Skip to comments.
A Bush comeback (Robert Novak 7/3/04)
Townhall ^
| 7/3/04
| Robert Novak
Posted on 07/03/2004 2:47:16 AM PDT by Elkiejg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
"A Bush comback"??? I personally don't believe the LIEberals & their media cohorts in their constant doom predictions of the President's slide. I think it's wishful thinking..........however, it should motivate all sane, America loving people to vote and make sure Bush wins by a gigantic landslide.
And isn't this good news about Daschle? I bet if they put that book out on the net for sale, they'll make tons of money!
1
posted on
07/03/2004 2:47:17 AM PDT
by
Elkiejg
To: Elkiejg
I seriously doubt that the first "big spurt" Bill Clinton enjoyed didn't come until after the 1992 Democratic Convention.
2
posted on
07/03/2004 2:51:45 AM PDT
by
HHFi
To: Elkiejg
"saying that the Democratic National Convention, beginning in Boston July 26, will introduce him to voters at large.....again."
We're getting more candidate roll outs with kerry than we did with gore. At least with gore they were different. We got gore-the-statesman, gore-the-passionate, gore-the-alpha-male. With current guy, we get kerry-the-same, every time. His campaign would probably be better if maybe he was a viet nam vet or something.
3
posted on
07/03/2004 4:07:34 AM PDT
by
tbpiper
(Michael Moore…..the Erich von Däniken of political documentary)
To: Elkiejg
"The Democrats complain Kerry's campaign has done a poor job of presenting the candidate to the public."Actually they've done an excellent job. They've kept him in the closet.
4
posted on
07/03/2004 4:15:38 AM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(My parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents were all Democrats. My children are Republicans.)
To: tbpiper
I'm still half expecting Kerry to pull off a mask and reveal Dukakis standing there.
5
posted on
07/03/2004 4:17:23 AM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(My parents, grandparents, and greatgrandparents were all Democrats. My children are Republicans.)
To: Savage Beast
I think we had a true Bush "comeback" courtesy of the passing of Pres. Reagan. It changed the way a lot of Americans see the presidency. It had to open a lot of minds and force them to see the difference between a Kerry or Bush presidency. They are after all night and day. The similarities between Bush and Reagan were so striking that it may have turned the tide.
6
posted on
07/03/2004 4:28:49 AM PDT
by
keysguy
(Trust the media as far as you can throw them)
To: Elkiejg
I think all the pollsters are going to be embarassed in the end. Bush will trounce Kerry and it won't even be close. Any longtime political junkie can see that from a mile away. At least that is what I keep telling myself....then again, 49 million voted for Gore.
To: Elkiejg
re: Seeking to defeat Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle for re-election in South Dakota, conservative publisher Jameson Campaigne of Ottawa, Ill., is soliciting funds to mail a book called "The Other Side of Tom Daschle" to every one of 290,000 households in his state.
The book is written by lawyer Talmage Ekanger, a Federalist Society member from Milbank, S.D., and is published by Campaigne's Green Hill Publishers.
Does anyone have a link for this? I could not find one via Google. Seems like an excellent project, and a natural for online PayPal contributions.
To: Savage Beast
Actually they've done an excellent job. They've kept him in the closet. Exactly right. The more the US public knows about Kerry, the worse it is for the Dems. It is hard to believe that so many pundits give this guy a chance. He is the most liberal senator in Congress from the most liberal state in the US, Massachusetts. His principal supporter is Ted Kennedy. Besides having the baggage of the most liberal voting record, a singular lack of achievement as a legislator over a 20 year period, and being a billionaire, Kerry has an unsavory past as a member of the VVAW and associating with the likes of Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark.
With only 17% of the American public being self-described liberals, the Dems have nominated a lackluster candidate who is stiff, unappealing, and uninspiring. Once the GOP starts laying some heavy leather on this guy, Kerry will plummet like a stone. Bush is going to win in a landslide.
9
posted on
07/03/2004 4:41:28 AM PDT
by
kabar
To: Elkiejg
![](http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/mateus/yuck.jpg)
A mugging in progress!
10
posted on
07/03/2004 4:44:27 AM PDT
by
varon
(Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
To: kabar
The truth is 30 years ago a Kerry would never have been run by the dems. Today it's the rats and you see who they run and where, it's disgusting, Kennedy, Dashole and on and on down the line to Hitlery. Let's face it they run a ghastly gang.
11
posted on
07/03/2004 5:01:35 AM PDT
by
keysguy
(Trust the media as far as you can throw them)
To: Elkiejg
A footnote: There is no clear favorite of the party's right wing to succeed George W. Bush. Support for Colorado Gov. Bill Owens declined after his divorce. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would be favored, were it not for political apprehension about a Bush dynasty. Jeb the Rockafeller RINO green-republican land grabber is "right wing" now? If so, the GOP is in worse shape than I though.
After having him as my governor, I pray to God he never gets anywhere near the presidency.
