Truer words were never spoken
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 07-27-2004 - 3:55pm |
It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those...who supported President Bush four years ago: Did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?
Is our country more united today?
Or more divided?
Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?
Or do those words now ring hollow?
For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all?
Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs?
And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost...
And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship.
So that's one reason why, even though we Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.
I also ask...for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?
Are you troubled by the erosion of some of America's most basic civil liberties?
Are you worried that our environmental laws are being weakened and dismantled to allow vast increases in pollution that are contributing to a global climate crisis?
No matter how you voted in the last election, these are profound problems that all voters must take into account this November 2.
And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq. Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn't it now obvious that the way the war has been managed by the administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?
Wouldn't we be better off with a new president who hasn't burned his bridges to our allies, and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?
Isn't cooperation with other nations crucial to solving our dilemma in Iraq? Isn't it also critical to defeating the terrorists?
We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.
But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: the group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again -- al Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden?
Wouldn't we be safer with a President who didn't insist on confusing al Qaeda with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?â€
– Former Vice President Al Gore, Democratic National Convention, Boston, MA 7/26/04

Pages
People feel the way they feel, and no matter what you say about the arguments being fatuous, there is some validity in their argument. There are also republicans who boast the GWB was elected by the majority of the people and that's not true. The 2000 election will forever be in question. There is no need to be irked because people disagree.
But if we forget that irregularities occurred and fail to be vigilent we could loose faith in the democratic process. This is what bothers me, and on this you and I agree, correct?
This tells me that the Bush brothers are sneaky rather than smart. Cloak deceit in secrecy; what the public doesn't know can't hurt you. What does this say about their valued morals?
<<>>
Then why continue to fuel the discussion with your own rebuttals?
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- Bob Day, Marriage Equality Rally, Rochester NY
Help in the fight against a constitutional amendment!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
Knight-Ridder did an extensive recount, which was documented in the USA today (as I believe they own that paper) and covered on either CNN or CNBC about three years ago.
The Democratic party may be united against Bush, but they still dont like Kerry.
The most interesting item in the poll I posted yesterday was the strenght of support for the candidate by party and then the reasons for voting for a specific candidate.
Do you support George W. Bush strongly or not strongly? (asked of Bush supporters) (registered voters)
Strongly 88%
Not strongly 11%
DK/No opinion 1%
Do you support John Kerry strongly or not strongly? (asked of Kerry supporters) (registered voters)
Strongly 72%
Not strongly 26%
DK/No opinion 2%
Is your vote more for George W. Bush or more against John Kerry? (asked of Bush supporters) (registered voters)
For Bush 81%
Against Kerry 17%
DK/No opinion 2%
Is your vote more for John Kerry or more against George W. Bush? (asked of Kerry supporters) (registered voters)
For Kerry 41%
Against Bush 56%
DK/No opinion 3%
This goes to my point exactly. Bush's support is stronger (a little) with his supporters, and the reasoning for voting for the candidate is strongly in favor of President Bush.
Florida officials: Some voting records wiped out.
1. Bush's approval rating.
2. Do you feel the country is headed in the right direction.
A. How many people who voted for Gore in 2000 are going to vote for Bush in 2004?
B. How many people who voted for Bush in 2000 will not vote for him in 2004?
If you think A > B, I have some WMD stockpiles in Iraq to show you.
Because neither those people nor the honest discussion of those issues are served by letting such misconceptions and fatuous statements go unchallenged.
~mark~
Pages