Sure, I'll Let Him Buy on Credit

I would love to find that funny (0.00 / 0)

I really really would.  But no.  We should have known in 2000 that this is a man who failed at every single thing he ever attempted.  We didn't (or at least enough of our Supremes didn't), and so he is President.

It's time to start looking at candidates who not only have the will to correct his mistakes (and aren't they dumb for thinking they want the task); we need to be looking for candidates who have the skill to clean up after a 6 year old with reasonably unlimited power.  My early choice is Richardson.

Regardless, we are getting what we voted to be given.  Thanks for depressing me further, Matt.

;-)

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:52:10 AM UTC

Failed everything? (0.00 / 0)

He attempted to run for president and won twice, against your best and brightest.  Sorry. 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, Woof, (0.00 / 0)

fourth and 50, young feller, and I think you need to punt on this one.  Best and Brightest...this would be funny if it wasn't true. 

---

by: squid @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:23:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He won once. (0.00 / 0)

More people in the U.S. voted for Gore.  More people in Florida voted for Gore.

---

by: Matt M. @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:02:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Winning elections = success? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that winning an election is an indication that you are successful. Just take a look at Judy, and of course look at the President. Their administrations are compete and utter failures. Any monkey in a suit can win all the elections possible, but what matters is what he does with them.

---

by: Mathello @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 05:38:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Any monkey (0.00 / 0)

So, any monkey in a suit can win an election.  This again does not bode well for your candidates.  You may want to change the color of your suits then, because you keep losing.

---

by: Atlas1 @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 17:40:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

We only lost in 200 because of a arcane system and a corrupt court; 2004 was a lose, but not that bad; 2004 saw this state elect a very popular powerful governor, and legislature for the first time in 20 years; 2006 saw this state recognize corruption and the need for change. I think our monkey's are doing fine.

---

by: Mathello @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 19:31:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Corrupt (0.00 / 0)

We ONLY lost in 2000 because of an arcane system (that seems to work) and a corrupt court (of course they are corrupt because you dont agree with them).  Then, to make it official you lost to the same "idiot" in 2004 essentially giving validity to 2000.  Yes, Montana did in fact elect a popular/powerful governor and legislature for the first time in 20 years.  Hell, the Cats have to beat the Griz every once in a while, or a rivarly becomes a dynasty, not to mention that the blue wave seemed to crash a little short of gay marriage.  Then in 2006 this state recognised corruption and a need for change (call it what you may), or in other words the state recognised that it prefers its reps in blue jeans and does not like the war.  So, as far as the monkey doing fine, you may want to consider that no one can win all the time.  Seems to me that the Republicans made some progress in the state legislature in 2006.  Seems to me that your national party leaders are pusing non-binding resolutions, and finally it seems to me like you dont have a prayer for 2008.  So, once again there will be a conservative flavor in at least 2 of the 3 branches of government for quite some time, a virtue that your party probably cannot even remember. 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 23:17:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mais... (0.00 / 0)

Gotta remember that the GOP puts party before country.  That's why winning elections is the only low-bar to hurdle when it comes to success for these guys.

---

by: Nick Domitrovich @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 08:01:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]