12
posted on
07/03/2004 5:06:28 AM PDT
by
AAABEST
(Lord have mercy on us)
To: keysguy
I think you're right. I expect the American electorate to wake up to the light of day before the November election and realize just what a long, disastrous, dark night for America a Kerry presidency would mean--
and to realize that 9/11 WAS NEVER REPEATED--not because Al Quaida didn't try--not because the terrorists didn't want to repeat it--but BECAUSE OF THE SUPURB LEADERSHIP OF ONE MAN, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.
The Left-wing propaganda has intensified, and it's going to get worse. The fate of the United States and of the world hinges on American steadfastness in the face of a relentless, ubiquitous, ruthless propaganda campaign, unprecedented in history, even in Nazi Germany--and the Left-wing propaganda blitz is going to become even more intense as November approaches.
Americans must remain steadfast. The fate of the world depends on it.
13
posted on
07/03/2004 5:19:17 AM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(9/11 was never repeated. Thank you, President Bush.)
To: kabar
I think you may be right. The Left-wing Propaganda Machine (also known as the "mainstream newsmedia") will do
anything to put a Democrat in the White House--and hiding the realities of a Kerry from the American public is not even a consideration to them.
It's all part of distorting the information reaching the public. These people consider that their duty (truth be damned!)--and, even it it's not, then...their desire...so they're going to do it anyway.
Much of the public is aware of what these people are up to. There is no other explanation for the steadfastness of President Bush's support under such an endless, relentless barrage of propaganda, unprecedented in history.
Let's hope the remainder of the American people see through the left-wing, anti-Bush propaganda and recognize the truth.
14
posted on
07/03/2004 5:31:12 AM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(9/11 was never repeated. Thank you, President Bush.)
To: Elkiejg
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would be favored, were it not for political apprehension about a Bush dynasty.Yeah, only Kennedys, Cuomos and Clintons are allowed to have dynasties.
Speaking of which, it's amazing that the Demos are allowing Chappaqudick Ted to take over their convention. Would you buy a used car from this man??
15
posted on
07/03/2004 5:44:17 AM PDT
by
veronica
(Hate-triotism, the religion of leftists, liberals, anti-semites, and other cranks...)
To: keysguy
If the Demon leadership thought Bush was on the ropes, and then came back because of external events, then the hallucinogen they are on is weirder than I thought -- if Bush went through a bad period, it was *ALSO* because of external events, Abu Ghraib, Al-Sadr, Fallujah, Richard Clark, Wilson/Palme and other events staged by the Demonrats allies, either terrorists or fifth columnists or stooges planted during the Bent one's reign.
Abu Ghraib in particular frosts me since a stupid feminist politically correct general preened during the Clinton years is *DIRECTLY* responsible for what came out of Abu Ghraib (the truth is, what went on there doesn't really upset me very much and is nothing compared with cutting off someone's head -- what upsets me is allowing the enemies of the United States like the Democrats to exploit it...)
If Bush went down in the polls and Kerry went up, for a while, only an idiot would assume this is because of something the stealth candidate from the Socialist International actually did to increase his popularity...
16
posted on
07/03/2004 5:45:36 AM PDT
by
chilepepper
(The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
To: Elkiejg
A "book" about Daschle. Why don't we call this what it really is, a propaganda hit piece (sarcasm). The left would get everyone so spun up about this that the political impact may be lost. There is a double standard(I don't need to tell you) Nader gets scrutinized, coerced, and bullied not to run while Perot gets a place on the stage.
17
posted on
07/03/2004 5:49:31 AM PDT
by
lt.america
(Captain was already taken)
To: All
GO DUBYA!!
18
posted on
07/03/2004 5:54:31 AM PDT
by
IPWGOP
(I'm Linda Eddy, and I approved this message... 'tooning the truth!)
To: Savage Beast
"the left wing propaganda blitz is going to become even more intense"....Take that away from them and they have a hardcore membership of 25-30% and little else. They could never win an election in a majority of states for anything. It's the left wing press that keeps the rats in any kind of power at all. Without all that bias going their way the light of truth would destroy them.
19
posted on
07/03/2004 6:05:47 AM PDT
by
keysguy
(Trust the media as far as you can throw them)
To: Elkiejg
This is the 14th Presidential election in my lifetime. What I've noticed is while Americans are reasonably comfortable at home, any president can move the polls between 5 and 10 points any time he wants simply by giving a speech. Some presidents squander that kind of "good will." Johnson and Nixon did. Carter lost that ability due to events such as the economy that he thought he could control and couldn't. Plus Carter gave speeches telling Americans we were on the decline, rather pessimistic. Even so, the polls showed a dead heat one week prior to the election in 1980.
I don't think Bush has squandered that "good will," and I think he is an effective campaigner. He did a decent job campaigning to keep control of the Senate in the mid-term elections.
Since a poll swing of about 4 points translates into a landslide, I must conclude the job is Bush's if he wants it.
20
posted on
07/03/2004 6:06:26 AM PDT
by
stevem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson