Okay, I've rethought how I'm taking my stance on this. This is the way I see it. Even if the buck stops at the White House on this controversy, Bush will still come out unscathed by this. Blair is pretty much screwed I think, the Brits are a different people. But Bush has (I'm stating this again) made too many people happy over the Iraq war(too many thought things were left undone back in 91), he still holds a fairly high approval rating despite controversy. Also, he has so much money that is backing him, more than any Democrat could ever hope to raise, even Clinton. As it is now the Dems don't stand a chance in the presidential run. What they need to do is to take a hard stance on issues that matter to the American people, start an aggressive policy stating how they are going to handle the issues, bring real leaders in their party to the forefront and focus on regaining seats in Congress. Personally I'd like to see both parties just disappear.
Bottomline, whether you like it or not Bush for 4 more.
Okay, I've rethought how I'm taking my stance on this. This is the way I see it. Even if the buck stops at the White House on this controversy, Bush will still come out unscathed by this. Blair is pretty much screwed I think, the Brits are a different people. But Bush has (I'm stating this again) made too many people happy over the Iraq war(too many thought things were left undone back in 91), he still holds a fairly high approval rating despite controversy. Also, he has so much money that is backing him, more than any Democrat could ever hope to raise, even Clinton. As it is now the Dems don't stand a chance in the presidential run. What they need to do is to take a hard stance on issues that matter to the American people, start an aggressive policy stating how they are going to handle the issues, bring real leaders in their party to the forefront and focus on regaining seats in Congress. Personally I'd like to see both parties just disappear.
Bottomline, whether you like it or not Bush for 4 more.
They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.
plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.
plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
1) Thanks for the link to pollingreport.com. I'd never seen it before.
2) I think you give the "Bush team" too much credit. Bush has Karl Rove, and right now, that is all he needs. As much as I despise Rove and his tactics, he's probably the most incredible political strategist in recent history. What is unfortunate is that so much of what he's good at is simply strategy, and the Bush admin needs policy if it's going to cinch the win.
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove, if he has the right political strategist. It'd be interesting to see him teamed up with someone like Carville (who I think is just about as brilliant as Rove). Unfortunately, I think Clark will be tapped as a VP candidate and that's all. Maybe Dean or Kerry will give him the nod. He'll tip the scales for the Dem nominee, and right now they need help, since a) they're all pretty lackluster, b) they can't criticize Bush without getting labeled as unpatriotic, and c) Bush is a fundraising MACHINE.
I sure hope not. I know I'm not a liberal by most liberals' values and I'm not conservative by their standards. But I do hope that free speech and civil rights are major concerns of all Americans, liberal, conservative or sane.
originally posted by midwinter
Quote:
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove, if he has the right political strategist.
Yes, I believe his military creds would give him the right pull with conservatives even though he'd be running on a Dem ticket. As for the other choices, they maybe strong and smart, but I don't see any real leaders. Plus as you said Bush is a fundraising machine, makes Clintons astronomical fundraising abilities look like nickels and dimes.
They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.
plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like all they have to do is keep tripping up like they have.
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove
I couldn't agree more. I'm extremely disappointed he didn't run. However, I'm sure his hands are dirty anyway. People cite criticisms of his Kosovo campaign and possible involvement in waco.
SDW, listen to me here. I'm begging you. Ann Coulter is NOT an historian.
You put it perfectly
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!
Sorry, kiddo, but the only thing that's absurd here is you rediculous insitance on commenting on something you've never spent any time whatsoever studying. The fact that you sprinkle this paragraph with james bond fantasy is actually kind of cute, like how it's cute when a retard kid has a crush on one of his teachers.
Comments
"Liberals in general love to question authority and scream about freedom of speech and civil rights.
Yeah! Stupid things like those!
Bottomline, whether you like it or not Bush for 4 more.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Okay, I've rethought how I'm taking my stance on this. This is the way I see it. Even if the buck stops at the White House on this controversy, Bush will still come out unscathed by this. Blair is pretty much screwed I think, the Brits are a different people. But Bush has (I'm stating this again) made too many people happy over the Iraq war(too many thought things were left undone back in 91), he still holds a fairly high approval rating despite controversy. Also, he has so much money that is backing him, more than any Democrat could ever hope to raise, even Clinton. As it is now the Dems don't stand a chance in the presidential run. What they need to do is to take a hard stance on issues that matter to the American people, start an aggressive policy stating how they are going to handle the issues, bring real leaders in their party to the forefront and focus on regaining seats in Congress. Personally I'd like to see both parties just disappear.
Bottomline, whether you like it or not Bush for 4 more.
We'll see.
Bush's job ratings
They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.
plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
Originally posted by LiquidR
50% or higher at this point has usually meant re-election in the past.
Bush's job ratings
They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.
plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
1) Thanks for the link to pollingreport.com. I'd never seen it before.
2) I think you give the "Bush team" too much credit. Bush has Karl Rove, and right now, that is all he needs. As much as I despise Rove and his tactics, he's probably the most incredible political strategist in recent history. What is unfortunate is that so much of what he's good at is simply strategy, and the Bush admin needs policy if it's going to cinch the win.
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove, if he has the right political strategist. It'd be interesting to see him teamed up with someone like Carville (who I think is just about as brilliant as Rove). Unfortunately, I think Clark will be tapped as a VP candidate and that's all. Maybe Dean or Kerry will give him the nod. He'll tip the scales for the Dem nominee, and right now they need help, since a) they're all pretty lackluster, b) they can't criticize Bush without getting labeled as unpatriotic, and c) Bush is a fundraising MACHINE.
Cheers
Scott
No, it's what liberals hold most dear
I sure hope not. I know I'm not a liberal by most liberals' values and I'm not conservative by their standards. But I do hope that free speech and civil rights are major concerns of all Americans, liberal, conservative or sane.
originally posted by midwinter
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove, if he has the right political strategist.
Yes, I believe his military creds would give him the right pull with conservatives even though he'd be running on a Dem ticket. As for the other choices, they maybe strong and smart, but I don't see any real leaders. Plus as you said Bush is a fundraising machine, makes Clintons astronomical fundraising abilities look like nickels and dimes.
Originally posted by LiquidR
50% or higher at this point has usually meant re-election in the past.
Bush's job ratings
They have been falling but the Bush team is smart and some have been in politics since Kennedy, they know the game and how to win.
plus who do the Dems have that is a strong leader right now that appeals to the public? I don't see any. I wish Wesley Clark would have run when the DNC called him.
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like all they have to do is keep tripping up like they have.
Originally posted by midwinter
3) Wesley Clark could, I think, mop the floor with just about anyone, including Bush and Rove
I couldn't agree more. I'm extremely disappointed he didn't run. However, I'm sure his hands are dirty anyway. People cite criticisms of his Kosovo campaign and possible involvement in waco.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bingo. There it is. People like Coulter are "fanatics" while the super-liberal extemeist Maureen Dowd is "mainstream and moderate".
Coulter is a fanatic. And guess what...I don't even know who Maureen Dowd is.
Originally posted by midwinter
SDW, listen to me here. I'm begging you. Ann Coulter is NOT an historian.
You put it perfectly
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!
Sorry, kiddo, but the only thing that's absurd here is you rediculous insitance on commenting on something you've never spent any time whatsoever studying. The fact that you sprinkle this paragraph with james bond fantasy is actually kind of cute, like how it's cute when a retard kid has a crush on one of his teachers.
How in the hell did you kids get on to McCarthy?
No matter.
Lock.