Okay people. I know it's a little early for jumping to conclusions, but for the next few months (at least until January) this poll should suffice. I didn't get to include everyone, just those that have any kind of a chance so if you picked the last option, please let us know who you're supporting or who you believe can do it.

Please also remember not to vote for who you want to win, but who you think will win.

My vote is for Dubya. Anything less, in my opinion, is just trying to fool yourself.

Why wasn't Howard Dean added? I mean, he is the biggest democratic contender.

You left off our next president - Howard Dean.

While I won't vote for either him or Bush, it has been my contention since early summer that Dean's the man. I've stated in another thread that events leading to this election have, thus far, mimicked those of 1992. The economy's down, job loss is high, we have soldiers spread out all over the world that need to come home. We have a semi-unknown, but charismatic democratic governor from a no-where state* making waves by actually disagreeing publicly with Bush.

As long as the McAuliffe branch of the DNC doesn't do anything to thwart Dean or any third parties split the vote, he will be the next president of our country.


*(sorry Vermonters )

BH,
It was my mistake I totally forgot about him. He should be there but I was not able to make any amendments. Go ahead and mark the last option and then add his name in your reply. Sorry.

Jaime,
now you've got to be pipe dreaming...Dean? HE's merely a distraction and has no chance of beating Bush. Supposing he made it through the primaries he would only win such a large number of votes because he is the DNC's Ticket. I think if the Dems really want to win.....go with Leiberman. He's the only one with his head screwed on right and he can cross partylines to steal the moderate vote as well as some that call themselves Conservatives. Then He'd get the Dems vote just for being Dem. Den, he'd beat dem, which is actually us, the Reps.
The DNC has too many problems these days to not go with what's safe. If Dean goes, he'll be painted like the Liberal he is that'll be game over.

And what's this? You're not voting next year. You can't possibly be voting for a third party? Uh oh. Go ahead, throw your vote away!

I didn't vote because while I think Bush will win, I'll neither jump for joy or drink heavily.
And JL, throwing your vote away?? I refuse to go through life always picking the lesser of two evils

I would like to point out to the dean supporters that the DLC doesn't support him and karl rove (bush's brain) does. does this seem like a good thing? ( http://www.mydd.com/archives/000666.html - http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm) Dean Would Rather Execute an Innocent Man, Than Let a Guilty One Walk Free (Howard Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up) he lies about tax cuts (Dean caught in blatant tax-cut lies by Tim Russert) he takes responsibility for things he had nothing to really do with (such as vermonts balanced budget, and their health care system, which vermont's legislature is actually responsible for, after all they passed the bill, dean just signed them) howard dean says that those that say anything to get elected won't win, and then says anything to win! only 32% percent of vermonters will vote for him as president! and you have to figure that they would know (they did live under him for about 8 years)(Poll: Vermonters Won't Vote Dean President)

now that I am done ripping howard dean apart, my choice is dennis kucinich. I seriously think he can win. most workers view NAFTA as taking their manufacturing jobs out of america, and he is the only person willing to do anything about it (all other candidates want to keep NAFTA) he is the only candidates willing to drop the retirement age to 65 (dean wanted to raise it to 70, but is now saying he wants to keep it at 68, example of him saying anything to get elected) kucinich wants to start public works projects to improve our infrastructure (which is crumbling) and create new jobs (big issue with an official +6% unemployment rate) he has a workable plan for universal single payer health care, something that everyone wants and needs, he wants to restore our manufacturing capabilities to full capacity, which will help our economy (only thing that can really) he wants to actually work towards clean and renewable energy, and much more, which you can read his official campaign website also, kucinich is the only candidate that can pull greens, reds, and other "fringe" groups that would take votes from dems. (if you take all the fringe groups and count them as one group there are a lot out there) he is also most likely to pull in disenfranchised voters as well as new ones, which other will likely have problems doing.

and for those that support dean because kucinich is "un-electable" (if everyone that said voted for kucinich he would win ) I refer you to Kucinich v. Dean, issue by issue

Then you also refuse to ever have a vote that counts. If you register Libertarian your electoral vote is appointed to one that will be instructed to vote Libertarian. Maybe this year the Libertarians will get one electoral vote somewhere. Please don't assume that I don't share several of your Libertarian views, I just can't bear to throw my vote away.

Throwing your vote away can't be any worse than giving it away.
I gave Bush mine the last time, and that may not happen again. On the other hand, the Dems. haven't put up a viable candidate yet. We need a 3rd party, a new one that represents moderates instead of trying to appeal to a mixed bag of extremists and single issue voters. The miniscule alternatives that exist now have no chance of electing a president.
And as long as BOTH parties are in bed with business and/or special interests instead of doing what is best for the long term good of the entire nation, I will always be stuck with voting for the lesser of 2 weasels.
I predict that he is out with a single term. He didn't have a clear majority the last time, and he hasn't been doing a stellar job, so he is probably out.

I went to a Dean meet-up yesterday. There was a loud McCain Republican with a southern accent who was a Dean supporter! Most moderates are more like Dean than Liberman. They are for McCain-Fiengold and fiscal responsibility. That's the huge moderate base Dean taps into.
The best way to win an election is to energize your base. You don't do that by being exactly like the other side. Dean has tons more support from the grassroots base than DLC Liberman. Bush has made democrats and independents so mad that not being a strong alternative is foolish. The liberal democrats are really preparing to make a big showing in the national election, just you wait.

Sorry for being idealistic but I'm going to try to do what I think is right. Nobody ever won an election by giving up or by assuming it was over before it started. Maybe we can fool ourselves into the White House.

Howard Dean looks as if he will take the democratic nomination, and when he does he will lose.

If Hillary Clinton thinks that Dean can beat Bush, then she will win and she will take the nomination, though I doubt it will happen.

Dean is a right winger like the rest of them. The only person left of center is Kucinich. Dean has strangely convinced everyone that he is left of center while having right wing policies, so Kucinich wont even get the liberal democratic vote. The only people who will end up voting for Kucinich will be social democrats who want to do it just to raise his profile (though Kucinich is not a social democrat, but being the only liberal democrat he appeals to them).

RU,
I don't doubt that the Libs will make a big show, I do doubt that America will be very receptive to that show. I think the Libs anti-American/Bush scorn will turn off most Americans. This year the Dems won't run against Republican Ideals, they'll run against Bush and that will be a fatal mistake.

And you can vote third party, just realize that you are throwing your vote away. This is a two party system and no one meets all of your requirements. If your going to settle, settle for the one who has the chance to win and most of your ideals will be represented. This divide has killed Republicans in California because they are split between moderates and Conservatives. The Conservatives always end up ruining the chances of any Republican hope because they slander the moderates until they are out of the running, then no one else in the state will vote for the Conservative they put up in place. Or look at it this way, had idiots not voted for Ralph Nader in Florida, Al Gore would most certainly be our president today. Oh thank heaven for Ralph Nader!

Did anyone watch the "debate" yesterday? All they did was make jokes poking fun at GW, maybe some ideas would be nice? Oh yeah, that's right, Dean [the Frontrunner] supported taking us out of NAFTA and WTO, God help us if he finds a way to win, don't count on it though.

CP

Kucinich advocated pulling out of NAFTA and WTO, but I don't remember Dean saying that. I remember him advocating reform of NAFTA and WTO to include human rights standards.

Oh, perhaps, I thought Dean said something a long those lines, maybe it was everyones favorite DemSocialist. Well, the point I was making is that they had 0 ideas and infinite rhetoric, and some really funny jokes btw.

CP

There was a lot of Bush bashing going on. It wasn't unlike every other presidential debate I've seen. Lot's of "When I'm president, I'll save the world, and hand out free candy bars to everyone." type stuff. I wish that they would get past all of the propaganda and just answer the damned questions.

Of all of the candidates, I think Dean was one of the more impressive, but it's still early. The dirt's gotta come out eventually.

Actually CP & Cyan,
I did catch the debate yesterday and all I saw were a bunch of out-of-date political dinosaurs. I wouldn't trust these people to formulate plans to go out to dinner let alone run a country!

I know this is straying a bit off topic, but I wouldn't consider a third party vote "throwing your vote away"...Gore lost in 2000 because people like me "threw their vote away" to Ralph Nader to send a message...we don't like either of these sorry candidates. If enough people starting "throwing their votes away" maybe we could get out of this silly two party system rut - most especially, if you are in a state that is heavily in favor of one party (like the NE/Atlantic states being heavily Dem and many of the central states being heavily Rep) it's hardly throwing your vote away because it would take a HECK of a lot of of "throw aways" on the other side for your party's candidate to have a shot anyway.

