BUSH’S POPULARITY SURGES

Marvin,

I can think of no other reason to vote against Bush than that you are voting for him.

I find it interesting, as focused as you are on the "end times", that you don't realize that the beast in Revelation would be FAR more likely (assuming he/she comes from America) to be a Republican than a Democrat, primarily because the majority are fooled into thinking he/she is a Christian.

Those lawless heathen! Hmmph! Democrats, we don't need that type of scum!
Believe me buddy, I wish a re-election of Bush signaled a return to particular traditional values, but it doesnt'. People are increasingly in favor of the gay cause, still believe the government to be useless unless it has a handout, believe that abortion is a "right", want to see all the gory sex-filled theatrics our media has to offer, and couldn't give a crap less about government or who runs it in general.

The main reasons as to why Bush would win this election are as follows:

Apathetic / disenfranchised voters stay at home (this particularly applies to democrats after the last election)

Voters who haven't been hit by the outsourced jobs or sputtering economy aren't likely to see a need for change

Voters who see good in America flexing it's muscles want to continue strutting

Seniors who are complacent with the bad compromise made regarding prescription drugs as they will pass soon, anyway

Kerry has failed to make or present a cohesive message galvanizing and mobilizing the voting public

Kerry has been unable to present any plan on how he would do things better

Finally, voting out an incumbent takes a strong opposition, the democrats should have been able to do this as they were given abundant hooks to use by the administration itself but they have bungled it pitifully. A couple of things they should try next time;
give the blows your opponent leaves himself open for and use a candidate that can't be destroyed by the opposition (Howard Dean).

Marvin,

welcome back man. I thought you had quit! still way right of me though

Abortion is a right, and it's not the people that think that. It is the opinion of the highest court of our land. Being gay is not about being right or wrong. I don't believe it is a choice, so it can't be wrong. I do believe it is a choice to openly be gay, opening yourself up to hate from the right, but I think that is brave, and although not nesicarily the best choice depending on your aspirations in life (i.e. conecticut governor) it is honorable and should be respected and accepted. Gory-sex filled things are nothing new, just the public publically and openly supporting them is. People have always watched and participated in lewd acts and things like extra marital afairs and rape (I happen to be reading an essay on The puritans and sex from the times of the american revolution, a very... intresting if not strange and boring topic).

Abortion is a right, and it's not the people that think that. It is the opinion of the highest court of our land.

Even the highest court is fallible though. Didn't it once suggest that Jim Crow laws were constitutional?

use a candidate that can't be destroyed by the opposition (Howard Dean).

Def......
are you completely f'ing nutz?

Dean was and inflated candidate...almost like kerry....as such they were not really viable....especially since the dem party had the chance to nominate either Gephart or Lieberman...two of the best possible candidates to ever run....and with Lieberman...one also gets a respectful and experienced candidate that doesnt elect to use hateful rhetoric against this nation and current President....which for once would have been a bit of fresh air coming out of the dem party....but alas they didnt....the main reason is not that Lieberman is jewish...thats very minor....the fact is that Lieberman is an old school democrat who believes in military action..especially in the war on terror

something the current blend of metrosexual and hollow leaders of the dem party could never bring themselves to do

something the current blend of metrosexual and hollow leaders of the dem party could never bring themselves to do

ahahahhahahaha... metrosexual leaders.. ahahahahhahahahhahahahahha what a laugh

People are increasingly in favor of the gay cause

Def

I disagree and don't feel that is as true as you think. The US sitcoms and movie industry has become more open to the gay causes. But in doing so many more flamboyant gays feel they can do, as they want. But this has caused a backlash from all across the nation. The Ellen Degenress show, in my opinion, lost it's ratings and was canceled because of this. The entertainment industry has repeatedly given her more opportunities and failed, then I think she deserved. Though I guess she finally got something to last, but I don’t know anybody who watch it (even the gay couple next door). In the 90's MTV flaunted gay causes, but recently I have noticed a much less flamboyancy in their programming.

In eleven states constitutional amendments against gay marriages are on the ballets. The latest polls show that they are all going to pass. That's not counting those States that already have them.

I personally think all the judges changing laws and Government officials ignoring laws are causing the once quit majority to become more vocal. Just because many people remain quit due to PC reasons does not mean people are increasingly in favor of Gay causes. I think most people think it OK to have a gay character on a sitcom. But now that a small portion of the gay community is making an assault on may of the American core institutions, I don't think people will remain quite.

