Republican National Convention deliberately moved up to near the third anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Republicans estimate they can raise 200 million dollars Campaign to focus on 1) National Security and 2) Bush's role as a war time President.
To me, deliberately moving the convention to coincide with 9/11 is sick. Politicizing something of that nature is gross.
200 Million is wrong after supposedly passing campaign finance reform. It's wrong in any case. I'm sure the Dems would gladly use that much and more, but it's just further proof of a flawed system.
Focusing on Bush as a war time president? I guess that supports all of the anti-hawks who said war was a political move.
hmmm...I could've sworn that there was something odd about him...that he's anti-abortion or pro-death penalty or something odd (i.e. that would make me not vote for him). Has he backed off a position now that he's in the running?
He's anti-national gun control. It's one position of his that I disgree with. If Sharpton beats him in the polls, Sharpton's got my support.
He's anti-national gun control. It's one position of his that I disgree with. If Sharpton beats him in the polls, Sharpton's got my support.
Well... you have to understand.
He was the popular governor of a small state. You talk gun control to people in New York City and they think you're talking about taking the Uzis off the street. You talk gun-control to the people of Vermont and they think you're talking about taking their hunting rifles away from them.
He was the popular governor of a small state. You talk gun control to people in New York City and they think you're talking about taking the Uzis off the street. You talk gun-control to the people of Vermont and they think you're talking about taking their hunting rifles away from them.
It's a local issue to him.
Yeah and other local issues to him like... abortion....school control....universal health care... aren't.
This is incredible... let me see if I get this right.
Are you seriously telling me that...
In the next election Repubicans are going to spend money trying to get elected...
They will focus on their strengths...
They will say they are good and the other guys are bad....
They will say their guy will do the job right, and the other sides guy will do the job wrong...
That is just amazing..what the hell is this country coming to!!!
Exactly. This is why I have ZERO respect for Shawn's postings. As if the Democratic party isn't planning all of these things in another way and at another angle. OF COURSE he is going to raise huge money. OF COURSE he is going to take advanatge of the war victory. OF COURSE they are going to discourage Republican opposition. And NEWSFLASH: Kerry IS INDEED a elite haughty Boston liberal.
You'd tink this was all news. Oh, shame on you Mr Bush, SHAMe ON YOU!
The next election is going to be fun...especially if the economy comes back. It'll be election 1984: 20th Anniversary Edition.
Exactly. This is why I have ZERO respect for Shawn's postings. As if the Democratic party isn't planning all of these things in another way and at another angle. OF COURSE he is going to raise huge money. OF COURSE he is going to take advanatge of the war victory. OF COURSE they are going to discourage Republican opposition. And NEWSFLASH: Kerry IS INDEED a elite haughty Boston liberal.
You'd tink this was all news. Oh, shame on you Mr Bush, SHAMe ON YOU!
The next election is going to be fun...especially if the economy comes back. It'll be election 1984: 20th Anniversary Edition.
Pithy.
If you read the freaking article you would know that they're aiming for FDR's third term rather than a Reagan '84 redux.
Do Bush (and Blair) *not* deserve some political love after the quick and decisive victory in Iraq that exceeded all expectations?
They didn't hit my 2 week prediction, so they didn't exceed my expectations.
I'll hold my lack of disdainment until about 3 to 5 years from now to see how good our support of Iraq is. If good, some respect. If not good, well, contempt continues.
Insofar as the 2004 campaign, the Democrats number 1 issue probably is reinventing or evolving their ideology (the current one is nearly 4 decades old, if not older), solidifying and unifying their base, and mobilizing their base to vote during elections.
They won't be doing that a year from now, so they'll have to count on the Bush administration to fail - that's fail within their extremely loyal base, an unlikely event. Mobilizing the Democratic base should be the number one goal. The number of voters work out in their favor, yet they can't take advantage.
I haven't read the link, but the Bush administration will do whatever is needed to win, which in the political tradition is to lie, cheat and steal. McCain got the treatment during the primaries and Gore during the presidential election. If the Democrats aren't willing to respond in kind - there is certainly a wealth of material to impugn GWB - they are going to lose. It's for the Democrat's base, not for the opposition.
And I said it last year, General Wesley Clark is the Democrats best chance.
Exactly. This is why I have ZERO respect for Shawn's postings. As if the Democratic party isn't planning all of these things in another way and at another angle. OF COURSE he is going to raise huge money. OF COURSE he is going to take advanatge of the war victory. OF COURSE they are going to discourage Republican opposition. And NEWSFLASH: Kerry IS INDEED a elite haughty Boston liberal.
