Apparently there’s a potential downside to Bush’s late nomination: unless the Alabama legislature acts quickly, he might have to run as a write-in there next year. Apparently under Alabama law, candidates must be certified by 8/31 for their names to be on the November ballot.
Don’t like the guy–didn’t vote for him last time; won’t vote for him next.
But if anyone thinks the Democrats would’ve done anything remotely different, they’re dreaming.
Hmmm. Let’s see. No, I don’t think so. Sorry.
Just when you think the Bushies can’t get more disgusting…
“Keep Rolling”? As if the Commander of Theives wasn’t repugnant enough, now I will associate his campaign with an REO Speedwagon song.
Hmm, just like Clinton.
Oh wait, that was Fleetwood Mac.
Maybey their slogan really means:
Keep Rolling (your cars and gas guzzling SUVs down the
road so me and my super rich oil friends can be even more rich and powerful)
or
Keep Rolling (your eyes at me and more and more people will think you are Anti-American)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bush start campaigning last week? So the Republican nomination is nothing but a formality and a photo op. The Democrats will spend the summer hashing it out among themselves, twigs battling twigs, and then Bush will whomp in with a massive show of support, wrapped in the flag, late in the game.
If the people bought into the reasons for an invasion of Iraq, there’s no reason not to keep leading them along like sheep.
Besides, it’s not like Bush needs more than 25% of the population to vote for him anyway…
Sounds like that’s what you want the Liberals to say so you can keep villifying them. Why you are accusing Sam Stone of all people in doing this is beyond me. i suggest that people can dislike Bush without wanting planes to crash into more buildings. I know the concept is blowing your mind, but please bear the thought out instead of repressing it with more “Liberals are unwashed commie terrorist” thinking.
what time of the year are conventions usually started? The article makes it sound a month later than normal, but only uses the Democrats of this campaign as a reference.
How exactly is this different from using 9/11 to justify his stinking war, somehow subliminally planting the idea in the gullible public’s collective head that there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?
He’s already whored 9/11 once, he might as well do it again.
Let’s not go overboard with this. Yes this convention is the latest a convention has been held, by about 3 days. The 2004 RNC is scheduled to run from Aug 30th to Sept 3rd. By contrast the 1996 Chicago DNC ran from Aug 26th to Aug 29th. As this page points out a number of factors unfluence the late date. One, the RNC follows the DNC, which in 2004 will be held on the week of July 26th. Second, 2004 is an Olympic year, from Aug 13th to the Aug 29th, and both parties wanted to work around that, obviously you’re not going to get maximum exposure if you have to compete with the Olympics. Third, there’s a good reason to have the convention pretty late in the season, as the article points out:
And because of that, the article says that:
There’s more interesting stuff there that I’ll leave unmentioned, but essentially IMO the OP’s response if kneejerk at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Pardon me while I laugh at anyone taking any significant offense at this particular move. But I also have sympathy… I worry that someday, someone might fart in your presence, and you’ll be so mortified that you’ll drop dead of a heart attack.