Michael Dukakis, Atlanta 1988

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 18, 2008 at midnight

Text size  

• 27 Comments
• Email
• Print

Photo by Chris Schneider © The Rocky

Former Massachusetts governor and 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.

Photo by Michael E. Samojeden © AP/1988

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis rides in a tank at manufacturer General Dynamics’ facility in Michigan during the 1988 campaign. The image became a source of widespread ridicule, and a video of the event was used in a television ad for his rival, Vice President George H.W. Bush.

Twenty years have passed, but Michael Dukakis still kicks himself — again and again and again.

Seven times in an hourlong chat, he brings up “mistakes” from that 1988 presidential election.

Twice, he flat-out admits that he “screwed it up.” He wonders aloud whether he might have been naive. And, lest anybody still wonders who was to blame for his loss to Republican George H.W. Bush, Dukakis keeps repeating that the strategic decisions were “my fault, nobody else’s.”

Things just didn’t work out the way the former Massachusetts governor had hoped. And this after what Dukakis considered a “great,” “terrific,” “unified,” “positive” Democratic National Convention in Atlanta.

Turns out, a great political get-together just isn’t enough, particularly if the presidential nominee forgets the most important part of a convention: The morning after.

After the last balloons drop, a presidential nominee has to start the campaign all over again. He has to be ready to fight back against attacks. And, Dukakis says from experience, those attacks are coming.

“What I would change obviously, and what you have to be aware of, is the final campaign is very different from the primary,” Dukakis says, sitting in front of a vintage map of Denver at his daughter’s stately home in the city’s Country Club neighborhood. “You think you’ve addressed every issue under the sun. You try to do so in your acceptance speech. But it’s a whole new ballgame, and you’ve got to begin, post-convention, as if the campaign has just begun.”

After his upbeat convention in 1988, “I just kind of assumed, ‘Look, it’s just a continuation of what I’ve been doing: a very positive approach that so far seems to have done what I hoped it would,” Dukakis says. “And anyway, that’s the kind of guy I am, so we’ll just kind of continue . . .’ ”

But it was a famous miscalculation. Dukakis wanted to stay positive. So he was slow to respond to some brutal attacks on his record, his positions and even his wife’s reputation.

By the time he fought back, it was too late.

That’s a painful lesson Democrats should never forget, Dukakis says. And it’s clear that a sometimes “feisty” Sen. Barack Obama already has taken it to heart, he adds.

In Dukakis’ view, any and all attacks have to be countered, swiftly and forcefully, he says. Or else, suffer his fate, a party’s standard-bearer who ended up as one of those self-deprecating woulda, coulda, shoulda guys.

“Once that convention is over in Denver and Labor Day weekend hits, it’s eight weeks to the final,” he says. “And it’s going to be hand-to-hand combat for the eight weeks.”

* * *

One of the enduring images of the 1988 presidential campaign was a scene from the late-night comedy show Saturday Night Live, with comedian Jon Lovitz portraying Dukakis at a debate.

Dukakis can laugh about it now — and mimic the punch line, too.

“ ‘How could I be losing to this guy,’ (Lovitz) said, playing me, with Dana Carvey on the other side,” Dukakis says. “I was asking myself the same question.”

After that convention in Atlanta, when future president Bill Clinton’s droning keynote address was among the only true disasters, Dukakis left on a high note, enjoying at least a momentary 17 percentage point lead in the polls and figuring the White House was at least within his reach, or “winnable.”

Dukakis’ then 85-year-old mother, a Greek immigrant, had been in the audience for his acceptance speech.

“And she’s sitting in that place and her kid is being nominated for the presidency of the United States,” he says. “I mean, that was quite a moment during the convention. Greeks are insufferably proud of who we are and where we come from . . . But it was a historic moment. Not an awful lot of folks with a name like Dukakis have been candidate for president .”

Dukakis’ wife, Kitty, was proud, too.

“Such enthusiasm and excitement,” she says. “And I felt very positively about what had happened up to that point.”

At the convention, Dukakis had to conduct a bit of diplomacy with a determined rival, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who won 1,250 delegates for his Rainbow Coalition and earned a strong say in the party’s platform.

“And frankly, when we came out of the convention, I thought we had a good, solid, very respectful relationship with the Jackson folks, and for the most part they jumped into the campaign and were extremely helpful,” Dukakis says.

