown". Anyone that can honestly say that they'd vote for him again simply isn't paying any attention. Of course, the same thing could be said about people that vote for a certain Senator from Massachusetts...

Yeah, President Clinton had no foreign policy blunders. Except Somalia. Except Haiti. Except...well, everywhere he sent the US Military in "Peacekeeping" Roles, for which they are not trained or suited. While Clinton managed to avoid foreign policy blunders that would make the headlines, its more what he did NOT do, rather than what he did. Passing up repeated chances to take out Bin Laden CERTAINLY qualifies. As is constantly ignoring

Washington is the only candidate in the game I have not been able to beat. I defeated all Democrat opponents with George W. Bush, and every Republican up to Washington with Bill Clinton, but nothing seems to work against Washington. I've tried the "big political hq" tactic described above, but it seems to me that Washington will simply flood the map with advertisements, get way too far ahead on a key issue, and therefore be impossible to catch. You

I for one would like to see more of a difference between candidates on the issues. From looking through the core candidate file, I can see that George Bush and John Kerry have "points" on some issues, but other candidates, such as Lyndon Johnson, have no special stance on any issue, making them a "vanilla" candidate. It would also be interesting to see a conservative/liberal scale used....if you come out TOO strongly on Iraq (say 100 points?) you mig

McCain has more loyalty to the Republican party than to jump ship and run against the sitting president. Remember that he was Kerry's first choice as a VP. He's more than welcome to run in 2008. I just wonder what the Dems will have as a battle cry, with no Bush on the ticket.