Far from being an "armchair liberal", my wife and I will be:

1... attending a private function in La Jolla, California for Barbara
Boxer next Monday, Dec. 15. Pictures of my wife and I with our arms around
Barbara, and proudly wearing our "Dean for America" buttons will be posted
on the internet.

2... "precinct victory captains" at the California Primary on March 2,
2003 for Howard Dean.

3... among the millions of out-of -state people in the NYC streets
joining the millions of New Yorkers, protesting Dubya's "coronation" at the
Republican Convention.

4.... attending the Democratic Convention in June, 2004 in Boston, Mass.

5... attending Dean's "swearing in" ceremony in Washington, D.C. in
January, 2005.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Far from being an "armchair liberal", my wife and I will be:

1... attending a private function in La Jolla, California for
Barbara
Boxer next Monday, Dec. 15. Pictures of my wife and I with our arms
around
Barbara, and proudly wearing our "Dean for America" buttons will be
posted
on the internet.

2... "precinct victory captains" at the California Primary on March
2,
2003 for Howard Dean.

3... among the millions of out-of -state people in the NYC streets
joining the millions of New Yorkers, protesting Dubya's "coronation" at
the
Republican Convention.

4.... attending the Democratic Convention in June, 2004 in Boston,
Mass.

5... attending Dean's "swearing in" ceremony in Washington, D.C. in
January, 2005.

I guess that explains why you won't join some old friends for some music
and laughs.
Have fun.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:3ZdBb.17218$yf.1090@fed1read01...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Far from being an "armchair liberal", my wife and I will be:

1... attending a private function in La Jolla, California for
Barbara
Boxer next Monday, Dec. 15. Pictures of my wife and I with our arms
around
Barbara, and proudly wearing our "Dean for America" buttons will be
posted
on the internet.

2... "precinct victory captains" at the California Primary on March
2,
2003 for Howard Dean.

3... among the millions of out-of -state people in the NYC streets
joining the millions of New Yorkers, protesting Dubya's "coronation" at
the
Republican Convention.

4.... attending the Democratic Convention in June, 2004 in Boston,
Mass.

5... attending Dean's "swearing in" ceremony in Washington, D.C. in
January, 2005.

I guess that explains why you won't join some old friends for some music
and laughs.
Have fun.

I have lots and lots of "old friends". I get together with them every
chance I get.

Sandman a écrit :

Far from being an "armchair liberal", my wife and I will be:

1... attending a private function in La Jolla, California for Barbara
Boxer next Monday, Dec. 15. Pictures of my wife and I with our arms around
Barbara, and proudly wearing our "Dean for America" buttons will be posted
on the internet.

2... "precinct victory captains" at the California Primary on March 2,
2003 for Howard Dean.

3... among the millions of out-of -state people in the NYC streets
joining the millions of New Yorkers, protesting Dubya's "coronation" at the
Republican Convention.

4.... attending the Democratic Convention in June, 2004 in Boston, Mass.

5... attending Dean's "swearing in" ceremony in Washington, D.C. in
January, 2005.


Are you working here for US political futur ?
....Or your personal promotion ?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:3ZdBb.17218$yf.1090@fed1read01...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Far from being an "armchair liberal", my wife and I will be:

1... attending a private function in La Jolla, California for
Barbara
Boxer next Monday, Dec. 15. Pictures of my wife and I with our arms
around
Barbara, and proudly wearing our "Dean for America" buttons will be
posted
on the internet.

2... "precinct victory captains" at the California Primary on
March
2,
2003 for Howard Dean.

3... among the millions of out-of -state people in the NYC streets
joining the millions of New Yorkers, protesting Dubya's "coronation"
at
the
Republican Convention.

4.... attending the Democratic Convention in June, 2004 in Boston,
Mass.

5... attending Dean's "swearing in" ceremony in Washington, D.C.
in
January, 2005.

I guess that explains why you won't join some old friends for some
music
and laughs.
Have fun.

I have lots and lots of "old friends". I get together with them every
chance I get.


I'm sure you'll be getting together with them to cry in your beer when the
Democrats lose in 45-50 states.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I'm sure you'll be getting together with them to cry in your beer when the
Democrats lose in 45-50 states.

On CNN yesterday a Republican strategist mentioned that only the "dumb"
Republicans believe that any more. The "smart Republicans" are "afraid of
Dean. Very afraid. And for good reason."

Wake up and smell the coffee. Karl Rove never had it right in the first
place. Neither has Fox News.

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

Sandman said:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states

Not a chance! Here are my guarantees of the states that will NEVER
vote for Dean: Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
Virginia, Indiana, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Alabama. He might take the rest, but not those.

You heard it here first.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I'm sure you'll be getting together with them to cry in your beer when
the
Democrats lose in 45-50 states.

On CNN yesterday a Republican strategist mentioned that only the "dumb"
Republicans believe that any more. The "smart Republicans" are "afraid of
Dean. Very afraid. And for good reason."

Wake up and smell the coffee. Karl Rove never had it right in the first
place. Neither has Fox News.

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.


Keep dreaming. Bush's approval ratings are high, the economy is doing
great, the stock market broke 10,000 today, Dean is not liked by Blacks and
the only better for Bush than a Dean candidacy, is a Kucinich one.

Wait till he has to campaign for the rest of the country.
Florida, won't be a problem this time around, Bush will win by a landslide
there.

How well do you think Dean's gibberish will play outside the 2 coasts?

dave weil is a bit skeptical:

Sandy gushed:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

The operative word in Sandy's declaration was the "two" rather than the "50"
states that Dean would, uhm, sweep.

Sandy appears to be in the acute throes of BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome.


GeoSynch

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

I believe it's possible, because I'm excited about Dean's campaign. Am I
going to make a prediction? Only that Dean will be our next President.

Here's some insight as to why:

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire-- one of the very best one-stop
political blogs out there-- argues that the 2004 election is going to be
very close. As Goddard says of Republican daydreams of a rout, "It's very
hard to pull off a landslide when you're not likely to win three of the five
largest states."

Some excerpts:

"Today, one candidate has this clear vision of America, a vision which lies
at the core of his ideology... It is a vision which will serve as the basis
of a far-sighted and responsive government at this key hour in our nation's
history, and one that allows us to look beyond the sundry programs and small
promises of the present to chart a bold future for the next generation. And
for that reason, I have decided to support Howard Brush Dean for the office
of President of the United States....
Today, change is afoot everywhere we look. The economy is changing. Our
manufacturing sector is being crushed between the twin walls of
globalization and mechanization, leaving many Americans adrift and out of
work. President Bush's policies in these areas have failed. One hundred
years after Henry Ford proved that the way you grow the American economy is
to lift up the American worker so they can buy the products that make the
rich rich, George Bush is waging a war on labor, ensuring that when people
finally do find jobs they are low-paid workers with no benefits who spend
all their time just trying to put food on the table. And while most
Americans struggle to make ends meet, Bush gives a tax cut to the rich to go
with the corporate welfare that only increases the tuition and property
taxes for the rest of us while CEO's send jobs overseas and take the huge
profits to line their own pockets. Howard Dean understands the need for a
strong labor movement that will fight for worker's rights, and that the
ongoing process of globalization needs to be managed in a way that leaves
Americans with opportunities while the system is still adjusting...."

Ulrich addresses the lie that Rove and Bush want you to believe-- that Dean
cannot win:

"Over 200 years ago, Thomas Paine wrote, "A long habit of not thinking a
thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at
first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." Howard Dean is tough,
articulate, and politically skilled enough to win this election.... It is
time we tried standing on our principles with a strong candidate at a moment
in history when the choices have never been clearer. Arrayed on one side
will be fear and anger toward the outside world and the core elements of a
social darwinism which consigns too many Americans to a reject pile if they
can't get in on Bush's corporate game. Arrayed on the other will be hope and
friendship as we strive to promote our values of community at home and
abroad. This is the way America has always succeeded. My favorite Thomas
Paine quote has always been, "We have it in our power to begin the world
over again." My friends, there are no more worthy values than those we stand
for. In the political history of the earth, there has never been a cause
greater than this American experiment, which has shone like a beacon of hope
and possibility for over 200 years. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln
said, "Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. The fiery trial through
which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest
generation." I believe this generation of Americans can acquit ourselves
with honor, bearing our message of hope to the world and inspiring...
people... by living out our ideals while rising to the challenges of the
present age and opening the gates to our exciting future. And Howard Dean is
just the leader we need to take us there."

