2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Here's another perspective to Bush's use of nine-eleven. Why is he so secretive about not sharing information he had on nine-ten and before that date about the imminent dangers of al Qaida? We all know he had intelligence information, but he's unwilling to share what he knew. Why?

0 Replies

Look in the mirror. It is liberals like you who are using 9/11 as a political tool. The ads in question show a few seconds of tasteful images of the most important event to occur during this administration. If they had left them out, you and yours would be whining that Bush lacked the respect and perspective to acknowledge what had happened on his watch. The reality is, you aren't complaining about this because you care about 9/11, you just see this as one more thing with which to attack a Republican president, and like the DNC and the Democrat party, it makes you soulless and contemptible.

Ask yourself who is in the media doing all the talking about 9/11 and pointing fingers at their opponent. IT IS THE DEMOCRATS. They are the ones politicizing 9/11, and I suspect that far more people in this country recognize that fact than see this through your myopic, biased eyes.

0 Replies

Quote:

If they had left them out, you and yours would be whining that Bush lacked the respect and perspective to acknowledge what had happened on his watch.

No.

0 Replies

Hypocracy runs rampant with the NeoCons - it is a Limbaugh trait, learned and perfected by all..............

0 Replies

Blah blah blah Limbaugh blah blah blah. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Trouble is, too many of youse guys believe the blather is truth <sigh>

0 Replies

The only blather I'm seeing has your name next to it. (And I don't believe a word of it, ever.) Cool

0 Replies

That's why you are such a loser, buddy -

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

BillW wrote:
It is also forgotten that Bush referred in many a partisan speech that he had "hit the trifecta" - to a chorus of rowdy laughter...........

Got a citation for this quote? (Surely if he said it in "many a partisan speech", you can come up with one citation from a legitimate news source.) Care to tell us what you are implying it meant? Sight unseen I'm confident that if he said it he meant nothing near what you believe he meant.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Bush+trifecta&sa=N&tab=wn
There's a Google News search, which turned up NOTHING on any major news source. In fact, the only site that seemed to claim he'd made any statement such as you pretend to knowledge of is "Buzzflash", and I'm more than happy to trump that with NO mention at CNN.com, NO mention by Reuters, NO mention by the BBC...)

But please, prove me wrong.

A Google search on "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta", didn't get me any major news sources, either.

It did, however, get me a page from the official White House website.

Perhaps this, then, is what the reference hails from. Not "many a partisan speech", to be sure - just something the President said to the Office of Management and Budget Director, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., as the guy recounted in a speech to the Conference Board (?) on October 16, 2001:

Quote:

Now, I want to speak tonight of our fiscal and economic affairs. And I take as a salient point of departure this very bipartisanship that I have just applauded. The bipartisanship you see in Washington, I am here to testify, is authentic. It is uplifting. It is efficacious. And it is expensive.

By the time that a bipartisanship majority or a consensus has been assembled, quite often costs have been escalated to bring on board those who were at first hesitant. And so we are now spending, you may have noticed, a lot of extra money, a lot of unforeseen money.

The good news is we had an awful lot of it to spend. The American fiscal situation has probably never been so strong as it is in calendar 2001, as it was on September 10th. With all the events of this year, we will run an enormous surplus, either the second- or third largest in American history -- even after the impact of recession and extra spending up through September 30th.

The President favors conditions of budgetary balance, and -- particularly looking ahead to the unfunded liabilities of our nation -- surplus, and the reduction of outstanding national debt against the day when those bills come due, and has been pursuing a balanced fiscal policy that included tax reduction for long-term growth, debt reduction, and moderate spending growth to make those first two objectives possible.

He had always listed, throughout his campaign and since, the reasons why the nation might depart from this policy, reasons he had given as acceptable for running fiscal deficits: for war, recession, or emergency. As he said to me in mid-September, "Lucky me. I hit the trifecta."

0 Replies

This little graph is nicely done, too - found it thanks to looking up the "lucky me, I hit the trifecta" thing - how do polls have Kerry matching up to Bush?

http://democrats.com/images/polls-040309.JPG

0 Replies

Look, Bill and Scrat, if you two wanna play that way, get a room. Leave it off the public threads.

