So, let's talk about replacing George W. Bush in 2004, shall we? :wink:
Hey, Srat ... I'm sure its just an oversight on your part, prolly just because you've been a way for a while and forgot some stuff, but if you don't see and edit the inappropriate part of your response to kickycan, I will. And I won't be happy.
Scrat wrote:kickycan wrote:The scary thing is that although he doesn't read the papers, he does read the bible. And I'm sure he's totally up on that whole wacky fire and brimstone revelation stuff. God help us all.
Yeah, it's so comical that the President is a Christian. Laugh it up, bigot.
Scrat. I wasn't laughing at his christianity. I was laughing at his
fundamentalist Christianity.
ot from the Greek for ear
does kickycan have a big ear?
drip, drip, drip...
Quote:His poll numbers sagging and Democratic criticism unrelenting, President Bush has responded with abrupt turnabouts over the past 10 days on Iraq war intelligence, his own military service record and cooperation with a panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
The White House initially declined to open up Bush's National Guard record, saying that lingering questions about his service during the Vietnam War were asked and answered when he ran for president. Then, late Friday, a two-inch stack of his military records were released with a thud.
When it became clear that some of the prewar intelligence on Iraq was flawed, Bush steadfastly defended his decision to go after Saddam Hussein. But when the controversy didn't die, the White House last week appointed a seven-member commission to study the issue.
* * *
In a reactionary posture the past two weeks, Bush is now moving into a more aggressive phase of the fight to hold on to his job. A barrage of Bush-Cheney TV ads, threaded by the theme "Steady Leadership in Times of Change," is queued for release in key election states in coming weeks, when the Democrats settle on a nominee, campaign officials say. Meantime, the president himself is expected to be voicing a sharper contrast between his record and policies favored by Democrats.
Republicans have a lot to worry about; hence the reason Bush has been on the defense, says national pollster Mark Schulman.
"No. 1 is the credibility issue," said Schulman, who is not affiliated with any political candidate. "A lot of poll numbers from a lot of different organizations are finding that people are questioning credibility."
He sure has had a bad couple of weeks, hasn't he?
I was thinking about dropping timber's explosion animation in right here, but I think I'll wait... :wink:
Scrat, were you callin' me a big ear? NOW I'm pissed!
Quote, ""No. 1 is the credibility issue," said Schulman, who is not affiliated with any political candidate." FINALLY somebody is taking notice. Can't still understand why upwards of 50 percent of Americans still can't see the forest for the trees. I wonder what kind of government job that ex-national guardsman that said he saw Bush serve in Georgia during his absense will be offered?
Bush's poll numers are exactly at the same place his fathers were at this time before an election. History does repeat itself. Drudging (sic) up extra-martial affairs fits into the picture.
Incidentally, I read the Bible from time to time as reference material. That doesn't make me a Christian or a bigot but if One Step Dubya isn't drinking by Summer, I will be amazed. It is going to be a fascinating year for politics even with the element of repulsion that's built in.
I was thinking, maybe, that national guardsman will be offered an "intelligence" job.
cicerone imposter wrote:I was thinking, maybe, that national guardsman will be offered an "intelligence" job.
Creative data section, perhaps?
President Ben Ali's presidency sounds like the elections of Saddam - doesn't it?
About China: There is now proof that China provided nucear weapons technology to Pakistan - who in turn gave it to Iran and other countries. Where's Bush's bluster about the threat of WMD's? I guess they are not a danger to the American People.
Well, that is interesting. I guess it's always a case of "follow the money".
And as soon as lawyers get involved the truth becomes unrecognizable.
Blatham - Is it possible that sometimes politicians act in a manner that is beneficial to a supporter or supporters not as a quid pro quo but rather because they happen to believe they are choosing the best course of action?
Is it possible that Kerry, for instance, has voted in ways favorable to lobbies from whom he has accepted money, not as payback for the money, but because he thought those votes were the right votes to cast?
Lobbies tend to support candidates and parties that are known to hold positions favorable to those lobbies. Gun lobbies might contribute to the campaign of a candidate who was outspoken for gun owners' rights. It should be no surprise that such a candidate, if elected, would cast votes favorable to the gun lobby, but what we don't know is how he would have voted if that contribution had never been made.
Hmmm... it would be interesting if we could have a campaign finance system wherein the candidate never knew the source of contributions. Anyone and everyone could give as much as they wanted to support any candidate they chose, but the question of whether the money influenced policy decisions would be gone from the equation.
(Of course, I realize this would be impossible to implement. Just thinking...)
Except, every one of Bush's "best course of action" is a quid pro quo's benefiting one of his supporters and that hurts me - the taxpayer..... Yeah, right, give him the benefit of the doubt - my ass