Saving George W. Bush  
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, May 20, 2004  

If President Bush loses the election next November, it will be his own fault. For some reason, the President refuses to explain the issues that are defining his administration so the folks can understand what the deuce is going on.
Mr. Bush's policy in Iraq has gone south, but it is not a lost cause. All wars have reversals, and it is the Commander-in-Chief's duty to rally the troops. Do you feel rallied? I don't.

Likewise on gas prices. Why have they risen so quickly, and what is the President doing about it? I don't know, and it's my job to follow this stuff. The President did tell us he would not release petroleum reserves to drive down prices, but he has not explained why the cost has gone up in the first place.

The President scored big after the 9/11 attack because he accurately reflected the mood of the country. He was angry, we were angry. He told us exactly what he was going to do in Afghanistan and why. His popularity soared.

Now he sends his wife to defend him on the Jay Leno program. I like Laura. She's a good spokesperson for the President. But the folks want to hear from him.

The latest Newsweek poll has Mr. Bush's approval rating at 42%, the lowest of his tenure in office. Even his top campaign advisors admit if the President's approval numbers drop below 40% and stay there, he's toast. One would think Mr. Bush would change his "Cool Hand Luke" strategy of "failure to communicate."

The thing that might save President Bush is that, despite all the negatives right now, John Kerry has failed to move up significantly in the polls. That same Newsweek poll has the race tied, even with Bush's low job approval number.

The reason Kerry is languishing is that he has not put forth a clear war-on-terror strategy, and that many independent Americans fear the "far-left" factor which we talked about a few months ago in this space.

Historically, Americans have rejected extremists in all parties. Barry Goldwater got clobbered and so did George McGovern. General Wesley Clark's presidential run was demolished by his embrace of Michael Moore. So John Kerry has to distance himself from the ultra-liberal wing of his party and so far that has not happened. Hugging Ted Kennedy in Iowa didn't help.

But Kerry has an even more serious problem on the horizon. Extremist billionaire George Soros is pouring millions into the Democratic cause by funding propaganda websites like MoveOn.org, which runs anti-Bush attack ads all over the country. Soros is a scary guy. An avowed atheist, he wants an "open society" where legalized drugs and few limits on private behavior would be policy. He also loves "income redistribution" through taxation. On thing he doesn't love is how America is fighting terror.

Speaking at Columbia University last week, Soros said that the U.S. war on terror had claimed more innocent lives than the September 11 attacks. He also put forth that, although America claims to be a liberating country, we're really the oppressors.

That kind of view might get a standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival, but it's not going to get anyone elected President of the United States. Thus the Soros money could easily become a huge problem for the Candidate Kerry. Sooner or later, he will have to stand up and say how he feels about this sugar daddy Democrat.

So, ironically, the people who despise President Bush the most, leftist extremists, are actually doing him a favor. The majority of Americans may not like the way Bush is handling the job right now, but do they want a guy like Soros having access to power? Do they share the far left "vision" of America?

My guess is they do not, and that's why the President is still hanging on. So if Mr. Bush goes down to defeat in November, it will be entirely on him. You can't blame those who hate him. They've helped him out a lot.

  -NOT MY WORK, BUT I AGREE 100% with this letter!

For an obviously partisan speech there, apparently written by a guy whom I hate, that was surprisingly accurate.

They're running scared.  It's going to take more lying than usual from the GOP pundits to convince even the GWGs (Gullible White Guys, the biggest GOP constituency) that the Bush Administration isn't a disaster on all fronts.
Bush is losing his baby: Iraq.  It turns out the critics they lambasted in 2003 were absolutely right, it is a quagmire.  It's going to cost a lot more time, money, and lives than we were told.  I saw Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham talking about a "noble effort" and "American prestige" being important reasons to continue the struggle in Iraq.  However, this isn't the war we were sold.  Clearly, the Administration was either lying or incompetent, or both.
I would say it's the opposite.  If Kerry loses this election, it's his own fault.*  This Administration is a farce.

*unless GOP operatives are able to steal the election once again.

*unless GOP operatives are able to steal the election once again.


Please don't tell me you really believe that crap.

Please don't tell me you really believe that crap.

Uh, yes, I believe that "crap," the evidence is overwhelming.  But you know what? You have to WANT to believe the truth.  The "liberal" media just abandoned the story as soon as rightie pundits started calling it old news.  If you read both Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America and STILL believe Bush one fair and square, you're no longer ignorant, but delusional.
More information on the topic:
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248

Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a GOP hack dressed in see-through centrist clothes.