You'd tink this was all news. Oh, shame on you Mr Bush, SHAMe ON YOU!
The next election is going to be fun...especially if the economy comes back. It'll be election 1984: 20th Anniversary Edition.
I know and people get upset when I call these makenews pieces instead of news.
Why I just read the most shocking news in the Wall Street Journal today....
*The DNC thinks Bush is going a bad job! (GASP)
*They are going to run candidates against him in an attempt to take his job from him . (DOUBLE GASP)
*They are going to raise cash in an attempt to do this! (HOLY COW!)
*They are going to attempt to do this with ...issues, talking points, and speechs that will make people support them... (THUMP and I faint away)
Can you believe they are going to do that? It is just amazing?
Of course if Fox News ran an article detailing this it would...show how conservative they are whereas for the NY Times, it is just fair and balanced news of the "Republican Conspiracy."
What interests me is the complete ignoring of domestic agenda in the game plan--does that indicate a glaring weakness? Does Bush Jr. really think he can ride the war all the way to the White House w/o having a plank in his campaign that addresses domestic concerns?
I know it isn't comprehensive, this listing of general strategy, but it might be a harbinger of things to come. He *must* address the economy and DO something.
What interests me is the complete ignoring of domestic agenda in the game plan--does that indicate a glaring weakness? Does Bush Jr. really think he can ride the war all the way to the White House w/o having a plank in his campaign that addresses domestic concerns?
I know it isn't comprehensive, this listing of general strategy, but it might be a harbinger of things to come. He *must* address the economy and DO something.
The problem for me is that it seems as though he *can* do precisely that. On one of the screaming head shows on Sunday morning (I *think* it was Matthews) one of the guests mentioned that national security+foreign policy=homeland security=a domestic issue. And so the question they'll be asking during the campaign is "Do you feel SAFER than you were 4 years ago?" while the democrats, most likely, will be asking "Are you better off (financially) than you were four years ago today?"
It's a no-brainer for housewives and regular joes: safety or money in the pocket.
This admin has been a domestic policy nightmare (how many jobs lost on his watch? how much has the market tanked? how many schools are in financial crisis? how many plants are closing down?), and while I appreciate the $300 I got back, I'd gladly give it back if it means that my school district wouldn't have to lay off its entire custodial staff, or that the district to the south of my town didn't have to shut down schools left and right. Or that my neighbor hadn't lost a huge chunk of her retirement. Or that I'd have a better chance of finding a good job in an academic job market where schools are having to pull jobs they've advertised and interviewed for.
Our (bad) republican governor caught much flak over this; our new (and so far just as bad) democrat governor will get his ass kicked if he doesn't do anything to help. One would hope that this kind of "local issue" trend continues at the national level.
But I don't think it will. I think we're going to get four more years of Bush.
If you read the freaking article you would know that they're aiming for FDR's third term rather than a Reagan '84 redux.
Actually if you could take off the partisan colored glasses you would see that they were aiming for Reagans 84 campaign results, but suspect that it will end up much like the results of FDR's third campaign.
These kids, don't they teach them to read in college?
Actually if you could take off the partisan colored glasses you would see that they were aiming for Reagans 84 campaign results, but suspect that it will end up much like the results of FDR's third campaign.
These kids, don't they teach them to read in college?
Nick
Here's the pertinent quote:
"Some advisers said they were hopeful that the 2004 contest would mirror the 1984 re-election of Ronald Reagan, who loped to an overwhelming victory over Walter F. Mondale. Other Bush advisers said the apter model appeared to be Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to a third term over Wendell L. Willkie in 1940, at a time when the nation was unsettled by the spreading global war and the pressure on the United States to enter the conflict."
There are two positions ("some advisors" and "other advisors") within the president's group of advisors.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Republican National Convention deliberately moved up to near the third anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
Republicans estimate they can raise 200 million dollars
Campaign to focus on 1) National Security and 2) Bush's role as a war time President.
To me, deliberately moving the convention to coincide with 9/11 is sick. Politicizing something of that nature is gross.
200 Million is wrong after supposedly passing campaign finance reform. It's wrong in any case. I'm sure the Dems would gladly use that much and more, but it's just further proof of a flawed system.
Focusing on Bush as a war time president? I guess that supports all of the anti-hawks who said war was a political move.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Full-fledged demonization and baseless discrediting...
