Bush's guerilla war

[Grins]

Last week I was watching a story on PBS about the wars in “Bleeding” Kansas and Missouri by The Missourians, or "Border Ruffians," Quantrill's Raiders” “Bloody Bill” Anderson, Jesse James, and Cole Younger, etc.

It’s a good documentary, but a bit short. From watching it I remembered a book I had read that mentioned this very war. The book was, “April 1865: The Month That Saved America”, by Jay Winik.

If you haven’t read it you might go get a copy. It is a great history. One of the most striking sections of the book deals with the South’s plan to melt into the wilderness and conduct guerilla operations against the North. They would attack Northern soldiers in the South, roads, harbors, farms, bridges, railroads, telegraph, etc. It also documents similar successful warfare against the British, the French, and the Spanish. The part about the guerilla war in Kansas and Missouri is an eye-opener. Lincoln and his Generals all feared this type of combat.

And then it hit me! Does anyone remember this?

Two weeks after September 11th, President Bush was photographed carrying that book off Marine One after it landed on the White House lawn - presumably because, in addition to telling a great story, it provides lessons in political leadership.

Given what we are in now in Iraq, I wonder if he ever read it? (I used to date a girl that carried around H. Hesse’s “Siddartha” just so she could meet people. She never read it, but found it a conversation starter. You can laugh, but it worked!) If he did, did he grasp what it said?

Well, we know he doesn’t read newspapers, but maybe he read this one. He should read it again, because that’s what he has gotten us into. Even the military now admits we are in one.

[LibertyorDeath]

1. I think you mean if he had it read to him. Then there's the whole ? of

comprehension.

[denverbill]

2. Bush's books are scripted.

Clinton was a friggin Rhodes scholar and you never saw him lugging books around.

Rove has Bush carry whatever book makes the statement he wants to make that week, and/or whichever conservative author he wants to sell books.

Don't ever look for Bush to be carrying anything that isn't on message. Isn't it interesting that the title of the book is always clearly shown? You would think that Bush would pack that stuff away with his luggage.

[Mioshi]

3. Bush

The Republicans just captured the governorships of Kentucky and Missouri and Louisiana is in play. What do we need to do to stop this?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grins]

5. Get "your" states back.

This probably should be on another thread, but ...here's my crack at your question

Kentucky and (I think you meant) Mississippi were already “red” states, and basically, so is Louisiana. The state that Bush really needs is Pennsylvania and its 23 electoral votes, and that’s why he tried that disastrous steel tariff policy that backfired on him recently. With that policy backfiring, and Philadelphia re-electing a Democrat, he won’t get it.

I think what has to be done is to keep the states you won, and work on the states in the margins, and you only need a couple. (I am going to assume that no one that voted for Gore would ever vote for Bush. Just a hunch, but I think it's true.) The key is the Electoral votes. You need 270 to win. If Gore had a lousy 3 more electoral votes he would have won.

One is certainly Florida. They will have a huge spotlight on them next time. Gore lost by 500 votes out of almost 6 million cast (.008% of the electorate). Can we find a thousand to turn the state? With this loser in the White House I think you can, and that’s 25 electoral votes. You win.

But, you need insurance.

Ohio. Gore lost Ohio by 167,000 out of 4.7 million cast (3.5%). Can you get that state, a state that has lost a lot of industries and jobs? I think so. If you keep the voters you have, and get the Nader/Buchanon/Other - you have the state, even if you don’t turn one republican vote (unlikely). That’s 21 more electoral votes, and you’ve won the election!

How about West Virginia? Bush won by 41,000 votes (6.32%). That won’t happen next time. I would think pointing to how the administration abused one of its own, for shameless political purposes (Pvt. Lynch), and you can get 5 more votes. You win the election.

Colorado went for Bush by 145,000 (8.32%)votes out of 1,741,000 cast. But, if you look at all the numbers, Bush won Colorado by winning only 50.71% of the total vote! Can you swing 12,382 of that 145,000? What about the 464,000 voters that went for Nader and Buchanon? They won’t be there next time, and I doubt they will vote for Bush. Eight (8) Electoral votes. You win.

Tennessee (11 votes)? Bush won by 80,000 out of 2 million (4%). But, like Colorado, won the state with only 50.15% of the vote. With the Nader/Buchanon/Other not going to Bush, you only have to turn 1.55% of the electorate.

Can it be done? With the right candidate it can be done, and I’m not sure if the Democrats have one.

This is only my rough analysis, and I’m not qualified in this area. But I would appreciate someone who knows to comment.