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:45:03 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

I believe it's possible, because I'm excited about Dean's campaign. Am I
going to make a prediction? Only that Dean will be our next President.

Here's some insight as to why:

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire-- one of the very best one-stop
political blogs out there-- argues that the 2004 election is going to be
very close. As Goddard says of Republican daydreams of a rout, "It's very
hard to pull off a landslide when you're not likely to win three of the five
largest states."

This is a far cry from a "likely sweep of all 50 states".

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:45:03 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

I believe it's possible, because I'm excited about Dean's campaign. Am I
going to make a prediction? Only that Dean will be our next President.

Here's some insight as to why:

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire-- one of the very best one-stop
political blogs out there-- argues that the 2004 election is going to be
very close. As Goddard says of Republican daydreams of a rout, "It's very
hard to pull off a landslide when you're not likely to win three of the
five
largest states."

This is a far cry from a "likely sweep of all 50 states".

So what's wrong with a tad of hyperbole when expressing your enthusiasm? :-)

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:28:02 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:45:03 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

I believe it's possible, because I'm excited about Dean's campaign. Am I
going to make a prediction? Only that Dean will be our next President.

Here's some insight as to why:

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire-- one of the very best one-stop
political blogs out there-- argues that the 2004 election is going to be
very close. As Goddard says of Republican daydreams of a rout, "It's very
hard to pull off a landslide when you're not likely to win three of the
five
largest states."

This is a far cry from a "likely sweep of all 50 states".

So what's wrong with a tad of hyperbole when expressing your enthusiasm? :-)

It gives ammo to your opponents.

Nothing wrong with unbridled enthusiam when tempered with reality
though...g

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:45:03 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

I believe it's possible, because I'm excited about Dean's campaign. Am I
going to make a prediction? Only that Dean will be our next President.

Here's some insight as to why:

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire-- one of the very best one-stop
political blogs out there-- argues that the 2004 election is going to be
very close. As Goddard says of Republican daydreams of a rout, "It's very
hard to pull off a landslide when you're not likely to win three of the
five
largest states."

This is a far cry from a "likely sweep of all 50 states".

That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly had, plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:45:03 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:22:40 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states, the way Bush is going down
the
tubes
on all fronts, and there won't be any need for "recounts" this time.

You *really* don't believe this, do you? If so, then you're just as
crazy as the Republicans who have Bush already elected.

I believe it's possible, because I'm excited about Dean's campaign. Am
I
going to make a prediction? Only that Dean will be our next President.

Here's some insight as to why:

Taegan Goddard over at Political Wire-- one of the very best one-stop
political blogs out there-- argues that the 2004 election is going to
be
very close. As Goddard says of Republican daydreams of a rout, "It's
very
hard to pull off a landslide when you're not likely to win three of the
five
largest states."

This is a far cry from a "likely sweep of all 50 states".

So what's wrong with a tad of hyperbole when expressing your enthusiasm?
:-)

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the bag for
Bush, New York?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly had, plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the bag for
Bush, New York?

I don't know how you say Florida's in the bag for Bush. He didn't
exactly sweep it last time, did he?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the bag for
Bush, New York?

I don't know how you say Florida's in the bag for Bush. He didn't
exactly sweep it last time, did he?

Look what's happened since then.

Katherine Harris got voted a promotion.
That fat slug of incompetence, Janet Reno lost.
Jeb's doing pretty well with the voters.

The voters there seem to have grasped that the Democrats are the ones who
tried to steal the election and have rejected their major attempts at
statewide office.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly had,
plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

You don't really like to stay in context, do you?

His father went back on his word about taxes. The Democrats got people to
believe that the economy was bad, which was a lie. There is more an varied
news media now, than then.

The current Bush holds the record IIRC for highest sustained job approval
ratings.

Polling shows that suport for his stand in Iraq has INCREASED.

The tax cuts worked.

The Democrats have moved to far to left. They have nothing new to offer.

Bush has outflanked them on every issue they used to own, plus the fact that
Democrats are a major reason for the weakness we had in our miltary and
intelligence gathering capabilities because they voted against every bill
that would have helped the U.S. be prepared are widely known.

The context of this upcoming election is very different from his father's.

Mr. Middius said:

Sandman said:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states

Not a chance! Here are my guarantees of the states that will NEVER
vote for Dean: Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
Virginia, Indiana, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Alabama. He might take the rest, but not those.

You heard it here first.

I'd add Kansas and Nebraska.

Boon

Mr. Phillips wrote:


Mr. Middius said:

Sandman said:

Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states

Not a chance! Here are my guarantees of the states that will NEVER
vote for Dean: Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
Virginia, Indiana, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Alabama. He might take the rest, but not those.

You heard it here first.

I'd add Kansas and Nebraska.

Boon








What about Guam?



Bruce J. Richman

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Mr. Middius said:


Sandman said:


Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states

Not a chance! Here are my guarantees of the states that will NEVER
vote for Dean: Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
Virginia, Indiana, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Alabama. He might take the rest, but not those.

You heard it here first.


I'd add Kansas and Nebraska.


What about Iraq ?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:59:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly had,
plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

You don't really like to stay in context, do you?

You asked a question.

Bush was *very* popular with the people, especially after the Gulf
War.

His father went back on his word about taxes. The Democrats got people to
believe that the economy was bad, which was a lie.

As yes, the dumb people. So easily manipulated.

There is more an varied news media now, than then.

I think that you're going to see a backlash pretty soon. How big it
will be, I don't know.

The current Bush holds the record IIRC for highest sustained job approval
ratings.

Well, you can only ride the 9-11 wave for so long, especially with the
war in Iraq sending more and more people home in body bags. And his
ratings have dipped at times as well.

Polling shows that suport for his stand in Iraq has INCREASED.

We'll see how long he's able to sustain that.

The tax cuts worked.

I think that this isn't clear yet. If you like huge deficits, maybe.

The Democrats have moved to far to left. They have nothing new to offer.

TOO, TOO, please try to proof...unless it's just a fact of having to
learn the difference between too and to.

Well, all I can say is wait and see.

Bush has outflanked them on every issue they used to own, plus the fact that
Democrats are a major reason for the weakness we had in our miltary and
intelligence gathering capabilities because they voted against every bill
that would have helped the U.S. be prepared are widely known.

In English please.

BTW, you can't solely lay the blame on the Democrats on this issue.
The erosion started with Reagan's drawdown in the 80s. I was there you
know. I saw it first hand.

The context of this upcoming election is very different from his father's.

Actually, I don't think it's all that different, with the exception of
9-11. You know, the Republican's considered Bush's (the elder)
election a foregone conclusion as well. He had just won a war and the
economy wasn't bad. And nobody knew who Clinton was either (well, some
of us knew him because he was governor of a neighboring state).

And here are some interesting stats. The first column is "applies",
the second "doesn't apply", the third, "no opinion". Looks to me that
in every category, he's slipping, in some cases just a bit and in some
cases, by quite a margin.

CNN/USA/Gallup

"Cares about the needs of people like you"

11/03 49 50 1
6/03 57 42 1
4/03 65 34 1
1/03 56 41 3
11/02 60 38 2
7/02 60 36 4
4-5/02 66 31 3
10/01 69 29 2
7/01 57 40 3
4/01 59 39 2
2/01 56 39

"Is honest and trustworthy"

11/03 59 40 1
6/03 65 33 2
4/03 73 25 2
1/03 70 27 3
7/02 69 26 5
4-5/02 77 20 3
7/01 66 31 3
4/01 67 29 4
2/01 64 29 7

"Is a person you admire"

11/03 50 49 1
6/03 54 45 1
4-5/02 64 33 3
2/01 49 47 4

"Is a strong and decisive leader"

11/03 66 34 -
6/03 75 24 1
4/03 80 19 1
1/03 76 23 1
7/02 70 27 3
4-5/02 77 21 2
10/01 75 23 2
8/01 55 43 2
7/01 57 40 3
4/01 60 37 3
2/01 61 34 5

"Shares your values"

11/03 53 46 1
1/03 54 43 3
11/02 66 31 3
7/02 60 36 4
4-5/02 67 30 3
8/01 56 41 3
7/01 56 40 4
4/01 58 39 3
2/01 57 39 4

"Generally agrees with you on issues you care about"

11/03 48 51 1
4-5/02 64 33 3
2/01 53 43 4

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the bag for
Bush, New York?

