We will be tireless in defending you, Peter.

Silly stuff. By November of 2004, the voters not only re-elected President Bush, but re-elected a Republican controlled Congress;

Would that have happened if not for 911? Answer yes or no.

In spite of his incompetence in fighting the war on terror, 911 was the gift that never stopped giving for 6 years. Because considering that the GOP was talking about cementing their political control of the nation for half a century it says much that Bush won with a slim margin of 2.4% of the vote.

Now you are defending Dan Rather for lying through his scummy teeth, and trying to pass off a forgery as news, because you believe that he felt a duty — one which you apparently approve — to try to defeat the President

I don’t believe I ever said what Rather did was right. But you seem to think you can imply that, yet you pay no mind whatsoever that the essential charges and surmise of that story was true. W. was a fortunate son who never had to deal with the responsibilities of most people and was handed a vanilla military assignment, he barely attended too…because of his families vast and powerful connections. You know: Affirmative action (also known as a silver spoon) for the ultra-wealthy and connected that gets them everything they want, always.

You think Obama would’ve had that luxury? You think his rich, powerful and ultra connected family ever got him jack-sh*t? No, he actually had to work hard and work smart and keep it together when he could’ve fallen into so many bad traps. You think, in spite of his experimentation with recreational drugs he had a family who could’ve picked him up and put him right again and hide an addiction under the rug, the way W. had?

You probably know the answer to that.

Don’t you ever get tired of defending a failed incompetent fool?

Republicans won on the “Smear, fear, and queer” tactic in 2004. The people were tired of it and/or didn’t buy it any more by 2008 (that and McCain, while still a politician, is not as slimy as Dubya).

XRLQ got it right: apparently Ed is using “slimy” as a synonym for effective. But no, Mr X, that’s not how most Pennsyltuckians use the word.

I’d suggest that, in November of 2004, the voters approved of President Bush’s job performance, and did not think that Senator Kerry would do a better job.

“Smear, fear, and queer?” It wasn’t President Bush who put the infamous “I was for it before I was against it” into Senator Kerry’s mouth. It wasn’t President Bush who forced Senator Kerry, busily running against the war, to say, in August of 2004 that, even knowing what he knew right then, he’d still have voted to authorize the war.

The public rightly saw Senator Kerry as someone who wasn’t even honest about himself: rather than simply say what he felt, he tried to say everything to everybody, and not offend anyone.

As for “queer,” even in liberal California, which went 61% – 39% for Barack Husssein Obama, Proposition 8 passed 52% – 48%.

Oh, no – I was afraid this would eventually happen – Eddy’s coming on to me.

that and McCain, while still a politician, is not as slimy as Dubya

I don’t speak Pennsylvania dialect very well, so perhaps you can help me out here. Is “slimy” Pennsylvanian for “effective?” That seems the most intuitive definition, seeing as both guys ran for President twice, each with a perfect record of sorts.