Anderson Cooper showing some spunk the other night.
"President Bush is confirming some of Paul O'Neill's claims. He said he did let O'Neill talk for 45 minutes without saying anything, not because he was disengaged but because he was, quote, 'bored as hell.' O'Neill was treasury secretary at the time, boring the president with boring facts about the boring economy which affects the lives of millions of boring Americans."
"President Bush yesterday lashed out at what he calls junk malpractice lawsuits. Mr. Bush has often said juries should not be allowed to hand out big payments to malpractice victims. Juries remain free, however, to hand out less important things than money, such as the death
as for attacking kerry for being so dang gullible to supporting bush's failed programs...that would be suicide for bush..."Ha ha, you are so incompetent and gullible for voting for my incompetent programs."
Lets say Kerry attacks Bush on the war saying that Bush misled, didn't go to the UN, blah blah blah...
All Bush has to do is claim that it was an intelligence failure and claim the war was still worth it. Kerry voted for the war that authorized the US to take unilateral action, so Kerry also thought Saddam was a threat enough to justify not going to the UN. Bush can turn Kerry's entire arguement into a non-issue by simply repeating facts on Kerry's vote and claiming he agreed with him at the time and Kerry is now critizing for political reasons.
Bush doesn't have to say anything about Kerry being incompetent and gullible; it will come accross automatically as Kerry goes into tirades critizing on how Bush misled him on No Child Left Behind, misled him on the War, and other issues. Infact, Kerry will seem more than just incompetent and gullible, he'll seem like a slimy politician because he's attacking Bush on non-issues that he supported before but only now is against for "process" reasons. Karl Rove will paint Kerry, rightly so, as a hypocrit. It's an interplay and confluence of both what Kerry says and what Bush will say that will in effect be a double-negative for Kerry. This will turn independents to Bush who will seem genuine.
[I apologize, but I don't have the time to respond to other things in your post]
All hell will break loose if Bush claims he was misled by intelligence. IF he goes there, he has to demand an investigation... if not he looks weak.
I kinda like the idea of Senate hearings all summer looking into what happened in the run up to the war...
although I'm sure the Prez would ask for them to be closed door hearings.
There is no denying the Adminstrations push for war...yeah their motive was regime change but only because they said the threat was soooo great that they had to act. If there was no great threat... then what's their good intentions based on? What was the hurry?
Really... the way they were beating their chests about intelligence and how they knew what Saddam had... you can see why it would be hard to vote against the measure...most of them should of known better though.
It's not like you can believe anything Cheney says.
Ed Gillespie's already training his guns on Kerry. Big sign of things to come. Smear, smear, smear.
Kerry's looooong time voting record in the senate is going to be his achilles heel, regardless of who the VP is. The Republican distortion machine will make plenty of hay out it between now and November.
Obviously, I'm a Dean supporter and will continue to be beyond the outcome of this primary. I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. But, I have very serious doubts about Kerry's electability. If everyone likes to paint Dean as a white out-of-touch New Englander, imagine how they're going to paint Kerry (factual or not): yet another New England liberal (remember, only southern states can breed presidents anymore), too elitist, too smug, too ugly and a record of questionable votes on the senate floor. And then they'll get personal. It's going to be disgusting.
If only Terry Mac at the DNC had the same balls Ed Gillespie has. Who the Karl Rove equivelent on the right? There isn't one. Maybe we'd start having some fair fights. I just don't see how Kerry's going to survive the character assassination attempts that will rain down on him. It's already starting.
