Top Ten Reasons Bush is going to dump Dick Cheney as VP:
10. Cheney's desk has been replaced by President's new air hockey table.
9. There's a listing on Monster.com for a Vice-Presidential position in a "Large North American Government."
8. Cheney's so depressed he's only eating 12 KFC drumsticks a day.
7. There is a "For Rent" sign on the front lawn of the undisclosed location.
6. When Cheney says, "We're gonna win in November," Bush snarls, "What's this 'We' crap?"
5. White House interns are no longer required to know CPR.
4. The CIA says they have reliable information Cheney won't be dumped.
3. Bush asked Donald Trump if he could come to Washington and fire Cheney.
2. Yesterday a tearful Cheney sang "I Will Survive" on the White House lawn.
1. Bush called Poppy looking for Dan Quayle's number.
ROFL
Hope you guys dont mind me jumping in here. Yes it is true that Bushs' numbers are sliding at the moment, however this is pretty typical for the beginning of an election year. Take for example Reagans numbers in 1984, Mondale as it looked was pushing him out in the beginning but we all know what happened in the end, landslide. I do not predict a landslide by any means this year but I do think that Bush will prevail.
Welcome! I agree, polls don't mean much right now, there's still a long way to go.
If all else fails and the polls indicate Bush will lose. He can always invade Iran. The excuse is in the last two word of the article. "imminent threat"
Beware Iran's atomic ayatollahs
The numbers aren't in, but it seems reasonable to project that Iran's hard-liners have regained control of the parliament they lost to insurgents four years ago. You can win elections handily when you've got divine authority to throw candidates off the ballot, shut newspapers and drop hints to the people that if they don't vote in approved fashion, they're likely to pay in the afterlife or sooner.So goes the Triumph of the Clerics, who banned thousands of reformist candidates from standing for election in a bid to put one foot back in the 15th century. The trouble is that Iran's other foot is planted very much in the 21st century. As in: Atomic Age.Evidence is mounting that Tehran's fundamentalist regime is determined to maintain a covert nuclear program in defiance of international standards. In October, it made a large goodwill show of handing over details of the country's nuke activities to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. To much relief, it also promised to cooperate fully with nuclear inspections.At the time, the U.S. was skeptical that a charter member of the Axis of Evil was so suddenly ready to be a good citizen of the world. The wisdom of that skepticism has now been borne out. Exposure of a nuclear black market based in Pakistan has turned up documents indicating that Iran didn't come entirely clean, as U.S. officials had suggested to their more trusting European counterparts.Indeed, the IAEA reports that Tehran is sitting on key bomb-building components heretofore unreported. Iran's Foreign Ministry flatly denies that it has nuclear weapons programs. "They are just trying to create a fuss about this," said a spokesman.You're darn right they are. Uranium-enrichment capabilities in the hands of crackpots who teach their young from the cradle that murdering infidels is their highest duty - now there's a nightmare for you. The IAEA is quite properly going to want hard - and fully verifiable - answers from Tehran very soon. Iran must get no more wiggle room. And the United Nations must gear itself to cracking down with economic sanctions and every other means possible to ensure that Iran does not get close to developing a weapon of mass destruction. Because there are exactly two words for a nuclear-capable Iran: imminent threat.
au, Actually, Bush has a choice between Iran and North Korea. Since nothing Bush does makes any sense, his use of "fear" seems to work with most Americans.
C.I.
It will be Iran because they are only attempting to gain nuclear technology and the associated WMD's whereas N. Korea from all reports already has it. And in addition Iran has "oil" while N. Korea has?
That is an interesting article. There is no denying that there will be countries with nuclear capabilities in the near future that will most likely try to use them against us, and some of them are filled with religious zealots who would love nothing better than to use them to kill infidels like us in mass numbers.
What is the answer to that problem? I don't like the pre-emptive war idea, but Kerry (or whoever it ends up being) will have to answer that question in a very articulate and specific way if he is going to beat Bush this year.
I doubt that they will be any more likely to use them than the Russians were during the cold war. The US could turn their sand into glass and they are well aware of that.
One way is to warn them that we will retaliate with bigger bombs that'll wipe out their whole population for a million years. (Fear works)
Disenchanted Bush Voters Consider Crossing Over
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 22, 2004
BEACHWOOD, Ohio — In the 2000 presidential election, Bill Flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for George W. Bush. But now, shaking his head, he vows, "Never again."
"The combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful," Mr. Flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. "I could vote for Kerry. I could vote for any Democrat unless he's a real dummy."
Mr. Flanagan is hardly alone, even though polls show that the overwhelming majority of Republicans who supported Mr. Bush in 2000 will do so again in November. In dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and Republicans who said they voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. Some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among Republicans and independents.
That could change, of course, once the Bush campaign begins pumping millions of dollars into advertising and making the case for his re-election.
But even as Democratic and Republican strategists and pollsters warned that a shift could be transitory, they also said it could prove to be extraordinarily consequential in a year when each side is focused on turning out its most loyal voters.
"The strong Republicans are with him," a senior aide to Senator John Kerry said of Mr. Bush. "But there are independent-minded Republicans among whom he is having serious problems."
"With the nation so polarized," he added, "the defections of a few can make a big difference."
In the interviews, many of those potential "crossover" voters said they supported the invasion of Iraq but had come to see the continuing involvement there as too costly and without clear objectives.