Convention speakers took their jabs at then-Vice President Bush. Nobody would forget the one-liner from fellow Texan Ann Richards: “Poor George. He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

That might have been more memorable than anything Dukakis uttered, but it didn’t matter. He was riding high with the selection of another Texan, Lloyd Bentsen, as his running mate. And after the convention they took off on a triumphant barnstorming tour.

They were greeted by 10,000 folks in Bentsen’s hometown in south Texas. They drew 25,000 in Modesto, Calif. They faced 11,000 people in Minot, N.D. — one of the biggest rallies the town had ever seen.

“So there was enormous enthusiasm coming out of the (convention),” Dukakis says. “But from the standpoint of campaign strategy, the decision — and again, it was my decision to remain silent in the face of those attacks — was just a terrible mistake. And we didn’t do the grass-roots effort anywhere near as well as we should have.”

* * *

It didn’t take long for the attacks to begin.

At the Republican National Convention, keynote speaker Gov. Tom Kean of New Jersey accused Democrats of practicing “pastel patriotism” — seizing on the muted color scheme that the Democrats chose for their convention instead of the obligatory red, white and blue.

The quip foreshadowed later attacks on the bookish Dukakis’ machismo and patriotism.

At a time when Bush’s young running mate, Indiana’s Dan Quayle, was facing questions over his military draft status during the Vietnam War era, U.S. Sen. Steve Symms, an Idaho Republican, went on talk radio and repeated one of the smears that had been percolating behind the scenes: That there supposedly was a picture of Kitty Dukakis in the 1960s, burning an American flag at an anti-war protest.

Nobody ever produced any evidence of the claim, and Dukakis calls it an outright fabrication.

“I’ve never met the guy. He never apologized,” Dukakis says angrily. “It was an outright lie, just like this ‘whitey’ thing.”

He’s referring to unsubstantiated claims, widely circulated on the Internet, alleging that Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, was videotaped making inflammatory statements on race. As in 1988, nobody has produced evidence and the candidate has been distracted by charges aimed at his spouse.

Kitty Dukakis’ eyes fill with tears as she talks about Michelle Obama. “I see this woman who has just given so much to all of us . . . I have great pride in what she’s able to do.”

In Dukakis’ view, those types of charges from opposition surrogates don’t just need to be refuted. They have to be put “squarely in the lap” of the opposing candidate until he or she is forced to denounce them in no uncertain terms. (That’s what Dukakis says should have happened in 2004, too, when a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth undermined the credibility of his friend, decorated Vietnam War veteran Sen. John Kerry.)

Another key attack on Dukakis in the 1988 campaign came from a conservative group’s now-infamous “Willie Horton” ads.

They started by highlighting Dukakis’ opposition to the death penalty, then told of an infamous case when he was governor of Massachusetts. Under a state program, Horton, who had been convicted in a killing, was released on a weekend pass and went on to commit violent crimes.

The underlying facts were unfortunate but true, Dukakis now concedes. But some critics say the ads, which featured a picture of Horton, who was black, were a classic case of race-baiting.

Aside from that debate, Dukakis says he should not have allowed those ads to define him on the law-and-order issue in the campaign.

“At least Willie Horton committed the offense that they were talking about. There was no falsity,” he says. “Now, the fact that Houston, greater Houston, had six times the homicide rate of greater Boston and I let George Bush kind of take the crime issue away from me was my fault, nobody else’s.”

As the campaign went on, Dukakis, a former Eagle Scout and Army veteran, allowed national defense issues to be taken away from him, too.

It goes down as an infamous case of a public relations gambit backfiring. To bolster his military image, Dukakis donned a helmet and rode a mighty military tank. Tough image, right?

But Republicans used the moving pictures in a brutal attack ad that recited all the weapons systems and military actions that Dukakis had opposed. The ad showed his smiling face — under that ridiculous-looking helmet — just as the narrator said: “And now he wants to be our commander-in-chief. America can’t afford that risk.”

* * *

Attack after attack after attack, and suddenly Dukakis, the man who left that Atlanta convention with a double-digit lead, was on his way to a blowout defeat.

“It was my decision, nobody else’s. I would not respond to the Bush attack campaign,” he says. “And that turned out to be a serious mistake. It was a mistake, as we can see, that Obama hasn’t made for a second. If you listen to, or read, the speech he made the night of the North Carolina primary, he just essentially got up and said, ‘We know exactly what is coming . . .’ And you can see already, not a day goes by when any attack from the McCain campaign is not answered . . . In point of fact, Obama has been a very feisty post-primary candidate, if I can use that term. And he has got to be.”

