1.  No more drunk driving lightning bolts

Just four days before the election, muckrakers uncovered a dirty little secret on their GOP rival.  Twenty-four years earlier, George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving.  To make matters worse, he answered no when a reporter asked if he'd ever been arrested.  It was the kind of bombshell that would have ruined his shot at the White House, except for the lead in the polls he had at the time.  The effect of the report was evident later in exit polls.  They indicated that a majority of people who made up their minds within three days of the election voted for Al Gore.  Normally, undecideds break overwhelmingly to the candidate from the party out of the White House.  In addition, an unknown number of voters who had been attracted to Bush's image of integrity were motivated to stay home.  Without this perfectly-timed political hand grenade, Bush would have won the election with room to spare, and the blatant partisanship of the Supreme Court (of Florida, that is) would have remained local news.  In all likelihood, Bush won't face a similar devastating revelation this year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.  Bush defeated the incumbent party in a time of peace and prosperity

In 2000, Al Gore enjoyed a huge advantage going into the election season.  He was the sitting vice president during a time when the country was enjoying an extended period of peace and prosperity.  Even under those circumstances, the American people thought enough of George W. Bush to elect him anyway. All things being equal, Bush will benefit from being in the incumbent party this time around.  (I can hear Democrats mumbling something about Gore's poor campaign strategy losing the election.  Maybe that contributed, but, nevertheless, Bush did possess a certain degree of electability.  Imagine John Kerry..er..or not.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.  Democratic get-out-the-vote

Special interests serving the Democratic party developed an intimidating get-out-the-vote machine during the 90's.  That process culminated in an heroic effort in 2000.  The result?  Dubya took the best punch well-heeled civil rights activists and unions had to offer and still came out on top.  Those Democratic special interests will be hard-pressed to match that performance and even less likely to exceed it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.  National Security and the War on Terror

The United States of America was forever changed on that day in September when all of us were so violently ripped from of our mirage of security.  Never again will peace be thought of as a given in American life.  We are a nation at war.  It is a war that will continue for a long time against a ruthless, unprincipled adversary bent on the merciless taking of civilian life.  They have stated their desire to kill us, each and every one, simply because we are Americans.  In such times, we are instinctively drawn to leaders who show the determination to proactively confront and conquer the threats we face. Most of us understand that a co-existent relationship with these enemies cannot be negotiated; they must be subdued through absolute victory in the theater of war.  Bush understands this, and Americans know it.  I hesitate to bring politics into the War on Terror, but the facts are obvious.  Our President and his party in general have shown themselves much more willing to implement the iron-fisted policies necessary to vanquish this insidious foe.  Speaking loudly, while leaving the big stick in the closet, is not the trademark of this administration when it comes to terrorism.  There can be no denying that George W. Bush is serious about actively protecting our people and our nation.  The vast majority of voters, even those who may disagree with the path down which that action is taking us, take comfort, consciously or not, in the protection our military provides under the firm hand of our Commander-in-Chief.  This sense of protection through vigilance will be a huge factor this November in polling booths across the country.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.  The perfect timing of the economic cycle

The recession of 2001 started very early in Bush's presidency.  So early, in fact, that it is absurd to suggest Bush's policies had anything to do with it.  The downturn was compounded by the disastrous economic effects of September 11.  Bush understood that America needed to pour on the fuel to keep our economic engine from stalling.  His tax cuts and immediate tax rebates provided a boost that helped avert a deeper, longer recession.  The economy has since turned the corner and is picking up steam.  If the current trends continue, and they should, by November the economic outlook held by the electorate should be much improved.  And Bush will benefit considerably at the ballot box.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.  The perfect timing of the national conventions

This is an excellent point brought up by PoliPundit last November.  Here's the meat of those thoughts (I paraphrase just a little): "The Democrats made a major blunder in the 2004 presidential race by choosing to hold their national convention on July 26 in Boston.  The GOP will be holding its convention in the first week of September.  I could go on endlessly about why this helps the GOP, but here are four concise reasons:
1.  Bush will be able to continue spending his Primary money until September and use his general election money from September to November.  The Democratic candidate, however, will be out of money by July, because of a tough Primary, and then have to make his general election funds last from July to November.  This exaggerates Bush's already crushing money advantage.
2.  9/11 will be a few days after the GOP convention.
3.  By holding the Democratic convention on July 26, the Democrats risk losing the post-convention bounce in the polls by election day.
4.  The summer Olympics are between the two conventions and will suck the air out of the DNC message."

The two months between September's Republican National Convention and Election Day will be a great time to be Republican.  I can't wait!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.  The collective weakness of the Democratic hopefuls.

The weakness of this crop of Democratic contenders has been well documented.  Suffice it to say that whoever emerges with the opportunity to face Bush will be no Al Gore, as if that were a boast.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.  Same Sex marriage

With the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and a law in Ohio banning gay marriage, we are on a collision course with this issue that will force it into the political spotlight this year. The country is largely opposed to gay marriage, generally ambivalent toward civil unions, and mostly against a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a joining of one man with one woman.  That is the national consensus.  However, if we look deeper into the intensity of each group on these issues, we see a much different picture.  A few supporters of gay marriage are adamant in their views.  They will mostly vote against Bush regardless of his stance, notwithstanding log cabin Republicans.  However, most people who support gay marriages and civil unions, and thus oppose an amendment, do not hold that position with a great degree of fervor.  By and large, they will not be motivated to take their votes away from Bush or to make sure they get out and vote against him when they would otherwise stay home. It's simply not that big an issue with them.  It is an entirely different thing for a large portion of those who support the amendment.  Their opposition to changing the traditional definition of marriage runs deep and strong.  It is a big deal to them.  Bush's stand on this issue will directly create votes for him among those whose intense feelings on this issue will overwhelm their general indifference to the political process.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.  Republican get-out-the-vote