Uh, yes, I believe that "crap," the evidence is overwhelming.  But you know what? You have to WANT to believe the truth.  The "liberal" media just abandoned the story as soon as rightie pundits started calling it old news.  If you read both Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America and STILL believe Bush one fair and square, you're no longer ignorant, but delusional.
More information on the topic:
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248

Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a GOP hack dressed in see-through centrist clothes.



What truth?  The only people who are saying this are the left-wing extremist.  Not republicans, not moderates, and not even most liberals.  The literature said is nothing but left-wing propaganda.  I say that Greg Palast on Washington Journal on C-Span talking about his book ''the best democracy money can buy.''  He couldn't answer half the questions thrown at him.  The other book is no-doubt a crock.  Pick up some more fair-and-balanced literature and try making that point again, okay?  Five, yes five different independent newspapers went to Florida after the election to see if Bush or Gore had won.  All five of them came out with reports that Bush had won, and he did by 527 votes.  I do believe alot of people threw out their ballots after accidently voting for Bush, but you can't really make an argument on that when the democrats were the ones who approved the ballot.  If the republicans approved the ballot, I would think something of it.  And as for Bill O'Reilly, he has to be an independent, he says to many bad things about Bush and republicans to be some GOP hack.  As Bill would say ''The only people who hate me are the left and right wing extremists.''

I agree.

Kerry, in my opinion, is very vague about his plans and not very forthcoming with ideas. I have watched 2 different interviews in which he sits quietly and thinks very hard about what to say in reference to what he would do to improve this country and the situation in Iraq. His fear of saying the wrong thing is so transparent, his answers remain unclear. As I said before, if Kerry wins, it will be because of a great percentage of people who want Bush out of office, plain and simple; whether they like him (Kerry) or not.

Kerry is not well liked by a great percentage of people, which boggles my mind when I think of how it was he won against the cleaner imaged John Edwards.

Please don't tell me you really believe that crap.


It seems like some, albeit it a few, still are hanging on to the whole Florida 2000 incident, no matter what the truth is.

Despite the fact is has been proven not once, not twice, not 3 times, not 4, but 5 times by independent recounst that Bush did win, these few folks are going to still believe it no matter what.


At this point, 4 years later, whenever I hear someone still bring it up, it just screams of desperation.

Let them say it, they probably will be until 2032.  It only makes them look more desperate, among other things. :)

No more of this "stollen election" conjecture. It's irrelevant and not the topic at hand.

I am a Republican, but I have to say that I am not at all pleased with how the current administration has handled "relationships".  Our foreign relations are a disaster, and our blind allegiance to Israel and roughousing of other countries' affairs is deplorable.  Sadly, George W. Bush did not inherit his father's excellent foreign relations talent.

Until our country decides to divorce itself from the Israeli/Palestinian problem and stop supporting them and apologizing for them, we will have this "Arab problem".  And for those here who do not already know, an Israeli is nothing but an Arab who goes to a temple instead of a mosque.  Same mentality and same callous disregard for human rights.  Keep our country out of the whole mess.

And as Senator McCain would say, this administration (along with the repub-majority congress) is spending money like hell won't have it.  Kerry would do the same as Bush on the spending side of things.

However, all that said, I can not vote for Kerry.  And the reason is simple.  Kerry does not stand FOR anything.  We keep hearing from him how the Bush Administration is F-ed up and how we should "demand that OPEC open the floodgates" to increase oil production, for example.  But we hear nothing from him as to HOW he would do things.  All style, no substance.

-In a Bush Administration, we will have a spendthrift country with poor foreign relations and a strong military.

-In a Kerry Administration, we will have a spendthrift country with poor foreign relations and a weak military.

Is there a Door Number Three, please?

-In a Bush Administration, we will have a spendthrift country with poor foreign relations and a strong military.

-In a Kerry Administration, we will have a spendthrift country with poor foreign relations and a weak military.

Is there a Door Number Three, please?


I know who my "Door Number Three" would be.  Unfortunately he is knocking at death's door because of Altzhiemer's Disease.  I think if he could run again, (minus a few years in the age column of course), it would be "...morning in America" once again.