Dukakis thinks the key to responding is for Democrats to build committed ground forces with block captains and precinct organizers in all 200,000 precincts in the country.

“So you’ve got to be ready for the attack from day one,” he says. “You have to organize on the ground in every single precinct. It’s critical because when the attacks come, the most effective way of blocking the attacks is to get that army of volunteers out there. And now, with the Internet, you can do it overnight. So as soon as they start attacking, bang!”

Rapid response is even more critical in 2008, he says, because the Democratic National Convention is happening more than a month later on the calendar than it did in 1988 and there’s far less time to recover from attacks in the eight-week sprint to the election after Labor Day.

Twenty years after his defeat, Dukakis is getting ready to attend the convention again. But it won’t be as a revered former president. It will be as a college professor and folksy grandfather.

Despite the 1988 defeat, all is not lost, Kitty Dukakis says, clutching her husband’s arm.

“I think one of the things we’ve got to be grateful for is our relationship is a very close one,” she says. “And we knew that regardless of what happened in the final analysis, that we had each other.”

The couple seem as giddy about this year’s convention as they were for 1988. And they’re planning a unique arrival that’s a throwback to 1908, the last time the party’s fete was held in the Mile High City.

Dukakis, a railroad buff and former Amtrak board member, and his wife are joining two of their grandkids in San Francisco and riding the California Zephyr train back over the Rockies to the convention city.

Oh, but if only Dukakis could be coming back as a former president. If only he had held on to his double-digit lead and defeated Bush. If only he had fought back tougher, earlier. If only . . .

“Unfortunately,” he says, “Mike Dukakis did not do that, and the consequences were pretty serious.”

sprengelmeyerm@shns.com

• August 18, 2008

  5:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  Oh, puhlease! Kitty's flag-burning allegation only memorable to Dukakis, it never made it into the mainstream press and there was no internet then. Heck, Rush Limbaugh wasn't even national then. This article was the first time I ever heard of it.

  The "Mad" magazine cartoonish image of him riding in the tank was of his own creation. The Republican ad just took over what the comedians had already been saying about him looking ridiculous on that tank. What, when your opponent steps in a steaming pile are you supposed to just turn your head and let him pretend it didn't happen?

  Willie Horton, he admits was fair game. Big of him.

  "Swift Boating" is only a pejorative in Democrat circles. It was called telling the truth about a candidate that the liberal media was complicit in covering up. Kerry was a liar and a traitor in the Senate hearing where he called our brave soldiers in Vietnam "baby-killers and rapists". For him to have the gall to proclaim himself heroic for that episode was the invitation for rebuttal, the correction of history that the Swifties provided America. Thank God!

  Now Obama is in hyper-overreact mode to any and all ads that mention him in a not-so-flattering light. The more he follows Dukakis's advice the happier I'll be. America doesn't care for whiners with thin skin. What if Putin, Castro, Chavez or Ahmadinejad insults him, will Obama start sobbing or get into a name calling match? Not real presidential material in that tactic.

  Oh, yeah, as if Democrats are of clean hands. The James Byrd ad in 2000 about GWB in Texas where they imply Bush was for lynching blacks. The ads in 2000 in Missouri saying Bush wanted to take away the vote for black people and go back to segregation. The ads every single election cycle saying Republicans want to starve babies, minorities and old people, cut off their power, poison the water, infect us with AIDS, etc....The ads every single election cycle calling Republicans not just wrong, but stupid, too.

  Politics is a full-contact sport. Dukakis, Obama, Bush, McCain deserve no sympathy. They know it comes with the territory. Yes, the public gauges how candidates respond to attacks to help them determine if the person has the timber to be in the most powerful position in the world. Dukakis sounds like a crybaby. Obama sounds like an impertinent teenager. McCain sounds like a grownup.

• August 18, 2008

  6:04 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Oh_Wise_One writes:

  mikeyg- and don't forget in 2004 when George was going to bring back the draft even though he and the military are/were against it. I saw the propaganda down at Metro State in the college paper and I know some believed it. Talk about smears when it was the Dems who were pushing it.

• August 18, 2008

  7:18 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LuvAmerica writes:

  "'Swift Boating' is only a pejorative in Democrat circles."

