The President’s Re-election Prospects Have Nearly Disappeared

Varied Internet sources, via Google ^ | 9/25/03 | Coop

[Coop]

Why?

-We’re engaged in a long-term war against an enigmatic enemy, with no end in sight

-American military members are suffering and dying at the hands of terrorists on foreign soil

-The media makes a concerted effort to only portray the President in a negative light

-The President’s job approval numbers are well under 60%, with just over a year left until the election

-The President scores well under 50% on polls asking if he should be re-elected

-The economy is struggling to emerge from a recent recession

-Defense spending is way up

-Budget deficits are a serious concern

-National unemployment is over 6%

-The Democrats have assembled a formidable, diverse group of contenders that criticize the President constantly, including one quote: "If [our soldiers] were sent there to fight, they are too few. If they were sent there to die, they are too many."

[MEGoody]

"Bush would have been re-elected in 1983? That would have been a neat trick, for father or son."

You're right. Meant Reagan. Was thinking Bush.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Getting really sick and tired of seeing old sign up dates with new screen names

Whaaaa!!! Sniff Sniff... Mr. Modewator...sniff...sniff...That bad man is using a name I haven't seen before, and he's criticizing George Bush whaaaa!!!! How pathetic. I've always had the same screen name since the first day I signed up. Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here... Just my two cents, too.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

So you'd classify Bush as a RINO. Well, get ready, because if you and those like you cause Bush to lose, you keep your principles, but you'll pay out even more in taxes for an even bigger Medicare prescription benefit.

Oh, so then you are admitting Bush is guilty of the same egregious socialist agenda, it's just a matter of scale. How easy it must be to not have any principles, or ones that are easily bought by offering a softened incremental version of socialism rather than full-bore pinkoville. If George W. Bush loses, it will be because of George W. Bush and the robots that support him no matter what he does, not because of people like me.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Wow, eight months into office. While for 8 years his democratic predecessor(Clinton) refused 3 times to take the mastermind of 9/11(osama bin ladin) into American custody when he was going to be handed over by Sudan.

What? I've got no argument with that. I don't think you've been following the thread. I got no problem with GWB's war on terror, nor do I lay even the slightest bit of blame at his feet for 9/11, which was completely a Klintoon debacle. We were discussing what the response would have been from the Great Ronaldus Maximus had he been in office during 9/11.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

#149 Finally somebody gets it. We don't want W out, we want him to grow a darned spine and stop selling out. He'll never do it as long as everyone keeps acting like BBFMs® (BushBot Flying Monkeys)

[MEGoody]

"Oh, so then you are admitting Bush is guilty of the same egregious socialist agenda, it's just a matter of scale."

LOL I never called Bush's agenda "egregious socialist,' but you can if you want to.

The issue is, not one person in the United States is ever going to be completely satisfied with everything that the current President does. Come election time, we just each choose the lesser of the evils as it were.

Personally, I like a lot of the things Bush has done. Not everything. But come 2004, I will be voting for him again over the Democrat.

So far, Libertarians and Constitution Party loyalists haven't been able to present me with better, more viable options. I wait with baited breath. :)

[Mr. Silverback]

There are some on here who think Reagan wasn't conservative enough to vote for.

Yeah, and that's pretty scary. Lots of folks who think he was too much of a moralist, too.