I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down...Clark is their best choice, I suppose...and he's got little to no charisma.
There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point....
SDW, I'm sorry, but you're delusional. The incumbant is almost always ahead at this point. They've had the most press. There isn't even one democrat to compare him with. It's impossible for the incumbant to be behind at this point.
It's in the NY Times so I doubt Scott will read it.
Yes the NY Times is more Liberal than the Wall Street Journal... that's no news flash. But Friedman at the Times supported the war... and defended Bush several times. That never happened in the WSJ while Clinton was president.
It amazes me that you can actually believe what you just said. Bush's overall approval is still above 50%. The economy IS getting MUCH better, and I am in public education so I can tell you that while schools don't like the new Act, it is definitely working. Imagine...accountability.
Let us not forget that the balanced budget was due to a HUGE tax increase on the middle class...and an economy driven by the net bubble. Tell me again what Clinton did spefically to help the economy? And "Republicans imploding"? How's that, exactly? I suppose your definition of "imploding" is winning the House in 94 and not ceding it since then. I suppose the Republicans taking the Senate in 2000 and then regaining it AGAIN in 2002 (despite Jeffords immoral swtiching of affiliation after the election) is an "implosion".
What's amazing is the Democratic Party STILL DOES NOT SEE WHAT A DISASTER IT IS RIGHT NOW. I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point, but he is when compared to the field. A recent poll shows him at least 10 points ahead of EVERY single Democratic hopeful...including Gore and Hillary Clinton. The Dems are panicking because Dean is in the lead and he's too liberal to win.
Clark is their best choice, I suppose. The problem with him is he's been wrong on a lot of things (like predicting huge numbers of casualties in Iraq...even though we've lost about as many as we would have in training) and he's got little to no charisma. He also got that Gray Davis shit-eating look to an extent. We'll see what happens though.
(BTW, Hillary won't win because her unfavorables among WOMEN are too high...not to mention men. You guys should listen to Dick Morris on that point. He would know, considering he advised Bill in 96.)
SDW why are you even trying still? You just don't get it. It's almost to the point where any warm body will do to replace Bush.
Bush is finished. He dug his own grave with his lack leadership with the economy, and the world. And he lied! People know it.
People take a dim view of their president lying ( just ask Clinton or Gore ).
It amazes me that you can actually believe what you just said. Bush's overall approval is still above 50%. The economy IS getting MUCH better, and I am in public education so I can tell you that while schools don't like the new Act, it is definitely working. Imagine...accountability.
Let us not forget that the balanced budget was due to a HUGE tax increase on the middle class...and an economy driven by the net bubble. Tell me again what Clinton did spefically to help the economy? And "Republicans imploding"? How's that, exactly? I suppose your definition of "imploding" is winning the House in 94 and not ceding it since then. I suppose the Republicans taking the Senate in 2000 and then regaining it AGAIN in 2002 (despite Jeffords immoral swtiching of affiliation after the election) is an "implosion".
What's amazing is the Democratic Party STILL DOES NOT SEE WHAT A DISASTER IT IS RIGHT NOW. I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point, but he is when compared to the field. A recent poll shows him at least 10 points ahead of EVERY single Democratic hopeful...including Gore and Hillary Clinton. The Dems are panicking because Dean is in the lead and he's too liberal to win.
Clark is their best choice, I suppose. The problem with him is he's been wrong on a lot of things (like predicting huge numbers of casualties in Iraq...even though we've lost about as many as we would have in training) and he's got little to no charisma. He also got that Gray Davis shit-eating look to an extent. We'll see what happens though.
(BTW, Hillary won't win because her unfavorables among WOMEN are too high...not to mention men. You guys should listen to Dick Morris on that point. He would know, considering he advised Bill in 96.)
My god, there are some many heads buried in sand right now it's amazing!
Dean's the 'frontrunner' because he had a slight headstart and a fairly large grassroots campaign which effectively inflates his poll results, but you're also saying Clark is going to be huge despite his late start? You can't have it both ways. Besides, wasn't it like 2/3 of the voting public can't even name one Democratic candidate?
Jeffords leaving the Republican party was immoral?
Jeffords' defection didn't upset me all that much. He never was much of a Republican anyway.
