1 posted on
07/15/2004 6:16:27 AM PDT by
Pokey78
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...
2 posted on
07/15/2004 6:17:32 AM PDT by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
The media, said Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek, in a unusual moment of candour the other day, wants Kerry to win and so theyre going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic ... And the New York Times is worried about bias at Fox. Nothing Fox is accused of doing even comes close to that bias. Newsweek is boldly admitting their magazine is just propaganda for Kerry.
To: Pokey78
Larry Sabito was on Fox this morning. Very depressing. He thinks Bush has to lose Cheney for another VP. He says for Bush this election is tied at best. Now I have some questions about this. Isn't Kerry supposed to be receiving his Edwards bounce now? Tied at best? On the other hand, we hear this story about the indifferent black voter base every election, and every election they vote in huge numbers for Democrats. Sabito also says Bush is losing in Pennsylvania and Florida right now...and that the electoral map looks just like four years ago, except that Bush has to get Florida back, and has a chance at Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this time. Anybody have any substantively good news out there? Has this country moved very far to the left? It's so scary.
6 posted on
07/15/2004 6:28:12 AM PDT by
rushmom
To: Pokey78
Fabulous: Should be read into the record at the Republican Convention.
But the other reason Id bet on Bush is more basic: he tends not to lose.
This is what the kool-aid drinkers refuse to see.
7 posted on
07/15/2004 6:28:57 AM PDT by
maica
(Hitlary says; "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"...)
To: Pokey78
Botoxicated Brahmin Bloviator from Massachusetts. LOL, I think I'll be using that one with my democratic friends!
To: Pokey78
But to say that you believe in voting against what you believe because you dont believe in believing in your beliefs is as close as you can get to admitting that the flip-flop perception is true: you stand for nothing; theres no there there. Another Steyn classic.
This guy needs to get out more. He's fantastic.
10 posted on
07/15/2004 6:31:55 AM PDT by
sinkspur
(There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
To: Pokey78
The 2000 census brought about, yet again, a further draining of electoral muscle from the Democrat north-east to the Republican south and west. This means that even if Bush won only the states he won last time round, instead of a squeaker, he'd beat Kerry by 278 electoral college votes to 260. An excellent observation. I haven't seen this pointed out anywhere else.
11 posted on
07/15/2004 6:32:37 AM PDT by
malakhi
To: Pokey78
I don't think it is possible to split Maine's electoral votes evenly--either they will split 3-1 or 4-0, depending on who gets more votes in each Congressional district. It isn't possible to lose in both districts and still have a statewide popular plurality, unless they have some really fuzzy math involved.
To: Pokey78
The only thing Thomas got wrong was that 15-point bounce. There was no discernible Edwards bounce outside his hair.That wasn't a bounce. That was a flounce of the Breck girl's hair.
13 posted on
07/15/2004 6:33:54 AM PDT by
dennisw
(Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time is Enemy action. - Ian Fleming)
To: Pokey78
...its about American resolve in dangerous times, Kerry and Edwards look way out of their league. Bingo. This is the main issue of the election. Kerry/Edwards call American resolve arrogance and they minimize dangerous times simply because they have no new ideas. Like Clinton's foreign policy team, Kerry/Edwards will focus on sending little boys back to Cuba and empty treaty cerimonies as an opiate for the simple minded.
14 posted on
07/15/2004 6:35:52 AM PDT by
rhombus
To: Pokey78
But to say that you believe in voting against what you believe because you dont believe in believing in your beliefs is as close as you can get to admitting that the flip-flop perception is true: you stand for nothing; theres no there there.I almost pity the Dems-not having a Mark Steyn.
Almost.
15 posted on
07/15/2004 6:36:33 AM PDT by
91B
(God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
To: A. Pole; Willie Green; XBob
A few months ago the Democrats were jeering about the Bush recession. Then the recession ended. So they started jeering about the jobless recovery. Then the jobs kicked in. So now theyre moaning that the jobs dont pay enough. Get the feeling this whole economy thing just isnt going anywhere for them?
A DNC water-carrier ping!
To: Pokey78
"Like a caged hamster,"
Can't stop laughing.
18 posted on
07/15/2004 6:40:39 AM PDT by
bad company
((<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism))
To: Pokey78
Pure gold...
"This is a first: a candidate who boasts that his conscience is at odds with his voting record. If you believe that abortion is the taking of a life, you vote against it. If you lose the vote, then you say, well, I personally believe life begins at conception, but I respect the will of the legislature, blah blah. But to say that you believe in voting against what you believe because you dont believe in believing in your beliefs is as close as you can get to admitting that the flip-flop perception is true: you stand for nothing; theres no there there."
To: Pokey78
Hes happy on his little hamster wheel, going round and round and getting nowhere, occasionally pausing to chew his nuts. I thought that was Teresa's job.
he doesnt believe he has the right to inflict his deeply held personal beliefs on Jacques Chirac, or Gerhard Schröder, or whoever the Belgian guy is.
LOL. Take that, Belgium!
20 posted on
07/15/2004 6:46:04 AM PDT by
Sloth
(We have to support RINOs like Specter; their states are too liberal to elect someone like Santorum.)
To: Pokey78
Unfortunately, every so often, theyll linger by the TV a little too long, Senator Someone Else will start to talk, and his party will remember that he is, indeed, John Kerry, and its too late to get another Someone Else. In every Presidential election held in my lifetime, the more charismatic or likeable candidate won the election. The only exceptions to that might be Johnson/Goldwater and Nixon/McGovern where neither of the candidates had much of an edge.
This year, it is again no contest in the likeability department. Senator Someone Else is a clear loser.
21 posted on
07/15/2004 6:58:42 AM PDT by
Dog Gone
To: Pokey78
Classic Steyn.
BTW, I happened to be surfing on the radio yesterday, and Steyn was on the Hugh Hewitt show @ 6:15 pm. I've never heard Hewitt's show before. Does anyone know if Steyn is a regular guest?
22 posted on
07/15/2004 7:00:30 AM PDT by
baseballmom
(Michael Moore - An un-American Hatriot)
To: Pokey78
A caged hamsters never struck me as being that interested in poking the perimeter. Hes happy on his little hamster wheel, going round and round and getting nowhere, occasionally pausing to chew his nuts. *Coffee spew*
23 posted on
07/15/2004 7:01:20 AM PDT by
Lunatic Fringe
(John F-ing Kerry??? NO... F-ING... WAY!!!)
To: Pokey78
Key demographics such as blacks and Hispanics are reported to be antipathetic to the candidate and difficult to corral. I've been saying this for weeks. Blacks aren't going to the polls for Kerry the way they did for their Brother Clintoon.
26 posted on
07/15/2004 7:04:27 AM PDT by
1Old Pro
To: Tax-chick
29 posted on
07/15/2004 7:15:54 AM PDT by
Tax-chick
(GUNS - the anti-liberal!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson