Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Bush Win? YES
SFgate.com ^ | August 29, 2004 | Bill Whalen

Posted on 08/29/2004 12:00:04 PM PDT by veronica

The Republican wartime president sensed his days in office were numbered. His leadership and competency had been questioned; he stood accused of lying about his reasons for going to war.

Party insiders talked openly about shaking up the GOP ticket. And there was that pesky Democratic challenger, whose main celebrity was his military resume.

So gloomy, in fact, was this president's outlook that he wrote the following after a particularly lousy Cabinet meeting on Aug. 23 of that election year: "This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this administration will not be re-elected."

Before all you "Fahrenheit 9/11" fans overheat, I have bad news: the aforementioned Republican was Abraham Lincoln, not George W. Bush.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gwb2004; lincoln; whalen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 08/29/2004 12:00:05 PM PDT by veronica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: veronica

Bush WINS BIG!!!!!


2 posted on 08/29/2004 12:02:05 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

ping for later read


3 posted on 08/29/2004 12:08:16 PM PDT by MacDorcha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60
Your closest comparables on wartime presidential elections are:

1916, when Wilson won re-election narrowly with less than a majority of the popular vote. Wilson and Clinton were the only ones to ever be elected twice with less than a majority of the popular vote.

or . . . drum roll, please . . .


1864, when Lincoln blew out McClelland.


4 posted on 08/29/2004 12:09:36 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (crime would drop like a sprung trapdoor if we brought back good old-fashioned hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Yeah he can win, easily, but does he want to?

I was watching the Olympics this am, and NBC cut in with Campbell Brown (she's still standing on a box) and Karen Hughes. Karen was grovelling before Brown, apologizing for what the Swiftvets are doing. If that wasn't pathetic enough, Bush then crawlled before a no-name reporter, saying all 527s should be banned.

Uh, George, First Amendment? Remember when Gary Sick published that nutty book about your dad jetting over to the middle east in an SR71? Remember the libels against poor Cap Weinberger just days before the election? Remember that your dad lost on the basis of those lies?

George, just how did Kerry get 3 purple hearts without spending a day in a hospital? George, it's time for you to get up on your hind legs and walk like a man.

George, I just bought 20 of those books at the local bookstore (it's all they had), and gave them to those old buzzard VFW and Am Legion Democrats. I'm on your side George, how about you? You keep on apologizing to Kerry, I won't be, either.

5 posted on 08/29/2004 12:10:22 PM PDT by spudsmaki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spudsmaki

Two points...

Karen Hughes was disavowing, not Karl Rove. Her job is the warm fuzzy crowd...that's as it should be.

Second, Bush have NEVER said the vets have no right to say what they say...he says all 527s should stop. Who would be more upset, John O'Neill, or George Soros and every Hollywood lefty.

Don't misunderestimate Bush again, my friend...with the undecided, Bush has turned this from "mean old republicans" to "they all do it." That works for me...


6 posted on 08/29/2004 12:22:47 PM PDT by Keith (JOHN KERRY...IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III SECTION 3 OF THE US CONSTITUTION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Keith
What George and Karen should have said, but lacked the courage to:

The allegations of the Swiftvets are just that, their allegations. I had to deal with my own doubters, I dealt with that by signing form 180 and releasing all of my records to the public. Mr. Kerry should also sign form 180, because otherwise these allegations will never go away.

Instead, Bush said Kerry's service was honorable on its face. Sorry George, I'll take your word and the Johns should win the election.

7 posted on 08/29/2004 12:32:17 PM PDT by spudsmaki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Senators rarely win. JFK was the last barely. Its been over 40 years. I imagine liberal Senators from Massachusetts with a controversial past are even less likely.

Only three incumbants have lost in the last 100 years, all had bad economies dogging them.

No wartime President has lost, ever.

All sucessful democrat challengers in recent history have been Governors from the south.

No Democrat has been sucessful in recent history without carrying the south. The south is Bush country. THANKS SOUTHERNERS!!!!! where would we be without you?, being a Californian I apologize for this screwed up state, trying hard here you know.

No challenger has won without at least an 8 point gallup convention bump. Kerrys went negative.

Approval numbers for Bush are in re-election territory and rising.

Economic indicators favor re-election of the incumbant.

Kerrys wife is a kook. Its not an indicator. Sorry had to say something about that.

8 posted on 08/29/2004 12:33:42 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith

I don't even think they say all 527's should stop.

