Jay Leno: "A Newsweek poll said that, if the elections were held today, John Kerry would beat bush, 49% to 46%. Today, President Bush called Newsweek magazine 'a threat to world peace.'"

Very nice quote from Leno. But a more appropriate punch-line would have had Bush labeling Newsweek as a supporter of terrorism, or threat to national security.

Xen
If those percentages are true Bush will win. He won last time with a similar lower vote total than Gore.
I wonder what our world would look like today if the vote of the people actually meant something and we had Pres Gore for the last 3 years ??
Do not get me wrong -- I was NO fan of Gore, but how much worse could he have been ??

One site I have been following is http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html

They haven't updated since 9/29/2003 and who knows how accurate it is, but it is interesting to follow regardless. He is going to do another analysis in early February.

I am beginning to warmup to the idea of a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

If Kerry wins more than half of the primaries on Tuesday, he is a lock for the nomination.

I would have to say he's a lock already unless he commits a HUGE brainfart.

Agree DM

Do not see any of the lame Democratic wannabes making ANY kind of move in the future. What a bunch of losers. The Democratic debates are about as exciting as televised chess.

The next big hurdle will be keeping that asshole Ralph Nader from running a third party candidacy again. He was on Bill Maher show last week and said he is thinking about running again. He helped elect Bush last time and could be the difference again. I cannot understand what he thinks he is accomplishing --other than assuring exactly what he should not want-- another 4 years of Bush.

Agree about the Ralph Nader analysis.
Nader definitely cost Gore the presidency in 2000 and if Nader were to run again it would make unseating Dubya much more difficult in 2004.
I think Nader does the run-for-president thing for the same reason Jesse Jackson did ... as a means of increasing his guest speaker appearance fees.
It's been well-known that Ralph Nader, now in his late 60's, has never married. And it's been equally well-known that the reason he never married is that he has been a lifelong "unwilling to come out" homosexual.
Hopefully, Nader will forego the vanity and financial aspects of a presidential candidacy so that the Democrats will have the fullest posssible chance to dethrone Dubya.

Nader's impact in the next election, even if he runs, will probably be minimal. He has already said he won't run as a Green again if he does run. That means he'll run as an independent and won't have the support structure of an organized political party like the Greens that have over 300,000 registered members.

He probably won't even be on the ballot in all 50 states like he was when he was a Green. I certainly hope he stays out though, but his impact probably won't be as much as it was in 2000. Also, the word is out. Perot got 19 million votes in 92. That was down to around 8 million in 96.

Ask all those people that voted for Nader if they are happy they wasted their voted on Nader and if they are happy with Bush. Nader, for his part, insists there was no difference between Gore and Bush since they were both in the pocket of special interest. I would beg to differ though. Issues on privacy, war, the environment, judicial appointments, and our relations with other countries would all have been vastly different under a Gore Administration.

Nader will still get votes, but I don't think he'll get the nearly 3 million votes he got last time and his impact won't be as greatly felt since he'll be running as an independent.

At this early stage in the campaigning season, these numbers mean nothing. But they are still interesting nonetheless and I think they show that the country is finally starting to move away from Bush as they have time to digest his policies and progress over the term of his administration.

If the election were held today, Kerry beats Bush 53% to 46%.

John Edwards also beats Bush 49% to 48%. My personal choice, Wes Clark loses 50% to 47% and Dean loses handily 45% to 52%.

This re-affirms my opinion about seeing a Kerry-Edwards ticket. I think Edwards would help carry the South, someplace the Democrats have had a lot of trouble in recently.

My biggest fear is that shortly before the election, we are going to have another "Sepetember 11th" type event that will, not only result in a massive loss of life, but will make Bush a "wartime" president again and he'll win in a landslide because it "won't be time for a chage."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

My fav guy Dean is slipping. The man is the only guy who didn't take special interest money and who voted against the war. Plus I agree with his stance on many things incl. the environment, small business, globalization etc.

