No $hit! Time magazine...

Bush 100%

Wow, that's pretty interesting concerning they're not that close on ideology. That would make you probably the closest thing to a moderate here. Which is surprising considering the heated discussion you and I have had here.

Sincere kudos to you.

BTW, I got Kerry with 100% and Bush with 36%.

What a great way to see how your beliefs match up with the candidates stated positions

Grandpa, you will be surprised to learn that Sharpton was not my top pick, and less surprised that Bush was not even on my radar. Kerry got 100% with me. But I will probably vote for Edwards at my caucus, as I believe he has the best shot of ousting the shrub.

I think Edwards is likeable and a RICH trial lawyer...Kerry is out preaching about the evils of the rich elite and HE is a rich elite....wifey is worth 700 million....He shows a salary of $144K and borrowed against "HIS" art collection and "HIS" half of the $12 million home. Those darn rich Republicans!!!

When I answered the questions in the opposite way to my general beliefs guess who I got?

Kucinich 100%
Sharpton next at 96%
Kerry next
Dean next
Bush 2%

I think it's tough for any politician to seem sincere when talking bad about the rich. In today's America you can't get elected to office without being rich.

What an unforeseen outcome!

Dean 92%
Edwards 84%
Kerry 70%
Bush 14%

I guess I've been voting wrong all these years! I blame Rush and Hannity for brainwashing my head.

Kucinich 100%
Poison Ivy 11%
Flawed poll no way Bush would get any % except for comic relief.
Kucinich could open up some of the best flats in the world in Cuba.

Tuna...maybe you and Dennis could share a cell in the Cuban insane asylum

Wildfishlover,
With the crazy world we are living in now I'll take it. Just give me a day out once in a while to fish Tarpon.
And for any bubas out there they might have the best large mouth bass fishing in the world!

Grandpa:

Perhaps you heard Kerry say something I have not. I haven't heard him bash rich folks at all. I have heard him say he would roll back the tax cuts for the rich. But I know a calm, understated guy like you wouldn't consider that rich bashing. Besides, as a conservative I'm sure you are appalled by the huge deficits Jr. has run up.

And yesterday he said he would stop all tax incentives that now given to corporations that move jobs overseas. I guess the moving jobs overseas might hurt some wealthy stockholders. But I know you wouldn't call that rich bashing. Maybe your aluminum foil is leaking??

Dave ..I am too tired to respond and I think you're right about the foil leaking...I am focusing on fishing right now...

OK DAVE...Add another layer of foil ....

Something I found on Drudge...

AFTER THE New Hampshire primary, Dennis Kucinich's new slogan is: ".001 Percent of America Can't Be Wrong!" John Edwards' new slogan is: "Vote for Me or We'll See You in Court." Joe Lieberman's new slogan is: "Sixth Place Is Not an Option." (Bumper sticker version: "Ask Me About My Delegate.") Al Sharpton's new slogan is "Hello? Room Service?" Wesley Clark's new slogan is: "Leading America's War on Fetuses." Howard Dean's new slogan is: "I Want to Be Your President ... And So Do I!"


That leaves John Kerry (new slogan: "Nous Sommes Nombre Un!"), who is winning Democratic voters in droves on the basis of his superior ability to taunt George Bush for his lack of combat experience. Like every war hero I've ever met, John Kerry seems content to spend his days bragging about his battlefield exploits. Wait, wait ... Let me correct that last sentence: like no war hero I've ever met ...


As everyone has heard approximately 1 billion times by now, Kerry boasts that he has REAL experience with aircraft carriers, and if Bush wants to run on national security, then ... BRING IT ON!

I note that when George Bush directed that precise phrase at Islamic terrorists who yearn to slaughter American women and children, liberals were enraged at the macho posturing of it. But they feel "Bring it on!" is a perfectly appropriate expression when directed at a dangerous warmonger like George Bush. ("Bring it on!" was deemed better than Kerry's first impulse, "Let's get busy, sister!")


Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.


But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters.


For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?


In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him.


When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.


Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.


At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.


Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year.


The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.


Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?

Grandpa, you must have had a great nights sleep - you are on top of your game!!!

One interesting thing that I saw the other day was a poll that measured negatives for sitting Presidents. The biggest negatives were for Bill Clinton at 60%, in 2nd place - the shrub - 57%. Rather than getting into who's right and who's wrong, I find it interesting that we have become such a politically polarized society. I'm trying to figure it out. Is it:

1. The rise of the Internet
2. The rise of talk radio
3. More News Channels on TV

There are probably more ideas out there, but the interesting fact is that I believe the election could be held today and the results would not be significantly different than in November. My gut tells me that the degree of polarization is not good for our Country in the long run - like all things, time will tell.

Top O The mornin Eddie

I think you are correct....maybe because there is such emphasis on ric h versus poor.....I don't know but some of my best friends who are Democrats still cling to the idea that the Democrats and the unions are for the workin man...and the Republicans are for the rich and against them...

What is rich?.....I better ask Vedder

grandpa: Right now I think rich is anyone who can buy a new deisel pick up truck.

Grandapa, The post and the election is about political issues not who can bash the other candidate. It doesn't take much to dig up dirt on the rich brat either.

Dave... I think you're right.

steelheadman....politics nowadays is nothing but bashing the other candidates....Changing positions to suit the polls and just general hot air....That goes for all parties. I'm going back to fishing topics...no one wins the political ones and usually someone gets really bent out of shape..I'm running out of foil too.

Grandpa: You are a wise man. Let's talk about fish. For whatever reasons your stellar logic and wit have moved me not one whit. And I suspect my well-laid arguments have not converted you to a pink suited liberal. Let's just give up.

Here are the articles I propose for our treaty:

1. Whereas we can agree that most politicians are immoral, power hungry tools of their respective parties.

2. Whereas we can agree that neither party’s president will solve all our problems, catch us many more fish or help with weight loss.

3. Whereas we agree that our time could be better spent fishing

4. Whereas we are both pig headed, old farts who are unlikely to ever change our minds

We hereby agree to stop arguing politics. (Until such time comes that we just can’t help ourselves.) So help us God, Allah, Mohammed, Mother Nature or no deity at all.