Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:14:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


Now say something good about Kerry.


At least he's not an idiot. He could not possibly do worse than your boy.


If I had a choice between Biden and Bush, I'd take Biden. Between Lieberman and
Bush, I'd take Lieberman. Between Kerry, a self-serving asshole, and Bush, I'll
take Bush every time.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:03:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I'm almost feeling that there is a possibility the Senate might change
hands, too. Maybe. The polls are showing the voters want real change,
and
an upheaval in Congress is a good place to start.


I'm in the anybody but Bush camp, but if you wanted a real change, I'm
afraid you would have to throw them all out, both the Democrats and
Republicans.



The situation would be better if there were some diversity of thought
among the House GOP members. They truly are BORG. Virtually everyone one
of them is a doctrinaire ultra-right marching to the Bush beat. When the
GOP was more of an open party, there were three or four wings that had a
more responsible outlook on what they were there for...and that is NOT
to be a rubber stamp for the Bush mis-administration.

As the Democrat wing is ultra-left marching to the same drummer. If the
polls were saying there is a large demand for change, then Kerry would be
opening up a landslide number. I still feel that Kerry will not be the
presidential candidate for the Dems. Unless he gets a first vote win, it is
a brokered convention. Maybe the Dem's will put up a decent candidate.

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:03:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I'm almost feeling that there is a possibility the Senate might change
hands, too. Maybe. The polls are showing the voters want real change,
and
an upheaval in Congress is a good place to start.


I'm in the anybody but Bush camp, but if you wanted a real change, I'm
afraid you would have to throw them all out, both the Democrats and
Republicans.



The situation would be better if there were some diversity of thought
among the House GOP members. They truly are BORG. Virtually everyone one
of them is a doctrinaire ultra-right marching to the Bush beat. When the
GOP was more of an open party, there were three or four wings that had a
more responsible outlook on what they were there for...and that is NOT
to be a rubber stamp for the Bush mis-administration.

As the Democrat wing is ultra-left marching to the same drummer. If the
polls were saying there is a large demand for change, then Kerry would be
opening up a landslide number. I still feel that Kerry will not be the
presidential candidate for the Dems. Unless he gets a first vote win, it
is
a brokered convention. Maybe the Dem's will put up a decent candidate.



Could be a very interesting surprise.

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

thunder wrote:


On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:03:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:



I'm almost feeling that there is a possibility the Senate might change
hands, too. Maybe. The polls are showing the voters want real change,

and

an upheaval in Congress is a good place to start.


I'm in the anybody but Bush camp, but if you wanted a real change, I'm
afraid you would have to throw them all out, both the Democrats and
Republicans.



The situation would be better if there were some diversity of thought
among the House GOP members. They truly are BORG. Virtually everyone one
of them is a doctrinaire ultra-right marching to the Bush beat. When the
GOP was more of an open party, there were three or four wings that had a
more responsible outlook on what they were there for...and that is NOT
to be a rubber stamp for the Bush mis-administration.

As the Democrat wing is ultra-left marching to the same drummer. If the
polls were saying there is a large demand for change, then Kerry would be
opening up a landslide number. I still feel that Kerry will not be the
presidential candidate for the Dems. Unless he gets a first vote win, it

is

a brokered convention. Maybe the Dem's will put up a decent candidate.




Could be a very interesting surprise.





Unless Bush falls further in the polls, which I suppose is possible, I
don't see any sort of landslide numbers opening up. The country is
pretty evenly divided between the GOP and Democratic bases, with perhaps
10% of the voters undecided. It seems to me that whomever holds his base
and captures the majority of undecideds will win the popular vote and
the electoral college.

Kerry to me seems a good antidote to the Bush years. Kerry is unexciting
and contemplative; he's not a "hot" media candidate like Bush. But
Bush's media "hotness" carries over into his personality, and his
personality and other negatives are what have dropped us into the deep
**** we're in now.

I'll be perfectly happy if Kerry gets 1% more popular votes than Bush
and carries the Electoral College. That would be a nice victory. But
perhaps, with the cheating planned by the Bush-****ters and Diebold, a
larger percentage of popular votes for Kerry would be helpful, eh?

Looks like there is every chance the "Iraq" story will continue as a
disaster through the elections here. It's sad that so many will die, but
Bush created the mess and if he suffers politically because of it, well,
that's the price he should pay.