You mean something worse than comparing Bush to Hitler?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
How do you go from Nader to McCain?
He's just attracted to candidates whose main interest seems to be to simply knock over the card table.
Originally posted by midwinter
hmmm...I could've sworn that there was something odd about him...that he's anti-abortion or pro-death penalty or something odd (i.e. that would make me not vote for him). Has he backed off a position now that he's in the running?
He's anti-national gun control. It's one position of his that I disgree with. If Sharpton beats him in the polls, Sharpton's got my support.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You mean something worse than comparing Bush to Hitler?
No... more like explicitly calling Tom Daschle a devil. And he's not even a candidate!
Originally posted by Existence
He's anti-national gun control. It's one position of his that I disgree with. If Sharpton beats him in the polls, Sharpton's got my support.
Well... you have to understand.
He was the popular governor of a small state. You talk gun control to people in New York City and they think you're talking about taking the Uzis off the street. You talk gun-control to the people of Vermont and they think you're talking about taking their hunting rifles away from them.
It's a local issue to him.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
No... more like explicitly calling Tom Daschle a devil...
I've always thought of him as more of a mortician.
... And he's not even a candidate!
Success! We forced him from the field without even a shot fired.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Well... you have to understand.
He was the popular governor of a small state. You talk gun control to people in New York City and they think you're talking about taking the Uzis off the street. You talk gun-control to the people of Vermont and they think you're talking about taking their hunting rifles away from them.
It's a local issue to him.
Yeah and other local issues to him like... abortion....school control....universal health care... aren't.
Hahahahah
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yeah and other local issues to him like... abortion....school control....universal health care... aren't.
Hahahahah
Nick
I'm quite unsure what you're talking about.
Howard Dean's the man though.
This is incredible... let me see if I get this right.
Are you seriously telling me that...
In the next election Repubicans are going to spend money trying to get elected...
They will focus on their strengths...
They will say they are good and the other guys are bad....
They will say their guy will do the job right, and the other sides guy will do the job wrong...
That is just amazing..what the hell is this country coming to!!!
Exactly. This is why I have ZERO respect for Shawn's postings. As if the Democratic party isn't planning all of these things in another way and at another angle. OF COURSE he is going to raise huge money. OF COURSE he is going to take advanatge of the war victory. OF COURSE they are going to discourage Republican opposition. And NEWSFLASH: Kerry IS INDEED a elite haughty Boston liberal.
You'd tink this was all news. Oh, shame on you Mr Bush, SHAMe ON YOU!
The next election is going to be fun...especially if the economy comes back. It'll be election 1984: 20th Anniversary Edition.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. This is why I have ZERO respect for Shawn's postings. As if the Democratic party isn't planning all of these things in another way and at another angle. OF COURSE he is going to raise huge money. OF COURSE he is going to take advanatge of the war victory. OF COURSE they are going to discourage Republican opposition. And NEWSFLASH: Kerry IS INDEED a elite haughty Boston liberal.
You'd tink this was all news. Oh, shame on you Mr Bush, SHAMe ON YOU!
The next election is going to be fun...especially if the economy comes back. It'll be election 1984: 20th Anniversary Edition.
Pithy.
If you read the freaking article you would know that they're aiming for FDR's third term rather than a Reagan '84 redux.
Do Bush (and Blair) *not* deserve some political love after the quick and decisive victory in Iraq that exceeded all expectations?
Originally posted by groverat
Question:
Do Bush (and Blair) *not* deserve some political love after the quick and decisive victory in Iraq that exceeded all expectations?
They didn't hit my 2 week prediction, so they didn't exceed my expectations.
I'll hold my lack of disdainment until about 3 to 5 years from now to see how good our support of Iraq is. If good, some respect. If not good, well, contempt continues.
They won't be doing that a year from now, so they'll have to count on the Bush administration to fail - that's fail within their extremely loyal base, an unlikely event. Mobilizing the Democratic base should be the number one goal. The number of voters work out in their favor, yet they can't take advantage.
I haven't read the link, but the Bush administration will do whatever is needed to win, which in the political tradition is to lie, cheat and steal. McCain got the treatment during the primaries and Gore during the presidential election. If the Democrats aren't willing to respond in kind - there is certainly a wealth of material to impugn GWB - they are going to lose. It's for the Democrat's base, not for the opposition.
And I said it last year, General Wesley Clark is the Democrats best chance.
