|White House less eager for Dean now?||OldEdScott|
Dec 11, 2003 12:16 PM
|Fair and balanced? You decide.
|Perhaps they misunderestimated him.||Dale Brigham|
Dec 11, 2003 12:41 PM
|He's certainly not my dream candidate, but at least he seems to have some fight in him. This is going to get ugly, and I want to back a guy who can take a punch and hit back harder. Dean seems to be a guy who can do that. (Time will tell, of course, if that indeed is the case.)
|It will be interesting to see the strategerie||OldEdScott|
Dec 11, 2003 12:47 PM
|on both sides.|
|Dems better get dirty early, as nasty as Reps always are in||128|
Dec 11, 2003 1:17 PM
|attack ads. So much for the dream of coming together.
Dean is out if, as the article relates, we get out of there and the economy rebounds. Prediction: out of there-nope. Economy-yup.
I would like to see the Dems to separate the Neo-cons from the Reps. I think there is traction there: paternalistically exposing how the Grand Ol Party let itself be hijacked by a band of radicals. Or is that the new face of the credit card conservatives?
Whatever. Pass the peace pipe.
|Took me a while to 'get' your topic headline...extremely funny..nm||bicyclerepairman|
Dec 11, 2003 9:27 PM
|Who cares what they say?||czardonic|
Dec 11, 2003 1:46 PM
|"Various officials from throughout Bush's political organization". That's gold!
I think that Bush's best odds are against a milquetoast centrist who will turn off progressives, fail to inspire centrists and come across as a pretender to the throne to conservatves. Someone like, saaaaaaay, Joe Lieberman. Someone who bend over backwards to to legitimize Bush's policies and offer lame explanations of how they would do the exact same thing as Bush, only better. (I guess the Democratic Party is still riding high on the success they had with that strategy in 2002?)
I take the GOP's solemn concern about Angry Democrats and Bush Haters at the exact opposite of its face value.
|Amen, czar! The louder they squeal,...||Dale Brigham|
Dec 11, 2003 1:54 PM
|...the better I like it. If they weren't worried about Dean, they wouldn't be squealing.
As Our Glorious Leader said, "Bring 'em on!"
|let me know...||bill105|
Dec 12, 2003 6:35 AM
|...when to start worrying. with news like below, i never can tell.
A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state.
Bush gets 57 percent to Dean's 30 percent among registered voters in the American Research Group poll. In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent.
or maybe this one...
2004 Will Be the U.S.'S Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years, The Conference Board Reports in a Revised Forecast
|Great! No worries. Happy days are here again!||Dale Brigham|
Dec 12, 2003 7:12 AM
|But if you don't terribly mind, we'll just go ahead with our silly little election next year. Sure, President Bush will win by a landslide, what with the Greatest U.S. Economy Ever, the Newly Emergent Vibrant Democracy in Iraq, and the Glorious Defeat of Terrorism.
Nevertheless, we'll tilt at windmills just for the sake of trying. That is, of course, if it's not too much trouble for you to sit back and watch our doomed, laughable campaign and candidate.
|Great! No worries. Happy days are here again!||bill105|
Dec 12, 2003 7:24 AM
|i'm just pointing out the news. if you say happy days are here again, then i respect your opinion. party on!|
|Bush not responsible for the economy anyway. . .||czardonic|
Dec 12, 2003 9:32 AM
|. . .isn't that right?
With everything so peachy keen, Americans have even less reason to put up with that annoying bumbler of a President.
|you get him for 5 more years and...||bill105|
Dec 12, 2003 11:40 AM
|a president can actually do little to have a large impact on an economy of our size, except for tax cuts.|
Dec 12, 2003 6:44 AM
|I'd love to read an article or two about Dean that does NOT use the word "insurgent." Just do a google search of "Dean" and "insurgent" and see how many hits you find.
The people we are shooting in Iraq are called "insurgents"- and there are those here who maintain there is some huge liberal bias in the media.
|Got dictionary?||Dale Brigham|
Dec 12, 2003 7:26 AM
|My American Heritage College dictionary defines "insurgent" as one who is in open revolt or rebellion against civil authority or a government in power. Rebellion is defined as acts of violence intended to change or overthrow an existing authority.
Let's check our scorecards, shall we? The insurgents/terrorists/Baathite loyalists/evildoers/freedom fighters/bad guys/Iraqi patriots/Saddam's thugs are:
1) Defying the established civil authority
2) Committing acts of violence
3) Attempting to change or overthrow the existing authority
Seems to me like a reasonable word to describe them.
|Ooops! Nevermind. (Place foot in mouth, chew...)||Dale Brigham|
Dec 12, 2003 10:43 AM
I completely missed the meaning of your post. Sorry! As Bugs Bunny would say, I'm such a maroon!
I (dimly) think I get it now. It's (now) obvious to me that you were commenting on Dean's campaign being termed "insurgent." I thought you were commenting on his use of that word to describe the outlaw shooters in Iraq.
I am a real dunce!
Well, to wrap up, I guess Dean is somewhat insurgent (e.g., he wants to change the present government), but I doubt that his supporters will be either very defiant or violent. Hey, we'll all be too busy hosting house parties or online blogfests to do that stuff.
Dale "Mr. Stupid-head"
|Thanks for making my point for me ;)||filtersweep|
Dec 12, 2003 11:33 AM
|I'd argue any democrat is trying to "topple" the incumbent republican president- but the rest of the wall flowers are exempt from insurgent classification for some reason.... I just find it... interesting.|
|IMHO, Dean worries them; the other "wallflowers" don't. (nm)||Dale Brigham|
Dec 12, 2003 12:06 PM