Quote:
... hehe...
as in having an affair and leaving your second wife like Newt?
having many affairs like Livingstone? or Bob Barr?
Dan Burton's illegitimate son?
hmm... Jim Bunn of Oregon left this first wife for his chief of staff..
Tim Hutchison of Arkansas who left his wife of 29 years for a much youger aide...
So NOW cheating on your wife is a problem? I remember when the news about Newt came out, Rush announced on his program, "We need new leaders." When the news broke about Livingstone, he was about to become Speaker. He resigned instead. Barr got bounced in a Republican primary. Hutchinson lost his seat.
When the news about Clinton could no longer be denied and it was obvious he'd perjured himself as well, the Dems closed ranks. What was your point again?
But they're not. At least, not in the way they handled the pre, during and post war commentaries.
Give 'em a chance. I take it you know about the "no fly" list being compiled by the FBI of people who speak out against the Bush Administration's Iraq (and other) policies? If you're a media person, you're screwed if you can't get on an airplane.
First Amendment? Freedom of speech? Of course there is, so long as it's officially approved first.
Maybe thats a way of crippling any anti-war presidential candidate, (including Clark?). A presidential candidate who is refused access to airplanes would never win. (Don't tell Karl Rove tho...altho the idea's probably already crossed his mind)
Give 'em a chance. I take it you know about the "no fly" list being compiled by the FBI of people who speak out against the Bush Administration's Iraq (and other) policies?
Yes, I know about it and probably so does Rove....
My point was that the Republican's were trying to bounce out Clinton for the very things they were doing themselves... while claiming moral superiority.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down...Clark is their best choice, I suppose...and he's got little to no charisma.
Absolutely!
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point....
SDW, I'm sorry, but you're delusional. The incumbant is almost always ahead at this point. They've had the most press. There isn't even one democrat to compare him with. It's impossible for the incumbant to be behind at this point.
You're blind.
hehe...
as in having an affair and leaving your second wife like Newt?
having many affairs like Livingstone? or Bob Barr?
Dan Burton's illegitimate son?
hmm... Jim Bunn of Oregon left this first wife for his chief of staff..
Tim Hutchison of Arkansas who left his wife of 29 years for a much youger aide...
Maybe Jeffords left the republican party because he has a conscience. Maybe not being a republican just means you have higher standards for yourself.
two words... military ballots.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...sis/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/opinion/19SCHR.html
It's in the NY Times so I doubt Scott will read it.
Yes the NY Times is more Liberal than the Wall Street Journal... that's no news flash. But Friedman at the Times supported the war... and defended Bush several times. That never happened in the WSJ while Clinton was president.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/econo.html
*ahem*
I went a little nuts this morning.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It amazes me that you can actually believe what you just said. Bush's overall approval is still above 50%. The economy IS getting MUCH better, and I am in public education so I can tell you that while schools don't like the new Act, it is definitely working. Imagine...accountability.
Let us not forget that the balanced budget was due to a HUGE tax increase on the middle class...and an economy driven by the net bubble. Tell me again what Clinton did spefically to help the economy? And "Republicans imploding"? How's that, exactly? I suppose your definition of "imploding" is winning the House in 94 and not ceding it since then. I suppose the Republicans taking the Senate in 2000 and then regaining it AGAIN in 2002 (despite Jeffords immoral swtiching of affiliation after the election) is an "implosion".
What's amazing is the Democratic Party STILL DOES NOT SEE WHAT A DISASTER IT IS RIGHT NOW. I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point, but he is when compared to the field. A recent poll shows him at least 10 points ahead of EVERY single Democratic hopeful...including Gore and Hillary Clinton. The Dems are panicking because Dean is in the lead and he's too liberal to win.
Clark is their best choice, I suppose. The problem with him is he's been wrong on a lot of things (like predicting huge numbers of casualties in Iraq...even though we've lost about as many as we would have in training) and he's got little to no charisma. He also got that Gray Davis shit-eating look to an extent. We'll see what happens though.
(BTW, Hillary won't win because her unfavorables among WOMEN are too high...not to mention men. You guys should listen to Dick Morris on that point. He would know, considering he advised Bill in 96.)
SDW why are you even trying still? You just don't get it. It's almost to the point where any warm body will do to replace Bush.