  This speaks volumes about what passes for character and integrity in the GOP.

• August 18, 2008

  8:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  T1anda writes:

  Give someone a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you lose a Democrat voter.

• August 18, 2008

  8:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Darwin writes:

  Oh pleeeeze LuvAmerica; as if the Democrats are the party of character and integrity. Neither party has much to be proud of. One can only wish there was a third party candidate that could stand a chance to be elected.

  Of course we can count on F69 to start name calling, the only broken arrow in his quiver.

• August 18, 2008

  9:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jay045 writes:

  I saw a lot of documented facts about the Swift Boat case by independent sources that thoroughly debunked what was being said (for example, see http://www.factcheck.org/republican-f...)

  Even John McCain, who by 2004 was wholeheartedly backing Bush for president, said "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam."

  As for the medals being thrown away, it was a very divisive time. John Kerry was 28 years old when he dumped his medals. I don't think it as much an issue as some do, but I'll willing to respect your disappointment and anger. I will contest that what he was saying to the congressional committees was an outright lie, and there is However, this is a country that was willing to forgive George Bush for drunk driving at around the same age, and, most likely, cocaine use. We look at not just what a political candidate does in his youth, but how he (or she) matures after they were young, and don't say that everything they did at age 28 is an indicator of what they will do at age 58. I don't like Bush, but I don't hold his substance abuse against him (other than he could be more of a role model, and have a more compassionate view of substance abuse in his policymaking).

• August 18, 2008

  9:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  primafacie writes:

  If little Michael Dukakis were to kick someone else instead of himself, he'd bruise a lot of ankles.

• August 18, 2008

  10:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  LingLingfor_prez writes:

  NObama 2008.

• August 18, 2008

  10:41 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  HankRearden writes:

  Dukakis would have been a disaster. Even so I'd rather have the Duke as President that the Messiah.

• August 18, 2008

  10:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  Anyone who asserts that the "Swifties" were "truthful" are so far off the reservation - they are a lying right-wing hit group discredited in all non-propaganda media. O'Neill is a slimy weasel who's been after Kerry since he sweated a puddle in the Cavett interview nearly 40 years ago. And oh yeah - the fact that there were "baby-killers and rapists" among our troops in Vietnam has been definitely proven, but to claim that speaking that truth is an attack on all of our troops is disgusting and slams the integrity of the military and this country. The patriotic response isn't to cover up atrocities - its to expose them to make sure they don't happen again in our name. Unless you support baby-killing and rape of course, which would be the only explanation really = how's that for "full-contact" politics? Stop insulting our military!

  And there are many words to describe the Paris/Britney ads and blaming Obama for high gas prices, but one that doesn't spring to mind is "grown-up".

• August 18, 2008

  12:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KING writes:

  This is the best that RMN can do...a story about a guy who got his A$$ kicked so bad that it was one of the worst in history...Dear editor...please hire real reporters

• August 18, 2008

  2:52 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  rickg19611 writes:

  What kind of one sided blather is this from the RMN....

  "Oh, but if only Dukakis could be coming back as a former president. If only he had held on to his double-digit lead and defeated Bush. If only he had fought back tougher, earlier. If only . . ."

  Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking from the "reporter". Or a more appropriate title is "Liberal Marketer".

  The same kind of lapdog journalism that produces the current MSM chants of..... Oh Bama! OH! OH! OH!

• August 18, 2008

  4:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  Liberal replies are so predictable. "Halliburton", "Blackwater", "our guys just tell the truth, your guys are the lying liars who tell lies to win at all costs", "we've debunked all your claims, but all ours are true", "you insult all of us", "Bush 3rd term". C'mon libs, can't you come up with anything original and not just communal groupspeak?

  Didn't Enron, WorldComm and ponzi-scheme dot-com stocks get "irrationally exuberant" based on illegal book-cooking under Clinton's Justice Department? All those companies, INCLUDING Enron gave heavily to Clinton's campaigns.

  But that was then, and this is now. So if you want to find out more about Obama's untold history (we've only been presented with his flowery memories, parroted without investigation by the mainstream media) then learn a little at the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/0...

  When his radical past comes back to haunt him to deny you socialists the election of the most radical left candidate ever put up by a major party I'm sure you'll coin another phrase like "Swift Boating". Facts are stubborn things, though. You can't market them or teleprompter them away for Obama. He's made his choices in life to surround himself with radicals. He's NEVER worked across the aisle with conservatives on anything substantial, but he gets a pass from the MSM as being willing to cross party aisles. When? Really, when, for what issue?