I don't know how you say Florida's in the bag for Bush. He didn't
exactly sweep it last time, did he?

Look what's happened since then.

Katherine Harris got voted a promotion.
That fat slug of incompetence, Janet Reno lost.
Jeb's doing pretty well with the voters.

The voters there seem to have grasped that the Democrats are the ones who
tried to steal the election and have rejected their major attempts at
statewide office.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Marc Phillips a écrit :

Mr. Middius said:


Sandman said:


Dean's likely two sweep all 50 states

Not a chance! Here are my guarantees of the states that will NEVER
vote for Dean: Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi,
Virginia, Indiana, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Alabama. He might take the rest, but not those.

You heard it here first.


I'd add Kansas and Nebraska.


What about Iraq ?

What about Chechnya?

"Sandman" wrote in message ...

What about Chechnya?


No doubt Dean is very popular there.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:59:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly had,
plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

You don't really like to stay in context, do you?

You asked a question.

Bush was *very* popular with the people, especially after the Gulf
War.

His father went back on his word about taxes. The Democrats got people
to
believe that the economy was bad, which was a lie.

As yes, the dumb people. So easily manipulated.

Enough. The economy was growing at 3% under Bush the first. Not the worst
economy in 50 years.

There is more an varied news media now, than then.

I think that you're going to see a backlash pretty soon. How big it
will be, I don't know.

The current Bush holds the record IIRC for highest sustained job approval
ratings.

Well, you can only ride the 9-11 wave for so long, especially with the
war in Iraq sending more and more people home in body bags. And his
ratings have dipped at times as well.

The American people approve of the war @63% I don't think that means only
Republicans.


Polling shows that suport for his stand in Iraq has INCREASED.

We'll see how long he's able to sustain that.

The tax cuts worked.

I think that this isn't clear yet. If you like huge deficits, maybe.

Tax cuts are the way to reduce deficits in the long term.

The Democrats have moved to far to left. They have nothing new to offer.

TOO, TOO, please try to proof...unless it's just a fact of having to
learn the difference between too and to.

Well, all I can say is wait and see.

Bush has outflanked them on every issue they used to own, plus the fact
that
Democrats are a major reason for the weakness we had in our miltary and
intelligence gathering capabilities because they voted against every bill
that would have helped the U.S. be prepared are widely known.

In English please.

Do some research on what things the democrats voted for and agaainst in
terms of the military and the CIA.

Clinton cut the military plus many people who might have stayed in got out
because they despised him.

BTW, you can't solely lay the blame on the Democrats on this issue.
The erosion started with Reagan's drawdown in the 80s. I was there you
know. I saw it first hand.

Reagan did not gut our intelligence gathering capability.

The context of this upcoming election is very different from his
father's.

Actually, I don't think it's all that different, with the exception of
9-11. You know, the Republican's considered Bush's (the elder)
election a foregone conclusion as well. He had just won a war and the
economy wasn't bad.

It was sold as being the worst economy in 50 years. The broken promise on
new taxes hurt Bush with his base.
The war was long over when the election rolled around.

And nobody knew who Clinton was either (well, some
of us knew him because he was governor of a neighboring state).

And here are some interesting stats. The first column is "applies",
the second "doesn't apply", the third, "no opinion". Looks to me that
in every category, he's slipping, in some cases just a bit and in some
cases, by quite a margin.

CNN/USA/Gallup

"Cares about the needs of people like you"

11/03 49 50 1
6/03 57 42 1
4/03 65 34 1
1/03 56 41 3
11/02 60 38 2
7/02 60 36 4
4-5/02 66 31 3
10/01 69 29 2
7/01 57 40 3
4/01 59 39 2
2/01 56 39

"Is honest and trustworthy"

11/03 59 40 1
6/03 65 33 2
4/03 73 25 2
1/03 70 27 3
7/02 69 26 5
4-5/02 77 20 3
7/01 66 31 3
4/01 67 29 4
2/01 64 29 7

"Is a person you admire"

11/03 50 49 1
6/03 54 45 1
4-5/02 64 33 3
2/01 49 47 4

"Is a strong and decisive leader"

11/03 66 34 -
6/03 75 24 1
4/03 80 19 1
1/03 76 23 1
7/02 70 27 3
4-5/02 77 21 2
10/01 75 23 2
8/01 55 43 2
7/01 57 40 3
4/01 60 37 3
2/01 61 34 5

"Shares your values"

11/03 53 46 1
1/03 54 43 3
11/02 66 31 3
7/02 60 36 4
4-5/02 67 30 3
8/01 56 41 3
7/01 56 40 4
4/01 58 39 3
2/01 57 39 4

"Generally agrees with you on issues you care about"

11/03 48 51 1
4-5/02 64 33 3
2/01 53 43 4
.

"Can get the economy moving"

11/03 48 50 2
.

"Is in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily
lives"

11/03 42 57 1

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm



Of course, there you can find that Fox finds that he has a 69%
approval rating. No surprise there...


A lot depends on the questions asked.

History is on the side of the popular incumbent. When the economy is strong
it makes it even better, and right now the economy IS strong and by election
day, it will be even stronger.

Lastly, I think the lateset news on the idiotic things said by McDermott,
Albright and Dean are not helping the American publics perception of the
Democrats.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the bag
for
Bush, New York?

I don't know how you say Florida's in the bag for Bush. He didn't
exactly sweep it last time, did he?

Look what's happened since then.

Katherine Harris got voted a promotion.
That fat slug of incompetence, Janet Reno lost.
Jeb's doing pretty well with the voters.

The voters there seem to have grasped that the Democrats are the ones who
tried to steal the election and have rejected their major attempts at
statewide office.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

I'd say we already have.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:03:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:59:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly had,
plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

You don't really like to stay in context, do you?

You asked a question.

Bush was *very* popular with the people, especially after the Gulf
War.

His father went back on his word about taxes. The Democrats got people
to
believe that the economy was bad, which was a lie.

As yes, the dumb people. So easily manipulated.

Enough. The economy was growing at 3% under Bush the first. Not the worst
economy in 50 years.

This will come back to haunt you later in the post.

There is more an varied news media now, than then.

I think that you're going to see a backlash pretty soon. How big it
will be, I don't know.

The current Bush holds the record IIRC for highest sustained job approval
ratings.

Well, you can only ride the 9-11 wave for so long, especially with the
war in Iraq sending more and more people home in body bags. And his
ratings have dipped at times as well.

The American people approve of the war @63% I don't think that means only
Republicans.

IIRC, Bush Senior's approval rating was about that at the time of the
war. He wasn't even saddled with an unclear situation with Americans
coming home in body bags long after the fact.

Polling shows that suport for his stand in Iraq has INCREASED.

We'll see how long he's able to sustain that.

The tax cuts worked.

I think that this isn't clear yet. If you like huge deficits, maybe.

Tax cuts are the way to reduce deficits in the long term.

Didn't work for Reagan. Didn't work for Bush Senior. The current Bush
has already taken a modest surplus to a HUGE deficit in three years.
And it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

The Democrats have moved to far to left. They have nothing new to offer.

TOO, TOO, please try to proof...unless it's just a fact of having to
learn the difference between too and to.

Well, all I can say is wait and see.

Bush has outflanked them on every issue they used to own, plus the fact
that
Democrats are a major reason for the weakness we had in our miltary and
intelligence gathering capabilities because they voted against every bill
that would have helped the U.S. be prepared are widely known.

In English please.

Do some research on what things the democrats voted for and agaainst in
terms of the military and the CIA.

YOU need to do some research and see who started the military
drawdown. Let me give you a hint. It started in about 1983. I remember
the moaning from the career soldiers at the time, who were watching
their chances for advancement get worse and worse. This started when I
was in basic training.

Clinton cut the military

So did Reagan, you dolt.

plus many people who might have stayed in got out
because they despised him.

People were already getting flushed out in 1983 and the following
years.

BTW, you can't solely lay the blame on the Democrats on this issue.
The erosion started with Reagan's drawdown in the 80s. I was there you
know. I saw it first hand.

Reagan did not gut our intelligence gathering capability.

Nice change of subject. You can't even argue truthfully.

The context of this upcoming election is very different from his
father's.

Actually, I don't think it's all that different, with the exception of
9-11. You know, the Republican's considered Bush's (the elder)
election a foregone conclusion as well. He had just won a war and the
economy wasn't bad.

It was sold as being the worst economy in 50 years. The broken promise on
new taxes hurt Bush with his base.

No ****. Iwonder how Medicare is going to take.

The war was long over when the election rolled around.

Well, less than two years. Besides, I maintain that this will be the
current Bush's Achilles Heel (among other things).

And nobody knew who Clinton was either (well, some
of us knew him because he was governor of a neighboring state).

And here are some interesting stats. The first column is "applies",
the second "doesn't apply", the third, "no opinion". Looks to me that
in every category, he's slipping, in some cases just a bit and in some
cases, by quite a margin.
snip
A lot depends on the questions asked.

I hope you remember this the next time you crow about President Bush's
poll numbers.

You seem to forget it then.

History is on the side of the popular incumbent.

Except for Daddy, of course.

When the economy is strong it makes it even better, and right now the economy IS strong and by election
day, it will be even stronger.

And as you said, the economy wasn't bad under Bush Senior either.

You just keep making my point for me. Thanks.

Lastly, I think the lateset news on the idiotic things said by McDermott,
Albright and Dean are not helping the American publics perception of the
Democrats.

How would you know? You don't have any sort of objectivity at all.
You've already got Bush elected.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:04:54 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the bag
for
Bush, New York?

I don't know how you say Florida's in the bag for Bush. He didn't
exactly sweep it last time, did he?

Look what's happened since then.

Katherine Harris got voted a promotion.
That fat slug of incompetence, Janet Reno lost.
Jeb's doing pretty well with the voters.

The voters there seem to have grasped that the Democrats are the ones who
tried to steal the election and have rejected their major attempts at
statewide office.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

I'd say we already have.

I love the way that you play right into the Democrats' hands.

Go ahead. Write off the election.

Those who forget history and all that...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:03:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:59:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time
any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly
had,
plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

You don't really like to stay in context, do you?

You asked a question.

Bush was *very* popular with the people, especially after the Gulf
War.

His father went back on his word about taxes. The Democrats got
people
to
believe that the economy was bad, which was a lie.

As yes, the dumb people. So easily manipulated.

Enough. The economy was growing at 3% under Bush the first. Not the
worst
economy in 50 years.

This will come back to haunt you later in the post.

There is more an varied news media now, than then.

I think that you're going to see a backlash pretty soon. How big it
will be, I don't know.

The current Bush holds the record IIRC for highest sustained job
approval
ratings.

Well, you can only ride the 9-11 wave for so long, especially with the
war in Iraq sending more and more people home in body bags. And his
ratings have dipped at times as well.

The American people approve of the war @63% I don't think that means only
Republicans.

IIRC, Bush Senior's approval rating was about that at the time of the
war. He wasn't even saddled with an unclear situation with Americans
coming home in body bags long after the fact.

Polling shows that suport for his stand in Iraq has INCREASED.

We'll see how long he's able to sustain that.

The tax cuts worked.

I think that this isn't clear yet. If you like huge deficits, maybe.

Tax cuts are the way to reduce deficits in the long term.

Didn't work for Reagan.

Of copurse they did, the last time we saw this kind of growth was after the
Reagan tax cuts.

Didn't work for Bush Senior. The current Bush
has already taken a modest surplus to a HUGE deficit in three years.
And it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

It's not a huge surplus when viewed as % of GDP the way all past deficits
have been.

The Democrats have moved to far to left. They have nothing new to
offer.

TOO, TOO, please try to proof...unless it's just a fact of having to
learn the difference between too and to.

Well, all I can say is wait and see.

Bush has outflanked them on every issue they used to own, plus the
fact
that
Democrats are a major reason for the weakness we had in our miltary
and
intelligence gathering capabilities because they voted against every
bill
that would have helped the U.S. be prepared are widely known.

In English please.

Do some research on what things the democrats voted for and agaainst in
terms of the military and the CIA.

YOU need to do some research and see who started the military
drawdown. Let me give you a hint. It started in about 1983. I remember
the moaning from the career soldiers at the time, who were watching
their chances for advancement get worse and worse. This started when I
was in basic training.

Clinton cut the military

So did Reagan, you dolt.

Because he ended the ****ing coldwar, but he did not cut or change the rules
on intelligence gathering.

plus many people who might have stayed in got out
because they despised him.

People were already getting flushed out in 1983 and the following
years.

BTW, you can't solely lay the blame on the Democrats on this issue.
The erosion started with Reagan's drawdown in the 80s. I was there you
know. I saw it first hand.

Reagan did not gut our intelligence gathering capability.

Nice change of subject. You can't even argue truthfully.

Like you can.

The context of this upcoming election is very different from his
father's.

Actually, I don't think it's all that different, with the exception of
9-11. You know, the Republican's considered Bush's (the elder)
election a foregone conclusion as well. He had just won a war and the
economy wasn't bad.

It was sold as being the worst economy in 50 years. The broken promise
on
new taxes hurt Bush with his base.

No ****. Iwonder how Medicare is going to take.

With the AARP endorsing it, pretty well, I should think.

The war was long over when the election rolled around.

Well, less than two years. Besides, I maintain that this will be the
current Bush's Achilles Heel (among other things).

I don't think so, especially after catching Saddam.

And nobody knew who Clinton was either (well, some
of us knew him because he was governor of a neighboring state).

And here are some interesting stats. The first column is "applies",
the second "doesn't apply", the third, "no opinion". Looks to me that
in every category, he's slipping, in some cases just a bit and in some
cases, by quite a margin.
snip
A lot depends on the questions asked.

I hope you remember this the next time you crow about President Bush's
poll numbers.

You seem to forget it then.

History is on the side of the popular incumbent.

Except for Daddy, of course.

For the reasons already outlined. Now who's not arguing honestly?

When the economy is strong it makes it even better, and right now the
economy IS strong and by election
day, it will be even stronger.

And as you said, the economy wasn't bad under Bush Senior either.

But not growing like it is now.

You just keep making my point for me. Thanks.

Your welcome. When did your point become how Bush is going too be
re-elected?

Lastly, I think the lateset news on the idiotic things said by McDermott,
Albright and Dean are not helping the American publics perception of the
Democrats.

How would you know?

Because of all the negative comments I've heard regarding their comments.

You don't have any sort of objectivity at all.
You've already got Bush elected.

That's teh most likely scenario, given his popularity and how much the
Democrat establishment is conspiring to ruin Dean, plus his own idiotic
statements and contradictions.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:04:54 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:59 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Which 3 states? California might be a surprise, Florida's in the
bag
for
Bush, New York?

I don't know how you say Florida's in the bag for Bush. He didn't
exactly sweep it last time, did he?

Look what's happened since then.

Katherine Harris got voted a promotion.
That fat slug of incompetence, Janet Reno lost.
Jeb's doing pretty well with the voters.

The voters there seem to have grasped that the Democrats are the ones
who
tried to steal the election and have rejected their major attempts at
statewide office.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

I'd say we already have.

I love the way that you play right into the Democrats' hands.

Go ahead. Write off the election.

Those who forget history and all that...

I'm not writing it off. Neither party will run a candidate that I'd
endorse. I'm saying that the reality at this moment is that it looks very
good for Bush and very bad for teh sociali... er Democrats.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:38:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

bad for teh sociali... er

That reminds me: Must call my dentist.

--
td

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:36:25 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Didn't work for Reagan.

Of copurse they did, the last time we saw this kind of growth was after the
Reagan tax cuts.

You must have slept through the 90s...