Here's one recent article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2760

I wouldn't mind seeing a Kerry-Edwards or Kerry-Clarke ticket. But Dean is my man!

www.moveon.org

Regarding Xenono's biggest fear ... that shortly before the election we are going to have ??? (some event)
The biggest event that could happen that would give Dubya a winning bounce would be finding Osama bin Laden, oh say, maybe 2 weeks before the election.
Is that possible?
Possibly, if military intelligence has radio communication info on Osama's whereabouts and has "the bearded wonder" thoroughly accounted for. At that point it's just a matter of picking the right time to pick up Osama.
Granted, the above scenario is very speculative but I wouldn't put it past the capability of this White House Administration (Karl Rove's crowning achievement?) to play politics with the capture of Osama bin Laden.
Could the Republicans really do this?

Capturing someone they should have captured 2 years ago at Tora Bora (did we not learn shit from Vietnam? If you have the target in site, blow it/he/she the fuck up, don't wait for the locals to do it) will not help Bush that much. His Saddam bounce was only a couple of weeks.

Wow, so at 10:19 EST, Kerry is on a roll with Joe L. dropping out and Dean on the ropes. Kerry/Edwards is looking more and more realistic every day, although Clark is doing well in the boondocks. Hey, how about Kerry for Pres, Edwards for Vice-pres and then a pre-election announcement that Clark will be Sec of Defense upon inauguration of the new Pres?

Cat, that Kerry-Edwards-Clarke thing sounds MIGHTY appealing.

My man Dean is slipping.

About that Bin Ladin capture scenario, I think it is very possible. Unfortunately catching him would just bring more terrorism acts. Bin Ladin is much more admired than Saddam Hussein to the Muslims. He could have led a billionaire's life but he gave it up to be a 'freedom fighter' for what he believe is right. Not that I share the Muslims' view.

Sunday morning TV's "Meet The Press" with Tim Russert on NBC will have as guest interviewee none other than our President, George Dubya Bush.
I've never known Russert to allow a guest to assert that any topic is "off limits". Should be mighty interesting.
Given that Russert asked Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark last week on three consecutive questions whether he would clarify the "deserter" rap against Dubya during his military stint in the National Guard, when his whereabouts (AWOL?) is unbeknownst for many months ... any bets on that question being asked of the Pres?
And any bets that Dubya will give a truthful definitive answer that clears up the issue?
If Dubya were to fumble that question ... it will dog him bigtime until the day of the election. Agree?
Gotta believe Russert will ask Dubya bluntly ... he asked Cheney "3 million jobs lost on your watch, how can you run on that record?" ... albeit a little more politely, the same question.
Of course the other usual topics, Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, intelligence failures, 16 words in last year's State of the Union address, Medicare reform, tax cuts, gay marriage ... all will probably get some air time also.
Look for the Democrat presidential candidates to jump all over any mis-spoken response.
Gotta believe that the Democrat Presidential Debates, with all the ABBB (any body but Bush) rhetoric, has taken its toll and finally forced Bush to respond this way.
What do you think?

I was talking to a friend the other day, he has a son who is in the USMC and is being shipped out real soon to Iraq. The father says he had to help him out buying his gear to take with him. He says among the items were socks. I don't know what the truth is there but if these guys going out there are having to pay for their own supplies, that would be a good question for Russert to ask Mr Bush. Another comment I heard the other day - 'George Bush is a guy that was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple'.

It's curious to me how some are now all hyped up about his service in the National Guard when it was fully explored by reporters before the 2000 election and nothing became of it. It never seemed to bother them knowing Clinton ran off to England to avoid the draft. The truth is, people don't care about that kind of stuff because Vietnam was such an ugly war.

As for the urban legend story of the marine not having socks to wear, Bush has done nothing but increase the defense departments budget since he took office. The cuts came all through the 90s.

I may be the only moderate on this website but that also makes me a realist. September 11th 2001 was the most horrific day in American History. The world changed. I imagine its very difficult being President. The stress level must be intense because you have access to information the rest of us don't. I don't disaprove of anything this adminstration has don't post Sept 11th. The truth is, we should have been in Afghanistan in 1998 when UBL bombed our African Embassies. We knew who did it and where he was but our President decided to lob a few cruise missles into the mountains of Afghanistan and call it even. He didn't have the stomach to make the tough call. Imagine what might have been averted had we invaded Afghanistan then.