kerry would never say "bush mislead me on this, bush mislead me on that"...he would merely state what he plans to do differently and if pushed would repeat over and over "BUSH'S failed policy on 'insert here foreign policy', BUSH's failed policy on 'insert here domestic policy'"...if bush tried to call him on it that he voted with bush on some issues, kerry can do several things: he could easily state, "as a new president in troubled times, i chose to allow BUSH some leeway and even lent him some support. time has shown that
BUSH's plans were failures and any support i gave was likely misguided. i plan to do things different as president, and if my policies fail as miserablly as BUSH'S has, i would expect not to win re-election." kerry should go upbeat mostly and only attack when pressed (or attack subtly)...but if pressed he should keep saying "BUSH's policy" over and over and he should occasionally throw in a "If my policies fail as miserablly as BUSH'S, I would never expect the American people to re-elect me"
he could also use the fact that he voted across party line at times to show that he isn't a raging northeastern liberal
REP. TOM DELAY (R), MAJORITY LEADER: I think the American people are going to react against any notion to block us from continuing that tax relief. Also, the president has made a case and it's fact. The tax relief is -- had a lot to do with improving our economy and as the economy is being improving, we're gaining more revenues for the government. So it helps us in our deficit problem. We are getting more revenue now into the government than if we had not cut taxes.
wha??? (said like scooby-doo of course)
so you see if you cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy... the economy just takes off and then so many more people get jobs and corporations just make so much more that the decrease in revenues becomes and increase...
A USA Today article that mirrors what I've been saying about the Energized Democratic voter.
Voter turnouts show Dems 'energized and angry'
By Andrea Stone and Susan Page, USA TODAY
MANCHESTER, N.H. ? Democrats' record turnout in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, following similarly heavy attendance at the Iowa caucuses last week, shows that the party is organized and motivated to oust President Bush next fall, Democratic and Republican political operatives say.
More than 208,000 people voted in New Hampshire, easily topping the 170,000 who turned out in 1992. That year, like this one, there was a crowded Democratic field and no dominant front-runner in the early contests.
In Iowa, about 124,300 went to caucuses, more than twice the number who attended in 2000. This year's total matches 1988, when an estimated 125,000 Iowans voted in another crowded field. Some Democratic officials say the 1988 estimate was inflated, which would make this year's turnout a record.
"Democrats are more energized and angry than at any time since Lyndon Johnson's presidency," says Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "That probably translates into higher turnout and more Democrats at the polls" next fall.
"We're really pumped about the high attendance," Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer says. "The grass roots have been activated. ... That gives us an enormous organizational advantage going into the fall."
An energized party doesn't just mean a better chance for the presidential candidate... it's good for all the local elections too.
Comments
"President Bush is confirming some of Paul O'Neill's claims. He said he did let O'Neill talk for 45 minutes without saying anything, not because he was disengaged but because he was, quote, 'bored as hell.' O'Neill was treasury secretary at the time, boring the president with boring facts about the boring economy which affects the lives of millions of boring Americans."
"President Bush yesterday lashed out at what he calls junk malpractice lawsuits. Mr. Bush has often said juries should not be allowed to hand out big payments to malpractice victims. Juries remain free, however, to hand out less important things than money, such as the death
Originally posted by thegelding
as for attacking kerry for being so dang gullible to supporting bush's failed programs...that would be suicide for bush..."Ha ha, you are so incompetent and gullible for voting for my incompetent programs."
Lets say Kerry attacks Bush on the war saying that Bush misled, didn't go to the UN, blah blah blah...
All Bush has to do is claim that it was an intelligence failure and claim the war was still worth it. Kerry voted for the war that authorized the US to take unilateral action, so Kerry also thought Saddam was a threat enough to justify not going to the UN. Bush can turn Kerry's entire arguement into a non-issue by simply repeating facts on Kerry's vote and claiming he agreed with him at the time and Kerry is now critizing for political reasons.
Bush doesn't have to say anything about Kerry being incompetent and gullible; it will come accross automatically as Kerry goes into tirades critizing on how Bush misled him on No Child Left Behind, misled him on the War, and other issues. Infact, Kerry will seem more than just incompetent and gullible, he'll seem like a slimy politician because he's attacking Bush on non-issues that he supported before but only now is against for "process" reasons. Karl Rove will paint Kerry, rightly so, as a hypocrit. It's an interplay and confluence of both what Kerry says and what Bush will say that will in effect be a double-negative for Kerry. This will turn independents to Bush who will seem genuine.