My Two Cents
(Sorry for taking this off subject)

If Bush does in fact win a seconded term then we as American’s have become the dumbest people on the planet. I don't understand how you can stand behind this guy even if your a die hard Republican. He has been caught it so many freaking lies its amazing that the man has not been impeached. The thing that is pissing me off so much about Bush is not his past record (horrific as it is) it is that the man has no stand on issues all he can do is attack everything. Not once have I seen him speak about real things...I thought the VP was supposed to be the attack dog but it appears to me that there both attacking because its the only thing they can do. Also four years in office and the guy still does not know how to be an affective speaker and there is where he will lose this election. Kerry can run circles around this village idiot and when the debates start its all over for Bush. I know I don't want four more wars and we need this guy out here ASAP be for we start to lose this fine country of ours.

*note* B- President is laughable, think the words your looking for are Lame Duck

The American people are not going to elect Jean luc Kerry. Bush victory 04!

In eleven states constitutional amendments against gay marriages are on the ballets. The latest polls show that they are all going to pass.

This is assuming SCOTUS doesn't strike the state constitutional amendments down as being unconstitutional, which is actually pretty likely. It will be interesting to watch.

primus freak............talk about being dumb, your name don't exactly make you sound intelligent. as for the american people being dumb, i can only say that if that were true, we would not be the most advanced nation on earth. and the free-est.

I KNEW WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN...AND GEORGE BUSH IS NO WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN

lol of course you have to attack my name Mr. Cooley and it is that type of "our *&%$ don't stink" attitude that is driving us more and more away from fellow countries. Also I never said I was intelligent actually I am pretty dumb in the book smarts category. All I am saying is that if we as Americans can be lead like sheep that badly by our president, not make him answer for the wrong things he has done and then put him back in office it's just plain dumb.

"All I am saying is that if we as Americans can be lead like sheep that badly by our president, not make him answer for the wrong things he has done and then put him back in office it's just plain dumb"

And since you say they were wrong, they must be wrong. This reminds me of the asshats after the election in 2000 who acted like no one voted for Bush, while overlooking and alienating the 48% of the nation who did. The main problem is some people in America see the future as a foregone conclusion. They have social evolution all wrapped up. In reality, how we decide to move forward as a nation will be determined by the people, not some Liberal, esoteric ideal. Like our friend here who sees "wrongs", and can't imagine how anyone could see them as anything else.

People can say "abortion is a right", gay mariage is a right, blah, blah, but in the end there are no absolutes. Changes can and will be made if enough of the US decides they want them made.

and the free-est.

Dont make me laugh Marvin - There are many nations out there that have many more personal liberties and freedoms than your beloved United States

Changes can and will be made if enough of the US decides they want them made.

If the USA want to vote Bush, it is their perogative... If he wins, it means the voting population are happy with the way America is going... as an international observer though, I seriously cannot pick who will win this election - Whether Bush is stupid or Kerry is a Frenchy, it's up to the American people, and the decision will reflect upon them.

BAM!!!

In exactly what poll does Bush have 55% of the vote. Even polls conducted by the Republican party don't put him that high.

Def......
are you completely f'ing nutz?

Dean was and inflated candidate...almost like kerry....as such they were not really viable....especially since the dem party had the chance to nominate either Gephart or Lieberman...two of the best possible candidates to ever run....and with Lieberman.

Nope, just a little more informed. Look, Gephardt has run for president three times, and every time he's not even made it out of the primary, do you think that this guy's chances would have gotten better with age? Lieberman, God rest his little muppet butt (it's true, he looks like a muppet, think about it next time you see him) couldn't raise enough interest in his candidacy from the democratic base or from the American people, name one issue he could have "owned". Heck, name one plank he was campaigning on, the guy had nothin'. Then we have Dean, hmm... a thrice - elected governor who balanced the state budget, showed that universal health care can work on the state level, could not be attacked on ever flip-flopping on the war, etc., etc. . Dean was the candidate to beat. Unfortunately, being the early front-runner meant bearing the brunt of the republican attack machine and suffered at the hand of the Democratic leadership itself. Despite the obvious armour and advantage of Dean, the old skool dems felt Kerry to be more "electable". Those guys were really planning ahead, huh?

Abortion is a right, and it's not the people that think that. It is the opinion of the highest court of our land.