Bush is finished. He dug his own grave with his lack leadership with the economy, and the world. And he lied! People know it.
People take a dim view of their president lying ( just ask Clinton or Gore ).
Bush is going down.
Get used to it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It amazes me that you can actually believe what you just said. Bush's overall approval is still above 50%. The economy IS getting MUCH better, and I am in public education so I can tell you that while schools don't like the new Act, it is definitely working. Imagine...accountability.
Let us not forget that the balanced budget was due to a HUGE tax increase on the middle class...and an economy driven by the net bubble. Tell me again what Clinton did spefically to help the economy? And "Republicans imploding"? How's that, exactly? I suppose your definition of "imploding" is winning the House in 94 and not ceding it since then. I suppose the Republicans taking the Senate in 2000 and then regaining it AGAIN in 2002 (despite Jeffords immoral swtiching of affiliation after the election) is an "implosion".
What's amazing is the Democratic Party STILL DOES NOT SEE WHAT A DISASTER IT IS RIGHT NOW. I am just blown away by that. There is no candidate, including Clark that is going to be able to take Bush down. I'm not saying Bush is unbeatable at this point, but he is when compared to the field. A recent poll shows him at least 10 points ahead of EVERY single Democratic hopeful...including Gore and Hillary Clinton. The Dems are panicking because Dean is in the lead and he's too liberal to win.
Clark is their best choice, I suppose. The problem with him is he's been wrong on a lot of things (like predicting huge numbers of casualties in Iraq...even though we've lost about as many as we would have in training) and he's got little to no charisma. He also got that Gray Davis shit-eating look to an extent. We'll see what happens though.
(BTW, Hillary won't win because her unfavorables among WOMEN are too high...not to mention men. You guys should listen to Dick Morris on that point. He would know, considering he advised Bill in 96.)
My god, there are some many heads buried in sand right now it's amazing!
I guess a 20% slide is nothing to worry about.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...-bush-poll.htm
According to it... Clark would actually beat Bush.
With Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Leiberman all running even or just a point or 2 behind.
Oh... and Hillary has a higher favorable than Bush at the moment. She has a 54% and he has a 50%.
Originally posted by Eugene
Dean's the 'frontrunner' because he had a slight headstart and a fairly large grassroots campaign which effectively inflates his poll results, but you're also saying Clark is going to be huge despite his late start? You can't have it both ways. Besides, wasn't it like 2/3 of the voting public can't even name one Democratic candidate?
*sticks it to Eugene*
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Jeffords leaving the Republican party was immoral?
Jeffords' defection didn't upset me all that much. He never was much of a Republican anyway.
... hehe...
as in having an affair and leaving your second wife like Newt?
having many affairs like Livingstone? or Bob Barr?
Dan Burton's illegitimate son?
hmm... Jim Bunn of Oregon left this first wife for his chief of staff..
Tim Hutchison of Arkansas who left his wife of 29 years for a much youger aide...
So NOW cheating on your wife is a problem? I remember when the news about Newt came out, Rush announced on his program, "We need new leaders." When the news broke about Livingstone, he was about to become Speaker. He resigned instead. Barr got bounced in a Republican primary. Hutchinson lost his seat.
When the news about Clinton could no longer be denied and it was obvious he'd perjured himself as well, the Dems closed ranks. What was your point again?
Originally posted by bunge
But they're not. At least, not in the way they handled the pre, during and post war commentaries.
Give 'em a chance. I take it you know about the "no fly" list being compiled by the FBI of people who speak out against the Bush Administration's Iraq (and other) policies? If you're a media person, you're screwed if you can't get on an airplane.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1016-02.htm
First Amendment? Freedom of speech? Of course there is, so long as it's officially approved first.
Maybe thats a way of crippling any anti-war presidential candidate, (including Clark?). A presidential candidate who is refused access to airplanes would never win. (Don't tell Karl Rove tho...altho the idea's probably already crossed his mind)
Originally posted by sammi jo
Give 'em a chance. I take it you know about the "no fly" list being compiled by the FBI of people who speak out against the Bush Administration's Iraq (and other) policies?
Yes, I know about it and probably so does Rove....
What number wife is Rush onto anyway? 2nd or 3rd?
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092303.shtml
Clark is a good man that served his country well... and the chickenhawks are going to try to tear him down.