Well, on one issue we agree....

Post #246,845 by Simon_Jester 3/5/06 8:27:54 AM Reply	Well, on one issue we agree.... So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? I'm sorry, I don't remember Michael Moore interviewing Clinton or Gore in any of his movies. (Or don't you remember Rush interviewing Cheney on his show?) And on the rest...who's responsibility is it to define the message? The Dems have let the message be defined for them. I agree with you that Democrats have failed to define their message. (Although I think Dean is going to change that).
Post #246,861 by bepatient 3/5/06 12:07:21 PM Reply	You keep missing the point So why in the hell was he seated next to a former President in a position of prominence at the Convention? I didn't see Rush sitting next to GB Sr, did I? I'm sorry, I don't remember Michael Moore interviewing Clinton or Gore in any of his movies. (Or don't you remember Rush interviewing Cheney on his show?) Theres a difference that you seem to want to sweep under. If Moore is so damned removed from the agenda, why was he afforded the position of sitting in the leadership box next to a former President? Having Rush interview a vp candidate on his radio show is hardly affording him some position of prominence. Sitting him at the convention where you damned well know all the cameras will be focused IS promotion. So, the Dems promoted Moore's agenda...the Reps used Rush for his strength, which is audience reach...they didn't, however, invite him to the convention and sit him next to daddy (tacitly endorsing all his views). How hard is that to understand that it was a MAJOR campaign error? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #246,893 by Simon_Jester 3/5/06 6:11:12 PM Reply	Again, we disagree on this point... Having Rush interview a vp candidate on his radio show is hardly affording him some position of prominence. Sorry, total disagreement. Cheney has been in hiding since Bush was elected. I think he's giving something like 2 interviews, total. And one is to Rush? And they're NOT promoting Rush's agenda? <mocking Rush's voice> Folks...we have he an administration that has claimed to conservaties...and you know I know conservatives. Now, while they've been claiming to be conservatives and they've been doing a good job mostly and all. But..but..but <banging on the desk> there's something I just don't get folks. First they say they're against an increase in government...but they've increased it larger than any Democrat in history. In history. Then there's this Dubai Port deal. Now I know you people have been with me on this one. And I was very much against it and all. But now I've got the Vice President of the US to help explain to me why this deal is so needed (and improve my rating during sweeps).</mocking Rush's voice> <shrug> How hard is that to understand that it was a MAJOR campaign error? Campaign error? No argument, I wouldn't have put him on the podium. But I'm not claiming that he speaks for the Democratic Party. (I'm not even claiming that Rush speaks for the Republican Party...gasp!)
Post #246,921 by bepatient 3/5/06 9:51:59 PM Reply	The veep speaks quite a bit Watch some C-span. Its not all to CNN's Larry King so sometimes it may be hard to follow. No, he's not a blabbermouth and yes he could appear more on Face the Nation..but having a campaign appearance on Rush isn't that big a deal. Unless you think that the Pres candidates appearing on Letterman and Leno makes the same type of statement. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!