FAO Loafing Oaf

[Let's Go Devils and Celtic]

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN

**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.

MORE

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head!

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]

The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author

 

[LoafingOaf]

Whoa, I haven't heard anything about this.

I don't believe he's gonna implode.

However, there's always been the possibility that as the spotlight shines on him something will come out and he won't be able to handle it. There's a lot of media hype with Kerry and people don't seem to digest that he's somewhat untested. I don't think it'll happen, but yeah, he could implode. If so, John Edwards is there to take over, and I believe Edwards would be very, very strong in a national election.

*Most* people (especially swing voters) don't vote on ideology and issues so much as likability and character. In a way, that's probably right, because whatever a candidate is saying on the issues, they can change their minds the moment they get into office (for example, Bush campaigned as someone against nation building). It's very clear that Kerry is absolutely unreliable on his stances on the issues. If you wanna consider voting for Kerry, you're better off figuring out if you LIKE him and TRUST him as a serious and good person. You really don't know what issues will even come up in a term. For example, who knew that 9/11 was gonna happen? (I happen to think we were better off with Bush than Gore in that mess.)

So anyway, that's kinda why I decided Edwards is my favorite of the bunch, even though he's definitely more socialistic than I am. I find him to be a likable, decent person of generally good character, and I'm not used to seeing someone having a shot at the White House whom I actually LIKE as a person. There's a few stains on his record, such as when he voted against the $87 billion to Iraq for apparently political reasons. But of the choices out there, he is the one I'd most trust. They try and attack him for being a trial lawyer, but I look at that as one of his big pluses, because he was suing the powerful on behalf of regular folks, and that's quite different than Kerry and all the lobby money he has recieved.

But anyway, my approach to this election right now is to hope the strongest democrat gets nominated and then I'll make my decision from there with absolutely no feeling that I'd have to be loyal to Bush. I will always appreciate Bush for being courageous enough to take the Taliban and Saddam down, but an election is about what's best for the country in the NEXT four years. If the democrat is someone who passes certain litmus tests I have, and is someone I find likable, then he can earn my vote. I'm of the mind it's bad for the country to have one party controlling all the branches, and the best situation is when republicans control Congress and a moderate democrat controls the White House. Nice and gridlocked, with Congress putting a check on spending, and no religious freak nominating wackos to the Supreme Court.

 

[Let's Go Devils and Celtic]

> Whoa, I haven't heard anything about this.

> I don't believe he's gonna implode.
I think people are going to get turned off that this coming out now, and she is reported to be a former intern. Drudge is reporting Kerry is going on IMUS tomorrow!!

> However, there's always been the possibility that as the spotlight shines
> on him something will come out and he won't be able to handle it. There's
> a lot of media hype with Kerry and people don't seem to digest that he's
> somewhat untested. I don't think it'll happen, but yeah, he could implode.
> If so, John Edwards is there to take over, and I believe Edwards would be
> very, very strong in a national election.

> *Most* people (especially swing voters) don't vote on ideology and issues
> so much as likability and character. In a way, that's probably right,
> because whatever a candidate is saying on the issues, they can change
> their minds the moment they get into office (for example, Bush campaigned
> as someone against nation building). It's very clear that Kerry is
> absolutely unreliable on his stances on the issues. If you wanna consider
> voting for Kerry, you're better off figuring out if you LIKE him and TRUST
> him as a serious and good person. You really don't know what issues will
> even come up in a term. For example, who knew that 9/11 was gonna happen?
> (I happen to think we were better off with Bush than Gore in that mess.)
Oh definatly. Again,Its all going to come down to the 20% of the independents. Your right about likebility. I know someone, the most fiscally and social conservative I know, pro life, wants to get rid of most social services ect. voted for Gore because she thought he was good looking.
> So anyway, that's kinda why I decided Edwards is my favorite of the bunch,
> even though he's definitely more socialistic than I am. I find him to be a
> likable, decent person of generally good character, and I'm not used to
> seeing someone having a shot at the White House whom I actually LIKE as a
> person. There's a few stains on his record, such as when he voted against
> the $87 billion to Iraq for apparently political reasons. But of the
> choices out there, he is the one I'd most trust. They try and attack him
> for being a trial lawyer, but I look at that as one of his big pluses,
> because he was suing the powerful on behalf of regular folks, and that's
> quite different than Kerry and all the lobby money he has recieved.

> But anyway, my approach to this election right now is to hope the
> strongest democrat gets nominated and then I'll make my decision from
> there with absolutely no feeling that I'd have to be loyal to Bush. I will
> always appreciate Bush for being courageous enough to take the Taliban and
> Saddam down, but an election is about what's best for the country in the
> NEXT four years. If the democrat is someone who passes certain litmus
> tests I have, and is someone I find likable, then he can earn my vote. I'm
> of the mind it's bad for the country to have one party controlling all the
> branches, and the best situation is when republicans control Congress and
> a moderate democrat controls the White House. Nice and gridlocked, with
> Congress putting a check on spending, and no religious freak nominating
> wackos to the Supreme Court.
I think so too.
I'm surprised we haven't gotten any retirements since Bush took office. I thought Rehnquist and O'Connor were going to retire 2 years ago, and Steven's has got to be over 80.