I like Bush's decisiveness. He isn't weak like his father. He's taken the fight to the middle east. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since Sept 11th. That deserves credit. The hysteria I read about on here from time to time over the Patriot Act is way over blown. I'm not really concerned if it makes it a little more difficult for some whore monger to get in and out of Cuba. The reality is, unless your name is Muhammed, you have nothing to worry about. The same Presidential candidates that criticize it now, voted for it then. The same Presidential candidates that voted to use force against Iraq condemn it now.

In this new world, we can't have politics in matters of National Security. We are in the middle of WWIII. Bush understands that and I fully believe that we would be doing exactly what we are doing now if Al Gore were President, and I would be supporting him. He would have been given the same intelligience (Tenet was appointed by Clinton) and the pressure to do something about Iraq would have put us on the same course.

Whoever wins in November will continue on the same course because the pressure to not have an incident on their watch will be intense. Once the nuclear bomb goes off in New York or LA, it's too late. Didn't any of you see "Sum of all fears". If that happened, it would devastate our economy, as well as the world's economy. This isn't play time anymore. It's funny how once you become President, it forces you to become serious all of a sudden and leave the hysterical, partisan, rhetoric behind. If President Kerry says we need to do something about Iran or North Korea, I'll support it not because I like our soldiers getting killed, but because I trust that he knows more about the sitution than I. That's the difference between me and a lot of partisans on the left and on this website.

Now look how much time I've wasted in this meaningless discussion.....

Aldaron said "...I may be the only moderate on this website..."

I thought that was an interesting statement. From my personal readings of the political threads, particularly the "War or Peace?" thread, I would say far more members here lean to the right. You've been participating in that thread; and I would call it a far stretch to say that Batster, Roadglide, Kojak and others that seem to share your views are liberal.

The two political affiliation polls I found also seem to reflect the conservative lean of members here:
Political Affiliation
Political Affiliation & Earnings

Its strange how Bush pulled out the stops to go after Saddam who had no weapons of mass destruction, but plays footsie with the North Koreans who do have nukes.

True; When asked "how's it hangin"? My normal reply is "to the right"

Explorer,

Whats so strange? If you know that the crazy bastards have nukes you obviously tread carefully. Thats exactly why these regimes should never be allowed to get nukes, because then they have the world by the nuts. Also North Korea is a client state of China. You need to be careful when you pick a fight with the little brother of 1 billion Chinamen.

D'art,

Like Roadglide I probably hang to the right but I can't be pigeonholed. My views are all over the board and have more to do with what I think is common sense than anything.

Some of my views that dont gel with the right. I think that drugs should be legalized, I believe in choice for women( as long as my tax money does not have to pay for her indiscretion), I dont believe in capital punishment, I could care less if Gays get married.

On the other hand I believe that government over reaches. It taxes too much, spends too much, leglislates too many aspects of our personal lives, enroaches on our personal freedoms, etc, etc.

Where I tend to go all the way to the right is on the whole war on terror issue. 9/11 did change the way I think about the world. I do see it as a battle between cultures. One culture that does not tolerate anything and believes that the whole world should believe in Allah. And the other culture, with flaws, that generally respects individual rights. I don't believe that any of the demcratic candidates grasp that.

In one of the last debates Kerry said that in great part terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Thats just the attitude that got us 9/11.
I know that Rio Rules and DickJ and all of the other enlightened Bush haters think I am a retrograde neanderthal for defending the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think we should kick the shit out of a few more groups over there. The Mullahs in Iran could use an asskicking as could Hezbollah and Jamas. In that part of the world they understand force more than anything.

Batstertheviolentuglyamerican

d'Art.. I've never seen that poll before. Maybe there are more on here that feel as I do. I'll admit that I only scanned some of the comments in this thread recently, but it's comments like those above from Explorer8939 that I tend to see more of here.... irrational Bush-hating without thinking through any of the real issues at stake. I've often suspected that there was a silent majority on this website that wasn't so leftist though. I generally avoid getting in this types of discussions, but every so often I read something crazy that gets to me.