Possibly the most significant development in the American election process since 2000 is the unbelievable strides the GOP has made in terms of volunteerism and organization.  Once a domain dominated by Democratic special interests, get-out-the-vote is now practically a wash, and GOP operatives are frenetically working to increase the breadth and depth of grass-roots support structures all over the country.  This is an amazing turnaround from 2000.  It, alone, will turn many a close state into a comfortable Bush victory, while moving some comfortable Gore states within striking distance for the President.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.  Florida is much more Republican now

A startling event took place in 2002. It was startling both in its circumstances and in the lack of focus it received.  That event was the Florida gubernatorial election.  What happened there, when taken in the context of the voting debacle two years earlier, was truly phenomenal.  I'll recap it for you:

In 2002, Terry McAuliffe pledged that Jeb Bush, the president's own brother, would be defeated in his re-election bid. In fact, the DNC made the Florida governor's race their number one priority of the 2002 election cycle.  Moreover, only two years removed from the spectacle of 2000, emotions and energy should have been be running extremely high among Democrats.  Did we see massive Democratic turnout?  Did Terry's threats come true, for once?  Nope!  What transpired was not a humiliating GOP defeat, but a Bush-brother victory by a count that exceeded Jeb's first election margin.  He won by an amazing 13 points!  It was a complete and utter repudiation of the revenge factor and clearly showed the strength of the GOP in that state.  Without Florida as an obvious pickup target, the Democrats' options to gain ground shrink considerably.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.  Redistricting

President Bush has gained a small yet concrete advantage heading into the elections this year.  Red states in 2000 netted Bush 271 electoral votes.  This year those same states would give him 278.  In other words, he could lose a state like New Hampshire, Nevada or West Virginia and win anyway.  Even losing a larger state such as Louisiana or Colorado would produce a 269-269 tie.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.  The Base is solid

Despite his forays into fiscal liberalism - Medicare, immigration, education - the President maintains phenomenal support among Republicans.  A poll in late January by the American Research Group found only 10% of GOPers disapprove of the job he is doing.  Eighty-six percent approve.  In addition, the vocal displeasure at his aforementioned transgressions has apparently not fallen on deaf ears.  Recently he has offered peace offerings to the GOP faithful, such as a spending freeze on non-defense spending.  Finally, his rock-solid conservative stands on abortion, judicial appointments, taxes, gay marriage, and National Security are sure to bring out a sizeable elephant stampede in November.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.  Proven leadership

Can we trust a privileged businessman who has served but 6 years in elected office to handle the affairs of the most powerful nation on earth?  In 2000, voters put their faith in an untested George W Bush.  Four years later, his courageous, principled, and steadfast leadership has led this country through some of its most trying times.  Even those who dislike and disagree with President Bush would be hard-pressed to deny the resolve of his leadership.  He provided and continues to provide a steady hand when we need it most.  Voters will feel eminently more confident to put their trust in him again this year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.  New Hampshire is more Republican

Florida and New Hampshire were the two states that Ralph Nader's candidacy lost for Al Gore.  I've already addressed the current situation in Florida.  New Hampshire is not much different.  Voters there have now elected two Republican senators, a Republican governor, and two Republican representatives. The GOP has a 3 to 1 advantage in the state senate and better than a 2 to 1 advantage in the state house.  A Democratic victory here will be quite a feat, indeed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.  Minnesota and Iowa are more Republican

Pew research conducted a nationwide poll last summer to measure changes in party affiliation since the tragedy of September 11.  Minnesota and Iowa have been trending Republican of late, and these shifts were quantified in that poll. They present yet another headache for McAuliffe's bunch.  Now they have to row against the current in states that Al Gore won.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.  Governor Schwarzenegger

California's fiscal health is the inevitable result of a steady diet of liberal policies.  Last year, voters in this very blue state decided to switch chefs between meals.  They settled on a Republican.  In fact, over 60% of them voted for a GOP candidate.  Does this mean 60% will vote for Bush?  Not a chance.  However, with this clear rejection of liberal economics and with the structural advantage that comes with control of the Governor's mansion, Republicans have a shot at competing for the biggest electoral prize in the nation.  Regardless of the eventual winner, a competitive GOP in California would require Democrats to funnel precious resources to protect their most valuable bastion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.  Ohio's social conservatism

Since Florida and New Hampshire are no longer the targets they once were for the DNC, Ohio becomes the challenge of choice.  On the surface, Bush's narrow victory there in 2000 would give Democrats hope of taking it from the GOP in 2004.  However, the political winds are blowing in the GOP's favor this year. Ohio's recent passage of a ban on gay marriage highlights their socially conservative lean.  The impending battle in the gay marriage debate will solidify and motivate social conservatives in this crucial state, resulting in a more difficult obstacle for the Democrats to overcome.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18.  The Deaniacs' pending revolt

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been a veritable political highlight reel.  Never before in my memory has a candidate followed a path similar to the one of this eccentric politician.  In the race for the Democratic nomination, it has been thoroughly entertaining to see this man so flamboyantly hurtle himself to the front of the pack only to relegate himself to also-ran status through clumsy mis-steps and childish outbursts, all in a period of a few months.  But, even though he's finished as a viable choice, his candidacy will have far-reaching effects on the election in November.  What Dean did was to identify and add fuel to a smoldering fire within a segment of the Democratic party.  These liberal Bush-haters haven't broken their engagement with him.  They understand that he "feels their anger" - the same anger that will now compel them vote for a third party candidate rather than betray their man by voting for the victorious Democratic foe. This group won't be huge, but it will be enough to give Bush another advantage.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19.  Democratic experts still think Dubya's dumb

I had to add this one.  Bush has made a career out of having his opponents "misunderestimate" him. They show no signs of realizing that they really aren't dealing with a moron.  How many more times will the Democrats ponder, "How did he do that?"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20.  Giuliani's campaigning

As I've mentioned above, national security will be paramount in voters' minds this election season.  After Bush, no one personifies the triumph of American resolve in the aftermath of September 11 more than Rudy Giuliani.  In the time since, he has shown himself to be a willing advocate for Bush and other Republicans on the campaign trail.  His active presence can only help Bush's standing in November.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21.  Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees

An issue that, if used wisely, can be very effective in wooing conservatives and moderates alike, is the heavy-handed, partisan tactics of Democratic senators.  Never before have a president's judicial nominees been subjected to filibusters with the reckless abandon employed by this group of liberal lawmakers.  Democrats have charted virgin territory in their quest to stall Bush's vision for a balanced, non-activist federal judiciary.  The GOP has an opportunity to wield this obstructionist track record to attract more moderate voters and win a larger portion of the Hispanic vote - read this.

