Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!
Find a Conversation
Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!
| Fri, 09-03-2004 - 3:46pm |
New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html
Edited 9/3/2004 4:13 pm ET ET by iminnie833

Pages
Quite honestly, I find this mind-boggling. I have never seen a president, nor any political figure for that matter, as reviled, ridiculed, criticized and second guessed as George Bush has been. The Bush campaign has questioned nothing but Kerry's own voting record-these are matters of public record, open to anyone's free interpretation of them-while Bush has been called a liar, misleader, arrogant, incompetent, a failure, a coward, accused of planning 9/11, accused of invading Iraq for oil, accused of sending Americans to die in order to profit Halliburton, all baseless charges with nothing to back them up, gleefully reported by the media, and this is your idea of a "free ride"? At the moment the media writes of "record deficits" when everyone knows that the deficit as a percentage of GDP (which is the only accurate measure of a budget deficit) is hardly a record-go look at Reuter's story and the AP's story on these numbers and you'll find absolutely NO mention of this little factoid. The media reports poverty and health coverage numbers that end in 2003, knowing full well that this is old news, that with the 2004 job growth these losses will most likely be erased, but that's certainly not mentioned in any of the reporting. Any negative statistic is plastered across the front page, while any positive aspects are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all. All the reporting out of the convention has been about so-called "attacks on John Kerry"-the "attacks" all regarding things John Kerry himself has publicly said and done, not fabricated slander like that coming out of Moore and Moveon.org, but little if any reporting on the positive proposals laid out by the president (unlike his opponent's convention speech) in the areas of job training, health care, social security, tax code reform, etc. etc. etc.
Meanwhile, 200 or so veterans who band together to advance their personal opinion of Kerry's self-touted record of service are smeared, derided, accused of being liars bought and paid for by the Bush campaign, their actual assertions given little if any mainstream media coverage, and yet you claim it is Bush being given a free ride? I can't imagine anyone truly believing that.
I think the fascination with Kerry's service comes from Kerry himself who will not let the issue fade into the background as it should.
Kerry's own mouth is getting him into the same trouble that Al Gore's mouth did in 2000. I guess he didn't learn anything from Gore.... At least he isnt in danger of losing his own home state.
They dont like him or what he stands for.
"...and those who go back 30 years and rip apart the record of a young man who was wounded fighting for his country should be hung by their fat heads until there is room for a small amount of common sense."
Wounded so badly that niether his doctor nor any nor any of his direct superiors thought he deserved to be recommended for an accomodation.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Not that it matters to me, but it seems like it is important to you. Can I assume that you voted for George Bush Sr. then since he was a war vet and Clinton didn't serve anywhere?
Not that it matters to me, but it seems like it is important to you. Can I assume that you voted for George Bush Sr. then since he was a war vet and Clinton didn't serve anywhere?
If it wasn't important you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it. Also I have said many times that I don't put a lot of stock in whether a president served in a war or not. But many do and therefore it is an issue. And when people start tearing apart a man's military service in a war and hold up their man who conveniently dodged the whole thing as much as possible, as did many many young men then, it is then important. And shameful I might add (the tearing apart of someone who valiantly served). The Republicans seem very good at judging others so long as they don't have to turn the mirror onto themselves.
< I made no comment about whether or not he was in danger. All I said is that he was not in Vietnam. Close to Vietnam is not the same thing as in Vietnam. The comment I responded to was that he was in Vietnam for 16 months. My comment was mearly to set the record straight, not to get into a big debate about how much danger he was in or whether or not he could have been fired on. >
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/
< It's no doubt that vets from every war are supporting Bush against Kerry. He brought disgrace & dishonor to those who were serving in Vietnam and now he's done the same, to a lesser degree, to the reservists who served then & are serving now. Then, just as now, Kerry's opportunism and exploitation knows no limits.
Renee ~~~>
Pages