If Bush is in good shape, why is he

[papau]

If Bush is in good shape, why is he

-- spending over 70% of its ad dollars attacking John Kerry?

-- afraid to go on record with a second-term agenda?

-- increasing prominence given social issues and "values" in the campaign, where values is dehined as exploiting homophobia, provincialism and cultural insecurity

-- making regular attacks right out of the presidential mouth on Kerry and Edwards?

-- Having or at least not objecting to Mr. Cheney telling New England Senators to perform impossible-to-perform sex acts?

-- refusing to promise to improve because he refuses to acknowledge he has subverted his No Child Left Behind initiative by failing to fund it.

-- refusing to promise to improve because he refuses to admit he botched his Medicare reform act by turning it chiefly into a giveaway to drug companies at the expense of American seniors.

-- not denying that in a choice between mega-donors such as the drug industry and seniors, the mega-doners allways win?

-- not pushing his on-again, off-again attempt to increase Latino voter support by backing his pseudo-immigration reform that offered residency but not citizenship to the immigrant workers?

-- still using the obvious lie that Kerry (or any Dem or GOPer) would support a tyrannical dictatorship - granted that the media never calls him on it as they push his lies - and never saying thank you for being given the benefit of the doubt in the IWR, while not saying when Iraq will have a plan that is more than no plan, a strategy that is more than Kerry light, and indeed stop being a faith-based war?

But one must admire the way the media gives the Bush campaign instant audio feeds of all Kerry speeches so that we can have same day mis-charaterizations of whatever the media choses for the Kerry 5 seconds on the 6 o'clock news.

[cheezus]

1. good shape = jogs every day

[RT Atlanta]

2. Great observations!

Things aren't so secure behind the curtain.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. "perform impossible-to-perform sex acts"

LMAO

[liberalitch]

10. I'd never leave the house if i could do what cheney told..

PL to do....
y'all know y'all wouldn't either....

[July]

4. Where did I just see this list?

Do you have a blog?

[papau]

5. Ideas/items 60% stolen from the ABCnote and rewritten!

Must I confess all my sins before noon!

Other comments are from stories in the LA Times, NY Times, USAToday.

But basic format was in today's ABCNote

:-(

Now I feel shame - nah - no I don't

The Note needed to be edited and I "added value"!

:toast:

:-)

[emulatorloo]

6. Check out this editorial from the Des Moines Register

Along the same lines, and it is BLISTERING - be sure to follow DU9598's link and read the whole thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=62448

[papau]

7. I liked the two paragraphs below!

Destroyed records. Indicted donors. Trumped-up intelligence claims. Imagine what a "special prosecutor" could do with that if one were given carte blanche to investigate Bush as Kenneth Starr investigated Bill Clinton. We spent tens of millions and countless hours to turn up nothing more than details of a sexual relationship. That ultimately fruitless expedition is revisited in a new documentary, "The Hunting of the President."

Whatever Clinton's impropri- eties - namely lying to the nation over a personal relationship - they didn't sacrifice thousands of lives or squander the world's good will. But Bush attacked without provocation a nation that wasn't threatening America, and which, according to U.N. weapons inspectors, showed no evidence of having banned weapons - even as he ignored the threat from North Korea, which actually boasted of aiming such weapons in our direction.

:-)

[xxqqqzme]

8. 2nd term agenda? -

more, a whole lot more, of the last 3+ years. If U think the last 3+ yrs have been brutal - U ain't seen nothing yet. We will not survive a 2nd term as a country.

[Rob H.]

11. Re: 2nd term agenda?

That's what I'm afraid of--I read an editorial not too long ago (but long enough that I can't remember who wrote it) that mentioned exactly what you said. It pointed out that thus far, Bush has taken extremist positions only to back down to seemingly more moderate ones when the public gets wind of what he's proposing. If he gets elected this year, any hope of a safeguard will be out the window because he'll be a lame duck and won't have to give an inch on any of his likely to be insane/immoral/illegal/unconstitutional proposals.

[flpoljunkie]

9. He's also running around on a bus trip trying to shore up his rural base!

Not a good sign!

[yellowcanine]

12. And supposedly running ads in South Carolina - can't get more "base" than

that - except maybe Utah.

[bushwakker]

13. Fact is, this campaign has been nothing like Rove envisioned

They thought the Dems would be fighting it out until May or June leaving the eventual nominee weakened and broke. During this time they hoped to be carpet bombing the airwaves with ads targeted at swing voters in swing states.

Instead Kerry put together the most impressive sweep since the primary process replaced the back room as the nominating vehicle. Kerry has raised more money than AWOL since March and his choice of VEEP has excited the party and swing voters.

All this plus the continued dismal news from Iraq and a "middle class squeeze" economy has the Bush campaign now trying to shore up their base by talking about gay marriage and bashing Hollywood.

Life's a bitch Karl.

[Nicholas_J]

14. Bush is strong, very strong

In the south, and in the conservative areas of the Rocky Mountain States.

Not so much in the industrialized Midwest, Rust belt, Greatlakes area.


In bad shape in the Northeast, and most of the Mid Atlantic States.

Edwards selection now creates a situation in which Bush must spend more time watching his back in the area he is strongest in, taking money away from attacks in areas where he and Kerry are running pretty much neck and neck, states which are neither strongly industrialized, nor totally rural. PLaces like Illinois and Michigan are totally Kerry's States like Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania are more problematic for Kerry. While he is strong in the cities in those states, he has not beenas strong in the rural areas of those states. Edwards may be able to turn that around taking votes away from Bush in the rural areas of these states.

Bush still has larger leads thant Kerry in his strongholds than Kerry has in his strongholds, though Kerry has more states with a lot more electoral votes. And a lot more population. Bush Bush is no fool. He must keep his lead in the south, and he must act against the areas in which Edwards could cause losses to Bush among Conservative Democrats. WHat is he supposed to do, not spend money attacking Kerry and Edwards. Hopefully, it will do as much for him as Deans attacks onKerry and Edwards did in Iowa.