Give me a break…surely this isn’t news anymore?
Next somebody’ll want to know what lies did GWB tell.
If someone hasn’t posted a cite when I get back to this thread I’ll pull a couple for you.
Hell, Gallop had him ahead last week and he’s gained a few points since then.
I’ll see ya later.
I could have written the OP myself.
No, YOU Give ME a break! You posted that Bush was ahead in California.
Polls I’ve seen have Kerry up in California as much as 8 points. And that’s from September 5th! Please back up your statement with a cite.
I agree but both parties are guilty of this kind of behavior. It’s not as if Clinton was the most forthcoming president either. I’m sure Kerry has told some lies as well. I don’t think those people are idiots but they must certainly think the rest of us are from the explanations they give. I suspect the motivation is not so much to fool the public but to not give the opposition amunition. In their mind, even a ridiculous explanation is better in the paper or on CNN than saying “we made a mistake”.
I agree although I have some issues with the timing so soon after Afghanistan.
I didin’t take it as an insult or anything. But the reason we have special interest groups is so that people can make their voices heard. I don’t agree with the bribery and coruption, but they are still an important part of the political process.
I fail to see how anyone can trust Bush. He does too much smirking and winking for my tastes, and he speaks only in terms of black and white. Everything must be cast as a war against good and evil, whether it comes to fighting terrorism or to fixing the economy. He is the politician’s politician.
But one thing that Bush does not do is pander to the public. No, he just manipulates them. He has to do that, you see*, so that when he makes a wrong decision, he can convince people that not only was it not wrong, but that everyone who questions his actions is wrong. Case in point, Iraq. But why that should make him more trust-worthy is beyond me.
*Maybe Kerry should use more “you sees” when giving speeches and interviews like Bush does. That way, he’ll come across as more home-down and simple, like all Presidents should be!
Don’t think for a second that I’m defending the Democrats. I am damned sure not gonna take up for that ffing Clinton either. That’s kinda my point. We’ve got professional liars running the country.
The lobbyists and special interest groups aren’t all evil. I know this. But the few that are legitimate rarely have the backing to go up against…say the tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical, weapons, etc. industries that simply pay their way to get what they want. Like I said, there’s bound to be a better way and if we have to stop all of it in the meantime I’d feel safer trusting the liars instead of the theives.
Not all liars will steal but all theives will lie.
This is just ‘yet another reason not to vote for Kerry’…
I see two reasons Bush won’t get re-elected:
-
All his supports ever do is bash Kerry. They talk about anything good Bush has done, or will do. I’m not even sure they know what his policies are.
-
Bush supports are under the impression this election is Kerry vs. Bush. It’s not. It’s Bush vs. Bush. This is more a vote of no confidence than anything else. Similair to how Arnold won California.
!#!@&^&!^*&^&!@^*$&!
They don’t talk about anything good Bush has done, or will do.
Why can’t we EDIT!
stomps off to the ‘flame the admins’ forum
Why don’t you hit the preview post button right next to the submit reply button
Ahead nationally, yes, but not in CA. Do your realize that is what you originally posted (that he was ahead in CA)?
Similarly, why don’t you go look for a cite that Florida is a Bush “lock”? 'Cause if it is, Kerry’s sure wasting a lot of resources on it…
Yes, it was his stance (or lack of it) on his war experience that struck me most forcibly. He seemed embarrassed about his military leadership in 1968-69 in the light of his anti-war stance of the early 70s. Not only that, the words he used appeared to be the result of computations he had made on whether he would lose more votes by going the gung-ho route or the make-love-not-war route.
His war service was a winner, in my view. All the shots of that handsome fellow in the white navy suit were great advertising. And yet his apparent disdain for his own service led me to start thinking that the real John Kerry was the rather smart-alecky opportunistic preppy character that seemed to be enjoying himself rather too much in that senate(?) hearing.
First he served bravely, then he came home and fought again to try and change what he saw as an injustice. I am proud that he did both things. I would think less of a man who did any different.
Has he handled the attacks on his reputation as well as I would like? No. But my criteria for president isn’t who is the better bully.
Perhaps you should be the one whispering into his earpiece and writing his speeches. He doesn’t come over like this.
Isn’t this a wash? You don’t really hear many Kerry supporters say anything good about him without the “at least he’s not buuuuuuuussssssh” undercurrent, either. So far the strongest message both sides is sending is their guy ain’t that other guy. But then again, that’s the message that’s heard the loudest from each side every four years, so…
Maybe Kerry has found some balls afterall. He says today at a rally (emphasis added):
He’ll still have to explain why he recently said he’d vote for the war resolution again even knowing what he knows now, but this is a start. Did he really have to get Clinton to tell him to do this (as is rumored)? He still has almost 2 months to go, so maybe it’s not too late.
Sigh. He voted to give the pResident the AUTHORITY to go to war to use to pressure Saddam. Bush lied to the country and misused that authority.
Kerry would vote again to give the pResident the AUTHORITY to go to war to use to pressure Saddam, not to go to war with Saddam.
He assumes that intelligent people will get this. He assumes wrong, so yes, he should clear it up himself.
Perhaps you could explain to me why Kerry would approve the use of force if he already knew that Iraq didn’t have WMD? What would be the point of the resolution? Just sort of fucking with Saddam? Something to do while waiting for dinner?
Are you proposing that the burden of proof is on the country to be invaded to prove that they haven’t any such weapons?
It would appear that Kerry, like many others, simply believed the President when he said that Iraq had these weapons.
What are we to do when the President loses a truth-telling contest with someone like Saddam Hussein?