[I apologize, but I don't have the time to respond to other things in your post]
I kinda like the idea of Senate hearings all summer looking into what happened in the run up to the war...
although I'm sure the Prez would ask for them to be closed door hearings.
There is no denying the Adminstrations push for war...yeah their motive was regime change but only because they said the threat was soooo great that they had to act. If there was no great threat... then what's their good intentions based on? What was the hurry?
Really... the way they were beating their chests about intelligence and how they knew what Saddam had... you can see why it would be hard to vote against the measure...most of them should of known better though.
It's not like you can believe anything Cheney says.
Kerry's looooong time voting record in the senate is going to be his achilles heel, regardless of who the VP is. The Republican distortion machine will make plenty of hay out it between now and November.
Obviously, I'm a Dean supporter and will continue to be beyond the outcome of this primary. I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. But, I have very serious doubts about Kerry's electability. If everyone likes to paint Dean as a white out-of-touch New Englander, imagine how they're going to paint Kerry (factual or not): yet another New England liberal (remember, only southern states can breed presidents anymore), too elitist, too smug, too ugly and a record of questionable votes on the senate floor. And then they'll get personal. It's going to be disgusting.
If only Terry Mac at the DNC had the same balls Ed Gillespie has. Who the Karl Rove equivelent on the right? There isn't one. Maybe we'd start having some fair fights. I just don't see how Kerry's going to survive the character assassination attempts that will rain down on him. It's already starting.
BUSH's plans were failures and any support i gave was likely misguided. i plan to do things different as president, and if my policies fail as miserablly as BUSH'S has, i would expect not to win re-election." kerry should go upbeat mostly and only attack when pressed (or attack subtly)...but if pressed he should keep saying "BUSH's policy" over and over and he should occasionally throw in a "If my policies fail as miserablly as BUSH'S, I would never expect the American people to re-elect me"
he could also use the fact that he voted across party line at times to show that he isn't a raging northeastern liberal
g
check out what he said on Lou Dobbs.
REP. TOM DELAY (R), MAJORITY LEADER: I think the American people are going to react against any notion to block us from continuing that tax relief. Also, the president has made a case and it's fact. The tax relief is -- had a lot to do with improving our economy and as the economy is being improving, we're gaining more revenues for the government. So it helps us in our deficit problem. We are getting more revenue now into the government than if we had not cut taxes.
wha??? (said like scooby-doo of course)
so you see if you cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy... the economy just takes off and then so many more people get jobs and corporations just make so much more that the decrease in revenues becomes and increase...
that's what he's trying to have us believe.
Pretty obvious he was a car salesman.
Voter turnouts show Dems 'energized and angry'
By Andrea Stone and Susan Page, USA TODAY
MANCHESTER, N.H. ? Democrats' record turnout in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, following similarly heavy attendance at the Iowa caucuses last week, shows that the party is organized and motivated to oust President Bush next fall, Democratic and Republican political operatives say.
More than 208,000 people voted in New Hampshire, easily topping the 170,000 who turned out in 1992. That year, like this one, there was a crowded Democratic field and no dominant front-runner in the early contests.
In Iowa, about 124,300 went to caucuses, more than twice the number who attended in 2000. This year's total matches 1988, when an estimated 125,000 Iowans voted in another crowded field. Some Democratic officials say the 1988 estimate was inflated, which would make this year's turnout a record.
"Democrats are more energized and angry than at any time since Lyndon Johnson's presidency," says Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. "That probably translates into higher turnout and more Democrats at the polls" next fall.
"We're really pumped about the high attendance," Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer says. "The grass roots have been activated. ... That gives us an enormous organizational advantage going into the fall."
An energized party doesn't just mean a better chance for the presidential candidate... it's good for all the local elections too.