0 Replies

November seems a very long way away...... thank god our president is such a "uniter." Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

nimh - Thanks for the citation. So, it appears to be something Bush said relative to the reasons he'd given for justifying running deficits. This was not, as BillW implied, Bush gloating about his reelection prospects, nor was it something Bush said in ANY speech, much less "many" speeches.

0 Replies

Scrat, yeh, that quote seems to have gotten a life quite of its own.

Meanwhile - hey, it's NIMH - another poll! With a SURPRISING twist. It's the latest Gallup one.

Its got Kerry 50% to 45% ahead on Bush. Add Nader to the race, and it becomes tighter: 47%-45%-5%. But on the other hand, "Nader will draw far less support among people who actually turn out to vote than among the larger population of registered voters nationwide" - and in fact, Bush does, slightly, too. So if you look at only the "likely voters", the margin is better for Kerry again: 50%-44%-2%. (This means that a high turnout would play badly for the Democrat - isn't it usually the other way round?).

But, anyway, that's not what I wanted to point out. Cause, as people dont get tired of saying, its not about the popular vote - its about the Electoral College.

Well, OK, here's the twist. You got "red states", right - that's where Bush won by over 5% in 2000. And you got "blue states", where Gore won by over 5% in 2000. And then you got so-called "purple states", the ones that were close in 2000: Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.

Now get ready for the kicker:

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr040309v.gif

Kerry does even better vs. Bush in the states that were close in 2000, than in "his own" blue states! Shocked

The equation holds up when you add Nader to the equation as well - again, its the battleground states where Bush does worst:

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr040309vi.gif

0 Replies

Look'n good!

0 Replies

Hey, interesting!

November is quite a ways away and all, but VERY interesting!

My F-I-L just told me that Ohio is supposed to be the Florida of this years' election. His advice was to put off moving there. ;-)

0 Replies

sozobe, Didn't you hear? Florida's having another problem with their (gulp) voting machines.

0 Replies

From Reuters.
************
Kerry Nears Nomination with Wins in South
1 hour, 34 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John Kerry (news - web sites) moved closer to formally clinching the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday with easy victories in four Southern states, including the crucial November battleground of Florida.

· Kerry Sweeps Four Southern Primaries
AP - 9 minutes ago

The Massachusetts senator, looking to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) in a region that has not been friendly to Democrats in recent elections, swept to easy wins in Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana.

Kerry effectively locked up the right to face Bush last week when he drove his last major rival from the race and the victories put him on the verge of making it official by capturing a majority of the delegates to July's nominating convention.

"This nation is demanding more than ever before leadership that takes us in a new direction," Kerry told supporters in Chicago, Illinois, which holds the primary next week that could put him over the top.

"George Bush will not take us in that direction," he said. "I will."

Kerry rolled up more than 75 percent of the votes in Florida and Mississippi over rivals who have dropped out of the race but remained on the ballots and over two remaining minor challengers, civil rights activist Al Sharpton (news - web sites) and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites).

0 Replies

It might be of significance, poll-bumber-wise, that "The Battleground States" have seen massive Democratic Party advertising, apart from the general media attention being given the Democratic Candidate race. I expect an actual proactive Republican campaign effort will have significant positive impact on the polls over the coming months.

Oh, and, hey, PDiddie ... did you happen to notice this?

Quote:

Posted 3/9/2004 11:11 PM

Voter turnout low for presidential primaries

By Erin Kelly, Gannett News Service

Full Article[/b][/i][/u]

Looking at primary turnout so far, it would appear the Democratic Resurgence pointed to with pride by the activists responsible for the perception of same lives only in their own minds, and as a media creation. Exciting one another just ain't gonna do it; you've gotta engage The Electorate ... and that isn't what the third lowest Democratic primary turnout on record says is happening.

0 Replies

timber, That 7.2% sounds awfully low. I think in California, the voter turnout was something on the range of 43%.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know