Ya, but he ‘was’ in the Klan, unlike GW. If you are worried about bigotry, then cleaning house in the Democratic party is in order. The Tawana Brawley incident, good ol’ Sheila Jackson vs. The Jews, having a member of the Klan sitting in the Senate, etc.
Not that I expect anything substantive from you, but how about a cite that shows the Bush/Cheney campaign pandering to ‘bigots’?
I don’t know…how about Bush’s support for the Musgrave amendment?
The Musgrave amendment is the big one. A pure political ploy, playing for the votes of people so mean spirited they can’t stand the thought of other people’s happiness.Bob Jones University and Cornerstone University demonstrate Bush giving stump speeches for crowds of bigots.
You want to know what kind of people are supporting Bush?
These kinds of people, from today’s Washington Post:
etc., etc… It does provide a good perspective on what many here consider “the other side.”
And communist ex-hippies and radical feminists endorse Kerry. Whatsya point?
Clinton seems to have been nearly paralyzed by my disapproval. He did very little about the embassy bombings, the first attack on the WTC, or the North Koreans developing nukes.
Although I did enjoy the smooth facility that rjung skips over having his “known facts” to be shown up as fantasies.
It’s a game any number may play. Suppose Bush decided, based on the evidence available in 2001, to implement the changes needed to prevent 9/11. Can you imagine the screaming from the leftie hysterics on the SDMB?
“It’s RACIAL PROFILING! It’s RACISM! It’s FASCISM! Those guys on the planes were carrying tools, not knives - a box cutter is a tool! GOING TO FLIGHT SCHOOL is NOT a crime! There is NOT ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE that they had ANY bad intentions at all! IMPEACH HIM! IMPEACH HIM! FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK!”
Regards,
Shodan
I bring cites. You talk out of your ass.
And you say my stuff is fantasy?
Then again, Shodan, you are an unabashed all-season fact-proof logic-resistant 2004 Model Year Total Idiot 3000, whose idea of “thinking” is to turn on Fox News and say “yeah!” every thirty seconds.
At least you serve some purpose, by being a practical example of how not to think. “Whoa, Shodan agrees with me; I must be more fucked up than I thought…”
Since you people on the right have started to push this absurd hypothetical, let me suggest that if, somehow, the events of 9/11 were thwarted because (among other things) the FBI hadn’t ignored their leads and the security people at Logan had done their job, what would’ve happened would have been very similar to what happened when the millennium plot was foiled. There would’ve been no “leftie hysterics” or cries for impeachment. Instead, the story would’ve been on the front page of our newspapers for a few days (usually below the fold) before receding into the background with few members of the general public being aware of how close this country came to catastrophe.
Anyway, with regard to the topic of this thread, I get the impression that the American electorate consists of two polarized groups who look at each other with a combination of bemusement and contempt and ask, “What color is the sky in your world?”
And a very large middle group who don’t have the time or inclination to look up, as long as it’s not raining on them.
NDP, the Saudis, including the ones who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, would still freely roam in the states in a profiling policy you proposed, which totally undermines it.
Then why they are still uncomfortable voting for Kerry? Because, despite his war experience, Kerry has no record of fighting CEOs that Nader does. Bush, meanwhile, has proven to be a colluder with CEOs ), and is still acting like one (the DOJ kissing Bill Gates’s feet; Kenny Lay is still free; while Martha Stewart got convicted for misexplaining a $60,000 transaction).
Osama is fighting the terror war like a CEO going for the long term. If that aspect is not countered feverishly, then he could win this.
A guy named “Stein” has 21 crosses in his hallway? ;j 
At the moment, he’s not. Of course, it’ll probably be back and forth like this throughout the next 5+ months.
"[Kerry] wins the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 46 percent for Bush. In February, Bush was ahead of Kerry by two percentage points.
If independent Ralph Nader is among the choices, Kerry gets 49 percent, Bush 44 percent and Nader 6 percent."
I don’t think anybody believes Nader will end up with 6%, do they? Anyhow, this is somewhat academic anyway since the election isn’t decided by national polls…
"Bush appears to have an advantage over Kerry on the war on terrorism with 49 percent saying he would do a better job, compared to 42 percent for Kerry. He also had the edge in “moral values” – 46 percent to 42 percent.
On the question of who would do a better job, Kerry had big leads on health care, protecting the environment, reducing the deficit and reducing unemployment. He even did better than Bush on the question of taxes.
In the fight against terrorism – one of Bush’s strengths in many polls – this poll showed a split over whether Bush is doing a good job. Forty-six of those polled said he was, but 47 percent said he was doing a poor job."
:rolleyes:
Speaking of comparisons between Bush and Bill Clinton, what was President Clinton’s lowest overall popularity rating in the polls? (CNN’s data would be a good way to compare.)
Yeah! People keep FORGETTING all that peace and prosperity we had to endure during the Clinton years! The way the fool balanced the federal budget … what kind of an idiot would do a thing like that?
Why do you people insist that he had anything to do with that? The “surplus” (which was a forecasted surplus based upon the rousing success of the dot.com boom) never existed in any way, shape or form except in the minds of optimists. If anything, he contributed to the recession by not only keeping his hands off the economy when there should have been some controls on it but also by looking the other way while companies like Rite-Aid, WorldCom, and Enron were cooking the books. Clinton looked like a champ for the simple reason that he was President during an unprecedented time of growth driven by an equally unprecedented period of technological expansion. He basically took an 8-year nap (except, of course, to raise taxes periodically) and reaped the political windfall from it.
Oh, and peace? Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, Kosovo, Somalia, the Cole, Oklahoma City, Waco, World Trade Center 1993… some peace you got there.
He was an average President, at best. That said, he’s still better than George W. Bush, but not as good as the Bush he beat.
Needless to say, the above post was me and not Robin. She disagrees with me, too, and when she sees the above post she’ll probably roll her eyes at me.
I was beginning to wonder if MsRobyn had recently suffered a concussion. 
In any event, I’ll just not that it’s because of Clinton that the Seattle Space Needle and Los Angeles International Airport are still standing today. Whereas George W. Bush is on record as opposing any retaliatory action against the USS Cole bombing because he was afraid that would “embolden” the terrorists and make them attack us again. :smack: :wally
Airman, you just might want to read Richard Clarke’s book. Self-serving aside, he goes into great detail about what was done proactively under Clinton to stop Al Qaeda attacks, even to the point where he was criticized for being obsessed with it, especially by the dog-wagging accusers. There were several occasions upon which Bin Laden might have been taken out, and either just missed the timing or were foot-dragged by the JCS. But then, anything that he got right was just pure luck, huh?
Zoe, I don’t have the data handy, but I do remember Clinton’s approval ratings consistently about 60% for the last few years of his administration, even while being impeached.
marley23, to the extent those latest polls are accurate, Nader draws equally from Bush, Kerry, and None of the Above. Net effect zero, and let’s hope it stays that way.