Are you attempting to be witty and/or sarcastic, or have you never actually heard of the Consumer Confidence Index? It is a rather important figure, you know. Or don’t know.
Actually, it’s down from 92% in Nov. I guess you can hope that is a trend…
I will agree the guns comment was inaccurate & a …wait for it… cheap shot (HA HA! I KILL MYSELF!)
Anyway I don’t think it’ll be a total blowout in favor of Bush (& lots of stuff can happen in the meantime to hurt him) but right now, if nothing major happens, I think we’ll see a Bush-Dean race end up about at 55-45%.
The Triumph the Insult Comic Dog in me says "Ohhhh, Howard Dean- a fine candidate, the best hope for a moderate-liberal Presidency, a great representative of the Democratic Party…
FOR BUSH TO POOP ON!!!
But I keed! I keed!"
No I don’t L
Well, how can anyone argue with an indisputable, scientific fact like that? :rolleyes:
Here you go. It’s a pretty good article, and well worth reading, whichever way you lean.
No. It makes me wonder why people trust pols who flip flop on issues. Your own Cite said:
Dean assures voters on the campaign trail this year that he supports the federal assaults weapons ban enacted under President Bill Clinton in 1994.
Know your facts before you write a smart ass post.
How is that a flip-flop? Does supporting gun rights mean that you can’t support any regulation at all?
And Bush has said that he supports the assault weapon ban, too. Also, a ban on assault weapons is a far cry from wanting to completely end private gun ownership.
Sorry, I meant to put this in there.
A ban is a ban. It’s just a beggining. First it’s “assault” weapons, then handguns, then any gun.
I’ve attacked Bush several times on these boards in regards to this, and have pointed out that he is not the friend to gun owners he tries to appear to be.
I live by the motto that those not with me are against me. The “ASSAULT WEAPONS” ban is a crock of shit anyway, as the weapons banned are nothing more than common rifles that “looked” evil. Many rifles that did the same thing the banned weapons did (a great example is the Ruger mini-14) were not banned because they did not look evil. The Ruger fires the same ammo as the Colt AR-15, accepts a 30 round mag, is a semi-auto, etc., yet it wasn’t specifically named in the ban because it didn’t “look” like a military weapon.
But forget about all this, as it was not the main point of my original post. My main point is that Dean cannot win because he’s running too hard to the left. When the general election comes around and all the voters see what he is, he’ll be lucky to get anything besides Vermonts electoral votes. Extremists on either side (like Dean & Buchannan) are populists, and only recieve a fraction of a minority of the total vote. My cite is American history.
Fair enough. My point was that Dean isn’t running as far to the left as some would like to make him out to be, particularly on the issue of gun control. In addition he’s fairly fiscally conservative, especially in regards to balancing the budget. He is farther to the left on social issues and health care, so I guess we’ll have to see how it all plays out.
Watch your step, folks. It’s a slippery slope.
Uh-huh. Interesting.
Tell me about all the Dodge City style shoot-outs that are happening up in Minnesota because of CCW, DIO.
You’re just as guilty as believing in the slippery slope theory as everyone else is, only the issues are different.
But sometimes the slope really is slippery: let’s see what comes first: more gun bans, or carnage in the streets by permit holders.
Well, lets not forget the people factor here. Minnesotans are just as fuckin’ weird as the stories say. But they are comparatively relaxing to live amongst. I entirely suspect that there will be more accidental injuries due to concealed carry laws here than any other kind. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
But when I was a wee lad, “studying for the gallows”, the Waco Tribune had a special section of the paper, lower right hand side of the comics page, where they ran the stories of who got shot at the Dew Drop Dead Inn last night. It wasn’t till I moved away that I found out that not every city the size of Waco, TX, has somebody getting shot every few days or so.
Of course, in those days it was only concealed weapons that were regulated, and no more than 2 concealed weapons at any given time. Gotta draw the line somewhere. And, of course, the law did not specify that only white folks could carry concealed guns. But if you think otherwise you’re dumber than you look.
Minnesotans, for the most part, are smart enough to “conceal carry” a handgun responsibly. They’re just not dumb enough to want to.
He’s not nearly as far to the left as the conservatives would like to paint him, and of course should he get the Dem nomination, he’ll move to the center very very quickly. He just knows who his constituency is, which is more than I can say for the other Dem candidates.
Oh yes, high-minded debate is the order of the day amongst Dean supporters. Apart from the MoveOn websites posting ads comparing Bush to Hitler, paranoid accusations that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, and so forth.
So you think Republicans are the ones slinging “shallow, meaningless insults”? Pardon me while I wet my pants laughing. Read practically anything the far left has ever posted about Bush on the SDMB. Then, by all means, continue to whistle past the graveyard of the upcoming election.
This reminds me of Pauline Kael’s famous line after 1972. She couldn’t understand how Nixon got re-elected, since “nobody I know voted for him”. You guys are starting to convince yourselves of your own rhetoric. Fine with me, of course, just as it was fine with me when the Sandinistas convinced themselves they could win genuine elections in Nicaragua back in the 80s. It’s a bad mistake to confuse the orthodoxy of the Left with reality.
Although it will be interesting to hear what you have to say when Bush wins, and the Florida Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction.
Anything can happen, of course, and Dean is likely to run as fast as he can back to the middle now that the nomination is his to lose. He is trying to do so now with his religious references. On the other hand, the campaign is starting in earnest, and already the Dems have had to back-peddle furiously on the Bush-Hitler thing. There will be other gaffes forthcoming shortly, no doubt.
Regards,
Shodan
There is no “Bush-Hitler thing,” and the “Dems” have no back-pedalling to do since they never pedalled that way in the first place.
Neither the DNC nor Moveon had nothing to do with the production of the ad, it was submitted with over a thousand other entries as part of a contest. All the ads were initially posted unedited on the site to be voted on. It was soundly rejected by the voters and removed by the site along with a repudiation and an apology.
If Moveon was guilty of anything it was of posting raw submissions on its site without reviewing them. To try to generalize the ad as a tactic of the Democrat Party is dishonest, disingenuous and offensive.
Personally, I liked the ad but I’m not a Democrat.
In Time’s latest issue, if the election were held today, with Bush as the Rep candidate and Dean as the Dem, 51% said they would vote for Bush and 46% for Dean. That’s hardly unsurmountable by Dean in one year and hardly makes him unelectable.
If by this you mean that the ad was a nasty lie, you are correct.
**
So soliciting the thing and posting on your website means “having nothing to do with it”? I do not think these words mean what you wish them to mean.
Actually, according to what I heard on the radio this morning, MoveOn first lied about having it on their website. The RNC was able to document that this was, in fact, untrue, and showed the ad on their website to forestall further prevarication. Both parties have subsequently removed the offensive ad.
In other words, Homebrew and others are being dishonest and offensive in this thread, because they are blaming a whole political party for one ad. Right? Or are your standards as flexible as they often tend to be?
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting you should bring that up, Shodan. Remember, if you can, that these were the same people depicted by the Reagan regime as being totalitarian Commies, bent on establishing an iron autocracy of the Left. Your spin is, like, totally awesome, dude.
They held the elections. They lost to a center-right coalition and, with the dastardly cunning so prevalent to the Left, handed over the governance of Nicaragua to the winners.
You think we’d do the same? Do you think that if every indication is that popular elections in Iraq will legitimize a regime hostile to America and its “interests”…do you think such an election will be permitted to go forward?
And if you don’t, then which of the two…Sandanistas or America…most truly represents the principles of democracy?