George Bush can't win the 2004 election, he's not canadian.

Oh wait...You're talking about the American elections :D

In that case I would write 21 reasons why Bush will win the general election, and they all start and end with "I don't care" ;)

Lill' W will lose the elction (assuming that the votes are fairly counted) because he is a lying sniviling little coward whose agenda is anti-democracy, pro-corporate power, totalitarian, secretive, anti-environment...good lord, one could go on.  I think the Americxan people are waking up to this guy's duplicity and class warfare against working and middle class people... and against democracy.

Had John Edwards been nominated to run against Bush, I believe the choice would have been much clearer and Bush's fate shaky.

Bush shouldn't win very easily. However, Kerry's not a very good or strong contender. I have always disliked the heck out of him, in fact.

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea how this U.S. election will turn out.

:-\\ ???

Lill' W will lose the elction

You know the saying -

"Don't count your chickens before they've hatched."

Not to sound pessimistic in reference to your opinion, but it's tough to tell at this juncture.

2. "Defeated" is a strong word to use... It was more like a statistical tie, with Bush being declared the winner on a technicality. Both candidates came out losers in the 2000 election; Bush was just the one that ended up in the White House.  Had he made that kind of showing against Clinton, it might have meant more; as it was, it was just a comment on how lousy the voters felt about both candidates.

4. The prison abuse scandal has hurt the sense of moral authority in the "War on Terror", and depite recent terror attacks on civilians in the Middle East, I think most Americans are tired of being afraid.

7. How long ago was this written? I have to agree, though, that Kerry is decidedly uncharismatic and that gives Bush the advantage in the personality department.

8. All Kerry has to do is say he suports the traditional definition of marriage but opposes a constitutional amendment, and that will mostly negate Bush's stand. While the majority of voters probably do not yet support gay marriage, they're not eager to start the amendment process, either.

13. What? I mean, if you're talking about people who are already planning to vote for Bush, maybe - but he's not winning any moderates over with his current leadership.

16. I doubt Democrats are worried about losing CA. They'd be more inclined to spend money in Florida.

18. I don't buy it. Kucinich's supporters would vote Green, but the former Deaniacs have now become the Anybody-But-Bushers.

I will admit that Kerry is not the ideal candidate but like Womberty said, I think a lot of people will be voting for "Anyone but Bush".




Cat

Don't know who this "Scott" is, don't much care.  I already explained why Al Gore "lost" last time.  I'm not going into that again.
California decertified the computer voting system, and the other states should do so as well.  That way, if Bush really does win, there will be no question.  If we allow Republican-led corporations such as Diebold to control the tally, some people will never trust that Bush won.  If Bush thinks he can really win without cheating, he should dump the "Help America Vote" Act.

FOX News is nothing but a cheerleader for Bush and right-wing Republicans.  Never before has a President had a relationship with a media outlet the way that Bush does with FOX.  Rush is the same way.  Unfortunately, the rest of the media legitimizes this political operation, this journalistic hoax, this FOX.  Worse, many media outlets defer to and even imitate FNC.

The big lie is that National Public Radio and the New York Times are cheerleaders for the Left. This is a shameless lie.  There is no Left or Liberal corollary to FOX and Tak radio in scope or influence.  NPR, NYT, and the rest of the so-called "Liberal Media" does not function in the same way as the right-wing media !!! 
Even self-proclaimed liberal publications, such as The Nation, and Harper's do not spread the kind of mal-informative, hate-mongering smear campaigns on behalf of the Demorcrats as the right-wing media does for the Republicans.
This vicious propaganda machine made up of knuckle-dragging media thugs, who are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Republican-favoring corporations, has a lot to do with how the gullible get beguiled, and how the Republicans win elections.

There is no Left or Liberal corollary to FOX and Tak radio in scope or influence.  NPR, NYT, and the rest of the so-called "Liberal Media" does not function in the same way as the right-wing media !!! 
Even self-proclaimed liberal publications, such as The Nation, and Harper's do not spread the kind of mal-informative, hate-mongering smear campaigns on behalf of the Demorcrats as the right-wing media does for the Republicans.

What you call mal-informative, hate-mongering smear campaigns, they call grass roots movements. :P

What you call mal-informative, hate-mongering smear campaigns, they call grass roots movements. :P

Calling it "grass roots" means nothing.  Their "grass roots" notions are planted in their minds by FOX, Limbaugh, Clear Channel, and the Heritage Foundation.  They're being played like a ten dollar violin, and they can't even see it!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.  Governor Schwarzenegger

California's fiscal health is the inevitable result of a steady diet of liberal policies.  Last year, voters in this very blue state decided to switch chefs between meals.  They settled on a Republican.  In fact, over 60% of them voted for a GOP candidate.  Does this mean 60% will vote for Bush?  Not a chance.  However, with this clear rejection of liberal economics and with the structural advantage that comes with control of the Governor's mansion, Republicans have a shot at competing for the biggest electoral prize in the nation.  Regardless of the eventual winner, a competitive GOP in California would require Democrats to funnel precious resources to protect their most valuable bastion.



O.K. you’ll have to throw this one out....
Let’s look at the FACTS (as a California voter, that didn’t vote for the Governators)...

