Gould 0738 wrote:

There are more legs to this torture tale than anyone first imagined.
Apparently Rummy is a bit more deeply involved in the process than he
has let on to date.

It's too bad it had to be something like this, but if it helps bring
down Bush, hey...


That's ridiculous, Harry. How could you possibly say that? That rivals NOYB's
"make them f*** a pig" post. You guys in a contest to see who can say the most
outrageously inappropriate things?

A statement that "it really doesn't matter what happens to the country as long
as Bush completes his self destruction" is just as bad as the neocons saying
that no matter *what* GWB does, it will be the right thing and good for
America.

Bush's policies are bringing Bush down. The buck stops on Bush's desk,
as does respnsibility for the prison torture. He knew about it months
ago, as did Rummy, and there is no a story circulating that the torture
was directly tied to a Rummy policy.

I'm delighted to see Bush's approval rating sink into the low 40's this week,
(Rasmussen), but sad to see the events and unresolved issues that are bringing
him down to that level. When Bush goes down the toilet, he takes a lot of the
country and even a lot of the free world with him. That's extremely
regrettable, not something that should simply be considered acceptable
collateral damage.

It is too bad. Perhaps there is a lesson in this, eh?\


Sadder yet, as disgusted as all but the R party diehards and the Limbaugh
dittoheads are becoming with Bush- your party has put up the weakest candidate
since George McGovern.

I hadn't noticed that.





Get your buds at the DNC to convice Kerry to pull out for personal or health
reasons.


Oh, puh-lease.



(Maybe one of his old war scratches will start acting up.) Not too soon,
though- (Let the Bush team spend another $100mm trashing Kerry and making
themselves look hateful and silly in the process first). Convince McCain to
switch parties and you'll walk away with this thing.


McCain is an interesting fellow, too conservative for my taste, though,
and on the opposite side of too many issues. But I do like him
personally. But he caved in the face of Bush's lying attacks about him
in the 2000 primaries, and I wonder if he is tough enough these days to
take on the Repubican juggernaut that has invested so heavily in the
smirking chimp.

Sadder yet, as disgusted as all but the R party diehards and the Limbaugh
dittoheads are becoming with Bush- your party has put up the weakest
candidate
since George McGovern.

I hadn't noticed that.

These comments by noted Republican pollster Rasmussen illustrate why you guys
need a candidate. You should be doing far better than running a dead heat
against a guy now supported by a clear minority of the population (and waiting
for random events to select the next American president). Scariest thing that
Rasmussen says in his comments? "Iraq and the economy are out of George Bush's
control." Yikes. If the CIC doesn't control the war in Iraq, who does?

*******

Is Zogby Right? Is the Election Kerry's to Lose?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

A commentary by Scott Rasmussen


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

May 14, 2004--Last Sunday, pollster John Zogby created quite a stir by
announcing his view that the election is now Kerry's to lose. John is a good
pollster and makes many good points, but I respectfully disagree with him on
this one.
John is right to point out that the race has shifted. It used to be the
President's race to lose, but now it is a pure tossup. However, Zogby goes a
bit too far when he says Election 2004 is now Kerry's to lose.

Here's why...

As a starting point, consider the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll.
For the ten weeks since Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination on Super
Tuesday, we have polled virtually every night... over 70 separate samples.
Every single time, both candidates have been within 3 percentage points of the
45% mark. Not coincidentally, the survey margin of sampling error is +/-3
percentage points. That shows an amazingly close and stable race.

What little movement we have seen suggests that the President loses a couple of
points every time a new level of bad news comes from Iraq. After a few days or
a week, however, the numbers return to the toss-up range. Senator Kerry loses a
few points every time the spotlight focuses on him. Kerry's numbers bounce back
when the focus returns to the President.

Also, a key part of the Zogby analysis is that "The President’s problem is
further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that
are out of his control." It's absolutely true that the economy and Iraq are out
of the President's control. But, they are also out of Senator Kerry's control.

When all is said and done, it is the reality in Iraq and the economy will
determine the election. If Iraq stabilizes in any way and the economy improves,
the President will be hard to beat. If Iraq deteriorates significantly and the
economy fails to improve, the Senator will have the edge.

Zogby partially addresses this by correctly pointing out that there is a lag in
voter perceptions of the economy (and that the lag hurt the first President
Bush). He believes this lag will also hurt the current President Bush. On this
last point, I am not so sure.

One critical difference between now and 1992 is that the Investor Class is much
bigger. This is significant because Investors respond to economic news (good
and bad) much more quickly than non-Investors... If the economy improves over
the next few months, that will register with Investors.

Adding to the impact, Investors represent a majority of the "soft" support for
both Bush and Kerry. Soft supporters are those who say they will vote for a
candidate but might change their mind. If economic growth (particularly jobs
growth) continues, these Investors will respond and that will benefit the
President.

To wrap this up, I would like to offer my own challenge to the conventional
wisdom. While the polls have shown an incredibly tight race for months, I don't
believe it will be that close on Election Day in November. I'm not envisioning
a landslide, but believe the most likely scenario is for one candidate or the
other to win a modestly comfortable victory.

Why do I say this? Because events in Iraq and the economy will determine the
outcome. Those situations will change for better or worse and voters will
decide accordingly. If they go one direction, Bush wins. If they go the other
way, Kerry wins.

Sign up for our free Weekly Update

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Gould 0738 wrote:

There are more legs to this torture tale than anyone first imagined.
Apparently Rummy is a bit more deeply involved in the process than he
has let on to date.

It's too bad it had to be something like this, but if it helps bring
down Bush, hey...

How many times have I heard Harry proclaim that some scandel relating
to GWB "has legs" and will be the demise of this administration?

snip

Sadder yet, as disgusted as all but the R party diehards and the Limbaugh
dittoheads are becoming with Bush- your party has put up the weakest candidate
since George McGovern.

I hadn't noticed that.

How could you not? With Bush's approval rating tanking, Kerry should
be walking away in every poll with a double digit lead. Instead he is
having to work like hell to stay neck-and-neck with an opponent that
has approval numbers in the 40s.

Harry - George Bush is beatable, yet your party appears to be
nominating a candidate that may not be able to do it.

I am one of those republicans that is not real thrilled with GWB.
It's his handling of Iraq that that is his biggest problem. They are
screwing that up. But I truely believe that Kerry will make the
situation even worse. The only thing that I have heard him talk about
doing is sucking up to those that want to screw us.

Get your buds at the DNC to convice Kerry to pull out for personal or health
reasons.

Oh, puh-lease.

(Maybe one of his old war scratches will start acting up.) Not too soon,
though- (Let the Bush team spend another $100mm trashing Kerry and making
themselves look hateful and silly in the process first). Convince McCain to
switch parties and you'll walk away with this thing.

McCain is an interesting fellow, too conservative for my taste, though,
and on the opposite side of too many issues. But I do like him
personally. But he caved in the face of Bush's lying attacks about him
in the 2000 primaries, and I wonder if he is tough enough these days to
take on the Repubican juggernaut that has invested so heavily in the
smirking chimp.

How about Lieberman? I might vote for him. But I would still hold my
nose - His behavior in the 2000 election did not set well with me at
all.

I have voted for democrats when the elephant candidate was not to my
liking. In one case I still kick myself for doing it. I voted for
Barbara Boxer in 1992. I can't stand that woman. In her "victory
speech" for that election she claimed that the victory was proof that
Californians were strongly behind her politics (something to that
effect). My feeling was - Don't get too big a head, lady! You lost
to a guy that a lot people thought was a total asshole. A lot of
voters just hate you less."

Never again with Boxer. Even if he couldn't smirk, a chimp would get
my vote in that race. Diane Feinstein is far more likeable.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...

I am one of those republicans that is not real thrilled with GWB.
It's his handling of Iraq that that is his biggest problem. They are
screwing that up. But I truely believe that Kerry will make the
situation even worse.

I'd love to see a written description of "worse".

The only thing that I have heard him talk about
doing is sucking up to those that want to screw us.

GWB has already done that. Can you say "Saudi Arabia"?