"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

You are again confused. While the pundits like Sean Hannity are quick to
state the Democrats want to bring the troops home, Dean has never stated
this and has, in fact, argued against it. We're there and we need to finish
what we've started in the best possible fashion (which probably differs
greatly from Bush's plan to finance his buddies revenues with Iraqi oil).

At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be
sure
he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be
*all*
bad.

Schooled in both combat and diplomacy. An IQ probably between 80 and 100
points above Bush.

Nevertheless, if I used the snowball's-chance-in-Hell analogy to describe
either Dean or Wesley's chances of winning the '04 election, it wouldn't
be
fair to snowballs.

You're talking out of your ass, as usual. Just wait, you'll be eating
whatever tripe you're spewing so I'd suggest you don't spew too much.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

You are again confused. While the pundits like Sean Hannity are quick to
state the Democrats want to bring the troops home, Dean has never stated
this and has, in fact, argued against it.

"We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, as they should
have been in the first place, not American troops. Ours need to come home."

Howard Dean, Democrat Presidential Debate, 9/4/03



Schooled in both combat and diplomacy. An IQ probably between 80 and 100
points above Bush.

Many sociopaths have had high IQ's.


Nevertheless, if I used the snowball's-chance-in-Hell analogy to
describe
either Dean or Wesley's chances of winning the '04 election, it wouldn't
be
fair to snowballs.

You're talking out of your ass, as usual. Just wait, you'll be eating
whatever tripe you're spewing so I'd suggest you don't spew too much.

Please "save" this thread. *I* will...and I'll make sure you see it in
11/04.


Clark is currently polling waaaaaay behind Bush, and the RNC hasn't even
begun to wail on the guy. They'll beat him to a pulp when the time
comes...if he can even win the nomination in the first place.

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

Clark is currently polling waaaaaay behind Bush, and the RNC hasn't even
begun to wail on the guy. They'll beat him to a pulp when the time
comes...if he can even win the nomination in the first place.

Duh. No one knows Clark yet. Give him a few weeks and the poll numbers
will be very different. Now go and do a little searching to find that Clark
is the Bush Admin's worst nightmare. They've already said it themselves.

Bush can't use his war record against Clark.

Clark can crush Bush on his domestic failings.

Bzzt. Game over.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

Clark is currently polling waaaaaay behind Bush, and the RNC hasn't even
begun to wail on the guy. They'll beat him to a pulp when the time
comes...if he can even win the nomination in the first place.

Duh. No one knows Clark yet. Give him a few weeks and the poll numbers
will be very different. Now go and do a little searching to find that
Clark
is the Bush Admin's worst nightmare.

Searching where? draftclark.com? democrat.com? Salon.com?

You go and do a little searching and show where Republicans have "already
said it themselves."



They've already said it themselves.

Bush can't use his war record against Clark.

Bush can use Clark's own flip-flops on what he would do in Iraq. I can show
you a January 2003 CNN piece where Clark said he "absolutely" could say
Saddam "does have WMD." I can show you an April 2003 piece in the London
Times where clark commended Bush and Blair's "resolve in the face of so much
doubt".

Mark my words:
Clark will be labelled as *indecisive* and a *waffler*. They'll point out
that the only time he takes decisive action is when he knows a war game
exercise is "fixed" to his benefit...or when he orders a NATO commander to
attack the Russians in Kosovo because his ego was bruised.

Despite his claims to the contrary, Wesley has been running for President
for awhile now...and saying things that will come back to haunt him.


Clark can crush Bush on his domestic failings.

Domestic failings? The economic recovery has been going since November
2001...and going strong for almost all of this year. GDP is poised to grow
at 4-6% this year alone. The unemployment rate has fallen for the last 2
months. The stock market has rebounded and is up almost 30% since it's
Sept. 2001 low. And there hasn't been a significant domestic terrorist
attack in more than 2 years since 9/11.

Bush can't be beat on the international front...and the domestic front is
shaping up in time to make the '04 a slaughter.

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...

Searching where? draftclark.com? democrat.com? Salon.com?

Republicans for Dean
By DAVID BROOKS


he results of the highly prestigious Poll of the Pollsters are in! I called
eight of the best G.O.P. pollsters and strategists and asked them, on a
not-for-attribution basis, if they thought Howard Dean would be easier to
beat than the other major Democratic presidential candidates. Here, and I'm
paraphrasing, are the results:

"Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!"

....major snip and skip right to the end of the article where David Brooks,
conservative editorialist says:

Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued
momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon,
that keeps their happiness from being complete.

You go and do a little searching and show where Republicans have "already
said it themselves."

Domestic failings? The economic recovery has been going since November
2001...and going strong for almost all of this year. GDP is poised to
grow
at 4-6% this year alone. The unemployment rate has fallen for the last 2
months. The stock market has rebounded and is up almost 30% since it's
Sept. 2001 low. And there hasn't been a significant domestic terrorist
attack in more than 2 years since 9/11.

Oh for God's sake!!! Everyone knows that Bush hasn't funded first
responders, left ports open, done a half assed job of federalizing the
airport security. His domestic agenda sucks -- it's quite obvious his tax
cuts for jobs was a ruse and contradicted by every respected economist in
the world.

Bush can't be beat on the international front...and the domestic front is
shaping up in time to make the '04 a slaughter.

God bless you've just fallen completely off the globe into some fantasy
world. Is this the same go-it-alone swashbuckler that decided we shouldn't
wait for the weapons inspectors to do their job, shirked Colin Powell's plea
for continued diplomacy and consensus building and rushed in to Iraq killing
thousands of innocents while costing America hundreds of its own kids --
only to find that all his administration's assumption were faulty or without
merit?

The same guy who's asking to spend another $87 billion while his
administration reserves the right to come back and ask for more?

Jesus Christ Almighty!!!!

Where are the jobs Bush promised from the three tax cuts he's gotten? Are
you going to try and tell me that we'd have lost more otherwise?
Poppycock!!!


I don't care whether you say you don't like that gas you have in your
office, you're either drinking heavily or there's a leak in one of the
fittings at the office.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:17:49 -0700, jps wrote:


Bush can't use his war record against Clark.

Is there anybody Bush can use his war record against?