Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Tartar, the democrats will not win anything if they can't communicate what they're for. c.i.

if the dems start to believe the crap they are being told by the repubs (Dean is extreme left) then the dems deserve to lose....as my republican father says "that dean guy would make a good republican"

Dean is no more extreme left than any of the other candidates -- in fact, he just seems to be a believer in fairness and not what's good for just himself. However, he's a politician and I've not changed my little burb below my postings for a good reason.

Do you remember the activity on the Chicago exchange just before 9/11? When futures were bought and sold by unknown people indicating that they must have known 9/11 was about to occur?

Well, here we go again.... From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Tuesday scrapped a planned online futures market that aimed to get information on Middle East events by letting investors bet on the probability of wars, terrorist attacks and assassinations.
One day after Democrats in Congress brought the Pentagon's Policy Analysis Market to light with withering criticism, a Defense Department spokesman said the program had been terminated.
"The director has determined that this is a program that under further scrutiny probably doesn't deserve continued support," spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told reporters.
Earlier, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told senators that while the Defense Department was supposed to be imaginative, "it sounds like maybe they got too imaginative."
U.S. senators released a letter saying the program's funding would be eliminated and Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican who chairs the powerful Armed Services Committee, called the plan "a very significant mistake."
The Policy Analysis Market, launched online at http://www.policyanalysismarket.org by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, aimed to let anonymous traders wager money on when and whether such events as the overthrow of the Jordanian monarchy might take place.
The market planned to focus at first on economic, civil and military futures of Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, and the impact of U.S. involvement with these countries, according to the Web site.
Traders were to begin registering on Friday, with trading set to start Oct. 1. The program was expected to initially cost $8 million.

HELPING THE BAD GUYS?
The idea was seen as a means of aiding the Pentagon to predict terror events as part of its search for ways to prevent attacks, based on the predictive abilities of the markets.
"The price discovery process, with the prospect of profit and at pain of loss, is at the core of a market's predictive power," the program's Concept Overview said.
The plan would have allowed traders to buy futures contracts priced on the certainty of a particular event occurring in the Middle East. Investors could make money by spotting whether the contracts were over or under-priced.
One market analyst took a dim view.
"From one end, creating a futures market on terrorism makes sense because markets have major predictive powers," said Phil Flynn, vice president and senior market analyst with Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "But not only could it help the good guys, it could also help the bad guys. The terrorists could use the same information that these markets provided to see where we would be the most vulnerable."
The plan drew sharp criticism from congressional Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who asked the Bush administration to reject the plan.
"We are asking the administration this morning to renounce this plan to trade in death," Daschle said on the Senate floor. "The administration should issue a public apology, especially to the families of the victims of Sept. 11."
Retired Adm. John Poindexter was involved in the program, Di Rita said. Poindexter, who was convicted for his role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal -- the conviction was later set aside -- also spearheaded the Pentagon's so-called Total Information Awareness Program.
That program was meant to collect information about potential terror threats from private databases. It raised such consternation over possible privacy invasion that the Pentagon set up boards to monitor the program's compliance with U.S. law and "American values related to privacy."
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3180989

...and the plot sickens.

Republicans start to sense a 'sweep'

They talk of dominating White House and Congress as Democrats did in Roosevelt era.

By Liz Marlantes | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

NEW YORK – As Republicans fix their eyes on the 2004 election, there is a growing sense that their party may be facing a set of opportunities not seen in years. Not only are they heading into a presidential cycle with a popular incumbent and a sizable fund-raising advantage over any opponent, but the GOP also looks to be in a strong position to expand its majorities in the US Senate and House.
If Republicans are able to pull off across-the-board wins, the outcome could transform the nation's politics. Coming on the heels of the 2002 elections - which gave Republicans outright control of both chambers of Congress and the White House - a wholesale victory in 2004 would solidify the GOP's status as the governing party in Washington, and allow it to leave a clearly defined mark on the policy landscape.
It could even usher in an extended period of Republican dominance, similar to the Democrats' supremacy during Franklin Roosevelt's tenure and beyond. "There will be a lasting effect from this election if [Republicans] hold onto power," says Kayne Robinson, former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.

continued at.
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0729/p02s02-uspo.html

Disclaimer . the views expressed herein are strictly those of the writer.

EXCUSE ME, CI, BUT: "Tartar, the democrats will not win anything if they can't communicate what they're for. c.i." This is crazy!

You must be listening to Limbaugh, not to the Dems!! Check into the Dean website, read the statements behind the successful MoveOn efforts, even read Joe Lieberman (a sheep in Wolf's clothing).

Tartar, Most voters are not going t check out Dean's website, and Lieberman doesn't attract media coverage all that much. It's possible I'm missing something, but from where I sit...... c.i.

Expect the Dems to do just about anything to discredit president Bush before the 2004 elections. I would expect nothing less from the Republicans against the opponent.

Politics is a dirty business. Why else do you suppose they're always crawling around in each others dumpsters?

CI - We continue to agree with each other at an alarming rate! :wink: As I wrote after the Dems got caught with their pants on fire in 2002, they will continue to be marginalized as a political force until they can come up with a more compelling rallying cry than "Republicans Suck".

"Alarming rate" is alarming. c.i.

The Bush Legacy

How about "No More Blood for Oil"?

how about "No Lying for Warring"?

How about "Restoring Dignity and Respect Around the World"?

How about "Fiscal Discipline"?

I'm thinking maybe one or two of those might work for Democrats...

Bush to stay at Texas ranch for a month

Two hundred and forty-four killed in Iraq, but Bush is working hard...



on his putting.

Big armpits on the fellow.

George Bush, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

The guy is just so darn articulate and thoughtful. Aren't we lucky.

At a press conference today, a reporter asked the president some questions, and GWBush said don't ask so many questions at once, because I can't remember them. I'm too old! We all know otherwise. c.i.

ci
We do indeed. But he's slowly improving. Previously he would have added the other half of that equation, not being able to remember the correct answers.

FOR THE TRUTH:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html

Replace him!!!!!!!

From the Voice of America, about half an hour ago:

Bush Takes Full Responsibility for False Iraqi Nuclear Allegation in State of Union Speech
Scott Stearns
White House
30 Jul 2003, 16:50 UTC


President Bush has taken responsibility for claims about Iraqi weapons programs that turned out to be based on forged documents. The controversy has raised questions about the Bush Administration's use of questionable intelligence reports to justify its invasion of Iraq.

It was the president's most direct response to questions about how his January State of the Union speech included erroneous allegations about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa. "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely. I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace," he said.

Mr. Bush said he analyzed what he calls "good, solid, sound intelligence" in making his decision to move against Saddam Hussein. Part of his case against the former Iraqi leader was based on documents that the United Nations says are forgeries that the White House now admits should not have been included in his speech.

CIA Director George Tennet has taken responsibility for the mistake, as has the deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Appearing to share some of that blame Wednesday, the president defended Ms. Rice as "an honest, fabulous person" and the United States, he says, "is lucky to have her service."