Replies

MUST READS . . .

ADVISING HIS SON, 'BUSH BASHING'
Charlie Gibson interviews President Bush 41

Gibson: Tell me which is harder — to be President and to be subjected to the criticisms that come with the job, or to watch your son be subjected to those same criticisms.

Bush:Not a close call. Far worse is watching your son come under fire. Far worse. And we had it to some degree with my second son in Florida who's finishing his second term, Jeb, the governor. And we've had it with the president when he was governor, and now as president. And it's not even a close call. It is not even a close call, when you're responsible for your own acts, when you're the President, you, you take it. Now, I'm just a — just a sentimental … father, who doesn't like it when his kids are criticized.

And it comes with the — I'm not saying it doesn't go with the territory. But you know there's a lotta Bush-bashing, there's a lotta people out there that have nothing good to say about it. I'd hate to single out a newspaper for example but, I can't remember the New York Times ever writing anything positive about our son. And every, we all know that it's a very liberal paper and all of that. But it's, Barbara says, "why do you read it, why do you sit in here complaining all morning?" I say I just wanna get it out of the way. And, but it hurts far worse when, when your son is criticized than when I used to be.

Gibson: What rankles you the most?

Bush: Well, there's all kinds of things that — you mean about criticizing the son?

Gibson: Yep.

Bush: [PAUSE] It's hard to — I couldn't — I don't think I could quantify it for you. But …

Gibson: Is it the criticism on the war? Is it criticism on domestic issues?

Bush: I think it's criticizing him as a person. And it started off that he was a dumb guy, here's a guy who graduated from Harvard Business School, Yale University, did a good job in both, and for some reason the press picked up that he was dumb. And it just burned me up to a fare-thee-well. So that kinda criticism — you don't, you don't hear that much anymore. Very little if any. That kinda personal attack. If you're gonna attack somebody on a, on a, say the differences on the war or difference on the economy or differences on some legislative bill that's one thing. But when it gets so personal, that's what I don't like.

You can read the entire transcript at
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2532996&page=2

ATTENTION ‘BUSH BASHERS’ — GEORGE W BUSH WILL BE OUR PRESIDENT UNTIL JANUARY 2009
By E. Harold Keyes / guest columnist

A day seldom goes by without the media’s attacks on our President.

They condemn his foreign policy of pre-emptive military strikes against an ideological enemy who is determined to attack our nation’s interests and kill Americans wherever they find them. Do they want him to wait for another attack on our country before acting?

And don’t buy the argument that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our nation. To the contrary, he was paying $25,000 to each Palestinian family that would sacrifice one of their family members to carry out suicide bombing missions against the State of Israel, an ally we have vowed to protect for more than 50 years. He also violated most agreements he made with coalition nations who kicked his army out of Kuwait. In fact, it was discovered that Saddam was in cahoots with the United Nations “Oil for Food” program that deprived the Iraqi people of needed food, clothing, and medical care. Many innocent Iraqi men, women and children were tortured or starved to death during those years. He also had his anti-aircraft gunners firing on our planes daily in defiance of the “no fly zone” imposed on Iraq.

Is it not only logical to think he would wait us out until he could obtain the ultimate weapons against our country? Don’t be so naive to think that he would not have retaliated against the U.S. if given enough time to develop weapons of mass destruction or to align with other terrorists that wish to do us harm? And be reminded, he had the oil resources to obtain weapons or hire terrorists to do his will.

You can read the entire commentary at
http://www.meridianstar.com/opinion/local_story_278004152.html?keyword=topstory

POLLING INFORMATION . . .

All you need to know about the current batch of MSM polls is that their results remain UNCHANGED from previous polls!

And they remain unchanged despite the Woodward book, the Foley pseudo-scandal, and the continued GROSS OVERSAMPLING of Democrats:

AP/IPSOS REID
Registered Voters:
54% Democrats/Democrat-leaning Independents
38% Republicans/Republican-leaning Independents
+16 Democrats -- unbelievable!

Likely Voters:
51% Democrats/Democrat-leaning Independents
41% Republicans/Republican-leaning Independents
+10 Democrats
[After a 37:37 split in 2004, we're now expected to believe that Democrats hold a 10 point advantage?! . . . NOT!]

[Click "topline results"]
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3210

PEW
Registered Voters:
51% Democrats/Democrat-leaning Independents
38% Republicans/Republican-leaning Independents
+13 Democrats

[Click "topline questionnaire"]
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=290

MSM polls continue to redefine the terms BIASED and BOGUS!

We can only hope the Democrats actually believe this tripe . . . Their overconfidence will help us WIN on election day!