Sorta like this guy...right?
This was posted earlier.
BS
I say all these polls and feel-good electorate stories point to one inescapable conclusion: unmarried women should not be allowed to vote.
Actually, Grant wasn't a bad president. He was just a bad reader of character and had greedy market manipulators influence friends and members of his family which led to corruption within his administration. It didn't touch him personally, but hurt the way his administration has been viewed. It's too bad.
Wow, it's really easy to make up some news and put a biased headline on it.
A pure puff piece if there ever was one. This just in MSM. There will still be an election. The voters will still decide the outcome. All your puff pieces in the world won't matter one iota.
It's not propaganda. As a hard right-wing (male) conservative, I've voted consistently for Republicans since 1960. I didn't vote for ANYBODY in 1992, 1996 and 2004 because far as I was concerned, all the choices sucked.
Right now though, I have to agree that this president will be remembered as one of the worst we've ever had. I thought his old man was a terrible president (for a Republican) but I think Junior is even worse.
I know, I know, all you blind Bushbots are now gonna accuse me of being a Dummicrat plant but you're wrong as hell.
Propoganda...but I think we'll see some real "movement" after Monday's ABC documentary...will be devastating to the Clinton administration and its' ineptness regarding WOT.
Daily DNC talking point.
ALL: BTW IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN POST THE DAILY DNC PARTY FAX ON THE SITE? IT WOULD BE GOOD REFERENCE MATERIAL SO WE CAN ID THE REPORTERS WHO ARE BEING LAZY.
I think Knight is just another uninformed Sheeple.......
Sorta like this guy...right?
Hillary could be considered a "Republican since birth" too, you know.
Looks like a bunch of DNC talking points.
The headline, War Turns Southern Women Away from GOP, is deliberately meant to suggest that Southern women are turn against Bush on some large scale. However, the text of the article actually points out the OPPOSITE with this sole reference to any data:
Nationally, the AP-Ipsos poll found that only 28 percent of women approve of Bush's handling of the war. Bush did better in the South, but only slightly _ just 32 percent of women in the region said they approve of his handling of the war.
So, the author digs up two women voting for a democrat and then try to spin the whole thing as the South is falling when in fact the stats he himself uses disprove that! Sheesh!
The article says that in 2004 Bush increased his share of the vote among Southern women to 54% (which is phenomenal, considering that black women are over 30% of the female vote in several Southern states). Then the article claims that "many" Southern women are turning away from Bush, and gives as an example a liberal woman who claims to have voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004; if she already voted against Bush in 2004 (*against* the trend in the South), how can she speak for the 54% who voted for Bush that year? And given that Bush's 2004 increase in the Southern female vote took place largely in districts that are either heavily Republican or that vote Republican for the House but Democrat for Congress, I don't see how an alleged rollback of his 2004 female vote to 2000 levels will defeat GOP House candidates. This article is Democrat hype, pure and simple.
MSM cheerleading for the dems as usual.
Dixie Belle ping
"War Turns Southern Women Away From GOP"
Not this southern woman.
the DIMocRAT media is "whistling in the dark", as they KNOW the DIMs are DYING as a NATIONAL party. they will NEVER again win the POTUS, as they cannot/WILL not carry dixie. (without the majority of dixie, DIMs LOSE every time.)
by 2016 (perhaps by 2012) , i predict that the DIMs will be IRRELEVANT as the "green party" is now.
free dixie,sw