  McCain's problem is with his base BECAUSE he's crossed the aisle too many times and he has to shore up his radical right flank. Obama IS FROM the radical left, so he has no shoring up to do there and they'll give him a pass (Rev. Wright's "Obama's just a politician now, having to say what he has to to get elected") to pretend to be a centrist to help him win - they know what he really believes.

  Thank God there are folks like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who exposed the fraud that John Kerry was trying to run on as a "hero" (who was "disgusting and slammed the integrity of the military and this country"). And thank God there are folks putting the truth of Radical Obama in front of the public. As long as the mainstream press refuses to do their job in investigating Democrats independent groups will have to do it for America's sake.

• August 18, 2008

  5:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  Enron - you mean the Houston company headed by Bush's BFF Ken Lay? And if you want to compare our economic situation then compared to now - have at it. And if you want to compare Clinton's Justice Dept. vs. Bush's, where jobs normally reserved for the top grads from top law schools were instead stocked with Pat Robertson acolytes from the worst law school on earth, resulting in a department-wide implosion - have at that too.

  Issues Obama's worked with conservatives with (when they weren't obstructing any and all legislation) - tort reform, ethics reform, weapons (with Lugar), merit pay with teachers. Cobern, as right as it gets, said - "He has admirable qualities. He does reach out. And he has a good staff, and we've worked together on a couple of things, and it's been a pleasure to work with him." Plus he's come out in support of gun rights, faith-based charities, and a host of other issues.

  And all the "Swifties" did was lie, distort, and demean a Purple Heart recipient who volunteered for combat in Vietnam and risked his life for his fellow soldiers - and everyone who was there that day registered their disgust. As should all Americans who support the military.

  But it's not hard to understand why conservatives are even more angry, irrational, and America-hating than usual these days - since they've been in power, everything has gone to hell. So now they're like a cornered wolverine. If you want to watch a right-winger squirm, ask them this - What is Bush's and the conservatives' greatest accomplishment since they've been in power? When they pause for 5 seconds, then ask for ANY accomplishment. Then duck right before their heads blow up.

• August 19, 2008

  12:01 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  Enron was one of Clinton's largest contributors in the '90s. GWB went after one of his buds who did wrong, while Clinton looked the other way. Who's partisan-driven Justice department?

  Our economy has had lower unemployment under GWB 8yrs than under Clinton 8 yrs. How quickly liberals forget that after the massive tax hike Clinton and the Ds put in when they last had the Executive and Legislative branches in '92-94 that ushered in the first R House in 40+ yrs the economy was in the tank thanks to high D taxes, and the economy was already in a recession in 2000 before GWB took over.

  Ds have refused to support policies that would increase oil supply, and instead have created an artificially low supply that means ridiculously high gas prices. To a D that has nothing to do with high prices, rather it's "big oil greed" to blame. Fundamental lack of understanding markets these Ds. Don't forget the inflationary effect on all products. And the inflationary effect of increasing the minimum wage has nothing to do with higher prices? And the inflationary effect of ethanol and other expensive energy subsidies has nothing to do with higher utility bills? Not to Ds.

  Obama doesn't have a single signature piece of legislation to his name, and just 'cause he talks nice in meetings with Rs doesn't mean he votes bipartisan. Ethics bill? You really want to go there? The bill he told McCain he'd push Ds on and then abandoned when the heat from his party was too hot for him too handle? The DC gun control ban he supported until the SCOTUS overturned it and now opposes? Tort reform? This guy's got a 90%+ rating from ATLA (trial lawyers). What a fraud. Obama is a radical lefty who never parts company with his party's most extreme left-wing orthodoxy. He's been the top candidate of MoveOn and DailyKos from the start of the primaries. Sorry, pal, that dog won't hunt.

  Thank God for the Swifties stopping that traitor and liar Kerry from occupying the Oval office. You can call them all the names in your limited vocabulary, won't change a thing. They told the truth. Kerry didn't.

  It's not hard to understand why liberals are even more angry, irrational, and America-hating than usual these days. No matter how much they huff and puff America refuses to buy what they're selling in a presidential nominee. And if a D doesn't toe the party line on a single issue, like their VP nominee's support for a strong national defense that contrasts from the Ds yellow streak they're now outcasts. Nice tolerance in that "tolerant" party.

  You're a great example of radical leftists. So much a fraud and liar about everything you fake being a R in your name when there is nothing in a single post that is even a nominally R value. You're just a fraud socialist who thinks by pretending to be a convert you'll draw real Rs to your side. ah!! McCain gets 16% of D crossover votes, Obama gets 7% of R crossover votes. Me thinks your candidate has problems reaching across the aisle.

• August 19, 2008

  3:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  I'm a Republican who watched the Republican Party turn itself and the party over to the religious-rightwing fringe (aka MikeyGville) and predictably bungled everything they touched. And it doesn't take a "radical leftist" to slam your inane arguments. Yes, inane like = the Bush economy is better than the Clinton economy. That Bush's Justice Dept. is less partisan and more competent than Clinton's. That our current energy predicament is not a result of the policies of the ruling party that controlled the entire federal government, but the powerless minority party. That a dishonest and discredited political attack on a war hero is somehow not unpatriotic and disgraceful. That turning a budget surplus into ballooning record-shattering deficits and bungling 2 wars wasn't the GOP President and the GOP Congress's fault either.

  And you still didn't name a single Bush accomplishment. 24 hours not long enough to find one?

  That's why the GOP had to nominate their most unconservative member (before flip-flopping on nearly every issue of course) - the Republican brand is so wretched that anyone else didn't stand a chance. And you're a "great example" of radical rightwingers - putting your failed ideology ahead of the truth and your country. All of that makes you an anti-American nut.

• August 19, 2008

  5:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  You are full of it, full of yourself and a big, fat liar.

  All your claims are fiction. You are a radical leftist, a socialist scum who went to his MoveOn/DailyKos conference breakout session on "pretending to be a Republican to gain empathy, then assert the left's fictional talking points as truth and insult anyone who calls you on it."

  As much as you want to make this election about GWB, who has few friends remaining on either side of the aisle - IT ISN'T. It's about McCain v. Obama. I know that you're not a Republican because if you were there's no reason not to support McCain, he's about as centrist as they come. And if you were there's no reason to support Obama, he's about as leftist as they come. Not one true Republican would support that socialist for president. He is as radical (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/0...) on the left as they come. Republicans are not radical leftists, unless they are MoveOn/DailyKos leftists posing as R's.

  You want to talk about records, what has Obama done in his political life, what major accomplishment? And what has Obama done in his life in general that gives him the credentials to be president? Opposing the war as a state senator from an ultra-liberal anti-war district, having no skin in the game is not "courageous", or demonstrating anything that approaches leadership. If he had opposed the war as a congressman from Colorado Springs, or a US senator from Texas...that would've been courageous.

  McCain's record of achievements dwarf Obama's. It isn't even a contest. And McCain's experience makes Obama look like the small, insignificant man he is once you take away the Hollywood flash he's wrapped up in. He's a flimsy nobody with radical left ideas and associations. Saddleback exposed him for the fraud he was. That's why Obama refuses to do townhall meetings, first told McCain he'd debate him "anytime, anywhere" and then backed off, agreeing to only two debates, not townhall style. Because Obama looks puny when they are side by side and he knows it.

• August 19, 2008

  9:52 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  I've lied about nothing. Everything I asserted is true - feel free to point out anything that isn't (you haven't yet). I exposed your falsehoods - that's why you dropped them. All you can do is recite right wing talking points (DailyKos, MoveOn, socialist!, etc.) and kindergarden taunts (socialist scum? big fat liar? who holds your baby bottle while you type?) I'm supporting Obama because wackjobs like you have dragged the Republican Party and this country down in every conceivable way and the party needs a reckoning so it disassociates itself with the nutty right. If McCain wins, many of the same rightwing nuts currently populating the administration will remain in power. Since Bush is the worst president in history, that's horrifying.

  Of course Bush isn't in this election - but if he was, you'd vote for him in a second. Despite not having a single accomplishment and besides the country being worse off across the board since he took office - which you either realize and your only resort is playground name-calling or you're not intelligent enough to do anything but parrot FoxNews and Rush.

  I hope that Obama wins because I think he's the best shot at cleaning up the mess that the GOP created. I'm an American first - and I think he's the best shot we got to get some unity in this country and get away from divisive and destructive partisanship and personal and childish attacks that angry zealots like you have propagated. And I hope that his victory will pull the GOP away from the radical MikeyG fringe and into the 21st century. They and you will have to leave the 19th first.

  And oh yeah - get out of the sandbox and take a debate class.

• August 19, 2008

  10:49 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  "You sayeth, thus it beeth so!"

  I always find it funny how liberal twits like you always want conservatives to answer your questions (which we happily do, and I've happily done), but they (you) never answer conservative questions. It is a sophomoric device to always try to shift a debate to their terms, hurl accusations to try to put their opponent on defense so they never have to defend their own ideas. Doesn't work with me. What has Obama done? What is his life's resume that makes him qualified to lead this nation? Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Since you can't answer that, other than say mindless things like "hope" you just ignore it. Won't wash with the public.

  Debating with idiots like you is only enjoyable in that I get to expose how vacuous your ideas are to ordinary readers. Obama is a radical, Democrats have embraced a red-diaper baby socialist for their nominee and they'll scream and cry again when they don't understand even in this, of all years, they couldn't win a presidential election.

  You talk down the economy that is not even in a recession, but didn't say 'boo' about the recession Clinton left GWB with. Democrats have been screaming nothing but anger and rage since they lost their attempt to steal an election with their trial lawyer friends in 2000. "Bush lied, 4000 died", "no blood for oil", "Republicans want to poison your water to kill babies and old people", Micheal Moore's movies, the "Death of a President" movies that advocate assassinating GWB, and you have the nerve to cry that Republicans are angry. Look in the mirror.

  The MoveOn/DailyKos fringe you are a part of is just that, a fringe. You don't represent a majority of the USA, thank God! Enjoy crying in your Fruit Loops on November 5th when you read the newspaper!

• August 20, 2008

  12:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  You are only having a dialogue with the voices in your head. I can tell because most of your quotes are nothing I or anyone else here has said. I told you why I'm voting for Obama. I told you about how and why I'm ashamed of my party. I didn't change the subject = I specifically refuted every dumb and untrue comment you made - so you're only left with screaming diatribes containing every buzzword and canard Limbaugh and Foxnews (I was wondering where the Michael Moore mention was - what took you so long?) have crammed into your head. You haven't answered a single question I've asked = especially the one about Bush's accomplishment(s). You haven't "exposed" a single "idea" I've had as vacuous - you've barely addressed them. You have added "twit" and "idiot" to your kindergarden taunts. If I had actually employed a "sophmoric device" it would've flown right over your preschool dome.
  I answered your question about "accomplishments" long ago (yesterday, around 5pm) but that's not what I'm solely basing my vote on - but I do think Obama's story is admirable and an inspiration. And I think he's much smarter and has better ideas - as well as the stronger possibility to restore American prestige. It would be nice to not be loathed by the entire planet.
  You say that there's no way a Republican would vote for Obama = and then give a stat that says 7% are. That's sooo dopey. And just because its troubling - I never said the word "hope". That must've been the monster in your brain again, the one you're constantly screaming at = with all that ANGER.

• August 20, 2008

  2:11 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  lol, you crack me up!!

  pathetic whining, you've not answered a thing and keep screaming your MoveOn/DailyKos chants. Nobody's listening, your leftist candidate will lose, you sound like you're in high school and you're NO Republican. Exactly what conservative values do you hold? And don't wimp out and say welfare reform, gun control or vouchers - even Democrats have come along to those traditionally Republican issues since they realize they were wrong and permanent political losers.

  What conservative values do you hold? What conservative issues has Obama crossed party lines to advocate for (exclude the same list above, not controversial these days)?

  Sorry, my acne-pocked face socialist friend, you can't name a thing - you're full of it! lol!!

• August 20, 2008

  8:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  I was so sure i destroyed you - but then you had to bust out "acne-pocked face". damn

• August 21, 2008

  12:31 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  what a loser you are. go pop a zit.

• August 21, 2008

  10:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  You've been exposed

• August 21, 2008

  11:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  you're a nut jub

• August 21, 2008

  12:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RepublicanObamacan writes:

  jub? Stop embarrassing yourself

• August 21, 2008

  4:47 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  mikeyg writes:

  childish socialist you are.

Featured

• Legislature Blog

  

  Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.

• Rocky multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.

• Who's next?

  

  Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.

• Rocky year in photos

  

  View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.

• Winter Escapes

  

  Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs

• Shanahan's career

  

  See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.

• 12 days of Drew

  

  Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.

• A dream fulfilled

  

  A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production