1.            Schwarzenegger has, despite his pledges to children and parents about ensuring good education has CUT education funds in this state. As a result, there is a freeze on hiring much needed teachers, resulting in public school classes of more than an average of 30 students (up from 25). Costs of state schools/tuition are up as much as 15% percent, with additional cuts in various education programs (including disabled and work-study), making it more difficult than ever to attend college that ever before. Result: California’s ranking in education has slipped from 41 to 42 out of the 50 states. (is this what Bush meant by “leave no child behindâ€ÂÂ�?)
2. Schwarzenegger has already admitted to the realization that tax INCREASES are inevitable, opposite of what he campaigned & promised. (already increased the sales tax back to 8.9%) The budget crisis here is not so easily solved; there will have to be an increase in state taxes over the next 4-6 years to stave off more serious budget deficits of the future. All this being EXACTLY what Gov. Davis said had to be done. What’s more, if Davis had the chance to do so would have saved the state tens of millions in not making extreme changes in the cabinet and campaign election costs for the recall election.
3. Schwarzenegger has failed to provide any measurable increase in jobs for the state, nor ensure prevention or resolution to the energy crisis that California has suffered the last two years.
4. Due to the poor employment situation and the high cost of living, for the first time in almost 20 years there are more people moving out of CA than move in.

In a state where gas is $2.39/gal, milk is $4.00/gal, the average (1st time buyer) house is $300K (avg. rent $1200) , a min wage of only $6.75, the average income is less than $37K, & unemployment is 13.5%, you’d better think twice if you’re going to use the governators already poor record as a device for forcating Bush’s future....this is a hard state to live in unless you’re a multi-millionaire movie-star.

IMO Schwarzenegger’s election was purely a “star� power/star struck event. Those who would not normally have voted for a republican (or at all for that matter) voted because of his movie star qualities. This is and probably always will be a democratic state.

The less than notable performance of Schwarzenegger will probably have an opposite effect than you stated, the GOP may have a more difficult time than ever as he has proved that he has not the skills, nor the insight to accomplish or keep any of his goals and promises.
Which is something that I admit Bush emulates...

O.K. you’ll have to throw this one out....
Let’s look at the FACTS (as a California voter, that didn’t vote for the Governators)...

1.             Schwarzenegger has, despite his pledges to children and parents about ensuring good education has CUT education funds in this state. As a result, there is a freeze on hiring much needed teachers, resulting in public school classes of more than an average of 30 students (up from 25). Costs of state schools/tuition are up as much as 15% percent, with additional cuts in various education programs (including disabled and work-study), making it more difficult than ever to attend college that ever before. Result: California’s ranking in education has slipped from 41 to 42 out of the 50 states. (is this what Bush meant by “leave no child behind�?)
2. Schwarzenegger has already admitted to the realization that tax INCREASES are inevitable, opposite of what he campaigned & promised. (already increased the sales tax back to 8.9%) The budget crisis here is not so easily solved; there will have to be an increase in state taxes over the next 4-6 years to stave off more serious budget deficits of the future. All this being EXACTLY what Gov. Davis said had to be done. What’s more, if Davis had the chance to do so would have saved the state tens of millions in not making extreme changes in the cabinet and campaign election costs for the recall election.
3. Schwarzenegger has failed to provide any measurable increase in jobs for the state, nor ensure prevention or resolution to the energy crisis that California has suffered the last two years.
4. Due to the poor employment situation and the high cost of living, for the first time in almost 20 years there are more people moving out of CA than move in.

In a state where gas is $2.39/gal, milk is $4.00/gal, the average (1st time buyer) house is $300K (avg. rent $1200) , a min wage of only $6.75, the average income is less than $37K, & unemployment is 13.5%, you’d better think twice if you’re going to use the governators already poor record as a device for forcating Bush’s future....this is a hard state to live in unless you’re a multi-millionaire movie-star.

IMO Schwarzenegger’s election was purely a “star� power/star struck event. Those who would not normally have voted for a republican (or at all for that matter) voted because of his movie star qualities. This is and probably always will be a democratic state.

The less than notable performance of Schwarzenegger will probably have an opposite effect than you stated, the GOP may have a more difficult time than ever as he has proved that he has not the skills, nor the insight to accomplish or keep any of his goals and promises.
Which is something that I admit Bush emulates...



But Schwarzennegger is big, tall, blonde, and Conservative.  How could he possibly be wrong?
;D

I was just making a point about corporate-sponsored grass roots.  Rep. Darryl Issa spent $1.7 million of his own car alarm fortune to hire people to go and collect the 900,000-odd signitures to qualify the recall.  The right-wing media let loose a non-stop assault on Gray Davis (an unlikable douchebag to be sure), while the rest of the punditry either nodded compliantly, or fought back the way a rabbit fights back against a crocodile.
California's problems, founded in bad tax-cutting policy and scurriless energy energy deregulation scams, were laid solely at the feet of Davis and his Administration.  The Republicans know they have the gullible man's vote.  They knew with just enough money, they could unseat Davis and install Ahhhnold in a jive election.  They did just that.  Now they're hoping to deliver California's 54 electoral votes to Bush.  Unfortunately, they won't be able to do it via crooked voting computers, but we'll see what else Ahhnold & co. have up their sleeves.

Why is Darryl Issa given a pass, but George Soros demonized? It's splled  H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

O.K. you’ll have to throw this one out....
Let’s look at the FACTS (as a California voter, that didn’t vote for the Governators)...