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Unless Bush falls further in the polls, which I suppose is possible, I
don't see any sort of landslide numbers opening up. The country is
pretty evenly divided between the GOP and Democratic bases, with perhaps
10% of the voters undecided. It seems to me that whomever holds his base
and captures the majority of undecideds will win the popular vote and
the electoral college.

Kerry to me seems a good antidote to the Bush years. Kerry is unexciting
and contemplative; he's not a "hot" media candidate like Bush. But
Bush's media "hotness" carries over into his personality, and his
personality and other negatives are what have dropped us into the deep
**** we're in now.

Kerry is not an antidote to anything. Kerry could compete for the attention
of people that enjoy watching paint dry and grass grow. A leader needs to
have the ability to take in the available information and then make an
immediate decision.

I'll be perfectly happy if Kerry gets 1% more popular votes than Bush
and carries the Electoral College. That would be a nice victory. But
perhaps, with the cheating planned by the Bush-****ters and Diebold, a
larger percentage of popular votes for Kerry would be helpful, eh?

We, the Rebuplicans, must finally be learning how this election game is
played (i.e. Chicago, Florida and union elections).

Looks like there is every chance the "Iraq" story will continue as a
disaster through the elections here. It's sad that so many will die, but
Bush created the mess and if he suffers politically because of it, well,
that's the price he should pay.

Iraq is just the second battle in the war for the survival of western
culture.

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

thunder wrote:


On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:03:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:



I'm almost feeling that there is a possibility the Senate might
change
hands, too. Maybe. The polls are showing the voters want real change,

and

an upheaval in Congress is a good place to start.


I'm in the anybody but Bush camp, but if you wanted a real change, I'm
afraid you would have to throw them all out, both the Democrats and
Republicans.



The situation would be better if there were some diversity of thought
among the House GOP members. They truly are BORG. Virtually everyone
one
of them is a doctrinaire ultra-right marching to the Bush beat. When
the
GOP was more of an open party, there were three or four wings that had
a
more responsible outlook on what they were there for...and that is NOT
to be a rubber stamp for the Bush mis-administration.

As the Democrat wing is ultra-left marching to the same drummer. If the
polls were saying there is a large demand for change, then Kerry would
be
opening up a landslide number. I still feel that Kerry will not be the
presidential candidate for the Dems. Unless he gets a first vote win,
it

is

a brokered convention. Maybe the Dem's will put up a decent candidate.




Could be a very interesting surprise.





Unless Bush falls further in the polls, which I suppose is possible, I
don't see any sort of landslide numbers opening up. The country is
pretty evenly divided between the GOP and Democratic bases, with perhaps
10% of the voters undecided. It seems to me that whomever holds his base
and captures the majority of undecideds will win the popular vote and
the electoral college.

Kerry to me seems a good antidote to the Bush years. Kerry is unexciting
and contemplative; he's not a "hot" media candidate like Bush. But
Bush's media "hotness" carries over into his personality, and his
personality and other negatives are what have dropped us into the deep
**** we're in now.

I'll be perfectly happy if Kerry gets 1% more popular votes than Bush
and carries the Electoral College. That would be a nice victory. But
perhaps, with the cheating planned by the Bush-****ters and Diebold, a
larger percentage of popular votes for Kerry would be helpful, eh?

Looks like there is every chance the "Iraq" story will continue as a
disaster through the elections here. It's sad that so many will die, but
Bush created the mess and if he suffers politically because of it, well,
that's the price he should pay.


Leaders have to be able to lead. Kerry has never shown this trait. I guess
a union guy knows about crooked elections. You also related to the Daley's?

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:01:11 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Leaders have to be able to lead. Kerry has never shown this trait.

Careful with your anti-military commentary.

bb

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:01:11 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Leaders have to be able to lead. Kerry has never shown this trait.

Careful with your anti-military commentary.

There is a difference between telling somebody what to do and actually
leading men.

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

Bert Robbins wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:01:11 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Leaders have to be able to lead. Kerry has never shown this trait.

Careful with your anti-military commentary.


There is a difference between telling somebody what to do and actually
leading men.



Yeah, and I'm sure you led the way to either the bar, the whorehouse or
the latrine.

Trouble at the Pump for Bush?:
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:01:11 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Leaders have to be able to lead. Kerry has never shown this trait.

Careful with your anti-military commentary.

bb


Other than showing his guys how to get 3 purple hearts for minor wounds, he
does not seem to have inspired his men.