0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 07:05 am
Timber
While it is true that Bush has not begun his fight for reelection I must wonder what he has to fight with.Certainly not his record.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 07:29 am
au

His record, what good or bad he has done, is so susceptible to spin and fashionable agreement that there isn't any good way to predict how the population will perceive it. Clearly though, his record is presently being perceived with less enthusiasm than previously.

But another tool in Rove's chest is fear, and that will get pushed onto the population with all the finesse of an alley mugging.

I think though that the most formidable asset is the level of organization which the Republicans have managed to achieve in the last decade or so. Here, the cooperation between more classical republican machinery and the newer religious right machinery presents a touch challenge for the democrats.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 07:52 am
Bernie's take is cogent; I would add that they have also done a marvelous sales job with a highly defective product.

How else can you understand otherwise perfectly rational and intelligent peoples' blindness to all the lies they have told?

That's not only effective; that's rare.

The American people usually smell a rat pretty quick, and while there is swellling evidence to suggest they are starting to get it, it's positively amazing me that it is taken all of this bloodshed, all of this suffering (staggering increases in unemployment, record numbers of impoverished), and all of this deficit spending for the stench to waft up to their nostrils.

Still a long time before the first primaries and every single Democratic prospect looks smarter and more compassionate than Dubya; American soldiers will still be dying in Iraq when Election Day '04 rolls around; our consumer-driven economy is going nowhere between now and then without hundreds of thousands of good jobs suddenly appearing; and unless Karl Rove can find another way to terrify the sheep, it won't even be close.

With John Kerry or Wes Clark standing next to him, I don't think Dubya should be dressing up as a soldier anymore, either, so Rove can't play that little charade again, much less the video from the first one.

The pivotal moment will come in New York a bit less than a year from today when the GOP gathers to re-coronate their little Boy King. The Republicans shouldn't count on much of a convention bounce.

Anyone remember Chicago in '68? It could make that look like a garden party.

Every blue state from 2000 and one more. That's all.

Bush is toast. Cool
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 07:58 am
this won't help bush much
Quote:
The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.7 million last year, and the median household income declined by 1.1 percent, the Census Bureau reported today. The worsening economic conditions fell heaviest on Midwesterners and nonwhites.

It was the second straight year of adverse changes in both poverty and income, the first two-year downturn since the early 1990's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/national/27POVE.html?hp
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:05 am
and flowing below the radar...oil

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/business/worldbusiness/27OIL.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:08 am
Not likely to get on O'Reilly
Quote:
The father of a soldier killed in Iraq accused President George Bush yesterday of being responsible for his son's death.
Fernando Suarez, whose 20-year-old son, Jesus, was one of the first fatalities, said: "My son died because Bush lied."

Mr Suarez, from Escondido, California, speaking at a press conference to publicise tomorrow's anti-war demonstrations in eight US cities, said that about 1,300 parents of troops stationed in Iraq were involved in a movement against the oc cupation. "It is time for these troops to come home," said Mr Suarez. "Neither my wife nor my family want more children to die in this illegal war. We are no less patriotic for wanting peace. Bush wants $87bn [£52m] for this war, but what does he give us for our schools?" he asked.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1050949,00.html
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:10 am
Lucky you, b-man: you hit the trifecta.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:16 am
there's more....

Blair is in deep trouble now, within his own party and overall in the country. The election last week, where a 29 year dramatically old took away a long-held Labour seat considered safe was a pretty loud announcement of change. And there's this...
Quote:
It has a mailing list that Karl Rove, the man credited with making George Bush presidential, would kill for. It has a power to mobilise greater than top-up fees, the Countryside Alliance or even the poll tax. And it will be there today at the barricaded entrance to Downing Street, reminding its occupant how disliked he has become.
If the prime minster is there, he will see himself depicted as the ace of spades in a new political pack of cards - Clare Short is the joker - along with his name, misspelled to read: B Liar.

In two years the Stop the War Coalition has been the fastest growing political movement in Britain. It has spawned 500 affiliated groups. There is Dover and Deal Stop the War, and Salisbury Stop the War. Almost every national trade union is affiliated. It is also Britain's most diverse movement. From schoolchild to pensioner, Muslim to Jew, religious to secular, communist to conservative, from shire to inner city, this single issue campaign has a demographic reach political campaigners could only lust after.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1050782,00.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:19 am
And the Treasury Department kicks in to help pay for the war...
Quote:
Anti-war activists who visited Iraq before the US invasion have discovered that they could face up to 12 years in prison and $1m in fines.
Although travel firms now tout adventure tours to a country that is a temporary home to 150,000 US troops, scores of American protesters have been warned they risk fines or imprisonment for violating a prewar travel ban.