I know who my "Door Number Three" would be.  Unfortunately he is knocking at death's door because of Altzhiemer's Disease.  I think if he could run again, (minus a few years in the age column of course), it would be "...morning in America" once again.


Think Michael would run?  ;)

I know who my "Door Number Three" would be.  Unfortunately he is knocking at death's door because of Altzhiemer's Disease.  I think if he could run again, (minus a few years in the age column of course), it would be "...morning in America" once again.


You talking about good ol' Reagen?

New state poll numbers are here (they come every Saturday.)  Bush has taken the lead in Wisconsin and Oregon, both states Gore won in 2000.  BUT, the tie that Bush and Kerry had last week in Pennslyvania is gone with Kerry ahead.  Also Bush's lead in Florida has dropped from 3 points to only 1 point.  So if the election were today (its in 164 days) it would be:

Bush- 294 electoral votes
Kerry- 245 electoral votes
Nader- 0 electoral votes
(270 electoral votes are needed to win.)
 
Please weather you're for Bush, Kerry, or Nader get out and campaign today.  Don't wake up on Wednesday November 3rd (the day after the election) look at yourself in the mirror and say  ''dang, I could have done more, the election was won by 527 votes like in 2000.''  Donate, volunteer, do something or don't complain when your man doesn't win!

Sorry, thats Pennsylvania.  I don't preview or hit the spell check button before posting.....

New state poll numbers are here (they come every Saturday.)  Bush has taken the lead in Wisconsin and Oregon, both states Gore won in 2000.  BUT, the tie that Bush and Kerry had last week in Pennslyvania is gone with Kerry ahead.  Also Bush's lead in Florida has dropped from 3 points to only 1 point.   So if the election were today (its in 164 days) it would be:

Bush- 294 electoral votes
Kerry- 245 electoral votes
Nader- 0 electoral votes
(270 electoral votes are needed to win.)
 
Please weather you're for Bush, Kerry, or Nader get out and campaign today.  Don't wake up on Wednesday November 3rd (the day after the election) look at yourself in the mirror and say  ''dang, I could have done more, the election was won by 527 votes like in 2000.''  Donate, volunteer, do something or don't complain when your man doesn't win!



which means that if kerry wins florida and everything else stays the same he wins the election. I haven't heard if they fixed the ballots hopefully they did.

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter who conservatives don't like, but that's no kind of logic by which to infer he's a partisan liberal.  Vincent Bugliosi is not a liberal at all.  You do know who Vincent Bugliosi is?

Anyway, I wish I wasn't proscribed from making the points I was going to make.  I can link the "events" of the 2000 election to the dangers we face in the 2004 election. 

The mainstream media is biased against Kerry.  They keep apologising for Bush, and going on about how much more likable he is than Kerry.  What's this Death of a Salesman, Biff Loman for President.  Come on!

For instance, whereas Kerry never co-sponsored a bill for a 50 cent gas tax, as the Bush people keep pushing, Rep.Dick Cheney in 1986 introduced a bill on imported oil that would have driven up the price of gasoline by $1.2 trillion since the year it was proposed.  This, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“Let Us Rid Ourselves of The Fiction That Low Oil Prices Are Somehow Good for the United States.” -- Dick Cheney
Similarly, in 1992 Missouri governor John Ashcroft introduced legislation that would have amounted to a 55% percent increase in the price of gas via taxes in his state.  Tom Ridge, as Pennsylvania governor, wanted a 29% gas tax in PA back in '96.

Yet, we keep hearing this fiction over and over and over about Kerry and the 50 cent gas tax, and doesn't Bush have the love of the American people?, and too bad things in Iraq keep going so wrong for him.
>:(

You talking about good ol' Reagen?


Yes of course! :)

There is no bias in media.  None.

Or rather, there's so much that I believe trying to say that it's all pointing in one direction is almost certainly wrong.

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter who conservatives don't like, but that's no kind of logic by which to infer he's a partisan liberal.  Vincent Bugliosi is not a liberal at all.  You do know who Vincent Bugliosi is?




Yep.  Not only did he write a convincing analysis of the 2000 election (and probably set a record for the use of the word "traitor" in reference to Supreme Court justices) he also successfully prosecuted Charlie Manson and wrote the best-seller "Helter Skelter."  I heard, a while back now, that he's writing a book about the JFK assassination which pretty much supports the Warren Commission's conclusion that there was a single assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Heres what some people say about good old John F. Kerry...the french-looking canadate:

''Kerry was chickensh"".  Whenever a firefight started he always pulled up stakes and got the hell out of Dodge.'' -Kerry's Vietnam crewmate Stephan M. Gardner.