From the interview I heard with Dowd, the pollster for the GOP, they're proposing money restrictions on 527's like on other political action committees.

So you won't have a Soros giving 6 mil or that guy in Texas giving his seed money to the vets, max donation would be $2,000.

But nothing's going to happen, the 527's will continue to air their ads until election day with no problems on the FEC front.


9 posted on 08/29/2004 12:37:19 PM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Before all you "Fahrenheit 9/11" fans overheat, I have bad news: the aforementioned Republican was Abraham Lincoln, not George W. Bush.

LOL

Bush/Cheney Bump for Victory and Freedom

10 posted on 08/29/2004 12:39:40 PM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

I think your map showing electoral votes may be out of date. It shows Oklahoma with 10 electoral votes. We lost population during the last census and consequently our congressional delegation was reduced by one seat.


11 posted on 08/29/2004 12:44:06 PM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

Lincoln said this just before the election of 1864:

"This morning and some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that the current administration will not be re-elected.

Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the president elect, as to save the union between the election and the inaugeration. As he will have secured his election on such grounds that he cannot possibly save it afterward."

nick


12 posted on 08/29/2004 1:12:21 PM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
Only three incumbants have lost in the last 100 years

Ahem??

Taft 1912, Hoover 1932, Carter 1980, GHW Bush 1992

13 posted on 08/29/2004 1:21:09 PM PDT by SAJ (Next up -- Buy March RR 800 straddles. Mkt settled 794 tonight, buy straddles if 790 < mkt < 810.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: spudsmaki
Yeah he can win, easily, but does he want to? I was watching the Olympics this am, and NBC cut in with Campbell Brown (she's still standing on a box) and Karen Hughes. Karen was grovelling before Brown, apologizing for what the Swiftvets are doing. If that wasn't pathetic enough, Bush then crawlled before a no-name reporter, saying all 527s should be banned.

It appears you and I are troublemakers in this bot world of CINO's.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1202024/posts?page=101#101

And then when I said I didn't think Bush could bend over any further, I got the Bible quoted to me.

Lest anyone think we are trolls, I suggest you listen to Sean Hannity and Rush consistently and you will hear the same phrases. Rush: "I just don't think Bush wants it as bad as the left."
Sean: [A 10 minute RANT last week which BLASTED Bush on his stand against the 1st Amendment.

Folks the time has come to decide what it is you really believe in. More unlimited immigration, globalism, islamonazi apologists and more acceptance of baby butchering and traitorous legislating judges, or rather, do you intend to fight? I think appeasement "for the party" is the name of the game around here these days.

One can give a little in order to gain, but only for so long. Sooner or later you have to make a stand to keep from going backwards indefinitely. A slow backwards motion can not somehow miraculously turn into a forward motion without a stand and without a fight against the status quo. Period.

/RANT

14 posted on 08/29/2004 1:21:23 PM PDT by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Keith
Bush have NEVER said the vets have no right to say what they say...he says all 527s should stop.

This seems almost a Clintonesque kind of parsing. If the government can tell you when and where you can put your money, and what you can say with it, the effect is to take away your right of speech. Bush's worst presidential moment was signing CFR.

Who would be more upset, John O'Neill, or George Soros and every Hollywood lefty.

I don't care who of them would be more upset; that's the wrong focus. We're talking about a basic right here that's been squelched by CFR and now could be expanded. I hate the left and their lies, but it's wrong to limit my own free speech in some futile attempt to shut them up.

15 posted on 08/29/2004 1:35:47 PM PDT by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spudsmaki

Don't make the mistake of underestimating GW. Many have and many have bit the dust. Just ask Ann Who.


16 posted on 08/29/2004 1:36:05 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ops33

That's the map from 1916...


17 posted on 08/29/2004 1:45:17 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: veronica

Kerry won't carry more than 10 states.


18 posted on 08/29/2004 1:51:24 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Only three incumbants have lost in the last 100 years Ahem??

Taft 1912, Hoover 1932, Carter 1980, GHW Bush 1992

dang it! last 90 years!

19 posted on 08/29/2004 2:08:18 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ops33

Oklahoma didn't lose population. No state did during the 90's. Only DC lost population between the two censuses. But Oklahoma didn't grow fast enough to keep up with the other states' growth. So they lost representation in the reallocation.


20 posted on 08/29/2004 2:20:11 PM PDT by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson