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
Cheney is a succesful business man, who has disassociated himself with the company in question prior to the election of 2000, and who had a three or four year payout for his buyout....whats the problem?
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."
I didn't realize that you were so easily swayed. Personally, if someone wants to make an issue out of something I deem as irrelevant, that is of course their right, but I don't then form an opinion and argue it just b/c. I guess that's the difference between seeking appropriate fact and information to make an informed decision and just being a lamb in the flock following the daily talking points.
Did you get that answer this time? I notice no comment on the rest about your boy who never served at all it appears. Which really doesn't bother me unless you are comparing them. It appears your boy actually did commit a crime by not showing up as ordered.
You can insult me all you want to which lets you dodge my comments and my question, noted above in bold.
For me, the war records have never been an issue, and since in my opinion, they don't have any impact on why I will vote any particular way, I will continue to not play into the rhetoric of it all, no matter who is dishing it out. If I did, it would be like picking sides on the playground "just because" it kept me afloat with the "group". I'd rather stand on my own convictions than someone elses. Sorry if you percieve such statements as an insult, it's how I view myself, my honesty, and my personal convictions. You may do what you feel you need to be true to yourself, or to those that make non-important themes issues, it's all up to you. I only asked the question because you did make arguements against Bush due to his National Guard service. I just wondered if you made the same stances when Clinton ran against Bush Sr or Dole? And yes, I agree with you that times were different then, no one was really directly addressing the burgeoning terrorist threats to our country. Maybe we should have been.
The issue is always deflected to Clinton or some other person or issue rather than answering direct questions. I am not answering any more questions about those other presidents or politicians because they are not the issue.
All prompted by your phrase "Perhaps you forgot that when...."
If you need to know the details of how some people are alleging Bush did just that, it's all over the news & all over the internet.
I was just explaining why IMO both candidates military service is up for examination. Are you trying to say we should examine Kerry's record but not Bush's? Are you saying if we never considered military service before we can't reconsider that qualification, even after 9/11? Do you disagree with what I actually posted?
< When did President Bush misrepresent his service?>
I also asked because I don't remember reading anything or hearing anything where Bush has misrepresented his record, only that there are people/groups digging into his service and alleging that he got special treatment and what not.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you feel that service 30 years ago is relevant to the Presidency now because we are at war. I guess I don't see that being at war makes it that much more relevant. There is always the possibility of war, so with that logic, all our Presidents should have military background. Also, a President should be surrounding himself with advisor, since one person cannot be an expert at all things- I'm not sure it takes being involved in a conflict to understand when national security is at threat.
As I have stated, I do not think that Kerry's service record should be a focal part of this campaign or whether or not he got a scratch or a mortal wound to get his medals is relevant.
In this particular case, Kerry opened up his record when he used it as a focal point of his campaign. He wanted us to believe that his service makes him fit for commander in cheif. With that, he should have known that there would be those that would question his fitness due to his actions when he came home. He was more than a little controversial, he put soldiers and POW's lives in increased danger. As far as Bush's record, so far it seems that nothing is proven. For every accusation there have been those that can explain it, and those that say that something stinks, but nothing can prove that Bush simply blew off his service. I have no problem with his records being looked at,
My problem, and this goes well beyond service records, is that accusations fly, are taken as truth, and if there isn't any truth to them, we simply never hear about them again, except for us that just keep repeating the rhetoric and talking points for our parties.
Just as an FYI, I was asking this quesiton of another poster b/c she keeps saying that these records don't matter, but she keeps talking about them against one candiate. I just wanted to know if it was as important to her in the last elections where there were candidates with unquestionable service records and one with no record at all. I never did get a direct answer to that question. You gave me a more direct answer. So thanks for explianing that position. I'm glad to understand it.
Pages