''The olympic gold medalist when it comes to special interest money.'' -Democrat senator Zell Miller on Kerry.

Plus on one Fox News show (Hannity and Colmes?) they showed ALL the times John Kerry mentioned Vietnam.  Sheese...over and over and over and over and over AGAIN.  SHUT UP KERRY!  No one cares.  It didn't help Bob Dole who was a heck of a lot more honorable then Kerry. 

''It would not be responsible for someone to vote for the war and not for the 87 billion to fund it.'' -John Kerry  -BUT GUESS WHAT HE DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE 87 BILLION!

''I did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it.'' -John Kerry

Dang I can't imagine him as president.  Bush, Nader, Edwards, Clark, Dean, Kucinich, or just about anyone else, BUT NOT KERRY.  I think if he does win the election (and lets hope he doesn't) he will not win reelection. 

Plus on one Fox News show (Hannity and Colmes?) they showed ALL the times John Kerry mentioned Vietnam.  Sheese...over and over and over and over and over AGAIN.  SHUT UP KERRY!  No one cares.  It didn't help Bob Dole who was a heck of a lot more honorable then Kerry.   


What??  You mean Kerry was in Vietnam?

I had no idea.

I guess it slipped my mind since I hadn't heard him say it...in the last 2 hours.



I agree with you on that.  Kerry is wearing his service on his sleeve (theres room there on his shoulder since he tossed his medals away.  Or did he?. Who knows, he's changed his story on that issue too ::)).  I have never, and I do mean never, heard any war-vet of any war prop themselves up on a pedestal while constantly praising themselves like he has.  Its sickening.  Its one thing to be proud of what you've accomplished (and every war-vet should be IMO), but its disgusting to hear him praise himself about it every single time he speaks.

I was confident about Bush when he first started out as president. He hasn't done anything with the economy and troops are getting killed. Part of this was Clinton's fault(Yes I'll admit Clinton was a good president) but he did leave some issues for for Bush. Is John Kerry really going to make much of a difference? To be fair the ecomony was good when Clinton was president but part of that was because of the .com boom(internet from mid 1998-mid 2000.) On Bush's side yes he had 9/11 to deal with to be fair and 9/11 was and still is a big deal on how America is going to counter terrosim in the future. Its just has never been part of Bush's plans to improve the economy. It will take 4 or 5 years for this war on terrosim and the US economy to improve. Is Bush or Kelly really the 2 men for the job. On one side to have Kerry it would be nice to have a guy in there for the change of pace prespective(somebody that is going to run the country differently than Bush.) On the other side was Bush really handed a bad deal when he came into office(the ecomomy was slumping and 9/11 happened a little into Bush's term.) Bush is a good man and says all the right things. The question can he handle all these issue's on his plate if he gets voted in again? Thats a tough question in its itself to answer.

I was confident about Bush when he first started out as president. He hasn't done anything with the economy and troops are getting killed. Part of this was Clinton's fault(Yes I'll admit Clinton was a good president) but he did leave some issues for for Bush. Is John Kerry really going to make much of a difference? To be fair the ecomony was good when Clinton was president but part of that was because of the .com boom(internet from mid 1998-mid 2000.) On Bush's side yes he had 9/11 to deal with to be fair and 9/11 was and still is a big deal on how America is going to counter terrosim in the future. Its just has never been part of Bush's plans to improve the economy. It will take 4 or 5 years for this war on terrosim and the US economy to improve. Is Bush or Kelly really the 2 men for the job. On one side to have Kerry it would be nice to have a guy in there for the change of pace prespective(somebody that is going to run the country differently than Bush.) On the other side was Bush really handed a bad deal when he came into office(the ecomomy was slumping and 9/11 happened a little into Bush's term.) Bush is a good man and says all the right things. The question can he handle all these issue's on his plate if he gets voted in again? Thats a tough question in its itself to answer.


Dang tv, you pretty much said what I was thinking.  I've lost a lot of confidence in Bush but I can't in good conscience vote for Kerry (too flipfloppy) or Nader (too scary) so I might end up voting for Bush or not at all.  Kinda makes me wish McCain were the candidate.  McCain may be insane and maverick but at least people treat him with a modicum of respect.