The only thing I know for certain is that there is a lot of hate on the far left. I'm not sure where it comes from, but it is there, and it is not productive.

http://conservativesagainstbush.com

"...I do see it as a battle between cultures. One culture that does not tolerate anything and believes that the whole world should believe in Allah. And the other culture, with flaws, that generally respects individual rights..."

I do not personally believe this, but it seems to me that much of the world sees us much differently. I think we are increasingly being viewed as a culture that considers the opinion of the rest of the world as irrelevant, and that we'll do whatever we want, whenever we want, without adequate reason nor justification, and if we make a mistake...oh well...

And to anyone out there that can't read...let me emphasize that I said that's not my opinion, but a view I think is held by a good part of the world outside of the US.

"...there is a lot of hate on the far left..."

A while back people were saying that about the right and the Clintons. The Clintons would just absolutely infuriate the right. And when it came down to the impeachment issue, we were told that it wasn't about Clinton's sex life, but that he committed perjury by lying to the American people.

Let's just suppose someone on the left genuinely believes Bush is responsible for the following:
* Record surplus to record deficit
* Damage to the credibility of our intelligence community and military
* Damage to the institution of the United Nations
* Backward movement in global environment protections
* Damage to constitutional rights
* Lying to the public/world to justify a costly war with no end in sight

Are these insignificant issues (as opposed to the "real issues at stake") that can simply be dismissed as irrational Bush-hating?

There is a vehement hate in the left against Bush. It stems from the 2000 election which they still think he stole. They don't seem to understand the concept of an electoral college put in place to prevent elections from being decided by large populace states.

The issues you listed aren't insignificant, but they aren't true either. When I say they are irrational I mean that they let their pure hate get in the way of examing each of your listed bullets. I believe once you fairly look at each of your bullets, they are insignificant as opposed to the real issues at stake. The real issue (as I stated above) is that we are in the middle of WWIII. Bush gets it..... the left thinks all that is needed is a "police action". It's a difference of opinion that will be decided in November.

Aldaron,

I believe that in our two party system, this "hate" is built into the system. As many noted have noted, it was there when Clinton was in office from the right, and the same exists on the right. I disagree with your point that it a result of the close election. It would be there if it were a landslide.

But there is one comment that puzzles me. Why do you say that we are in the middle of WWWIII? I have read nothing about this at all. I am not trying to be sarcastic, but there literally has been no mention by Bush and his administration about this, nor any other international bodies. Based on this, I would have to say that this is just one person's opinion, and an exteme one at that.

Maybe I'm just used to it (shot at once, near a bombing twice), but terrorism, as we call it, is unfortunately a fact of life in many parts of the world. While 9/11 was a horrible occurance, Bush and his people cannot just say "we were attacked, so we don't have to listen to anybody anymore". There are still rules to play by, both international and at home. Rules that we largely created, mind you.

The main problem, that I see, is the massive cognitive dissonance occuring. The only people being asked for suggestions are the ones already being listened too. There is the constant tieing-in, as well. That's why most people agree on Afghanistan but why Iraq is creating such a problem. Afghanistan was supporting terrorism, thus a direct and legitimate tie to the terror attacks. Thus, a viable target.

Iraq was not supporting terrorism. Did Saddam want to cause trouble for the US? Of course, but you could say the same for all but a handful of nations. There was not direct threat from Iraq, thus, in the end, there was no causation for attack. Case closed.

Now, should Saddam have been removed? Absolutely, he should be bled out slowly in the main center of Baghdad one day soon. However, that was not the stated reason we went in, thus, not a valid reason for invasion.

World War III? No, not anywhere close. A terrorist attack, yes. The main reason why we cannot seem to get past this simple answer is that the truth (a low-tech, low-budget, fairly simple setup) is difficult to accept. Just as the correct answer to the attack (if someone tries to take over a plane, don't let them, fight them instead) is simple and easy, and that too is difficult for people to accept.

Simple attack, devestation (on TV), simple resolution - we cannot handle that. Which is the real reason that Iraq was invaded. We need something more, something bigger, and that's why we get the shake-down at airports and why one of my roomates from college is sitting at Walter Reed trying to learn how to write and wipe his ass with his left hand, because his right hand and arm was blown off last month.

