0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 08:05 pm
c.i.- You may be right. A loss in 2004 would kill her political aspirations, but 2008 will be a different story. I don't really like her, but I am beginning to think that there are very few politicians that I DO like!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 08:05 pm
"it's like a rerun of a bad movie" doh daddy been here done that?
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 08:13 pm
Weren't there rumblings last week about Gary Hart???? That's downright humiliating. There has GOT to be someone else. A serious contender who hasn't surfaced yet. But who???
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 08:20 pm
I posted the following in another A2K forum, but felt it belongs here too:

"How can the "Coalition of the Willing" maintain its willingness, its
steadfastness, and the morale of its troops when the truth of the matter
is in real doubt? The Washington Post today reports that the White House lied about some of their "evidence". This is beginning to look like Vietnam all over again, folks.

Conservative fools note: Little lies can undermine the entire credibility
of superpowers, no matter how worthy the cause. And there is no greater
traitor than the leader who abuses the trust of his people."


c.i.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 09:13 pm
Please don't scream c.i.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 09:42 pm
eoe, Sorry, I though all caps was screaming. Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 11:13 pm
c.i., I heard you at the bowling alley tonight - whew, hope you feel better now! Cool :wink: Smile Very Happy Laughing Razz
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 11:29 pm
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 11:32 pm
What's the matteer with Gary Hart? He's grown over the years, and started out smart. And Rudman likes him and respects him, which is how I feel about Rudman.

But Georgie can still pull this off if they can really grow the economy, provide 2million plus jobs, and emerge the hero of Iraq within the year.

Rove, the spinmeister, might find some things difficult this time. While i'm sure this will be dirty, there are still Goerge's hushed up DUIs, and Laura's hushed up manslaughter, which can be brought out and played with.

The dems are just beginning to sort it out now - shakedown cruise, and they've got some good candidates. I think both Clintons will be power players, and there does seem to be a sense of timing there.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 11:33 pm
mama, Georgie isn't going to grow the economy by his rush to war, nor by giving most of the tax breaks to the rich. If you've been watching the stock market lately, it's dropped by a bundle. The 52 percent of Americans are gonna be looking at their stock statements, and wondering what in tarnation this president's stimulus package is all about. c.i.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:24 am
PDiddie - If you take the time to read the FL election law that was in place in 2000, you would realize that there was no legitimate legal pretext for a second recount. Gore's efforts to continue the recounts went counter to the law. Period. That others including the FLSC were willing to allow it, did not make it right.

Bush won according to the original count and the first mandatory machine recount. When the result of that recount was shown to be within the statistical margin for establishing error, the process was done. The election was over. That Gore and so many tried to ignore that, doesn't change it.

Argue with his policies all you want, but you do yourself a disservice by clinging to this manufactured notion of illegitimacy. Even those who recounted after the fact--many who wanted to prove otherwise--conceded again and again that FL went to Bush, and with FL, the election. If not for some serious bad-faith actions by the Gore team, that fact would never have been in doubt.
0 Replies
 
CowDoc
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:25 am
I don't have a good handle on GW's effects on the economy, and I have a wait-and-see attitude toward Iraq, but, as a Westerner, I truly resent the comments that Bush has done nothing for the environment. We are still trying to recover from the incredible environmental damage caused by the Clinton administration's restrictive policies toward public lands, and (we hope) we can finally see a little light at the end of the tunnel. To have urbanites believe that this administration's policies are not good for the environment will turn most of the West into a blackened wasteland, because we will never be able to manage BLM and Forest Service lands logically and scientifically if we return to the Sierra Club's agenda. We like living here, and we'd REALLY like to keep the West from going up in smoke. Local control is the only way to keep this from happening, and that is precisely the position being taken by GW and Gale Norton.
0 Replies
 
larry richette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:50 am
Bush CAN be beaten and he WILL be beaten, just as his father was and for the same reason--the lousy economy. Wall St. is so jittery that the Dow closed down 239 points today. Unemployment is still high, consumer confidenve and corporate earnings are low, the dollar is the weakest it is has been in over 3 yrs. Bush's answer to all tbhis? A tax cut for rich coupon-clippers and SUV purchasers! Now the question is, who is the best Democrat to beat him? History shows that no Democrat can win without at leeast one large Southern state. The last 3 Democratic Presidents have all been Southerners. This analysis suggests that John Edwards of North Carolina is best positioned to take on Bush. I also like John Kerry but he may be too liberal for the current political climate. Lieberman is going nowhere, he won't win a single primary. Gephardt is a decent guy but he is a tired old face who won't turn anyone on. Gary Hart should stop dreaming and accdept that his political career ended 16 years ago. Hillary is not going to run, not this time. Howard Dean is way too liberal to make any headway. Sharpton will be a distraction but nothing more, and I doubt he will even stay in the primaries all the way to thge end. So by process of elimination I conclude that it's either Edwards or Kerry. What does everybody think?
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 06:31 am
Larry:

No one can beat President Bush in 2004. Place your bets now.

10:1 Bush is THE MAN in 2004.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 08:51 am
trespassers will
The dredging up of the Florida vote at this time, who won and who lost, is an exercise in futility. However since you brought up I should remind you that even discounting the dirty tricks that Jeb Bush and his fellow conspirators played to keep many blacks from casting their votes. There were over 2000 votes that went to Buchanan which were meant for Gore because of the design of the infamous butterfly ballot. Did Bush win in Florida? I ask you.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:12 am
I'll take that bet for $100, N.H. Verify and post your acceptance.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:14 am
TRES - fact remains that Bush lost the popular vote, no? So, fact remains that most americans did not vote for him.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:27 am
It will be close to the end of this year before we can predict with any certainty what will take place in the next election. By that time public opinion should begin to move in a definite direction to or away from Bush. Right now the drop in his poll numbers comes at a time when the general public is only just beginning to assess the president. They may run back to him at any time.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:31 am
t.w. stands no more chance of accepting your logic, au, than we do of accepting his.

You might as well go to work on changing your cat's mind.

Since this thread is about replacement, and not about elections past, and since the Iowa caucuses are a year away, and since there is another thread devoted to Democratic candidates and their prospects, I'll refocus on the topic...

If you consider that (I'm conjecturing nice round numbers without any hyperlinks behind them) that 40% of the electorate would vote for GWB if there was photographic evidence of sexual relations with a goat, and that 40% of the electorate would NOT vote for GWB if he killed Saddam, gave Iraq's oil to everyone who lost money in the market meltdown and used the rest to pay off the deficit...

...then that leaves the 20% that each party fights to woo every four years.

Swing voters. AKA 'angry white males' and 'soccer moms'.

I prefer calling them "Moron-Americans", because the polling statistics show that they make up their minds who to vote for in the last two weeks of the election cycle.

These are the Americans that believe that a number of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi; these are also the people who say they'd like to have a beer with Bush (despite the fact he is a recovered alcoholic).

Since you must only sway slightly more than half of them, and since they won't be deciding for whom to vote until 22 months from now...

...we can all chill out. Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 11:43 am
au, Using that argument that people mis-voted for Buchanan just doesn't fly. If people can't read, they have no business voting. c.i.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/25/2019 at 12:18:43