|| Write Us | Help | Sponsors | Classifieds | Employment | Forums | MarketPlace | Calendar | Headlines | Announcements | Weather | More... ||
|07-07-2003, 11:39 PM||#1|
Talk Show Host
Member Since: Aug 2002
Some Editoral Comment on 2004
I can't sleep so I'm checking up on some editorials. Take a look at this one from Mark Shields...
a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours, and recovery is when [insert Republican's name here] loses his.
|[ Reply w/Quote ]|
|07-09-2003, 12:47 PM||#2|
Just more Liberal hogwash...
In fact, voters have consistently ranked Bush between average and mediocre in those historically important areas.
"When a loyal Republican leader in Congress like Dick Lugar summons his Republican president to " level" with the country about the price and the pain of building a new Iraq, we remember that straight-shooters always " level." Hmmmm... one Republican leader out of how many??? Seems to me like someone's looking to make a mountain of a molehill again.
"But wait, candidate George W. Bush is already well on his way to a record-breaking campaign chest of $ 200 million. He will raise more than all the Democratic candidates combined." Maybe the question should be "why doesn't anyone want to support the Democratic party?" Fear of upsetting Hillary? Lack of support for the candidates? People are waking up to how bad the Dems are?
"That is impressive. Still, Bush's tax-cut bills, according to the reliable Center for Tax Justice, will reduce by 2011 the individual tax-burden of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans by an average of at least $499,852. So kicking in a measly two grand to the campaign of the fellow who had made it all possible looks like the least they could do." Hmmmm... $200 million dollars comes out to 100,000 doners, which is a LOT of "Fat Cats" chipping in. If the Dems really are the "Party of the People" you would think that millions would donate $20 to beat out Bush. Of course, most of these people believe that money should be handed out from the government, not given to the government. Also, notice that Shields uses the tired Dem tactic of damning the wealthy for the amount of money they are getting back while not thanking them for all the money they're putting in.
"One could argue that Davis' too-clever-by-half tactics to manipulate the selection of a weaker opponent left enough of a bad taste in voters' mouths that in 2003 many of them are more receptive to a proposed recall of the governor." Yeah... and I could argue that if my butt were three inches narrower I would be the next Brad Pitt, but that's as bogus a supposition as Shields's. Davis is in trouble because he's responsible for a 38 BILLION dollar STATE deficit. I guarantee that a LOT more Californians are madder about $38,000,000,000.00 than they are about negative ads.
"Bush's dollar signs are better than his re-elect numbers." Yeah, and Bush's re-elect numbers are a lot better than any Democrat's elect numbers.
"When voters are asked... 38 percent said they would vote for his obviously unknown Democratic challenger.
"But 2004 from here looks like a highly competitive political year." A popular president against an "Obviously Unknown Democratic Challenger." Is this clown living in denial or what? I would refer to Dennis Miller's observation about the Reagan/Mondale election... "He got stomped like a narc at a biker rally."
Last edited by Bruzilla; 07-09-2003 at 12:50 PM.
|[ Reply w/Quote ]|