Dang tv, you pretty much said what I was thinking.  I've lost a lot of confidence in Bush but I can't in good conscience vote for Kerry (too flipfloppy) or Nader (too scary) so I might end up voting for Bush or not at all.  Kinda makes me wish McCain were the candidate.  McCain may be insane and maverick but at least people treat him with a modicum of respect.

McCain is only insane if your measure of "sanity" is Tom DeLay!
Bush was handed a wastebasket fire, and he tried to put out with GASOLINE!
I always say Kerry makes too many references to Vietnam.  He needs to outline his own plans for his own administration.  It's going to get easier and easier for the Kerry campaign to trash the Bush Doctrine.  All they have to do is tell the truth.  This whole idea that we can use our military to impose "democracy" on other countries is a JOKE!  It's not a funny joke either.  It's wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
No matter how obvious it gets that the Bush presidency as a travesty, the FOX News, Rush, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and many other right-wing outlets will fight to the death to protect their tax-cutting baby.  No lie is to terrible to tell in the service of saving this big business bosom-buddy administration.

Maybe it could be true. I agree tot the point that Kerry, if elected, will pull troops out of Iraq and Afganistan and make matters worse. The damage has already been done. This election is a Catch 22, and it's the American voters that lose either way. 

I agree.  IMO, either choice sucks.  I wish Edwards would've won the primary.  At least HE had some integrity, from the few discussions I saw where he was involved, which is why I voted for him.  Oh, on the subject of Edwards, there was a snippet in my local paper (which, unfortunately, isn't online) where a group did a poll of people leaving local voting places (total polled was over 2,000).  I live in a strong Republican area (home of Dennis Hastert) and many of the people polled admitted that they were Republicans, but were voting in the Democratic primary to keep Edwards from winning because they didn't think Bush could beat him. ???


Backfired, didn't it?  If Edwards had more votes he'd have stayed in the race longer to screw Kerry over.  Oh well.

If Edwards had won the primary, the GOP hate machine would be driving full-throttle 24-hours a day trying to destroy him.  Believe me, they would find a way.  The super-rich are just terrified some one will raise their taxes.  That's what it all boils down to.  If Kerry promised to double any tax cut Bush proposed, you'd never hear another peep about his anti-war speech or his congressional voting record.

I live in a strong Republican area (home of Dennis Hastert) and many of the people polled admitted that they were Republicans, but were voting in the Democratic primary to keep Edwards from winning because they didn't think Bush could beat him. ???


That kind of attitude totally sucks.  I live in a strong Republican area, too (Utah, nuff said) and happen to be Republican but I voted in the Dem primary mainly to insure that the two best candidates would be in the election.  Of course, this didn't happen.  I voted for Edwards, too.  I can't stand Kerry.  He has said nothing about what he will do when president...all I have heard is how bad he thinks Bush is doing and that he was in Vietnam.

(There were some people at the dem primary that I wish hadn't voted, though.  Mainly the lady who was bragging about how "informed" she was because she only read Newsweek.  Didn't watch any tv or ready any other news magazine.  I say to be informed you need to get more than one perspective on any given thing.  She was loud and obnoxious, too so I just didn't like her.;))

These people wanted Kerry and they got him. Their choice is presently biting them in the butt, IMO.

IMO, a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. Those votes can mean the difference between one of the other two candidates winning or losing and no one has any control as to the effects of those votes. We all know there is no way a third party candidate will ever win, so why bother? I think if you're going to go through the trouble of voting, you should make your vote actually count for something. :P

IMO, a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. Those votes can mean the difference between one of the other two candidates winning or losing and no one has any control as to the effects of those votes. We all know there is no way a third party candidate will ever win, so why bother? I think if you're going to go through the trouble of voting, you should make your vote actually count for something. :P


I agree, Hairspray.  Whether one agrees with Nader or not, a vote for him is a complete waste of time.  He made a campaign stop to a Chili's restaurant down the road from my place a few weeks ago, and the parking lot was not even full.  What a waste of time and gasoline!

There were even 174 people in my precinct who voted for Lyndon LaRouche in the democratic primary.

In my opinion, the only two candidates in the Democratic Primary who had ANY credibility were Leiberman and Dean.  Dean, of course, was fully unqualified but I at least give him points for haveing been pretty good as Governor.  And Leiberman has a level head and can build reasonable compromises.