As far as hatred goes, well, I see it more as squabling - people are questioning legitimate things that leaders should be questioned on (war, economics, social concerns). Clinton, he got busted for getting a blowjob and then lying to his wife. Not equal, I'm afraid, but if you listen at all to Grover Nordquist, the transvestite Ann Coulter and Rush and the boys, I don't here anything remotely being said by liberals or moderates that comes close to the shit coming out of those mouths.

I am probably one of the more right wingers here mainly because even though I bat right handed, I play hockey and swing my stick left handed.

Seriously my key issues are that

Real, helpless children are not continued to be murdered

Gays are not allowed to be married (It is against the natural order of life

Drugs are not legalized (I don't want myself or my family having to smell pot eveywhere I go and deal with the dealers and users of soft and hard core drugs more publicly

And I don't want more freebie handouts to people who are already commiting fraud.

I also want to make sure our military remains the best they can be.

PS
I am from a middle class family that always voted for the Democrats as the Democrats used to be for the poor people.

Now they are for the Gays,Lesbians and murderers
and the Republicans have some how become more known as the more Religious, moralistic, family values party.


PS2
I have friends that are gay (tough to avoid In LA)
but though I don't judge them as a person, I can judge their action which is wrong and unnatural.

PS3
I guess if I did not partake in TJ hos, I would be even more far right.

Khun mor wrote:

"I was NO fan of Gore, but how much worse could he have been"

A ton worse.
We could all be dead right now.

We could all be dead? Maximus aren't you a tad bit dramatic?

You and Aldaron(in World War3) are so far right(wrong) you two sound like the same guy. Aldaron saying the points mentioned by dArt are not insignifcant... but not true?? They are significant AND true.

Clinton and Gore's 8 years in office were prosperous and peaceful years compared to this.

Dick did you have your head in the sand for those 8 years?

Gore should be happy that he didn't get left holding the bag like Bush did.

I'd love to stay in this and debate all of you liberals but you give me a headache. I'm a realist. The world changed on Sept 11th. This President is dealing with it and I support him. There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since Sept 11th. This is the closest thing we will ever have to another World War. It's serious. One party gets it, the other doesn't. Some hombres get it, some don't. Some don't want to get it because they are afraid Bush may get some credit. Sort of reminds me of the queer in my office that was down in the snack restaurant one day. People were sitting there watching tv as the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down by the tank. This queer (a literal cock sucker) stood there in the middle of the room in front of the tv and then in disgust yelled at the tv... "yeah, but what are you going to do about the economy!"... and then stormed out. 8% growth in the 4th quarter queer. That's what.

I'm out of this. Flame away. Here is my response:

"...The issues you listed aren't insignificant, but they aren't true either..."
True like "Iraq poses an urgent thread because it has WMD's"?

You may not agree with others on what the truth or relevance of issues is, but to simply dismiss them as based on emotion while simultaneously offering no supporting evidence, then exit with an emotional attack on your office mate and a flip off to everyone that disagrees with you is kind of a weak debate tactic. Actually reminds me of KidDiscoDuck.

BTW, I am a realist.

Maximus743,

I am wondering. If it were ever scientifically proven that homosexuality was genetic and not a lifestyle choice, would that change your opinion on gay marriage? If it were ever scientifically proven, wouldn't homosexually be no different than say, someone being born as a Black, Asian, or Indian?

Wouldn't discriminating against them based on something they cannot control be just as bad as discrimination against someone based on color, race, age, religion, etc?

I've known a lot of homosexuals in my life. I've asked them all the same question. When did you know you were gay? They all, without hesitation, replied "since a very early age."

How many little kids growing up want to be gay? How many of them want to be subjected to the ridicule and stigma that comes with being gay? I would venture a guess that it is not many. I would admit that for some, homosexuality is probably a lifestyle choice, but for the vast majority, they are pre-disposed to it based on genetics. And to prevent them from marriage because of that is simply wrong. To discriminate against them because society fears them is also wrong.


(Message edited by ensignro on February 07, 2004)

(Message edited by ensignro on February 07, 2004)

"...Now they are for the Gays,Lesbians and murderers and the Republicans have some how become more known as the more Religious, moralistic, family values party..."