As for the topic at hand, sadly Bush can and very well might be re-elected (I will probably cry if he does). I think the only two candidates with a shot at beating Bush are Dean and Lieberman. Most of the more left-leaning dems don't like Lieberman, but might see him as the only shot at beating Bush so they're "throw" their vote to him in the primaries because he's a household name and his politics are far more similar to Bush's than any of the other candidates, leaving the Reps who dislike Bush the option to vote for Lieberman...that would, however, likely have a similar result as in 2000 in which there were a decent number of third party votes - in this case, Green Party or Independent candidates might get more votes from the Dems or other "left-leaning" folks rather than vote to elect a pseudo-Democrat (Lieberman). Dean seems to be winning a lot of hearts and fast. He seems to say all the right things (whether or not any of it is true doesn't matter much since every politician lies to get the votes - doesn't make it right, but that's how the game works). I like almost everything (except the Death Penalty issue) about Dean that I've read, so I would vote for him...most of the socially liberal dems, like myself, are in favor of either Dean or Kucinich - with Dean getting more "airtime" than Kucinich and probably more support as a result (and because he's not "too" far left that he won't get enough "swing" votes). Hope some of that made sense

Dean is the only Democrat with a chance of beating Bush at this stage. A vote for crypto-fascist Lieberman or Bonesman Kerry might just as well be a vote for Bush (and I think - hope - most Democrats know that). Spineless idiots, Gephardt and Daschle, are history - thank God. They can spend the rest of their lives ineffectually whining in Congress - when they think it's safe to raise their sad little voices. It's nice for some to dream, but Kucinich has about as much chance of winning the 2004 presidential election as Ralph Nader or Michael Moore. The same, sadly, goes for the best candidate they've got: Bob Graham.

Now, if Hillary did jump in (and, apparently, she is considering it again), she would have a very good chance of winning - but, of course, she'd be assassinated well before we got to the election.

Can I assume that those who picked the last option are all Dean supporters?
Sorry I screwed that up so bad, it could've been so great.

The conservatives spokes clown is ignoring too many real issues facing this country such as health care. Eventually his lack of concern for the people of this country is going to come back to haunt the Republicans and their corporate controllers.

Welcome bicyclebarron - please try and be constructive in your debates here. :flowers:

Background on Howard Dean

Yes, johnlocke, Howard Dean should have been included in your poll. Dean's record is far more impressive than that of George W. Bush. The link I provided shows what Dean has done for Vermont.

One of my favorite early national polls listed the nine democratic hopefuls, Hillary Clinton, and an unnamed Democrat who had failed to declare yet. The unnamed Democrat led the polls. No John Locke, if you weren't clearheaded enough to include the Democratic front runner in your poll, I won't give you the free pass to assume anything about those of us who voted for an unnamed other.


I have to agree. If I remember my history correctly, until Abraham Lincoln was elected, the "Grand Ole Party" was a "third party." As it is, a lot of us feel that we wasted our votes in 2000. We voted for Gore, and while he had more votes nationally; Jeb Bush managed to throw his state's Electoral College votes into the Supreme Court, rather than allow Florida's actual votes to be counted. I still find it hard to swallow that Cheney was allowed to change his residency from Texas to another state before he was nominated as VP. I think the Supreme Court should have disallowed Texas Electoral College votes altogether, as long as they were determining the next President. The 12th amendment states in part:


Do I think Bush will win "re-election?" I still don't think he was properly elected to begin with, and I don't trust him at all. I may be "wasting" my vote by voting against G. W. Bush in the next Presidential election, but I feel I would be wasting my rights as a citizen of a Democracy to cast my vote for the incumbent President simply because the Polls told me he was popular. I'd rather have a chance to influence someone in a two party system, than to live in a one party "democracy."

BUSHITES YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED

Let's compare resumes between your candidate and mine shall we?

YOUR CANDIDATE

TO KEEP THIS IN A POSITIVE LIGHT I WILL FOCUS ONLY ON THE SUCCESSES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

BUSH HAS SUCCEEDED IN PAVING THE WAY FOR WARLORDS TO TAKE CONTROL OF MUCH OF AFGHANISTAN

BUSH HAS SUCCEEDED IN ALLOWING AL QAEDA TO REGROUP IN AFGHANISTAN

BUSH HAS SUCCEEDED IN STEERING THE US INTO A BILLION-DOLLAR-A-WEEK QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ

BUSH HAS SUCCEEDED IN NOT FINDING ANY WOMDS!