Instead, the Dems chose Kerry and have made it easier for the Repubs to win.

I voted for Nader in the last two Presidential elections, but now it's time for Ralph to      off!
;D

The only Democrat I despise more than Lieberman is Zell Miller.  They are both DINOs.  Democrats In Name Only.  Lieberman I find to be a sanctimonious bore, and a pawn of the insurance industry.

What makes Dean "unqualified" to be President, anyway?

If you want to see a really unqualified candidate who DID become President, just watch Bush get on TV tonight and lie his @ss off about Iraq!

I voted for Nader in the last two Presidential elections, but now it's time for Ralph to      off!
;D

The only Democrat I despise more than Lieberman is Zell Miller.  They are both DINOs.  Democrats In Name Only.  Lieberman I find to be a sanctimonious bore, and a pawn of the insurance industry.

What makes Dean "unqualified" to be President, anyway?

If you want to see a really unqualified candidate who DID become President, just watch Bush get on TV tonight and lie his @ss off about Iraq!


Aw, Zell Miller.  He is such a great guy in real life.  I met him when he was governor of my home state (Georgia).  I voted for democrats 3 times in my life, Zell Miller both his terms and Clinton in 1992 (which I regret with a passion.)  But I am so sick of some democrats acting like Nader doesn't have the right to run.  Its his right, and his supporters can vote for him, he is in fact the only anti-war person running for office.  But asides from that, the above statement shows that some people can go beyond politics.  Just because Lieberman and Miller stray away from the average democrat they are slandered as republicans.  Same with republicans and John McCaine, who strays away from the average Bush/Cheney republican.  And since this was written before the president's TV interview let me say I think he did a good job.  Not great and no where near perfect but enough to buy him some political points, rally republicans, and help some undecided votes lean towards him, at least for now.  Maxwell how about a session in Rush Limbaugh's institute for advance conservative studies?  That may help you out, lol.


-And on a totally different note, did anyone watch Leno last night just before headlines (when they show the fake headline?)  They showed a picture of Bush and Kerry with the headlne saying ''Bush and Kerry losing popularity, none of the above gaining momentum.''  How many people would mark ''none of the above'' on a ballot if given the chance?

Aw, Zell Miller.  He is such a great guy in real life.  I met him when he was governor of my home state (Georgia).  I voted for democrats 3 times in my life, Zell Miller both his terms and Clinton in 1992 (which I regret with a passion.)  But I am so sick of some democrats acting like Nader doesn't have the right to run.  Its his right, and his supporters can vote for him, he is in fact the only anti-war person running for office.  But asides from that, the above statement shows that some people can go beyond politics.  Just because Lieberman and Miller stray away from the average democrat they are slandered as republicans.  Same with republicans and John McCaine, who strays away from the average Bush/Cheney republican.  And since this was written before the president's TV interview let me say I think he did a good job.  Not great and no where near perfect but enough to buy him some political points, rally republicans, and help some undecided votes lean towards him, at least for now.  Maxwell how about a session in Rush Limbaugh's institute for advance conservative studies?  That may help you out, lol.


-And on a totally different note, did anyone watch Leno last night just before headlines (when they show the fake headline?)  They showed a picture of Bush and Kerry with the headlne saying ''Bush and Kerry losing popularity, none of the above gaining momentum.''  How many people would mark ''none of the above'' on a ballot if given the chance?

I'm sure Zell Miller is a great guy in person.  I still remember the rousing populist speech he gave when he was stumping for Clinton in '92.  That's why I was so disappointed when he turned out to be so far to the right.
I've listened to Limbaugh on and off since the early '90s.  I don't listen to him anymore.  Not because he's a conservative, but because he's a GOP hack.  I'll soon tune out Sean Hannity for the same reason.  It's a dirty rotten shame to hear such crass partisanship pass for political discourse.
And I'll tell you a big reason why liberal talk radio will not succeed, at least in the short term.  Demographics.  Al Franken is not going to make that impotent travelling salesman feel like he's a righteous dude!  I listen to conservative radio hosts of all stripes, and they all speak to the insecure white male in golden tones.  Ed Asner just ain't gonna give them the same swelling of the chest and RUSH of testosterone!
Speaking of guys that ain't gonna give you a rush of testosterone, I love Ralph Nader!  Like I said, I voted for him twice.  In a better election system, say, one run on ideas, not money, it would be no problem for Ralph to run.  Of course, he still has every right to run, but if he gets on enough ballots, he might elect George W. Bush, something he even GWB couldn't accomplish!

