GWB will lose to a competent Democratic challenger should the economy still be in the tank in 2004, just like his father. I am afraid it is you who needs to get real.
for the love of everything that is sacred and holy, please stop. the CIA had already refuted his claims months before he gave his speech. in other words, HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE BIGGEST SPEECH OF THE YEAR. end of story. whether someone in his administration told him to say it or not is completely irrelevant. i would sure hope that the President of the United States of America would at least take the time to make sure the things he's about to say in his State of the Union Address are true. especially when it refrains to his persuasion of our country into war. that's the least one would hope to expect from our President. please look beyond political affiliation for once. please.
Deckard: I know, the odds of a successful Lieberman campaign are slim to none, and slim just left the building. Just throwing out someone who I actually respect... I actually like Clark and would consider voting for him (despite my usual tone and constant blathering, I am not automatically opposed to voting for a Democrat). As was hashed out in the thread on this topic, though, he would have to state his positions on a number of issues that he has heretofore avoided before I could realistically consider it. Just because I like the guy does not mean that he automatically gets my vote... But I think that if Clark played it right, he could potentially steal those votes that any Dem would have to steal to win. I guess you could call him the potential Colin Powell of the Democratic party. No Worries: Impossible. That would require a competent Democratic challenger who will actually win the party nomination, and currently all you have are Kerry and Dean - neither of whom have a chance against Bush.
You failed to get my point, there are NO competent challengers on the Democrat side. They are all a bunch of clowns who are in for a Mondale/McGovern-type ass beating. And with that socialist, whacko, wingnut Nader running with his so-called Green (I call it the Watermelon Party, green on the outside, red on the inside) Party, he can only remove the far-left kook vote from the Democrat column, which represents their base just as the holy-rollers represent the Republicans. And lastly if you think I'm kidding about calling Ralph Nader and his so-called "Green" Party socialists, read this piece and their own platform. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7165 http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html
bamaslammer - They won't respond to a FrontPageMag article. It is not a credible source in their eyes... no matter where the piece originally came from. No Worries won't even click on the link.
I liked what I've seen of Clark, but as we've all noted, we don't know his positions. He's going to have to come out with them soon unless he's only interested in the second spot, or it will be too late to make a serious run.
Guess you're right, even though it hits the nail right on the proverbial head. I just hate that the truth is ignored due to ideological concerns. I don't understand why more Democrats hate the Greens, they do steal away their kooky left that is their base. Just like the Reform Party did a giant sucking sound on Bush's base with Perot's so-called charm and wit way back in 1992.
Deckard: He may just be interested in the second slot. I hadn't even thought of that before... but it makes perfect sense. He would certainly strengthen any candidate he ran with, even if he didn't elaborate on his policies. #2 is a launching point to #1, though. Any man who would want the #2 slot wants the #1 slot in the end. I'd certainly take him before Hillary. He's a wildcard at this point. bamaslammer: Get used to it. I don't understand it either...
And for the record, I would probably vote Libertarian too, if I didn't think that would be just as wasteful as a Democrat voting Green. Well, that and I think that true Libertarians are nuts in some ways... Put your vote where it'll count. To hell with the idea of "Lets have more than two parties" - there are only two that count. That's reality. You can let the Democrats run the country, or you can let the Republicans run the country. Let your conscience do the talkin'.
Overconfident much? People said no way Gore would lose and said Bush wasn't competent (OK so they were right about the 2nd part). There are a lot of people who voted for Gore across the country. How do you feel Bush has won those people over? Even if Nadar does run, I think a lot of the people who voted for him regret it now and won't make that mistake again. Bush might have more money than anyone but I think Tony Sanchez proved that don't mean a thing come election time.
And the Greens have freely associated with Communists and other groups who hate the United States Wow from Frontpage. I guess it get's the young rightwingers fired up. Communists taking over America.!!! I thought is was Muslims? Maybe it is the Muslims and the Communists together?! Treeman calling CNN Communist News Network. Looks like both Horowitz and Treeman are getting in a panic as their postwar high denigrates into a postwar quagmire. Oh, Bremer has appointed some Iraqis to a Council of some sort. I guess we should call it democracy. Big news. Democracy in Iraq. Oh happy days.
Hey Tree and Bama why not just state. "Hey the Bush Administration lied. It was necessary to prevent an imminent nuclear attack on the US and/or the end of Western Civilization by marauding Arabs." I certainly think that a lie would be justified in those circumstances. The damn thing is that, like the Alzheimerish Reagan claiming he couldn't remember Iran Contra , it is so damn believable that as Tree says Bush could have been ignorant and was just reading the script his handlers handed him.
Like tree and Bama I do not believe that Bush lied. Did he get fed some incorrect data at the time, yes. Is hindsight 20/20, yes.
The vice president was warned that the intelligence information about Iraq trying to purchase Uranium was probably false, yet it still ended up in a State of the Union Address.
My point is that the Bush admin was grasping for intel straws since the Democrats and those UN folks demanded "evidence." I don't think Bush lied, because there has already been evidence of a WMD program unearthed in Iraq. No weapons, but various bits and pieces of equipment designed for production of WMD. Either way, we will continue to find proof of the Iraqi WMD program in Iraq and find that nipping that situation in the bud, rather than letting them get nukes, is a much more logical solution.