 

[suzanne]

> I think people are going to get turned off that this coming out now, and
> she is reported to be a former intern. Drudge is reporting Kerry is going
> on IMUS tomorrow!!

my mom doesn't like john kerry. she not only doesn't like his personality, but she thinks that he is ugly.

I said it's good that he's ugly because he will scare the terrorists away.

 

[LoafingOaf]

> I'm surprised we haven't gotten any retirements since Bush took office. I
> thought Rehnquist and O'Connor were going to retire 2 years ago, and
> Steven's has got to be over 80.

I think some of them are holding on as long as they can because they're afraid of who Bush might nominate!

 

[CrushingBore]

Re: Also FAO Loafing Oaf or any informed Yanqui

Can someone explain to me how in God's name your "primaries" system works.

I understand about electoral colleges and the accumulation of votes that way to determine a winner. That seems simple.

What I don't understand is how you determine who actually gets to vote in these things. You have to be a "registered Democrat", right? How do you go about registering? It's obviously braoder than the paid up membership of the Democratic party. Is the system open to abuse - I mean if Bush supporters thought Dean would be the most defeatable, could they not attempt to sign up conservatives across the nation to go out and vote for Dean?

If such a system were adopted here I know what you'd happen - people would be paying for busloads of members of various ethnic communities to go out and vote for a particular candidate. Is there much of that sort of thing going on?

 

[Chill]

Re: Also FAO Loafing Oaf or any informed Yanqui

> Can someone explain to me how in God's name your "primaries"
> system works.

> I understand about electoral colleges and the accumulation of votes that
> way to determine a winner. That seems simple.

> What I don't understand is how you determine who actually gets to vote in
> these things. You have to be a "registered Democrat", right? How
> do you go about registering? It's obviously braoder than the paid up
> membership of the Democratic party. Is the system open to abuse - I mean
> if Bush supporters thought Dean would be the most defeatable, could they
> not attempt to sign up conservatives across the nation to go out and vote
> for Dean?

I actually know someone who thinks that Kerry's winning streak is a conservative conspiracy. I wouldn't go that far, but it did come out of nowhere. Anyway, as far as I know, only people who register to vote as Democrats get to vote in the primaries. Theoretically a whole bunch of Republicans decide to re-register to vote and sign up as Democrats in order to wreak some havoc at the primaries. I don't know that it would actually happen though. Additionally, I'm not sure if winning the most primaries automatically secures one's nomination (well not if the race is close -- if there's no contest, then I'm sure it does).

> If such a system were adopted here I know what you'd happen - people would
> be paying for busloads of members of various ethnic communities to go out
> and vote for a particular candidate. Is there much of that sort of thing
> going on?

I'm sure voter fraud happens, but I don't think it's as simple as that.

I'm somewhat embarrassed by my ignorance, but the recall was the first major election I was able to participate in (long story about how I didn't get to vote in the gubernatorial race prior to that involving my dad's failure to forward my absentee ballot to me) and my high school civics/government class was a f***ing joke where I learned zip about how one actually participates in governement. I have general ideas about how all of it works, but I really should read up on this in order to not look like a retard.

 

[LoafingOaf - trainspotter]

Re: Also FAO Loafing Oaf or any informed Yanqui

> Can someone explain to me how in God's name your "primaries"
> system works.

> I understand about electoral colleges and the accumulation of votes that
> way to determine a winner. That seems simple.

> What I don't understand is how you determine who actually gets to vote in
> these things. You have to be a "registered Democrat", right? How
> do you go about registering? It's obviously braoder than the paid up
> membership of the Democratic party. Is the system open to abuse - I mean
> if Bush supporters thought Dean would be the most defeatable, could they
> not attempt to sign up conservatives across the nation to go out and vote
> for Dean?

> If such a system were adopted here I know what you'd happen - people would
> be paying for busloads of members of various ethnic communities to go out
> and vote for a particular candidate. Is there much of that sort of thing
> going on?

It varies state to state, and I don't fully understand how it works everywhere. For example, caucuses (like in Iowa and Washington) are confusing to me. I guess that's like a convention where people go and argue and argue.

Where I live - Ohio - we're an open primary state. Any registered voter can vote. How it works is, you go to the voting location and you can pick a Democrat ballot, a Republican ballot, or an issues-only ballot. Any registered voter can pick, for example, the Democrat ballot. Once the ballot is cast and certified, that voter becomes a registered Democrat. I like the way it is in Ohio because I don't have to declare a party affiliation way in advance. I can make up my mind at the last minute.

Most states don't do it this way, though. There's semi-open primaries, closed primaries, semi-closed primaries, caucuses (conventions), and some other types I forget (I know Louisiana has some weird type, and a couple states have ballots that list all the candidates regardless of party).

So, yeah, you pretty much have to look it up for whatever state you're curious about.

The way it all evolved is that, originally candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders. Then, in like the 1800s to early 20th century, they were chosen by delegates at the convention. At some point early last century, candidates began to be chosen via primaries, to make it more democratic.

See, my major in political science comes in handy every once in a blue moon.