I love Ralph Nader!  Like I said, I voted for him twice. 

So you're admitting that you wasted your vote twice?

A vote for Ralph Nader is a wasted vote, poltics aside.  It has proven so every time he has run.  The only thing he accomplishes is ticking off the Dems in the elections.

Surely while walking into the voting booth, you know in your mind that he has absolutely no chance of winiing anything. 


You trying to show "moral support" or what?

So you're admitting that you wasted your vote twice?

A vote for Ralph Nader is a wasted vote, poltics aside.  It has proven so every time he has run.  The only thing he accomplishes is ticking off the Dems in the elections.

Surely while walking into the voting booth, you know in your mind that he has absolutely no chance of winiing anything. 


You trying to show "moral support" or what?







I say leave Nader alone.  If the democrats didn't shove crap like ''A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush'' he would have a chance.  If everyone who had the same enviromental stance as Nader and the same Iraqi and political thoughts as him would vote for him, he would probably get second place.  Nader does actully do some things I like (not enough things to make me not vote for Bush), like wanting to allow 16 year-olds the right to vote.  16 year-olds work, they pay taxes, in most states they can have a drivers' license and hunt by themselves with a firearm.  Let them vote.  But a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader!!!  If you like Nader's views vote for him and don't let the liberal elite tell you otherwise.

I say leave Nader alone.  If the democrats didn't shove crap like ''A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush'' he would have a chance.  If everyone who had the same enviromental stance as Nader and the same Iraqi and political thoughts as him would vote for him, he would probably get second place.  Nader does actully do some things I like (not enough things to make me not vote for Bush), like wanting to allow 16 year-olds the right to vote.  16 year-olds work, they pay taxes, in most states they can have a drivers' license and hunt by themselves with a firearm.  Let them vote.  But a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader!!!  If you like Nader's views vote for him and don't let the liberal elite tell you otherwise.


Oh I agree.

I didn't mean anything bad against Nader himself.  I do agree with a few things he stands for.

But I just meant that in the political climate of today, and with...like you said...the Dems condemning people for voting for him becasue they feel it is stealing their vote, he really doesn't have a chance in an election no matter what. 

Nader's beef is that the election process is rigged in favor two parties with, in his opinion, too few differences.  We need reforms that would allow other parties to have a shot besids the GOP and the Dems.  I don't believe my votes for Nader were wasted.  He didn't have a chance of winning the election but his supporters did send a message that we support a more progressive politics than the Democrats offer.  In '96 I was utterly disgusted with some of Clinton's policies.  In 2000, I was too sickened by Al Gore's "Republicrat" positions to vote for him.
On the practical side, I'm from Massachusetts.  I figured, Nader or no, if Gore can't win here in Kennedy country, he can't win anywhere!  If I lived in the South or the Midwest, where the numbers were extremely close, I probably would have brought a barf bag to the polls and voted Gore.  Now, if Gore had used even half the gutsy rhetoric he's been using of late, I would have been glad to give him my vote.

BTW, Nader was in my neck of the woods today.  He drew a crowd of about 20 people!  In 2000 he was drawing crowds here of around, well, 2000!  I declined to sign a petition to get him on the ballot.  That kind of stung, but I felt it just wasn't right to sign. 
I'm not going to condemn anyone for excercising the right to vote for Nader, but I do feel strongly that it's not his time.

I detect some cynicism on the part of Republicans who support Nader's candidacy.  I think there's an obvious motivation behind that!

Four more GW years followed by eight for Guliani and eight for Powell.....get used to it and deal with it! 8)

Four more GW years followed by eight for Guliani and eight for Powell.....get used to it and deal with it! 8)
That's all we need...an American monarchy. All hail King George II!

I'd rather see Guiliani or Powell in there any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
I may be biased because he's from my home state, but I wouldn't mind seeing Sen. Chuck Hagel make a run at it in 2008.

Eight years for Giuliani?  That's like saying "eight years for Mussolini."  Fascists don't like term limits.  Giuliani is a fascist, a charming fascist.

The best thing about the impending collapse of the Bush presidency is that all the right wingers, neo cons, and Republicans are going to start pointing the finger of blame at each other.  I'm gonna love every minute of it.

All of you need to go back and read the definitive analysis of exactly why Bush won. In short, The Democrats lost their big "in city" voting base because more poeple live in the suburbs now than in the cities....and most of those people are Republicans. Same thing will happen this year and for many years to come.  The suburban conservative middle class is in charge now and they don't want the likes of Carter and Clinton in The White House anymore......not to mention all of those liberals in Congress which we kicked out a few years ago!

All of you need to go back and read the definitive analysis of exactly why Bush won. In short, The Democrats lost their big "in city" voting base because more poeple live in the suburbs now than in the cities....and most of those people are Republicans. Same thing will happen this year and for many years to come.  The suburban conservative middle class is in charge now and they don't want the likes of Carter and Clinton in The White House anymore......not to mention all of those liberals in Congress which we kicked out a few years ago!

Nope.  Researchers from the Economist magazine found partisanship more cultural than economic.  The myth is that voters in the $100,000+ per year bracket vote overwhelmingly Republican.  Actually, they vote only slightly more Republican.  The litmus tests among whites is Do you go to church ?  Religious whites vote overwhelmingly Republican.  So-called "minorities" still vote mostly Democrat, but Church-going plus upwoard mobility creates a Republican climate among Blacks, Latins, and Asians.
The denouncing of the Dems as the party of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has worked magic for the Right.  The more libertarian-leaning conservatives still vote Republican for economic reasons.  The conscientious among the wealthy and the "investor" class are still more likely to vote Democrat.  Among your lionized "suburban" voters, those who care for more than just "I,me, mine" narrow down the Republican-Democrat disparity.
The REAL boon for Republicans is that poor people don't exercise their right to vote. That's why Republicans are against ways to facilitate voter registration (such as Motor Voter), and in favor of things like lifetime disenfranchisement for felons. 
Not enough felons to disenfranchise?  Just start calling people felons and disenfranchise them anyway, like Katherine Harris did in Florida.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2
Nonetheless, Gore won the popular vote nationwide, and would have won the popular vote in Florida, thus the electroral vote, if Harris & Co. hadn't committed fraudulent purges.

Regarding the 2000 election:

MOVE ON ALREADY



It was 4 years ago...and counting.  There are more important things to deal with than what did or didn't happen 4 years ago.

Like I said, everytime someone brings it up...it screams of desperation.

Man, lots of heavy stuff on this thread.  One confusion that I have is with the rightists here constantly bashing Clinton, but refusing to face the fact that Mr Bush, with help from bro Jeb and Ms. Harris, stole the election by disenfranchising thousands of black voters (not to mention all those Jews for Buchanan in Dade County).

But to the question:  It seems to me that the well funded (by Richard Mellon Sckaif and others) right wing conspiracy has cowed the main stream media into a "me two" mentality, picking up every negative about Kerry in particular, and liberals in general.  This is augmented by the all around laziness of main stream reporters who simply pick up the right wing propaganda without checking it.  As an example, the media claimed that Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the internet.  He never made such a claim.  He did, however sponsor legislation to fund research and development of the internet, and here we are using it - thanks Al for  your foresight. 
Lots has been made of what are supposedly contradictory Kerry votes.  He did vote badly at times IMHO, and may have changed his views over time - intelligence allows for change, especially when one's initial decision is based on false information (lying to Congress sounds like a "high crime" to me-and yes LBJ should have been impeached for the Tonkin Gulf lies just as Li'l Georgie should be impeached for his lies).  Meanwhile, Li'l Georgie continues to ignore the reality of his failures and pluges ahead with his delusional visions (or should I say hillusinations?).
Bush has savaged the sympathy and good will we had going for us after 9/11 and has gone into dangerous territory with his pre-empthion doctrine.  Suppose North Korea decides that we are a potential threat to there security and launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike?  Bye Bye L.A. (my Dad and sister live there) and Frisco.  Gore, I think would have, and I think Kerry will rebuild the ties of respect and friendship that we need to fight radical Islam and the terrorist tactics it uses, both in Iraq and in the wider world. 
On the home front, just as an example, a 14 year old kid was subjected to a Secret Service interrogation and unnamed school disciple because he drew some anti-Bush art work, but the "liberal" media stays silent.
The Bush outrages are so numerous and so egregious that it would take tomes to recount them, yet  the main stream media is mute.  No wonder Kerry can't get traction-or is he?