1.             Schwarzenegger has, despite his pledges to children and parents about ensuring good education has CUT education funds in this state. As a result, there is a freeze on hiring much needed teachers, resulting in public school classes of more than an average of 30 students (up from 25). Costs of state schools/tuition are up as much as 15% percent, with additional cuts in various education programs (including disabled and work-study), making it more difficult than ever to attend college that ever before. Result: California’s ranking in education has slipped from 41 to 42 out of the 50 states. (is this what Bush meant by “leave no child behind�?)
2. Schwarzenegger has already admitted to the realization that tax INCREASES are inevitable, opposite of what he campaigned & promised. (already increased the sales tax back to 8.9%) The budget crisis here is not so easily solved; there will have to be an increase in state taxes over the next 4-6 years to stave off more serious budget deficits of the future. All this being EXACTLY what Gov. Davis said had to be done. What’s more, if Davis had the chance to do so would have saved the state tens of millions in not making extreme changes in the cabinet and campaign election costs for the recall election.
3. Schwarzenegger has failed to provide any measurable increase in jobs for the state, nor ensure prevention or resolution to the energy crisis that California has suffered the last two years.
4. Due to the poor employment situation and the high cost of living, for the first time in almost 20 years there are more people moving out of CA than move in.

In a state where gas is $2.39/gal, milk is $4.00/gal, the average (1st time buyer) house is $300K (avg. rent $1200) , a min wage of only $6.75, the average income is less than $37K, & unemployment is 13.5%, you’d better think twice if you’re going to use the governators already poor record as a device for forcating Bush’s future....this is a hard state to live in unless you’re a multi-millionaire movie-star.

IMO Schwarzenegger’s election was purely a “star� power/star struck event. Those who would not normally have voted for a republican (or at all for that matter) voted because of his movie star qualities. This is and probably always will be a democratic state.

The less than notable performance of Schwarzenegger will probably have an opposite effect than you stated, the GOP may have a more difficult time than ever as he has proved that he has not the skills, nor the insight to accomplish or keep any of his goals and promises.
Which is something that I admit Bush emulates...




Schwarzenegger last I heard had a 69% approval rating which is driving the democrats nut.  He'll win reelection, California is now starting to wake up to democratic economics not working.  Its a whole new ball game in that state, or so says Roger Hintchcock.

Schwarzenegger last I heard had a 69% approval rating which is driving the democrats nut.  He'll win reelection, California is now starting to wake up to democratic economics not working.  Its a whole new ball game in that state, or so says Roger Hintchcock.

Do you mean Roger Hedgecock?  He was mayor of San Diego until he was convicted of conspiracy and perjury and forced to resign.  He's got his own radio show, fills in for Limbaugh sometimes.  It's better tha the big house with Jim Trafficant!.

You know the saying -

"Don't count your chickens before they've hatched."

Not to sound pessimistic in reference to your opinion, but it's tough to tell at this juncture.


You're absolutely right, it is too early to tell.  Wishfull thinking I guess, but it does seem that Kerry is getting more on message, and lots of polls continue to indicate that voters are progressive on the important basic issues, support public schools and health care, want tax cuts for middle and low income folks, want to maintain the integrity of Social Security and so on.  If Kerry can champion these issues, he could energize not only the Dem base, but also those who don't vote (over 50% last  time).  In other words, IF Kerry joins the democratic wing of the Democratic party, he could take it by a landslide.  But as they say, we shall see, then we'll know.

Do you mean Roger Hedgecock?  He was mayor of San Diego until he was convicted of conspiracy and perjury and forced to resign.  He's got his own radio show, fills in for Limbaugh sometimes.  It's better tha the big house with Jim Trafficant!.


I knew I would spell his last name wrong.  Never knew about any of the conspiracy crap, nor have I heard of HIS radio show.  I know him, like you said from when he fills in for Rush Limbaugh.  He is the best replacement for Rush, but I still like old Rush better.

I knew I would spell his last name wrong.  Never knew about any of the conspiracy crap, nor have I heard of HIS radio show.  I know him, like you said from when he fills in for Rush Limbaugh.  He is the best replacement for Rush, but I still like old Rush better.


from SignonSanDiego.com:
1985: San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock resigned after he was convicted of one count of conspiracy and 12 counts of perjury. The charges stemmed from allegations that he financed his 1983 mayoral campaign with more than $300,000 funneled through a political consulting firm. Hedgecock was sentenced to a year in county custody, a fine and three years' probation. After the state Supreme Court reversed the perjury convictions, Hedgecock made a deal with prosecutors. He pleaded guilty to the felony conspiracy count that was reduced to a misdemeanor and then dismissed in 1991. He served no time in jail.

I think there's a very real possibility of Bush winning the election. :-\\ I may find myself agreeing in the end, unless something changes.

As it stands now, in my honest opinion -

We are at war whether the government admits it officially or not.

Kerry can promise from here to kingdom come that he will "fix" our problems at home, which is what we need or at the very least need to hear. But I'm not so sure he can do any better than Bush in resolving this "war".

In fact, I almost worry that he would be so preoccupied with gaining approval, while initially in office, to the degree of pulling all of our forces out of that country.

Sure, it sounds great to "get them home". However, the rebels and terrorists would have ample freedom and opportunity to regroup and amass themselves and their forces. All of which would then bring the very real possibility of further and even greater terrorist attacks on the U.S. and allies.

I don't believe getting completely out of that country is the answer and worry that Kerry would think to do it in a misguided effort to appease. I don't believe a word like "peace" is in that country's vocabulary.

Bottom line -

As much as Bush has/is screwing-up, he still has enough resolve and sense to know that we cannot leave that country go unchecked and if need be, he'll attack the hell outta them again - officially.

I think Kerry would be weak militarily and possibly weaken our country and make it vulnerable to further attacks.

And thus, I may very-well end-up not voting for Kerry, especially not for the simplistic and superficial reasoning of “just to get Bush out�.

It just should not be that cut and dry.

I think there's a very real possibility of Bush winning the election. :-\\ I may find myself agreeing in the end, unless something changes.



Thats very true.  According to a fox news poll on www.billoreilly.com which asked ''reguardless of who you are going to vote for, who do you think will win the election?''  Only 29% said Kerry.  Most people said Bush.  About 3% said don't know and 1% said Nader!