It is the opinion of the highest court of the land based on Roe v. Wade false circumstance and testimony provided by "Jane Doe" herself who has since come out AGAINST abortion. And the "people" (at least all the girls I've run into that are between 18 and 30) do believe it to be a right, the right to control their own bodies, to which I reply, "That is all well and good, but in receiving an abortion, wouldn't you say you are violating someone elses (the babies) right?" Let us also say that one person owns land, they can do whatever they want with that land, but do we allow them to pollute it by dumping toxic waste on it, killing it? No. The problem has been the desensitization campaign that has been waged in society since the '60's that attempts to remove the guilt from the act by stating that this is not a child, it doesn't feel pain, it's a mass of cells (hey, if they want to break it all down, we're all just masses of cells), etc., etc. .

Being gay is not about being right or wrong. I don't believe it is a choice, so it can't be wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion but I'd rather wait to rule on that until we've more facts on the issue. In the birth of the gay rights movement (early 1970's), the mantra was, "We aren't freaks, this is our chosen lifestyle!", after the 1984 Aids scare and a new realization that they could possibily be added to the EEOCC list, the slogan changed to "We can't help it, we were born this way!" The fact is, nobody yet knows whats going on with homosexuality, but I don't appreciate people being told that the facts are out and that people must abandon their moral principles for something that they may consider immoral. I've a gay uncle, and I have many gay friends, we've all gone around the mulberry bush on this topic, 'cause the gay populace (particularly the youth) are curious as to where this possible orientation stems from. There are scientific theories that a male or female body is formed in the uterus and then the wrong chemical bath of estrogen or testosterone hits them, there is the nurture theory that there is a "root" or environmental cause that sends people down this particular path. But the facts remains that the jury is still out.

Finally, the reason I put up that list, Sandy, was not because I felt that these things were particularly right or wrong (but, you made me itch that scratch, thanx ) but to illustrate the fact that Bush is not going to be elected because of people rejecting these things and returning to traditional moral values like the authour of the topic suggests.


I personally think all the judges changing laws and Government officials ignoring laws are causing the once quiet majority to become more vocal. Just because many people remain quiet due to PC reasons does not mean people are increasingly in favor of Gay causes. I think most people think it OK to have a gay character on a sitcom. But now that a small portion of the gay community is making an assault on may of the American core institutions, I don't think people will remain quiet.

The presence of openly homosexual characters and themes in our media is a forebearer of things to come, that is, if you haven't already experienced that open change in your community already. In Missouri, I attend school at a college campus that, like most others, has already adopted a change in its non-discrimination policy, though, religious and minority status have been a part of it for a while, sexual orientation just got added two years ago. This, in a state where we just had a vote (70% for and 30% against) to keep our traditional marriage stance. Now one might think that is a pretty safe margin, but years ago when we first added that (in the early 90's, the vote was something like (95% to 5%). It takes little imagination to see how the trend will continue. Face it, society's attitudes are much more relaxed on this and part of it is because we are told that this is something someone is born with. I'm not interested in keeping "gays" down, but I don't want attitudes changed on falsehoods.

America has lost its moral way in recent decades and the Democrats are to blame.

Let's see, since 1968 there's been Republican presidents in power for 24 of those 36 years. The commander in chief post held by a Republican, the chief propagandist' s role - per se - and yet the Democrats are to blame. Your logic is confusing and mushy, at best.

JW

"Let's see, since 1968 there's been Republican presidents in power for 24 of those 36 years. The commander in chief post held by a Republican, the chief propagandist' s role - per se - and yet the Democrats are to blame. Your logic is confusing and mushy, at best."

I agree with that. There are three ways to look at it.

1. stints with a Democratic President and years with a Democrat controlled Congress have been soooo bad that not even extended periods of Republican control were able to restore Conservative values.
2. The power held by the courts in the US is too far-reaching, and is dominated by Liberal judges, making social change at will with little checks and balances.
3. Republican leaders have won campaigns based upon the promise to fight for Conservative values, but have been disingenuous, and once in power have used those issues as concession points in the pursuit of their own agenda.

On a scale of one to ten, I'd rate those 6, 8, 3, in terms of plausibility. I think it says a lot, though, that I wouldn't have rated #3 even a 1 a few years ago. I am growing more and more skeptical that their hands are really tied on some of these issues.

In Reply to 1:

I can think of no other reason to vote against Bush than that you are voting for him. I find it interesting, as focused as you are on the "end times", that you don't realize that the beast in Revelation would be FAR more likely (assuming he/she comes from America) to be a Republican than a Democrat, primarily because the majority are fooled into thinking he/she is a Christian.

If there is a beast, I would look not in the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party but a new that rises in which popularity would just seem to flow in, not to mention the beast would be a speaker whose words would be honey to everyone's ears. Than again I would watch out for the extreme moralist, a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. man/woman of God who takes the morals to the extreme and brings back biblical time punishments, like chopping of hands for stealing, etc. Than again that is my opinion and I can tell you this unless nuclear war breaks out, humanity will not perish with this planet, or at least I won't cause damn it I will hop on a the first rocket out of here and see you guys and gals later.

In Reply to 14:

lol of course you have to attack my name Mr. Cooley and it is that type of "our *&%$ don't stink" attitude that is driving us more and more away from fellow countries. Also I never said I was intelligent actually I am pretty dumb in the book smarts category. All I am saying is that if we as Americans can be lead like sheep that badly by our president, not make him answer for the wrong things he has done and then put him back in office it's just plain dumb.

Cough Clinton Cough, Cough Lyndon Johnson Cough, Cough Ronald Regan (though not really that serious Iran Contra Affair), Cough FD Roosevelt (4 FREAKIN' TERMS?!?!?!), Cough Eisenhower (Roswell and Hoover), Cough JFK (Mafia and Sex Scandals)...ah sorry had to get a Ricola to cure that coughing. Here's a question on when people call a president dumb, can you get the same degrees he did from the same schools he did? Bush Jr. graduated Cum Laude from Harvard and even has an MBA to boot, Eisenhower graduated from West Point, etc. the are smart men all of them, problem is some hold them accountable as being stupid because of either their accents, like Bush and Johnson with their thick Texas accent, or stupid because the trip and say some wrong words once in a while.

As for saying that Bush is dumb because he lied and led us to war, um I hate to tell you that people in the Intelligence Agencies do lie with straight faces to the President and the rest to save their own asses, for all we know we could have taken Osama out to pasteur back in '92, even though if you have still not realized it yet that he is not the leader of Al Quaida, than you are just as dumb as the people you are calling dumb. Problem is there is absolutely no system, or at least it has not been enforced in the past twenty years, to deal with the intelligence agency screwing up like this, granted somethings they do well we never hear about as is the standard for National Security, but lieing to higher ups telling them you have the intelligence and proof, i.e. George Tenet, should be held accountable and charged with that kind of bold face lieing, and an Intelligence Czar is not going to work, the best bet with that is to form a Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Intelligence agency much like the military has, that may solve the issue, as well letting each side represent the leader of the Intelligence Agencies.

He has been caught it so many freaking lies its amazing that the man has not been impeached.

Name one. And back it up with facts, not opinion.

Bush's popularity "surges"? Hmmm. That seems a bit, well, hyperbolic. But then, I think it was probably a mistake for Dems to celebrate Kerry's "surge" during the DNC. As a Democrat, I find myself oddly comforted by the Bush campaign's words of just a couple of weeks ago: It is too soon to put much stock in the state of the polls -- it is still two months to the election, and the only poll that matters is the one on November 2.

Having said that, I return to a theme that I've been "preaching" for a while now: It is a bit myopic to assert consistency across more than a decade for either party or their representative lead political figures (President or otherwise). The republican party of today bears little resemblance to the republicans of Nixon's day. Likewise the democrats of Kennedy's day and those of today. Some core ideological positions remain consistent, but both parties vascilate over time between their more radical and more centrist elements. As long as "they" have "us" pointing the finger and cheering for "our team," important and complicated issues will be oversimplified and reduced to a kind of sport.

Though I don't believe Bush is "surging" (like someone else asked, where is the poll that says this?), he has taken the edge away from Kerry, and I believe he can continue to do so. Kerry, even though I support the man, is really lame. He shouldn't have spent as much time as he did defending himself agains the swift boat ads (even though the ads were LIES!). There are more important issues at hand than the Vietnam War. I thought Pres. Clinton gave a great speech at the DNC which should be Kerry's theme for this campaign. Kerry should be telling voters that if they want four more years of a war without a plan, a sluggish economy, no international allies, a failing education system, then Bush is their man. He needs to state the differences between him and Pres. Bush, and how he plans to run the country. Instead of veterans coming to his aid to support him in public, he needs more prominent political figures to do that. He can't keep talking about the past or mistakes of the past. Kerry needs to talk about the present and the two possible futures - the future under Bush, or the future under Kerry. If he does that, Kerry's words should have more of an impact than Bush's umbrella terms such as "freedom" or "vision".

"Rock, Rock On!" - Gunhaver of the Cheet Commandos, from HomstarRunner.com