Originally posted by groverat
Question:
Do Bush (and Blair) *not* deserve some political love after the quick and decisive victory in Iraq that exceeded all expectations?
Question:
Do Bush (and Blair) *not* deserve some political flack for even eschewing diplomacy and using military force in the first place?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. This is why I have ZERO respect for Shawn's postings. As if the Democratic party isn't planning all of these things in another way and at another angle. OF COURSE he is going to raise huge money. OF COURSE he is going to take advanatge of the war victory. OF COURSE they are going to discourage Republican opposition. And NEWSFLASH: Kerry IS INDEED a elite haughty Boston liberal.
You'd tink this was all news. Oh, shame on you Mr Bush, SHAMe ON YOU!
The next election is going to be fun...especially if the economy comes back. It'll be election 1984: 20th Anniversary Edition.
I know and people get upset when I call these makenews pieces instead of news.
Why I just read the most shocking news in the Wall Street Journal today....
*The DNC thinks Bush is going a bad job! (GASP)
*They are going to run candidates against him in an attempt to take his job from him . (DOUBLE GASP)
*They are going to raise cash in an attempt to do this! (HOLY COW!)
*They are going to attempt to do this with ...issues, talking points, and speechs that will make people support them... (THUMP and I faint away)
Can you believe they are going to do that? It is just amazing?
Of course if Fox News ran an article detailing this it would...show how conservative they are whereas for the NY Times, it is just fair and balanced news of the "Republican Conspiracy."
Nick
What interests me is the complete ignoring of domestic agenda in the game plan--does that indicate a glaring weakness? Does Bush Jr. really think he can ride the war all the way to the White House w/o having a plank in his campaign that addresses domestic concerns?
I know it isn't comprehensive, this listing of general strategy, but it might be a harbinger of things to come. He *must* address the economy and DO something.
Originally posted by mrmister
Children, please.
What interests me is the complete ignoring of domestic agenda in the game plan--does that indicate a glaring weakness? Does Bush Jr. really think he can ride the war all the way to the White House w/o having a plank in his campaign that addresses domestic concerns?
I know it isn't comprehensive, this listing of general strategy, but it might be a harbinger of things to come. He *must* address the economy and DO something.
The problem for me is that it seems as though he *can* do precisely that. On one of the screaming head shows on Sunday morning (I *think* it was Matthews) one of the guests mentioned that national security+foreign policy=homeland security=a domestic issue. And so the question they'll be asking during the campaign is "Do you feel SAFER than you were 4 years ago?" while the democrats, most likely, will be asking "Are you better off (financially) than you were four years ago today?"
It's a no-brainer for housewives and regular joes: safety or money in the pocket.
This admin has been a domestic policy nightmare (how many jobs lost on his watch? how much has the market tanked? how many schools are in financial crisis? how many plants are closing down?), and while I appreciate the $300 I got back, I'd gladly give it back if it means that my school district wouldn't have to lay off its entire custodial staff, or that the district to the south of my town didn't have to shut down schools left and right. Or that my neighbor hadn't lost a huge chunk of her retirement. Or that I'd have a better chance of finding a good job in an academic job market where schools are having to pull jobs they've advertised and interviewed for.
Our (bad) republican governor caught much flak over this; our new (and so far just as bad) democrat governor will get his ass kicked if he doesn't do anything to help. One would hope that this kind of "local issue" trend continues at the national level.
But I don't think it will. I think we're going to get four more years of Bush.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Pithy.
If you read the freaking article you would know that they're aiming for FDR's third term rather than a Reagan '84 redux.
Actually if you could take off the partisan colored glasses you would see that they were aiming for Reagans 84 campaign results, but suspect that it will end up much like the results of FDR's third campaign.
These kids, don't they teach them to read in college?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually if you could take off the partisan colored glasses you would see that they were aiming for Reagans 84 campaign results, but suspect that it will end up much like the results of FDR's third campaign.
These kids, don't they teach them to read in college?
Nick
Here's the pertinent quote:
"Some advisers said they were hopeful that the 2004 contest would mirror the 1984 re-election of Ronald Reagan, who loped to an overwhelming victory over Walter F. Mondale. Other Bush advisers said the apter model appeared to be Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to a third term over Wendell L. Willkie in 1940, at a time when the nation was unsettled by the spreading global war and the pressure on the United States to enter the conflict."
There are two positions ("some advisors" and "other advisors") within the president's group of advisors.
Jeez people. You're both right.
Cheers
Scott