I hate to admit it, but the more I hear Kerry talk, the more I think that Bush is the lesser of 2 evils.  Like Hairspray said, it seems that Kerry is trying too hard to gain the approval, but I'm seeing it even before the election.  I'll probable decide once I see who the VP's are.  If I like one of them, I'll vote for that party...thinking that maybe the pres will die and the vp will take over ;)


Thats exactly it.  The less people look at Kerry the more they are set to vote for him.  A story from some newspaper (New York Post, I think) was posted on the home page of www.rushlimbaugh.com which talked about how Kerry's campaign manager basically told him to shut up.  And a lot of democrats are happy about Clinton's new book because they know it will keep a lot of democrats from looking at Kerry.  And like the Bush/Cheney '04 commercial said ''the problem is not that people don't know John Kerry, its that they do.'' 

--And also some other newspaper which again I can't recall which was posted on www.billoreilly.com talked about some democratic rally in Washington state in where the democrat speaker said ''the plan is to get Bush out of office this year and in 2008 dump Kerry like a bag of cement.''  A lot of people in the crowd didn't like that but I think its how the majority of democrats are thinking.

I don't care what anyone thinks, Bush is a very smart man.  Gore got a D in college unlike Bush.  That was in 2000 now we have Bush who has better degrees then Kerry, and this story which shows Kerry's true brain power:

Presumed Democrat candidate nominee Senator John Kerry today denied the existence of the state of Idaho.

The Massachusetts native was in New Jersey at a fund raiser when reporters quizzed the junior senator about his knowledge of domestic leaders.

When asked who the Governor of Idaho was, Kerry responded "Out here son, we pronounce that O-hi-o."


---Yep what a genius that Kerry.

I don't care what anyone thinks, Bush is a very smart man.  Gore got a D in college unlike Bush.  That was in 2000 now we have Bush who has better degrees then Kerry, and this story which shows Kerry's true brain power:

Presumed Democrat candidate nominee Senator John Kerry today denied the existence of the state of Idaho.

The Massachusetts native was in New Jersey at a fund raiser when reporters quizzed the junior senator about his knowledge of domestic leaders.

When asked who the Governor of Idaho was, Kerry responded "Out here son, we pronounce that O-hi-o."


---Yep what a genius that Kerry.

"O-hi-o" is 100-year old joke about a Boston Brahmin responding to a a woman who says she's from Idaho.  Where did you hear this attributed to Kerry?  You done been had, son!

Gore got a D in college, and so what?  I flunked a few courses in college myself.  What's your point?  Bush's intelligence is sub-par, the evidence just oozes off of the man.  Andover and Yale hold sons of privilege to different standards than those of average means.  This is has changed somewhat in the past couple of decades, but in the 1960s, the "Gentleman's C" was a solid institution. 

I've been lied to?  Oh well.  Here is what I think, if Kerry does somehow win (which I think/hope he won't) it will be because democrats wanted Bush out, not because they wanted Kerry in.  Anyone read my post a few spots up?

I've been lied to?  Oh well.  Here is what I think, if Kerry does somehow win (which I think/hope he won't) it will be because democrats wanted Bush out, not because they wanted Kerry in.  Anyone read my post a few spots up?

There are millions of Democrats who genuinely love Kerry.  I'm not one of them.  I am one who will vote for Kerry to get the Bush Administration out.  That's exactly why I voted for Clinton in '92.  I think it's a d@mn good reason to vote for Kerry, too!
If Dean had gotten in, they'd be doing the worst kind of mendacious smear campaign, scare tactics, hatchet job on him, even worse than on Kerry.
It's funny, the candidate I liked best, Kucinich, is even farther out of the American "mainstream" than I am.  He's a vegan who does yoga.  The Daily Show had a clip of him showing off some of his yoga moves!  You're supposed to be a steak-eater who practices golf !  Sheesh!  Talk of a Department of Peace was moving a little to fast for Joe Average. 
I think the GOP found Dean much more threatening.
Dean mentioned recently how the microphone was set up at the place of the "Dean Scream."  The mike was engineered to amplify the voice of the person speaking into it and to diminish ambient noise.  Thus he was in a much noisier environment than it sounded in the clip.  He was overcompensating at that time by shouting.  I don't know why it took so long for that fact to come out.

Maybe if GWB2004 would pull his head out of the world of conservative, right-wing talk radio, he would realize their are millions of us who are disgusted with the lies and treasonous behavior of the Bush administration, and will be voting for John Kerry regain America's credibility.

John Kerry for America and Americans.

If Bush wins, I know why: a couple of weeks ago, we were in a cavern in Derbyshire in which there's an interesting stalagmite- because of a change in where the rainwater goes, what started building as a stalagmite tens of thousands of years ago now has fresh water dripping on it from above, rather than stuff that's dripping with calcite.  The upshot is that there is now a finger-sized hole in the mound - more than a hundred years ago, a little girl being shown round the cave put her finger in and made a wish.  Now it's part of the guided tour, and all the children are invited to do so.

My elder son, I'm pretty sure, wished for England to win Euro2004 (but he won't let on now, he was just thinking aloud beforehand); my eldest (who's age 10) wished that Bush would be voted out in November.  Unfortunately, she told us... so the wish won't come true :(

Maybe if GWB2004 would pull his head out of the world of conservative, right-wing talk radio, he would realize their are millions of us who are disgusted with the lies and treasonous behavior of the Bush administration, and will be voting for John Kerry regain America's credibility.

John Kerry for America and Americans.


Well no-doubt.  Bush, Kerry, hell even Nader have a million supports.  Currently Bush is leading in the popular vote (he was 3 points behind Kerry in Pew last week, now he is 5 points ahead!)  John Kerry is not going to win, he is a dud.

A D in college what?  You can't graduate with a D average so that must not be it.  Heck, I know ALOT of people who graduated college with A averages who are complete and total idiots.  Book smarts means squat.  It's what you DO with the knowledge that counts ;)

Book smarts? Bush ain't got 'em!

