Replies

Don't underestimate Edwards. He is willing to advocate what it takes to win.

From his website (Dec. 18, 2002):

"Pointing to dramatic failures in stopping the September 11 terrorists from entering the country, Senator Edwards also proposed increasing the number of immigration, border patrol and state department consular officials by 10,000. He called for tripling funds for border control information technology, and condensing the confusing array of immigration documents."

Bush is going to be in big trouble if the economy is tanking in 2004, there is another big terrorist attack, and he's still dragging his feet on preventing illegal immigration.

It looks like Edwards' pollsters have told him that he cannot win a Senate re-election in 2004 so he has nothing to loose by running for Prez. I'm guessing that the NC Democrats will give Bowles another shot at a Senate seat. It's too early to know who the Republicans will run for that seat, but if I had to guess, I think Congressman Richard Burr of Winston-Salem has the inside track at the Republican nomination for that seat.

It is interesting to note that this Senate Seat has changed hands everytime it has come open since the mid-1970's when Senator B. Everett Jordon retired.

"Don't underestimate Edwards. He is willing to advocate what it takes to win."

I must agree with your assertion that we must not be overconfident of President Bush winning re-election. I always pray that he'll remain aware that he's human and mustn't think he's invincible.

But let's not fear the Democrats either. I fully expect the Democrats to do everything they feel they can to win, and we may even feel vulnerable sometimes. But John Edwards and all the other Democrats planning to run are not good men, and they can't pretend to be either.

So let's have faith and pray for the best for our nation.

"Pointing to dramatic failures in stopping the September 11 terrorists from entering the country, Senator Edwards also proposed increasing the number of immigration, border patrol and state department consular officials by 10,000. He called for tripling funds for border control information technology, and condensing the confusing array of immigration documents."

But...but...but I thought that Republicans were the ones that were against immigration. They always repress minorities! /sarcasm

I wonder how quickly this one will get kicked under the rug when Edwards realizes that he needs the Hispanic vote to carry California.

Your correct. It was obvious in his news conference the he is playing on just what the right feels it is lacking. Border patrol, immigration and the desire shown after 9/11 that ordinary Americans wanted to man civil patrols to help protect our infrastructure, it didn't happen and he is playing on that.

I would not totally misjudge Edwards.

He is a democrat but he is very central to most government policies. He does a good talk and can carry on a good debate. He has a cleaner background than Billy Boy...although we can admit he is a pure ambulance chaser...100 percent. Based on what I see...unless the Hilda beast comes out, which is not likely...he is number one. And I think he could easily carry both Carolinas easily and rack up some real good numbers thoughout the south (except Texas). And that probably is his major problem...he is not nationally known and his comments so far (all centralist) would lead one to think he is not pro-environment or pro-taxation which counts out most of the west coast being welling to vote for the guy. Bush can beat the guy...if the economy continues to go his way and no problems with the Iraq business occur.

Bush is going to be in big trouble if the economy is tanking in 2004, there is another big terrorist attack, and he's still dragging his feet on preventing illegal immigration.

Adding 10,000 border agents won't solve any problem. It's like Clinton's adding of 100,000 police to the streets of the cities. What did that do?

Bush is going to be in big trouble if the economy is tanking in 2004, there is another big terrorist attack, and he's still dragging his feet on preventing illegal immigration.

This is barely different from what people were saying on January 21, 2001. Then we had Election Day 2002. It's been proven over and over that the American public does not blame Bush for our current economic situation, fully expects more terrorist attacks, and doesn't exactly consider "illegal immigration" to be one of their top issues.

There is no way in hell the DNC is ever going to allow something like this to become part of their platform.

We should never accept Bush's reelection as a fait accompli. But at the same time, we should not overestimate the threat posed.