FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 01/14/2003 7:21:56 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON - One story line from the capital: President Bush will have a good war, his economic offensive shows that he will avoid the domestic traps that caught his father, his popularity will remain high, and he will roll to a second term in 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I am still optimistic because I think this is the right approach - the remarkable thing about the Bush administration is that it is on the offensive, not on the defensive....
Ashland, Missouri
Yes, the Impeached Rapist was SO popular he pulled in a whopping 49% of the vote.
Johnson's high approval ratings reflected his "War on Poverty", but neither he nor Bush can escape the consequences of an unpopular war. Bush knows that and the Iraq business will not be a long drawn-out affair run from the White House with a automaton running the Department of Defense.
So, in my view, his challenge is to hang on to FL, NH, AR and WV. If he does that, he wins. Or if he loses one or two of those states, he just needs to win some competitive states like WI, NM, IA, OR, WA, PA or MI. Losing Florida would make things much tougher, though, so you can bet that little brother will be working hard (again) to deliver that state.
If the economy improves, as I expect it will, Bush will win. And I don't expect a war with Iraq to affect him much either way.
Is this the new strategy?
George W. Bush is an airhead like Ronald Reagan. Oops! Didn't work.
George W. Bush is weak, like his father was weak. Oops! Didn't work.
George W. Bush is a evil, dictatorial socio-path like Nixon. Waiting ... waiting ...
Nixon: Watergate may not have doomed him if he didn't try a coverup,came out and apologized profusely.
Carter: He had a miserable economy but it was the Iran hostage crisis that drove his numbers into the dirt.
Bush Senior: He made "read my lips" the centerpiece of his campaign and committed the biggest political blunder since Watergate when he broke that promise.
New York is very winnable. Especially, unfortunately, if Bush picks Guliani for veep. The Dems can't win any national election without NY.
By the way, President Bush already has a Vice President - Dick Cheney.
What he did not realize is that problems won't go away if you ignore them. Fortunately for the country he now has solutions for these problems. If the solutions work he will have clear sailing. If not, ???
(however he might keep checking the rest of the world and make sure small problems don't develop into big ones)
Who has moved so far left he's crowding Lenin.
2) NYC has had a Republican mayor for a decade.
There's also a big difference in ideology between Giuliani and Bush. And Bloomberg was a Dem until about a week before the election (exaggeration for effect).
3) Republican Convention will be held in NYC and focus on National Security which has suddenly become the most important issue to NYC residents.
2000 GOP convention was in Philly. Bush lost PA.
4) Rev. Al will take a disproportionate # of black votes in NYC
I doubt it, if party leaders even allow him to still be in the race by then.
5) Chaney's out. Bank on it. The question is "who replaces him?"
I'd perhaps put more stock in your declaration if you at least could spell the VP's name correctly. I can't even begin to imagine why the President would want to replace such a valuable asset.
Gore won NY with 60% of the popular vote in 2000, and the Impeached Rapist pulled the same percentage in NY in '96.
Basically I'm in agreement with you. Up to now Bush could only do one thing at a time. His biggest priority was to reach out to black, Jewish, Hispanic and women voters to increase the GOP base. Maybe Chaney was to take care of Israel/Palestine, North Korea and the economy. I think Bush took care of his end.
You condescending attitude needs no work. You've got it down. However, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that I'm on your side:
From my original post: New York is very winnable. Especially, unfortunately, if Bush picks Guliani for veep. The Dems can't win any national election without NY.
I live in NY & I know Rudy personally. His heart is in the right place, but he's a shameless liberal on many social issues. He is as far right as you are ever going to get out of NY, but he's terrible on a national level.
Sharpton is going to do what he wants to to regardless of what "party leaders" want. He's looking for a cabinet post. His candidacy will devote a lot of time to trashing the democratic candidate. It won't swing black votes to Bush, but it will encourage blacks to avoid the polls.
I can't even begin to imagine why the President would want to replace such a valuable asset.
Again, agreed. But the VP is not a healthy man. I'm guessing he might step down on his own.
2000 GOP convention was in Philly. Bush lost PA.
That's right! I completely forgot that PA was Cheney's home state. Reading comprehension: Look into it.
I answer your post point by point, and you accuse me of not only being condescending, but not reading your post at all. Very interesting approach.
2000 GOP convention was in Philly. Bush lost PA.
That's right! I completely forgot that PA was Cheney's home state. Reading comprehension: Look into it.
:-D Well, this one's definitely out in left field. I'll take a stab and guess that you mean Giuliani as VP, not the convention, would deliver NY to Bush. Yet my comment was in response to your item #3, which made no mention of Rudy.
3) Republican Convention will be held in NYC and focus on National Security which has suddenly become the most important issue to NYC residents.
2000 GOP convention was in Philly. Bush lost PA.
See? I did read your post. [sweet smile]
Please don't attack, without foundation, my reading comprehension skills because you have a weak argument and/or flawed reasoning.
Three possibilities: (1) You didn't read my post, (2)You DO have a comprehension problem, (3) You enjoy being irrelevant. Which is it?
I say Guliani is a bad idea: You disagree, and tell me why Guliani is a bad idea.
And your attempted counterpunch that accuses me of having "hav[ing] a weak argument and/or flawed reasoning," also misses. Guliani's popularity was a big part of getting the convention to New York. Wether he is on the ticket or not, he is going to be a HUGE part of the convention, and the most important campaigner/fundraiser in NY. The Republicans did not have anybody of his stature in PA, so your example was irrelevant.
I trust that you already saw the flaws in your other counterpoints (Rev Al et al), which is why you let them go. Let the rest of it go as well. You are wrong. NY is winnable for the Republican party. This argument is not winnable for you.
1. The only aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian mess that was ignored was Yassir Arafat, who should be ignored. Sharon was one of the first leaders to visit the White House after Bush was elected.
2. The President and Vice President Cheney (note it is spelled with an "e" not an "a") were discussing the slowdown in the economy even before taking office. This is why he pushed for the tax cut, talked about energy and submitted a plan, and instituted reforms in the SEC.
3. North Korea has been on the agenda for at least a year. *See "Axis of Evil" speech.) The inclusion of North Korea in the axis must have been based on evidence prior to that speech. The situation was not being ignored.
Sorry, I have no idea of any helpful statements. Clinton got a 95% solution and it's about zero since Bush. The economy was off the debate board when both Bush and Clinton saw unlimited properity for as far as the eye could see. On NK, the Bush policy was not to talk with them.
Bush's efforts (or lack) has exacerbated problems in all three areas. I think he has caught on now.
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.