Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Bush Opens a Double-Digit Lead!
221
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 2:47pm
So you fault him for being a successful businessman?

I dont get it?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 4:10pm
Clinton had much more than charisma. He brought this country its first balanced budget in I cannot remember how long. He did great things for this country and we were better for it. He would never have started a preemptive war against a country unless there was substantial proof that they were involved in the
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 4:33pm
"Too late" with a several point lead!!!!

If Kerry was even HALF as smart as Bush, the election would be a lot closer.

Clinton was the punch line for the planet for 8 years and a disgrace to America.

BTW, Clinton launched at least TWO pre-emptive strikes against Iraq. Where were you? Do you need proof of that? Would you even look at the links?


Edited 9/8/2004 4:34 pm ET ET by janeigh

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 4:42pm
That's true Donna! According to my source, it was the first balanced budget since LBJ; surpluses, millions of jobs created----boy, those were ROUGH years! ;-) I too miss a leader who didn't fumble around for answers at press conferences.....and now Bush is trying to weasel out of one of the debates----guess if the audience isn't all people who've signed a loyalty oath to him, he wants no part of it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 4:43pm
I'm SO looking forward to Nov. 3 and a relatively quiet few years while the Associated Press and Rather-head Democrats lick their wounds in anticipation of Hillary in 2008.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 4:51pm
I too am looking forward to Nov. 3; whatever happens, I'll just be glad when it's done. If my candidate loses, so be it. My husband and I will at least know we worked hard on our end to help elect him. We serve on committees, he's on a committee working to re-elect our Democratic Senator here in CA; we staff voter registration booths, work at our local DNC office when needed......have canvassed neighborhoods, etc.



So come Nov. 3, I'll either be leaving my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on my car, or dusting off my "Don't Blame Me, I Didn't Vote For Him" one!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-31-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 5:35pm
I'm not making it a big deal that is why I haven't raised the questions or comparisons. However, you have repeatedly, that is why I asked you. It would seem that you feel that Kerry is a better candidate in part because of his service in Vietnam, whereas it is a strike against Bush having not served in war. I'm just wondering outloud if you held the same stardard during the Bush Sr. vs. Clinton campaign. Just an FYI, Republicans don't hold all the balls in their court when it comes to having trouble turning the mirror onto themselves, that goes in ALL directions. It's part of the human condition that never seems to go away.

Oh, you forgot to answer my question. Was this an issue for you during the Bush Sr/Clinton election? It's a pretty clear cut question with a simple one word answer.

"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."


Edited 9/8/2004 5:37 pm ET ET by alicia2210

NIU Ribbon   Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 5:38pm
I have no idea what you're talking about...

"You must also believe that the 2nd Amendment means something entirely different than it says, too! Perhaps that it applies to the National Guard that was formed many years after the amendment was written? "

Did I mention the 2nd amendment, or are you confusing me with everyone else in your life you're ever disagreed with?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-05-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 6:17pm

Mark my words, Hillary won't be the nominee in 2008.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 6:26pm
Let's look at what you posted:

I think you need to read Kerry's words more closely. When he says...

"'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet"

...he's talking about himself and the new crew of the PCF-44 as a group. His purple heart was awarded while he was with a smaller crew on a different boat (a "skimmer" called "batman") He's talking about their feeling of invincibility as a group. He's also trying to be a bit poetic about it, which seems to confuse alot of people looking for dirt.

To read this as some sort of legal statement about whether Kerry himself had never been shot at is absurd.

********************************

Look at how you interpret Kerry's words to mean something different than what he said. The "group", not himself and "a bit poetic". How sweet and how nice to be able to know what Kerry REALLY meant, despite his words.

If you've got the stomach for it, even his campaign admits Kerry's 1st purple heart was self-inflicted. http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/08_august/082504_kerry_purple_heart.htm

******************

Now let's look at the 2nd amendment and common leftist interpretations:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Leftists often argue that "the people" in the 2nd amendment context refers to a formal state militia, usually the National Guard, which was formed in 1903, and the constitution in 1783. http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt24.html

*********************

Are you still confused, or just eager to defend Kerry against all logic and reason and especially himself????


Edited 9/8/2004 6:30 pm ET ET by janeigh

Pages