Many also said they believed that the Bush administration had not been honest about its reasons for invading Iraq and were concerned about the failure to find unconventional weapons. Some of these people described themselves as fiscal conservatives who were alarmed by deficit spending, combined with job losses at home. Many are shocked to find themselves switching sides.
While sharing a sandwich at the stylish Beachwood Mall in this Cleveland suburb, one older couple — a judge and a teacher — reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local Republican Party, they are planning to vote Democratic this year.
"I feel like a complete traitor, and if you'd asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different," said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. "But we are really disgusted. It's the lies, the war, the economy. We have very good friends who are staunch Republicans, who don't even want to hear the name George Bush anymore."
In 2000, Mr. Bush won here in Ohio with 50 percent of the popular vote, as against 46.5 percent for Al Gore.
George Meagher, a Republican who founded and now runs the American Military Museum in Charleston, S.C., said he threw his "heart and soul" into the Bush campaign four years ago. He organized veterans to attend campaign events, including the campaign's kickoff speech at the Citadel. He even has photographs of himself and his wife with Mr. Bush.
"Given the outcome and how dissatisfied I am with the administration, it's hard to think about now," he said. "People like me, we're all choking a bit at not supporting the president. But when I think about 500 people killed and what we've done to Iraq. And what we've done to our country. I mean, we're already $2 trillion in debt again."
A nationwide CBS News poll released Feb. 16 found that 11 percent of people who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 now say they will vote for the Democratic candidate this fall. But there was some falloff among those who voted against him as well. Five percent of people who said they voted for Mr. Gore in 2000 say this time they will back Mr. Bush.
On individual issues, the poll found some discontent among Republicans but substantial discontent among independents. For instance, on handling the nation's economy, 19 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents said they disapproved of the job Mr. Bush was doing.
"As the president's job rating has fallen, his Democratic supporters have pulled away first, then the independents and now we're starting to see a bit of erosion among the Republicans, who used to support him pretty unanimously," said Evans Witt, the chief executive of Princeton Survey Research Associates. "If 10 to 15 percent of Republicans do not support him anymore, that is not trivial for Bush's re-election."
But Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist, suggested that no one in the White House was worried about Mr. Bush's losing much of his base. He said polls continued to show that the president was enjoying the support of 90 percent of Republicans.
Many of those interviewed said that they had experienced a growing disenchantment with the conflict in Iraq over many months, but that only recently had they decided to change their votes.
A number said they had been deeply disturbed by recent statements of David A. Kay, the former United Nations weapons inspector, who said he was skeptical about administration claims that Iraq possessed unconventional weapons.
"The lack of evidence on Iraq has really hurt him, and the economy here is bad — there's a lot of unemployment in the mills," said Phyllis Pierce, who is in the steel business in Cleveland and recently decided not to vote for Mr. Bush again.
John Scarnado, a sales manager from Austin, Tex., who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, said he would vote for Mr. Kerry if the senator won the Democratic nomination.
"I'm upset about Iraq and the vice president and his affiliation with Halliburton," said Mr. Scarnado, a registered Republican who said that he had not always voted along party lines. "I think the Bush administration is coming out to look like old boy politics, and I don't have a good feel about that."
Many of those wavering in their loyalty to Mr. Bush were middle-class voters who said that his tax relief programs had disproportionately helped the wealthy.
"I voted for him, but it seems like he's just taking care of his rich buddies now," said Mike Cross, a farmer from Londonderry, N.H., adding, "I'm not a great fan of John Kerry, but I've had enough of President Bush."
You can fool the people for just so long. Even republicans. The Bush record of lies and failures are catching up to him.
Taking Spin Out of Report That Made Bad Into Good Health
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: February 22, 2004
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but it will soon publish the full, unexpurgated document.
"There was a mistake made," Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told Congress last week. "It's going to be rectified."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/politics/22HEAL.html?th
Sure they made a mistake. The mistake was getting caught.
This administration has made another revision to the english language. Lies are now classified as mistakes. And flipping burgers are now desireable manufacturing jobs.
Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate and former Green Party presidential candidate, said today he will run for president as an independent in the 2004 election. "After careful thought and my desire to retire our supremely selected president, I've decided to run as an independent candidate for president," Nader said during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
That being the case why is he running. It would seem to be counter productive. Just another political phony.
Quote:Mr. Thompson said that "some individuals took it upon themselves" to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data.
My my my, I wonder who those "some individuals" were...........let me guess.
Quote:Dr. Sally L. Satel, a psychiatrist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that agreeing to issue the original report, "Secretary Thompson succumbed to political pressure that was applied by members of Congress who are identified with ethnic causes." Critics, she said, have grossly exaggerated the significance of changes in the report.
Members of Congress.........hummmm. Who could these folks be?
Who is the American Enterprise Institute?
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/aei.htm
See, there is so much that Ralph Nader says that I agree with.
I agree with the duopoly contention, and the creeping fascism, and the need for more than two corporatized voices.
And I sit in amazement that he can -- sometimes in the same sentence -- say so much that is accurate and come to the complete opposite conclusion to which I would come (as evidenced in the statement above that au1929 posted).
His is the right mission. He may even be the right man for it. (If it weren't for an ego the size of Wisconsin he might have aligned with the Greens again and promoted a less-controversial candidate than himself. That, BTW, is why I think it's all about him.)
But it is the way wrong time.
Wait until Jeb wins in 2008...12 years of Bushmania!
McGentrix
You finally got it right Mania would indeed be the correct word.
McG..........laughing, very funny joke.