It might be easier to process and categorize by trying to simplify the differences between the parties in that matter, but things are never simple like that. The truth is fluid and elusive, contrary to what some people might believe. My perception of the truth is that you have the lowest of criminals to the greatest of saints in both parties, and that you rarely find a person in step with every single stance of their respective party.

While you clearly lean right based on your beliefs about when life begins, the institution of marriage, and the effect of drugs and welfare on our society...your perception of religion, morality, and family values seem to me to present a catch-22.

"...I can judge their action which is wrong and unnatural..."
I doubt it would be difficult to find a respected religious figure that considered the activity of sex outside of marriage, particularly participation in prostituion, as immoral, unnatural, and contrary to God. One might disagree, but then who is to say who is right, the priest or the whore-monger? And if our subject believes and accepts the priest's opinion that he is knowingly and happily going down this evil path, what would that say of this treacherous devil?

I personally see nothing wrong in the consensual transaction occuring between adults and the choices we make involving our own bodies in our hobby.

If our government borrrows 500billion dollars in just 1 year of course there is going to be some economic indicator that bounces up as a result of that infusion of money into the economy.
But what did we get for the 500billion dollars borrowed (that we will never be able to repay)?
A jobless recovery (little wonder, the money is mostly being spent in Iraq doing nation building) where some rich people find their stock portfolio grew by 8%.
Most reasonable people would say that that is not enough bang for the 500billion dollars money spent.

As for the earlier remark about the year 2000 stolen election debacle.
There is no problem with the electoral college concept that winning states totaling more than 270 electoral votes takes precedent over Gore's winning the popular vote.
What grinds my ass is the protocol that took place.
The Florida state Supreme Court of Appeals was debating the merits of the case, Bush v Gore 2000, and then suddenly one day that Florida jurisdiction is informed by memo from the United States Supreme Court (led by Justice Antonin Scalia and his fellow Republican nominated jurors) that their Florida efforts are not needed because the US Supreme Court in Washington DC has decided to take the case away from their Florida counterparts.
Maybe Florida's judges would have come to the same conclusion that Bush won ... but Scalia and his cronies weren't about to wait around and find out how Florida decided so they just took over the case themselves.
Whatever you think of the final outcome, the protocol, the method at arriving at the ultimate decision. ... it stunk!

Ensigro,

My answer is no.

I am compasionate and would work with them to teach them why there lifestyle is not natural
and help them change just like a drug addict.

You can use scientists just as long as you don't use the same ones that say we came from apes.

I rather use the athiest scientists who have examined the incorrupt bodies of the Catholic Saints in Europe and concluded that yes in fact it is a scientific miracle that is attributable to a higher power that does exist such as GOD.

(Message edited by maximus743 on February 09, 2004)

d'Artaqnan,

What this treacherous devil would say is
mongering is definitely against my reigion and my beliefs.

At least I acknowledge it is wrong and I admit I will have to atone for my indiscretions later or even now.

Putas are my only vice. If I did not have Putas as a vice, I would be a Saint (j/k)

(Message edited by maximus743 on February 09, 2004)

DickJohnson,

No, not Dramatic at all as Gore would have no clue as to how to respond to 911 and its prevention.

All he would care about is that his Hollywood friends were allowed to trash the world with the crap they are producing and that his gay buddies could be married.

Obviously I am just being as absurd as some of you liberal thinkers have been.

And no I am not another poster in disguise. I post as and always have posted only as Maximus743.


Btw
Didn't you vote for your boy the Democrat in "Republican" clothing Arnold? What do you think of the job he is doing or not doing?

Bush won the florida vote fair and square. Even the non-believer auditors and investigators found this to be true.

However did you ever see alot of followup or hoopla posted and printed of this overwhelming confirmation? Nope
That is because the liberal media who is always out to trash all good and squash most good from getting in their magazines and papers and mostly glamorizing evil and promoting evil would never let the countless verification findings come out in the fore front of the news.

Sex, Lies and the Bush Cartel

Some highlights I found interesting:

"Yet, not too long before the Super Bowl, there was another nationally televised event where the main star delved deeply, and inappropriately, into the issue of sex: the State of the Union."

"In a speech widely viewed as ineffective, the President paid lip service to key issues like the economy. However, he did devote precious time to the issue of sex when he discussed abstinence and gay marriage."

"Conservatives, like Bush, are obsessed with other people’s sex lives. So, today we pose the question: what standards apply to them?"

"We wonder: does that same standard apply to the Bush family and the White House staff. Not too long ago, there was a great hullabaloo about the impending marriage of Ari Fleischer who routinely espoused the Administration’s viewpoint on social issues like abstinence. Yet, the national media never asked how the Bush abstinence policy applied to his life. And what about his successor, the unmarried, but engaged, Scott McClellan. Does he have to be abstinent? Condi Rice isn’t married. Is she abstinent? And that leads us to the Bush children. Do the Bush twins have an abstinence only policy? And what about the family “heart throb”: George P. Bush."

"Neil, the President’s younger brother, recently divorced his wife of over 20 years because he was having an affair with a woman who was a volunteer for his mother. He has proposed to the new woman. Even better, the divorce proceedings discovered that while traveling on business during his marriage, Neil was often visited by women who "just showed up to have sex with him." That's right, they just unexplainably knocked on his door when he was traveling overseas, offered to have sex with him, according to Neil, and then left the room. He obliged."

"Recently, Neil was ordered to undergo DNA testing to determine if he fathered a child by a woman with whom he was having an affair."

"Maybe he should talk to the Republican caucus in Congress. There appear to be a lot of adulterous, non-abstinent members of that group. Heck, Newt Gingrich was "shtooping" a Congressional staffer while on his second marriage and demanding the impeachment of Clinton for oral sex! But Newt made his mistress an honest woman by divorcing his second wife and making the young damsel, more than 20 years his junior, the third Mrs. Gingrich."

"Of course, the congressman who almost succeeded Gingrich, Bob Livingston, had to quit before he assumed the post of speaker because Larry Flynt outed him as a serial philanderer. The only reason Dennis Hastert became Speaker of the House was because he is more interested in a juicy turkey leg than a woman's leg. He was,apparently, the only guy the House Republicans could find who was more interested in the groaning board than groaning on a bed with admiring young lasses."

"Iraq did not support terrorism"

For that to be true, we would have to assume the following:

Abbu Nidal, the international terrorist mastermind wanted by Interpol and the US. Was just living openly in Baghdad without Saddams knowledge?

The other Abbu fellow( I forget his last)another recognized terorist who was openly living in Bagdad before the war, was also there unknown to Saddam?

The cash payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel is not support for terrorism?

Saddams plot uncovered during the Clinton administration that was to have killed George Bush senior when he visited Kuwait, was not support for terrorism?

The Iraqi intelligence contacts with and support for Al-Insalam( a group tied to Al-Qaueda)in Northern Iraq is not support for terrorism?

The Salman Pak training camp near Baghdad where foreign arabs were trained how to hi-jack planes, had nothing to do with terrorism?

So maybe Saddam did not finance 9/11, we can than k the Saudis for that, but to say he was not tied to terrorism is just denying the obvious.

A prediction:
Continuing on with the 2004 election,
shifting topics ...
Recently in the news has been Dubya's whereabouts during the Vietnam years. You know, National Guard duty that was cut short by 8 months so the pres could attend Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
More to the point, some anti-Bushies have wondered whether Dubya was doing his pushups, etc in Alabama where his warrior duties were located or was he perhaps, say AWOL, and screwing around somewhere else and still getting an honorable discharge due his father's (and grandfather, who was a US Senator from Vermont) lofty connections.

I don't think this story is going away.
The campaign, with each side having too much money to spend (you don't need mega millions to extoll the good qualities of either Bush or Kerry)
is going to go negative with both sides slinging mud/truth (one guy's mud is another guy's truth).

Prediction = look for somebody like Hustler's Larry Flynt to put some reward money (bounty) out to get somebody (anybody!) to testify about their knowledge of Dubya's whereabouts, far away from the Alabama National Guard, during the time that Dubya swears (not unlike bad boy Billy when he swore "I did not have sex with THAT woman") he was soldiering ... look for exposee articles from people who will get their only 15 minutes of fame describing Dubya in another place in the country yucking it up, partying when he supposedly was defending the country.

Given the rules the Republicans contrived when ridiculing Al Gore for discovering the internet, visiting a Buddhist temple to raise campaign funds, making telephone calls from the White House (a no-no) to raise campaign funds, renting out the Lincoln Room of the White House to amass campaign funds, ... given the rough treatment of Al Gore and, of course, everything extracurricular that Bill Clinton did ... it's fair to say that there are no "gentlemen's agreement" to keep sensitive topics off-limits.

The Star, The National Inquirer, Hustler magazine ... look for some of the most interesting political news stories of this 2004 election year to come from very unconventional sources.

A prediction:
Continuing on with the 2004 election,
shifting topics ...
Recently in the news has been Dubya's whereabouts during the Vietnam years. You know, National Guard duty that was cut short by 8 months so the pres could attend Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.
More to the point, some anti-Bushies have wondered whether Dubya was doing his pushups, etc in Alabama where his warrior duties were located or was he perhaps, say AWOL, and screwing around somewhere else and still getting an honorable discharge due his father's (and grandfather, who was a US Senator from Vermont) lofty connections.

I don't think this story is going away.
The campaign, with each side having too much money to spend (you don't need mega millions to extoll the good qualities of either Bush or Kerry)
is going to go negative with both sides slinging mud/truth (one guy's mud is another guy's truth).

Prediction = look for somebody like Hustler's Larry Flynt to put some reward money (bounty) out to get somebody (anybody!) to testify about their knowledge of Dubya's whereabouts, far away from the Alabama National Guard, during the time that Dubya swears (not unlike bad boy Billy when he swore "I did not have sex with THAT woman") he was soldiering ... look for exposee articles from people who will get their only 15 minutes of fame describing Dubya in another place in the country yucking it up, partying when he supposedly was defending the country.

Given the rules the Republicans contrived when ridiculing Al Gore for discovering the internet, visiting a Buddhist temple to raise campaign funds, making telephone calls from the White House (a no-no) to raise campaign funds, renting out the Lincoln Room of the White House to amass campaign funds, ... given the rough treatment of Al Gore and, of course, everything extracurricular that Bill Clinton did ... it's fair to say that there are no "gentlemen's agreement" to keep sensitive topics off-limits.

The Star, The National Inquirer, Hustler magazine ... look for some of the most interesting political news stories of this 2004 election year to come from very unconventional sources.

Well, with Clark gone, unless Kerry really screws the pooch, he's the candidate now. Kerry/Edwards all the way!

Rodney:

I have to agree with your prediciton - if nothing else, the National Guard issue is the Dem's way of telling the Reps that they will fight fire with fire if they get too personally negative with Kerry. We'll see what happens, but this issue will have legs. (Personally, I'm non-commital, except to say that it is a triviality).

As for "negative" campaigning in general, mud-slinging has been a tradition in american politics since 1776. Jefferson was the "Negro President", John Adams was practically accused of eating babies, Cleveland (I think) supposedly had a bastard child and his opponents heckled "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" at his rallies. Business as usual.

However, the whole point of campaign politics nowadays is not to convine anyone that your candidate is better. It's to get as many of YOUR voters to come out on election day as possible, and to get as many of HIS voters to stay the hell home as possible. Negative campaigning works great for this (most of the time) - your supporters are outraged so they are mobilized (I'm gonna kick that puppy-kicker out of office!), his supporters are pissed off and demoralized, so they stay home (I ain't gonna bother going to the polls for that puppy-kicker).

So get ready to RUUUUUUUMBLE!

:-)

BS

Kerry will not take a lot of shit without fighting back, and don't forget: his wife is a veteran political wife, she's rich as shit and, while not being as bad as Hilary, won't take things lightly either.

And, if Kerry wins, Teresa will be the first First Lady who speaks portuguese! Maybe we can invite her along on a mongering trip, help round up the garotas...

;-)

BS

Or at least pick up the tab! How much is she worth, well over $100 million.

That's a lotta ketchup money.