GWBush2004 wrote: Well no-doubt.  Bush, Kerry, hell even Nader have a million supports.  Currently Bush is leading in the popular vote (he was 3 points behind Kerry in Pew last week, now he is 5 points ahead!)  John Kerry is not going to win, he is a dud.
I don't care about those polls, Pew, Zogby or otherwise.  I don't care about the polls when Bush is ahead, or when Kerry is ahead.  I notice your enthusiasm for GWBush seems to resemble the enthusiasm some of the women on the '80s board have for Duran Duran.  What's up with that?

This came through today... it seemed somehow appropriate:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/crbc/2004/crbc040621.gif
... it kept reformatting the image, so I've stuck it in as a link instead

Philbo do you really who wins the AMERICAN election?  Why would anyone not in America possibly care if Bush, Kerry, or Nader won.

If you were to at the outside world for a change, it wouldn't surprise you to find out that probably the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world doesn't want Bush in the White House - America has a huge global presence which can be (and has been) used as a huge power for good in the world... or it can act as some kind of national bully doing what it wants to, simply because it can.

Bill Clinton said in a recent interview that what he did with Monica was wrong, that he did it "because he could", and that is the worst reason for doing anything.  ISTM that he's right.

If you were to at the outside world for a change, it wouldn't surprise you to find out that probably the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world doesn't want Bush in the White House - America has a huge global presence which can be (and has been) used as a huge power for good in the world... or it can act as some kind of national bully doing what it wants to, simply because it can.

Bill Clinton said in a recent interview that what he did with Monica was wrong, that he did it "because he could", and that is the worst reason for doing anything.  ISTM that he's right.


First off I don't care what the hell the rest of the world thinks.  Its not their choice who runs America or what we do, and besides your country has been very helpful to us.  The UN is such a stupid idea (and so is the EU) why do we need to ask anyone else what to do?  Only 34% of America approves of the UN, and i'm surprised that much do.  This is not 1945 anymore and we don't need some outdated organization to keep from declaring war on everyone else.

A lot of people still that Bill Clinton almost got impeached for adultery.  He didn't.  He lied under oaht, a crime that the average joe would have gotten 5 years in jail for, Bill Clinton and any president for that matter is not above that law.

Lill' W will lose the elction (assuming that the votes are fairly counted) because he is a lying sniviling little coward whose agenda is anti-democracy, pro-corporate power, totalitarian, secretive, anti-environment...good lord, one could go on.  I think the Americxan people are waking up to this guy's duplicity and class warfare against working and middle class people... and against democracy.


Never thought I'd agree with Don Carlos, but he makes some good points :-\\

First off I don't care what the hell the rest of the world thinks.  Its not their choice who runs America or what we do, and besides your country has been very helpful to us.  The UN is such a stupid idea (and so is the EU) why do we need to ask anyone else what to do?  Only 34% of America approves of the UN, and i'm surprised that much do.  This is not 1945 anymore and we don't need some outdated organization to keep from declaring war on everyone else.
Sounds like you've been smoking some John Gibson!  There is this attitude among the middle finger-waving Right that "the rest of the world doesn't matter."  However, the Bush Administration doesn't think that's true.  They care a great deal what the rest of the world thinks.  Rumsfeld in particular copped that attitude out of a knee-jerk reaction of defensiveness when other countries didn't support the Administration's cockamamie foreign policy.  No serious political analyst would agree.  Never alienate your friends, you don't know when you'll need them up the road.  America the Invincable is an obvious myth.  We're the biggest debtor nation in the world, and we rely on exploiting poorer nations to maintain our oppulent lifestyles.  You don't hear Cheney and Rumsfeld saying China doesn't matter, do you?  What makes anybody think we can afford to alienate the "stupid" EU?

Perhaps the UN is outdated, but I think it's appalling to treat our friends and neighbors with contempt.  This attitude really says, "America has the biggest military, and if we want something, we're just gonna go take it."  Even there we're a giant with feet of clay.  Look at the cost and resource-draining in the war in Iraq.  You think we could afford another war and go it alone right now?  As the British say, "not bloody likely!"

A lot of people still that Bill Clinton almost got impeached for adultery.  He didn't.  He lied under oaht, a crime that the average joe would have gotten 5 years in jail for, Bill Clinton and any president for that matter is not above that law.

I said all along, Clinton set himself up for that mess with Monica.  He gave that maggot Ken Starr and the rest of his goons plenty of ammunition.  The right-wing myth says the average American wanted Clinton out.  George Will and Cokie Roberts speculated Clinton would be "out of office within days" after the story broke.  When they couldn't get the polls to match their contempt, they just scoffed, and said the public was wrong, and they, the punditry, were right.  They were just so cocksure the rest of the country hated Clinton as much as the elite media (sorry, O'Reilly, the elite media ain't what you say) that Clinton would be pressured to sign his own resignation, just like Nixon.  Wrong.
The other right-wing myth is that if Clinton had just admitted it, everything would have been fine. YEAH! AS IF! AS IF!  As if Clinton had said, "I had sex with Monica Lewinsky and I'm hear to say I'm sorry to the American people," the Republican attack dogs would have said, "OK, all is forgiven, let's get on with the business of the country."  NOOOOO!!!  Limbaugh and Co. would have squealed for Clinton's head on a pike even LOUDER!  Republican legislators would pound the podium harder, screaming about how "Clinton has the unmitigated gall to just stand before the people and say blah blah blah...."
::)

First off I don't care what the hell the rest of the world thinks.

By his own words shall ye know him.


A lot of people still that Bill Clinton almost got impeached for adultery.  He didn't.  He lied under oaht, a crime that the average joe would have gotten 5 years in jail for, Bill Clinton and any president for that matter is not above that law.

Which, of course, is a far, far worse crime than wilfully leading your country into an unnecessary war leading to thousands of civilian casualties and hundreds of military ones.  Of course, it's a far worse crime, because the guilty party is a Democrat.  Sometimes your politics is absolutely risible.

Here are some interesting poll results.  I find it interesting that the first poll that shows Kerry even close or winning is the FoxNews poll ;)


I noticed that too.  CURRENTLY Bush and Kerry are tied in the Fox News poll, a poll which you would think Bush would be doing really well in.  And the L.A. times polls shows Bush's job approval rating at its highest, I wouldn't expect that from the L.A. times.  Bush after looking is ahead in Zogby, Pew, CNN, Washington Post-ABC news and really every poll except the fox news poll and the unfair L.A. times poll.

Before you say anything about the L.A. times poll (where Kerry has a 6 point lead) you might be interested to know that instead of polling 25%-democrats, 25%-republicans, 25%-left leaning moderates, and 25%-right leaning moderates like most polls they polled 25%-rebublicans and 37%-democrats!  That is not a fair poll, Rush Limbaugh broke that story first saying the numbers didn't add up and then a magazine did some research and found out the percentages of democrats and republicans polled.

Actually (it's been updated since I last looked), Kerry is ahead in most polls.  In the Fox, he's tied if Nader is included, but ahead when Gephardt is included as VP and if Nader is not included.  They are dead even if Edwards is the VP.  If you look at earlier poll results, Bush was ahead in most of them.  It's not looking good....

Susan Estrich says it's definitely gotta be Edwards.  Any other selection would be foolish.

Actually (it's been updated since I last looked), Kerry is ahead in most polls.  In the Fox, he's tied if Nader is included, but ahead when Gephardt is included as VP and if Nader is not included.  They are dead even if Edwards is the VP.  If you look at earlier poll results, Bush was ahead in most of them.  It's not looking good....


Alright here are all the polls, exactly the way I got them 2 days ago:

Bush 43% - Kerry 40%
IBD-CSM  06/18/04
Bush 46% - Kerry 42%
Pew Research  06/18/04
Bush 46% - Kerry 45%
Ipsos-AP  06/18/04
Bush 42% - Kerry 42%
Fox News  06/19/04
Bush 42% - Kerry 48%
LA Times  06/17/04

Thought I would include Bush's job approval rating as well:

Job Approval:

Approve: 48.8%  up 1.6 from 47.2%

Approve: 48%  Pew Research  06/18/04
Approve: 48%  Fox News  06/18/04
Approve: 48%  Ipsos-AP  06/18/04
Approve: 51%  LA Times  06/17/04
Approve: 49%  Gallup  06/18/04

Susan Estrich says it's definitely gotta be Edwards.  Any other selection would be foolish.


Someone has been watching Bill O'Reilly....

Is it just me on does Estrich need to back off of the caffine?

Someone has been watching Bill O'Reilly....

Is it just me on does Estrich need to back off of the caffine?

Ain't she obnoxious?  Susan Ostrich, Susan Estrogen.
:P

Yeah, I watch O'Reilly, although I spend a lot of the showing shouting "Oh bullsh*t, Oh bullsh*t!" at the screen.
::)

Yeah, I watch O'Reilly, although I spend a lot of the showing shouting "Oh bullsh*t, Oh bullsh*t!" at the screen.
::)


Listen Bill O'Reilly is an independent.  A lot of people on the far-left call him a liar and label him as a conservative and people to the far-right call him a liberal for his stance on Iraq and other stuff.  After some research I believe 100% he is an independent because here are his views, straight up:

Bill O'Reilly's conservative/right/republican views:

-Supports cutting taxes across the board and eliminating the inheritance tax
-Supports use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific experiments
-Supports harsher prosecution for hard drug offenders
-Supports U.S. military action against the Taliban and Afghanistan
-Opposes strict separation of church and state and secularization
-Opposes illegal immigration (e.g., proposes placing troops on the U.S. border with Mexico)


Bill O'Reilly liberal/left/democratic views:

-Supports raising automobile fuel efficiency standards due to his belief in global warming
-Supports campaign finance reform
-Supports de-criminalizing marijuana
-Opposes the death penalty
-Opposes additional regulation of pornography

Say what you want to say, in my opinion he is an independent.

Listen Bill O'Reilly is an independent.  A lot of people on the far-left call him a liar and label him as a conservative and people to the far-right call him a liberal for his stance on Iraq and other stuff.  After some research I believe 100% he is an independent because here are his views, straight up:

Say what you want to say, in my opinion he is an independent.

O'Reilly and his supporters label O'Reilly's critics "far-left."  However, many of these so-called "far left" critics have indeed caught him out in a sea of lies, self-contradictions, and hypocrisy.  O'Reilly has taken selectively a few of these charges to task.  He has used spin and circumlocution to fog the issue and make the critics seem like they just have a personal vendetta.  It doesn't wash.  O'Reilly has not successfully refuted charges made against his accuracy by Alterman, Conason, Brock, and Franken.  If you are interested, you can check for yourself.  I'm not going to argue the charges of these critics here.
When O'Reilly calls people like Joe Conason and Michael Kinsley "Left-wing bomb throwers," millions believe him.  Yet, O'Reilly does not address the substance of what these critics say, he merely dismisses them.  Joe Conason has challenged him to a verbal duel, as has David Brock.  O'Reilly only hides behind his mass media fortress.
I will give O'Reilly credit for achieving a "balance" of sorts.  His balance is between the religious right and the libertarian right.  When he talks of "secularism" and bashes the ACLU, that's for the religious right.  When he talks of de-criminalizing pot and says "I don't care what adults do in the privacy of their own homes," that's for the libertarian right.  Although he appeals to family values types when he threatens boycotts against companies who sign sponserships with rappers, in general he toes the corporate-consumerist line.  He also gets frenzied in a John Birch Society style over "socialism" and "income redistribution."
O'Reilly is just as biased to the right as Sean Insanity and Rush Limberger, he's just much better at it.