And his aids determine he's too stressed out and has to go skiing to calm down (then he flips out at a SS agent).
Is that Presidential?
No telling where future anger will lead us. That's all we need is a hot head in the oval office. 
Posted on 03/23/2004 11:38:07 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:20:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
March 24, 2004 -- THE Bush ads are working: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post poll showed Sen. John Kerry ahead of President Bush by 11 points, and the Gallup Poll had him up by 8, while more recent polls reflect a dead heat between the two. Zogby (March 21) has Kerry up by only 48-46, and Rasmussen (March 20) has it Bush 46, Kerry 45.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Pick, pick, pick... :)
What Kerry needs most is what the Democrats claimed Bush needed in 2000, i.e. someone on the ticket to buttress his credibility. The problem is, who would that Democrat be? Is there any Democrat, any Democrat at all who has national credibility, who might appeal to both independents and a cross section of Republicans, and especially Southern Democrats. The time is ripe for a Sam Nunn type Democrat, but there are no such animals left in their party. They've all been squeezed out by the hard left.
I could see a Sam Nunn type Democrat teaming up with a guy like Sen Cain to present a "credible" challenge. They wouldn't challenge Bush on his 9/11 actions, but focus instead on his lack of "vision" for winning the war, building the economy, stemming outsourcing to protect, or at least help American's adjust, to the global outsourcing trend, and perhaps even run to Bush's right on some economic issues (handling of Soc. Sec., etc.).
Running against Bush head to head on the war is lunacy. Most of the American people know the status quo prior to 9/11, know that the Clintionistas where culpable in some part, even if they can't put their finger on it, and even if they "forgive" Clinton through some exercise in moral relativism (e.g. the argument that no one could have prevented 9/11; everything changed, which of course simultaneously absolves Clinton and minimizes Bush's post 9/11 eadership).
The Democrats could run a race against Bush, primarily because Bush has neglected his base (conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, with whom I count myself a member). Bush has compromised conservative principles, I am convinced, because he decided post 9/11 that national unity more than GOP party unity was essential to winning the war. The primary national interest, in Bush's mind is winning the war, and if doing so means giving more federal dollars to liberal causes to quiet the left and middle-left, so be it. He has a war to win.
But the right Democrat could expose this weakness, especially if he proved a credible alternative to Bush. He doesn't have to prove Bush a "culpable dolt", as the narcissistic, egotistical Democrats believe, just that their alternative candidate would prosecute the war with equal vigor to a successful completion.
Kerry will not do that, and cannot credibly change course. His professional life history has been all about "anti-war". He has no way out, and neither do the Democrats who support him.
I'd bet money on a brokered convention, with Clinton & Clinton in the middle of the brokering.
SFS
I would hope they are undecided between Kerry and a 3rd party. If anyone can't decide between Kerry and Bush then they are way too stupid to vote.
And that's the point where I stopped reading. To make this assumption and disregard the impact of Clintoon's Assault Weapons Ban, as well as Newts' Contract with America, leads me to believe Dickie isn't quite the "political animal" some portray him to be.
How is signing a ban on partial birth abortion, being against gay marriage, pushing through tax cuts, etc.etc. abandoning his base.
Would have Gore been better to the conservative "base". I really don't get your cry that you have been abandoned.
I was with him right up until this. Edwards never had a chance and Clark was a puffed up ego that had three layers of tin foil wrapped around his head. Kerry is the "none of the above" choice by the Democrats. That's why his support is so shallow, few people are voting FOR Kerry.
Yep, we're roadkill all right.
BUMP
And his aids determine he's too stressed out and has to go skiing to calm down (then he flips out at a SS agent).
Is that Presidential?
No telling where future anger will lead us. That's all we need is a hot head in the oval office.
Don't bet your mortgage money or even your lunch money on what Toe Sucker prognosticates.
Yes but don't forget a HUGE issue in 94 was the people being scared of being forced into Hitlery's Health Care system.
AG, I'm begging you - please be careful with your syntax. The image of Hillary "trying to wiggle" is just more than I can handle at this hour of the morning!
Agreed. See my earlier post (#17), for an excellent example of this, scarcely a month old.
True, but that was before the ads were rolling.
I'm not a paid political advisor, but wisdom dictated a month ago that President Bush keep his money in his pocket until he had a candidate chosen to defeat.
Also, I truly believe that the 9/11 hearings will clear the President of smear and make him look better to the public. It's basically free advertising for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.