During the past few weeks a retired schoolteacher in her 60s and a number of other activists have received warnings from the US treasury that they could face punishment for travelling to Iraq.

"When I came back from Iraq I had a letter from the treasury threatening up to 12 years in prison and up to $1m [£620,000] in fines," said Faith Fippinger, 62...

Ms Fippinger said a treasury official had told her last week that if she agreed to pay, the fine would be reduced to $10,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1017347,00.html
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:27 am
blatham
I see the tide beginning to turn. I have several friends who are dyed in the wool republicans. Whenever I said something negative about Bush they would go off like Roman candles. However, lately I have seen a change in attitude they have begun to question Bush's action in Iraq and the economy. Small sampling indeed but I think it is a reflection on peoples awakening.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:38 am
au

Yes, the polls reflect change, so I think you might well be reading your friends correctly.

But even given a solid dem victory next election, with changes in balance of power in either or both houses, I think the imminent hangover politically and economically, will we very great. Big mistakes, big consequences.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 08:44 am
blatham
As with any major illness it will take time to effect a cure.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 09:45 am
has anyone ever seen this site?

http://www.namebase.org/main3/Overseas-Private-Investment-corporation.html

scroll down to the "show a social network" section
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 12:22 pm
Sure have seen that before, Lola. Lots of interesting, if essentially meaningless, stuff there. For instance:

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?CLINTON_BILL_

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?EXPORT%2DIMPORT_BANK_

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?LEWINSKY_MONICA_S

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?FOSTER_VINCENT_W%20JR

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?CLINTON_HILLARY_RODHAM
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 12:55 pm
Prediction: Clark will peak with media saturation, as did Dean before him. Coming out, and being new seems to have this effect. Its sort of like the post-convention bump...

Kerry and Dean will eventually get desperate enough to trot out Clark's weaknesses. The weaknesses are substantial. The unknowns are too vast. He never voted for a Dem, other thn his bud, Clinton. Never espoused a 'Dem principle'... If you didn't like Lieberman, why the hell would you like Clark???

Clark will fade.

Dean and Kerry will duke it out, and Kerry, the 'trusted establishment guy', with Kennedy and other notable Dems at his side will get the nomination. I think Dean will do strong in the first caucuses and primaries.

(This is fun.) :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 01:23 pm
Yes, Timber, I wasn't claiming that it had meaning or saying that it didn't. I was just asking if anyone knew anything about it. I had already been to the links you provide above. I wasn't asking if the information meant something. I was just asking what you know about it. It does seem to be an easy way to trace names and contacts. This information alone doesn't mean anything without other information. I agree.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 01:24 pm
And, whoever is left standing will defeat an emasculated, whimpering GW Bush in November, 2004 - Yes, it is quite fun Wink
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 01:32 pm
I figured you'd agree the value, absent consideration of other data, was merely entertainment, Lola. Whether or not our politics, yours and mine, are congruent, I respect your intellect, honesty and sincerity.

(even if I question your objectivity Twisted Evil Laughing :wink: )
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 01:48 pm
I am very much afraid that Mr. Blatham has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about!

"Changes of balances of power in one or both Houses???????

That is a ridiculous statement.

Mr. Blatham( is it because he is a Canadian??) seems to know nothing of political reality.

I notice Mr. Blatham just gasbags on and on and almost never gives any links or proof or documentation/
Does Mr. Blatham know that even the "hard left wing" in the USA does not believe that there will be any change in the control of the House or Senate next year?

Does Mr. Blatham know that the House of Representatives will have at the most( 25 or 30 seats that are not considered safe seats because of re-districting--this does not include the 4 or 5 the Republicans will win in Texas after re-districting.

Does Mr. Blatham know that the Democrats have to defend 19 Democratic Seats in the Senate while the Republicans defend only 15 seats?

Does Mr. Blatham know that 10 of the seats that the Democrats will defend are in states that Bush won in the 2000 campaign while there are only two vulnerable Republican Seats- Illinois and , perhaps Alaska?

Does Mr. Blatham know that Senators Edwards( In North Carolina) and Sen. Hollings ( In South Carolina) are not running to defend their seats?

Does Mr. Blatham know that the Republicans are very strong in the South?

Does Mr. Blatham know that the Democrats are not able to find a candidate to run against Sen. Bond(R) in Missouri?

Does Mr. Blatham know that Jim Bunning in Kentucky may have been spared a tough race because of Gov. Patton( who was to run against him) involvement in a sex scandal?


Mr. Blatham really ought to check out the New York Times once in a while, or the Washington Post. He would find that his ideas are not only wrong but ludicrous.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 02:00 pm
I gotta wonder why someone would take the time to develop and present valid points of rebuttal, then diminish that rebuttal by framing it with cheapshot and thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. Then again, I s'pose there's little cause for wonder.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 05:42:11