BUSH HAS SUCCEEDED IN RUNNING UP DEFICITS OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS

BUSH HAS SUCCESSFULLY OVERSEEN THE ELIMINATION OF MILLIONS OF JOBS

BUSH HAS SUCCESSFULLY LOBBIED AGAINST A 2001 PROPOSAL TO HELP MODERNIZE THE POWER GRID

BUSH HAS SUCCEEDED IN ALLOWING NORTH KOREA TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS

HOW MANY MORE BUSH SUCCESSES CAN WE TAKE?

AND NOW MY CANDIDATE

General Wesley K. Clark is one of the nation’s most distinguished retired military officers. During his thirty-three years of service in the United States Army, he held numerous staff and command positions, served in Vietnam, and rose to the rank of 4-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander. (THINK INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION)

Now in the private sector, General Clark is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm, serves on the boards of several private corporations and non-profit organizations and comments regularly on politics, diplomacy and public affairs.

From 1997 through May of 2000, General Clark was NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. In this position, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO’s first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

From 1996 to 1997 General Clark served as Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command, Panama, where he was responsible for the direction of U.S. military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean.

From 1994 to 1996, he served as Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff with responsibilities for worldwide U.S. military strategic planning.

General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he graduated first in his class. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

General Clark is a recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He has received honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments and was made a commander of the French Legion of Honor. In August 2000, General Clark was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

General Clark is also an investment banker. He joined Stephens Inc. as a consultant in July of 2000 and was named Managing Director – Merchant Banking of Stephens Group, Inc. from March 2001 through February 2003.

An acclaimed public speaker and commentator for CNN, General Clark is the author of the best-selling Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat (Public Affairs, New York, NY, 2001).

He and his wife Gert live in Little Rock, Arkansas where he grew up and graduated from high school. They have one son, Wesley, who is married and lives in Los Angeles.

http://www.draftclark.com

LOOK FOR GENERAL CLARK TO ANNOUNCE HIS CANDIDACY SHORTLY AFTER 9-17
SUPPORT CLARK AND DEAN IN 2004

Do you really want a President who picks his nose on national TV? Bush did it plain as day and at a Rangers game no less. Take a look at your glorious leader:

Priceless footage of W publicly picking his nose -- right from ESPN coverage of a Rangers game when W was part-owner.

» Windows Media High Bandwidth (3.6 MB)
http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/gwtv/nose...h%20145kbps.avi

» Windows Media Low Bandwidth (1.1 MB)
http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/gwtv/nose...sh%2056kbps.avi

» QuickTime Version (3.8 MB)
http://www.gwbush.com/multimedia/gwtv/nose...ck/bushpick.mov

As much as I would like to see a better person in the White House, I doubt that Clark is the man we want. A lot of the bad things attributed to GWB are not his doing, they just happened on his watch. Think "poop" colored glasses.
A lot of Clark's listed accomplishments are "rose tinted" glasses.
Especially the Investment Banker and sitting on boards parts. I am sure that in all his career he has not picked up the skills required for those jobs. Lots of retired Generals/Admirals get to sit on boards and join with firms, based on the supposed value of their names, and little else. They are window dressing, image enhancers, or simply a nice image with no real substance within.
And even a Rhodes Scholar can, at times, be an idiot. Wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar or something similar? Massive brain power is nice if used justly, but common sense, good judgement, and a sense of fairness along with basic intellect will serve us better.
GWB picking his nose in public is an issue? How about the many congressional leaders we have who are picking our pockets, or are supporting the corporate types who have their hands in our pockets as long as they share the loot with their bought and paid for elected officials.
Is there a nose picking smilie?

If you're thinking popular vote, the likelihood of a Demo win in 2004 is very high.

The popular vote in 2002 said volumes about people wanting to stay on the track we were on before GWB. I see nothing that would change this fundamental other than 9/11, and I dare say that the handling of homeland security and international affairs has not endeared the GOP to those who voted Gore last time. Then there's the domestic issues of deficit spending like a drunken National Guardsman (very un-GOP-like). This might press moderate conservatives to the left, especially those with military-aged kids or kids who will come of draft age over the next five years.

The unemployment situation isn't helping as all we hear from GWB is tax cut. When income goes to zero, this resonates like a sledge hammer to the head.

The rural West isn't very happy with energy policy, either. Some ranchers (those with mineral rights) are doing well, but most don't have those mineral rights. So their ranches get torn up and they get diddley out of it. Don't expect GOP votes from them.

But who is going to pull this off? I'm not sure it will matter much who runs on the Demo ticket. The nation is ready to take a turn, and since it can't turn right any farther (without a military coup), that means left.

I'm also thinking the the left's publishing activities will resonate. The extreme hyperbole of the right isn't because the right is in power. It's just kicking folks when they are down, and though fun for the authors of diatribes about how the left is the cause of all problems, that dog done hunted and now snoozes near the fire.

Let's add the outrageous power grab in California from the right. However that turns out, CA will not shift to GOP. Not with strong-arm tactics like this.

But this hints at what is turning this ship left. People are becoming tired of being ignored and forced into things they don't want. I sense there's a growing resentment about being lied to.

Maybe Dean. I've felt that for a while, and do see some parallels with McGovern. But GWB isn't Nixon and Dean isn't a laid-back hippie dippie. The voting public isn't split between idealists and realists, but between believers and doubters. I'm not discounting Kerry--he has the look and demeanor, plus he handles the media attack dogs well.

I liked Kerry's statement about the Presidency should not be a training ground for governors. So a Kerry/Dean ticket? That might work.

PE,
I'm sorry I forgot Dean. Eventually we'll have a revision of this thread and he'll undoubtedly make it. At the earlier part of this thread, it's all explained.

Speaking of Dean and his track record though, earlier in this thread Unabomber provides great detail on the lack of accomplishments by Dean and attributes Vermont's balanced at that time to the Vermont Legislature. He also points out that in Vermont, he only has a 37% approval rating. What's up with that?


DeSade,
For everything you blame Bush for I could point out 10 Democrats that have implicated themselves in the situations and or made things worse. More than three quarters of your list actually even has little to do with Bush and the economy is on the upswing. Plus, Bush has won us two wars! Real wars! Clinton lost us three scirmishes! He had the full might of the US Military and he still lost! That left the US looking very bad and later bin Laden would look at those situations and recall how America was weak, then he'd be on his way formulating 9/11. Bush is great and I'll continue to support him.

My best guess (and I have been known to be very wrong in the past) is a crushing victory by Bush. The overwhelming reason? Because a building was destroyed in New York City a couple of years ago. I see the Democratic candidate, whoever it may be, as a sacrificial lamb. As far as wasting your vote goes, I suggest that all votes for Presidential candidates are wasted.

Gee, ya know I don't mean to be crass or anything, but TWO buildings were destroyed in New York City. Oh wait, they weren't just destroyed. Two airline jets (filled with innocent lives) plummeted intentionally into them at the will of crazy people. Wait, this just in.... the two buildings had over three thousand people inside them. Are you even an American?

Your last comment there wasn't quite necessary, jl, was it? And, as a matter of fact, NINE buildings were destroyed in the attack - with another dozen or so severely damaged. That's irrelevant to the fact that Victoria is quite right: were it not for the September 11 attack, we wouldn't even be talking about whether a Democrat could defeat Bush, we'd be talking about which Democrat would beat him by the bigger landslide.

Wertz,
Agreed. But since 9/11 The Taliban is Deposed along with Saddam Hussien. Terrorists everywhere are on the run like cowards. Israel and Palestine are in the midst of a lot of turmoil but at least they're talking and hopefully on their way to some kind of comprimise. Another Democracy is being established in an Arab country in the Middle East (hopefully a real one) and the truth about N. Korea and Iran are coming to the light of the public. Now for each of these accomplishments there have been several repercussions, but they do not lessen the progress we've made. After all, sometimes when you endeavour to do great things, you have to endure great prices. That doesn't lessen the reason for the cause.

I certainly did not wish in any way to diminish the horror of this tragedy. I simply wish to point out that this nightmarish event will absolutely guarantee a Republican victory. I do not say if that is good or bad for the USA; I certainly do not in any way wish to implicate any member of the Republican Party. I merely observe that war is good for Republican candidates. No offense meant.

I still think the Democrat with the best chance of winning is the same guy who won the popular vote in the last Presidential election, I don't think Al is going to get in the race though. Dean's stand on international trade is, as Lieberman pointed out, a recipe for disaster. You don't start a trade war in a recession, isolating your economy is voodoo economics.

This isn't a thread about 9/11 or what responses to it are or are not appropriate, Johnlocke. If you are a enthusiastic Bush supporter that's your right to feel that way, but taking cheap shots at other posters ("Are you even an American?") is taking the low road.

I'm assuming that Ms. Silverwolf is an American citizen residing in Tennessee, but even if she isn't, what would that have to do with the topic at hand?

And what business of yours would it be either way?

Nightimer,
I think you should realize that I was merely trying to keep 9/11 from being looked at like the day a building was destroyed.

Who are you anyways? Take a lesson from Hank Williams and mind yer own business.

I don't like or listen to Hank Williams and incivility towards other members of this board is my business.

Yours too, if you take the rules of America's Debate seriously.

Now can we get back on topic before a moderator locks this thread?

JL, It is extremely unconstructive to tell anyone on a debate board to 'mind their own business'.
Please refrain from that.

Let's get the topic back on track. The topic is not 9/11, it is "Can Bush Double Up on Terms?"

Exactly. It wouldn't have mattered much who was in office during 9/11 - unless there were some MAJOR (and I mean MAJOR) screw-up on his (or her ) part - 9/11 created a HUGE sense of "patriotism" (in quotations for a reason) and the President in office at the time would obviously be able to ride on the 9/11 coattails (regardless of any possible achievements or failures) for the next election.

I still think a Dem (or two) has a shot at beating Bush, but it seems that regardless of the popular vote, the electoral votes will likely once again go to Bush (well, I guess it would still depend upon how Florida's votes get counted - or NOT counted - this time around ) - I'm not getting my hopes up that he'll be defeated, but if he is, I will most certainly be celebrating

DTOM,
As much as I respect you I would like the chance to offer up this explanation. I had already been repremanded by Wertz who isn't an administrator and I had already commented in explanation. Then Nightimer tells me the same thing. I will not be singled out here. And if I remember correctly isn't there a rule about responding to people that are being rude and off topic. I believe there is. Thankyou very much. And so I'm quite sure he wouldn't have been told to mind his own business, had he minded his own business.

KM,
I don't think we can say things would be so similar had another President been in office during 9/11. Gore might have chumped out to the will of the terrorists and pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia. He might not have fought Afghanistan. He certainly wouldn't have had the guts to fight Iraq, might have nuked Afrika, you don't know. Hence....this world could have been a much worse place.

Not to mention that if we hadn't been attacked our economy might be great. So everyone can neander around thinking what life might have been without 9/11, but GW Bush knows what's going on now and that's whyhe's doing a fantastic job. Why must we assume that there is no real threat to America. The idea that nothing really bad can happen to us (like the fall of the central government) is really not thinking much. We should be lucky we have such a great president.

Very typical response by a right winger, disagree and then question thier patriotism, Lord I am tired of that- I will be voting ABB (anyone but bush) whomever wins the primary. I will be making a very large donation to the campaign of anyone that wins that primary as well. I will be putting signs in my yard and doing volunteer work for anyone that wins the dem primary just to do my best effort to get the most evil president in US history.

I hope 9/11 is more to you JL than being reduced to a means to keep a stolen presidency. The only person in the world to personally benefit from 9/11 is GWB!

I too will vote for anyone but Bush. it's saddening that I have to be reduced to voting for whoever wins the primary, but if thats the lead person who can take out Bush, I vote for them.

I'm afraid that Howard Dean probably has some dirt on him. The republicans will let him win the primary and then blast him full force. The sad part is that Dean really isn't all that liberal (As seen by his gun control stance). Not that I care about gun-control so much, it's just that (as I heard a republican said on hardball, I don't remember the name) they're going to make Dean look like he's super Liberal.... and he's not.

CruisingRam,
I didn't question anyones patriotism so much as their posts did. Again, to be clear, only for the clarity....my post was meant to keep 9/11 from being turned into "The Day A Building Was Destryoed"! If you had read my response to Wertz you would have understood that. Instead you again single me out when this all would have been solved if people had just mided their own business!!! And I would like to respond to the rest of your post by asking you to again read my last post. GW Bush didn't gain from 9/11. Politically speaking no one gained, but the dems response to it did cause them to lose power. After the last election it's clear, Americans care about America and they also feel that the Democrats don't. I consider you too to be Anti-patriotic. Please by all means waste your vote and especially your money. Lord knows the Dems won't be able to do anything with either of them. I'll be laughing at your loss in another 14 months And for the record, if Gore had won Tenessee (a typically Democratic state that Gore is from and served in) he could've won the election too. Perhaps you should be wondering why his own people didn't vote for them.

He most certainly "gained" from 9/11 (in the political sense) - his approval rating 2 weeks post 9/11 (Gallup Poll) skyrocketed into the NINETIES (see below for links)! Everyone was in complete shock and they were looking to our leaders in their time of pain, confusion, anger, sadness, etc. It's not as if he did something spectacular that any other President wouldn't have done in that two weeks...he was President, the icon of our nation's very being...of course he was seen in a less critical light post 9/11!

Here's what we see on http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/defaul...sp?YR=2001&MO=9



Here's an article from National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york081402.asp



It sure would seem as if he gained A LOT from Sept 11th on a political level.

And for the record, I don't think anyone is claiming or would claim that GWB was happy about 9/11 or anything like that...but the fact that it happened certainly didn't hurt his popularity.

This is the same Liberal rhetoric. If Bush does well, we'll blame it on the fact that he stood steadfast beside his fellow countrymen and raised up and army to punish the wicked people who perpetrated a terrible act of terror and their friends! Can't you see that his approval ratings skyrocketed not because he was the president, but because he stayed strong and resilient? Because he went to the wreckage and spoke to the people and did what was necessary to keep these things from happening again? And he did those things because he's a man of deep courage that loves his country and all it's people whether they slander his name or not. You all have much apologizing to do to President Bush!

I think you misunderstand my point johnlocke. You say his approval ratings skyrocketed because he stayed strong and resilient and went to the wreckage and spoke to the people. I am saying that, put in that position, you would have to be a total moron NOT to do all of those things (as President). All I am saying is that part of the reason that Bush will likely be re-elected is because he was President during a history-making event that brought our nation together (metaphorically speaking)...it's not as if that hasn't happened before (FDR, Lincoln, etc.)

I am not a "rhetoric" type of person, myself...I call it how I see it regardless of what "side" it's in support of

I can applaud Bush for wanting to end Terrorism, and History will tell if he succeeds or not, or if the next president decides to put our tail between our legs and run.
Man's inhumanity to man, even of their own nationality, race, and religion is to me an indicator that very few of us are what we think we are. How we react to situations define us as much as anything, and GWB's response to 9/11 is in the right direction if not totally correct. Somehow I think Gore's reaction would have been a lot less decisive. Standing by and doing nothing certainly won't end terrorism, nor will waiting til the rest of the free world gets tired of it. The coddling of the Saudis certainly disturbs me a lot, and I think we should get all our troops out of Saudi Arabia before getting them out of Iraq.
If the next president is a democrat, he will have to carry on the war on terrorism, but not necessarily the Iraqi situation, and had better do a good job, or it may be the last chance a democrat gets elected for a long time, especially if we get attacked again.

I think Bush will probably get re-elected, but it could well be because the Democrats can't field a viable candidate more than anything else. Domestic issues are currently a weakness that the Democrats can exploit, so expect Bush to make a lot more promises to counter attacks on those issues. His second term must be better than the first, or the Dems will have it next, if they use the next 4 years to polish up a candidate that can win.

If we must continue discussing the September 11 attack in this thread, let us please do so only in the context of its impact on Bush's chances for re-election.

johnlocke: The explanation for your response to Victoria's comment has been duly noted - several times. We should also duly note her amplification of that comment. I should also add that anything posted to a public forum is the "business" of every participant in that forum...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

I'm afraid that, like CruisingRam and BecomingHuman, my vote in the next election will be preventative. It will be 2008 before I am again able to vote my conscience. It is a sorry state of affairs when casting one's vote becomes a matter of backing anyone who has the best chance of removing someone else from office.

If Bush's approval rating keeps plummeting like it is, then Dean will probably take the election in 04. Should Nader run next year, I will unapologetically vote for him again. If he doesn't, I suppose I'll vote not so much for Dean, but rather against Bush.