Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 states in 2004

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 111
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    I think that Bush's foreign policy might become an issue if by election time there are still no 'weapons of mass destruction' found in Iraq.
  • Reply 42 of 111
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Good one, jimmac.



    Some others:











    Democrats support national defense




    Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.
  • Reply 43 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by agent302

    Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.



    Not to mention the Monroe Doctrine and the policy of containment which was the real reason for the downfall of Communism . . . . not some hyperbolic rhetoric on top of a wall just before the collapse after the years upon years of pressure from the Doctrine



    . . .yes, from a Democrat
  • Reply 44 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,044member
    Quote:

    Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.





    No one is arguing that Democrats of years past weren't strong on defense. We're talking about today. That's the whole point. The party is just not the same since Kennedy.



    I do have to disagree with your missile defense comment. I support that...even if it isn't 100% workable yet.
  • Reply 45 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,044member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Not to mention the Monroe Doctrine and the policy of containment which was the real reason for the downfall of Communism . . . . not some hyperbolic rhetoric on top of a wall just before the collapse after the years upon years of pressure from the Doctrine



    . . .yes, from a Democrat






    So Reagan had nothing to do with it? Please.



    [pfflam filter engaged]
  • Reply 46 of 111
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    I don't see Bush winning all 50 states in 2004 and the election is still quite aways off.



    But the Democrats need a front runner here if they plan on defeating Bush. After all, the Democrats have a shot of retaking the White House if they actually get a strong candidate out there with a consistant message.



    A Democratic candidate should have come out wholeheartedly against the war in Iraq, in my opinion, and that didn't happen. Also, they can't run on a 'me too' platform. They need to come out with a solid platform that sets them apart from the pack. Besides Gephardt's national health insurance plan, most candidates seem to have a similar message.



    Unless a candidate can set themselves apart, it's going to be a tough run against Bush, that's for sure. But it's still very early in the race and plenty will happen between now and next year.



    It's too bad someone didn't have anything to say about the war though or they could question why there haven't been any WOMD found in Iraq yet.
  • Reply 47 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    So Reagan had nothing to do with it? Please.



    [pfflam filter engaged]




    The real reason is their economy went to hell. Too much military spending. Ironic isn't?
  • Reply 48 of 111
    Quote:

    Originally posted by agent302

    Which is funny, because the presidents during World War I, World War II, Korea, and the beginning of Vietnam were all, say it with me now, DEMOCRATS. Unless by national defense you mean silly things like color coded warning systems and unworkable missile defense systems, but that's for another thread.



    Even Donna Brazile knows that when it comes to national defense today's Democrats don't have much in common with FDR, Truman and JFK.
  • Reply 49 of 111
    If Bush's opponent is Kerry, maybe he would win all 50 states. (link)
  • Reply 50 of 111
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Not to mention the Monroe Doctrine and the policy of containment which was the real reason for the downfall of Communism . . . . not some hyperbolic rhetoric on top of a wall just before the collapse after the years upon years of pressure from the Doctrine



    . . .yes, from a Democrat




    The Monroe Doctrine had something to do with the fall of Communism? How so? I mean if it did, it was because Reagan took it seriously in places like Nicaragua. Most of the Democrat party fought him on that one.
  • Reply 51 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,044member
    jimmac,





    I agree it was their economy. But Reagan helped to cause that. He first demonstrated that the US could not be ouptspent on defense. He built up the military and negotiated from a position of strength. He literally explained to Gorby that we would simply not allow them to outspend us denfensively speaking.



    Reagan certainly saw the writing one the wall. There were others at the time and imediately before (late 1970's) who didn't. Some people were actually saying that Soviet occupation of the Western Hemisphere (not all of it...but some) was just a matter of time. Reagan drew the line in the sand...or more speciffically, recut it and made it deeper.
  • Reply 52 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,044member
    BTW, the above poll is one reason I think Bush could do it. He's beating guys like Kerry on their own turf.



    What I'm saying is that IF the economy gets better than it is, we could have a whole new era of Reagan Democrats. It really could happen.
  • Reply 53 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    jimmac,





    I agree it was their economy. But Reagan helped to cause that. He first demonstrated that the US could not be ouptspent on defense. He built up the military and negotiated from a position of strength. He literally explained to Gorby that we would simply not allow them to outspend us denfensively speaking.



    Reagan certainly saw the writing one the wall. There were others at the time and imediately before (late 1970's) who didn't. Some people were actually saying that Soviet occupation of the Western Hemisphere (not all of it...but some) was just a matter of time. Reagan drew the line in the sand...or more speciffically, recut it and made it deeper.




  • Reply 54 of 111
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Ah Reagan. We will FOREVER be in his DEBT.
  • Reply 55 of 111
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I agree it was their economy. But Reagan helped to cause that.



    It wasn't Reagan's economy. It wasn't Bush's economy. Hell, it wasn't Clinton's economy. Presidents are all very good at taking credit for things that they have very marginal control over. Good and bad economies do not result from the actions of the incumbent presidents.
  • Reply 56 of 111
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Junior will take California when they pry the very last fiber of common sense from our cold dead hands.
  • Reply 57 of 111
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Even Donna Brazile knows that when it comes to national defense today's Democrats don't have much in common with FDR, Truman and JFK.



    Yeah it used to be that Democrats had wars and Republicans had recessions. Now with W., Republicans have both.





    There's just no way, post-9/11, that a dovish Dem can win, nor should he win. And as far as I can tell, the only unequivocal hawk is your fine Senator Lieberman, zaphod.
  • Reply 58 of 111
    enaena Posts: 667member
    I just heard it on NPR, they are shining up Daschle with the "news" that he supports our troops. No doveishness there.



    I think if GWB (and I think we all know Codi is the one who is whacking the international pee-pees) pulls a hat trick on the economy AND the Palestinian thing then might make emporer in '04.



    But since Daschle couldn't stop the tax cut--he may have to strap on one of those Sintex vests from Iraqi military surplus and try to divert the peace process personally.



    We can only hope.
  • Reply 59 of 111
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Its quite possible that this may just happen. The new electronic voting machines are manufactured by the Diebold Corporation. Whoever writes the software has a potential say in the way elections are handled (read rigged). With electronic voting machines there is no paper trail...just the perfect way to rig elections.





    ....




    Funny as always. In Chicago the "Daley Machine" included the voting booths too. Democrats are the kings of rigging elections. The real vote fraud story in 2002 had nothing to do with Florida. But the ****** media never pushed that to the front page. NYT was too busy making it up to get it right
  • Reply 60 of 111
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Bush foreign policy is very popular on the whole.



    I rarely agree with SDW, but I have to agree with him here. Regardless of all the reasons that Bush should be unpopular, he went to war and that seems to be good enough to put him on top.



    Americans, it seems, like war providing it is foreigners who are dying.



    Further, this is not like 1992, because this time the Republicans have a continual war scenario. Lucky them.
Sign In or Register to comment.