| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"John Fraud Kerry" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2004 07:04:54 AM |
| Object: |
Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before 9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered voters,
March 3-4.
.
|
|
| User: "Christian Williamson" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad newsfor Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:07:47 AM |
|
|
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before 9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 01:46:52 PM |
|
|
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
You may be right, but I think that would make more people think about terrorism
... which would certainly benefit Bush. I can't see how anyone could think Kerry
would do a better job than Bush at fighting terrorism ... other than the party
faithful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 01:50:18 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:%Pp2c.68603$Tn.64599@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
You may be right, but I think that would make more people think about
terrorism
.. which would certainly benefit Bush. I can't see how anyone could think
Kerry
would do a better job than Bush at fighting terrorism ... other than the
party
faithful.
Exactly. Kerry hasn't even so much as VOICED his own plan for dealing with
surprise terrorist attacks upon our country, much less proven that his plan
would be superior to what President Bush has been doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rainer Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad newsfor Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 03:21:34 PM |
|
|
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
Exactly. Kerry hasn't even so much as VOICED his own plan for dealing with
surprise terrorist attacks upon our country
Maybe you should pay more attention.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html
much less proven that his plan
would be superior to what President Bush has been doing.
His plans sound much more reasonable to me than stonewalling
investigations into how the 9/11 attacks could happen, wasting resources
for invading a country that had nothing to do with it while Bin Laden is
still on the loose and plotting new attacks, and helping terror networks
recruit more angry young men by alienating the Arab world even more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 04:28:45 PM |
|
|
"Rainer Haas" <rhaas808@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:c2df49$j07$1@online.de...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
Exactly. Kerry hasn't even so much as VOICED his own plan for dealing with
surprise terrorist attacks upon our country
Maybe you should pay more attention.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html
much less proven that his plan
would be superior to what President Bush has been doing.
His plans sound much more reasonable to me than stonewalling
investigations into how the 9/11 attacks could happen, wasting resources
for invading a country that had nothing to do with it while Bin Laden is
still on the loose and plotting new attacks, and helping terror networks
recruit more angry young men by alienating the Arab world even more.
Can you help us understand Kerry's policy? Please define "necessary" in the
following:
"Kerry will act militarily when necessary"
""We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone," Kerry told an
audience at the University of California at Los Angeles. "As President, if
necessary, I will use military force to protect our security, our people, and
our vital interests"
I believe Bush is willing to use military force anywhere terrorists are found
unless the consequences of such action are unacceptable.
I think Kerry sees the fight against terrorism as a legal matter rather than a
war. I doubt that Kerry would take any significant military action without
permission from the United Nations. How do you see it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 04:34:31 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for
Kerry
From: "Bob" no@email.address
Date: 3/6/2004 5:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <5bs2c.32157$6e7.17005@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
"Rainer Haas" <rhaas808@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:c2df49$j07$1@online.de...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
Exactly. Kerry hasn't even so much as VOICED his own plan for dealing
with
surprise terrorist attacks upon our country
Maybe you should pay more attention.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html
much less proven that his plan
would be superior to what President Bush has been doing.
His plans sound much more reasonable to me than stonewalling
investigations into how the 9/11 attacks could happen, wasting resources
for invading a country that had nothing to do with it while Bin Laden is
still on the loose and plotting new attacks, and helping terror networks
recruit more angry young men by alienating the Arab world even more.
Can you help us understand Kerry's policy? Please define "necessary" in the
following:
"Kerry will act militarily when necessary"
""We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone," Kerry told
an
audience at the University of California at Los Angeles. "As President, if
necessary, I will use military force to protect our security, our people, and
our vital interests"
I believe Bush is willing to use military force anywhere terrorists are found
unless the consequences of such action are unacceptable.
I think Kerry sees the fight against terrorism as a legal matter rather than
a
war. I doubt that Kerry would take any significant military action without
permission from the United Nations. How do you see it?
I do not know and I do not think anyone has asked Kerry. I suspect that he
will be careful with the use of our men which is what I want. If you read the
report on Kerry In Vietnam, he left the boat to make sure the bad guy who
endangered his boat got killed. That is the action of a brave man.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rainer Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad newsfor Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 06:36:04 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
Exactly. Kerry hasn't even so much as VOICED his own plan for dealing with
surprise terrorist attacks upon our country
Maybe you should pay more attention.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html
much less proven that his plan
would be superior to what President Bush has been doing.
His plans sound much more reasonable to me than stonewalling
investigations into how the 9/11 attacks could happen, wasting resources
for invading a country that had nothing to do with it while Bin Laden is
still on the loose and plotting new attacks, and helping terror networks
recruit more angry young men by alienating the Arab world even more.
Can you help us understand Kerry's policy? Please define "necessary" in the
following:
"Kerry will act militarily when necessary"
Why don't you just read the text:
"Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy
terrorist groups and their leaders."
I believe Bush is willing to use military force anywhere terrorists are found
unless the consequences of such action are unacceptable.
So far Bush's biggest use of military force took place where no
terrorists were found (before Bush let them in, that is).
I think Kerry sees the fight against terrorism as a legal matter rather than a
war.
What exactly has Bush's war done to defeat terrorists? According to a
recent report by the directors of the FBI, CIA and DIA, Al Qaeda is
active as ever, their recruiting is up, and the threat to the US has not
diminished. On top of that, there is a real danger of Islamist
extremists gaining power in Iraq.
All the real progresses against Al Qaeda (such as taking out some of its
operatives and freezing funds) weren't achieved by Bush's war, but by
tough police action with international cooperation. Much more could have
been achieved by now if Bush hadn't diverted huge resources for an
unnecessary war and alienated many other nations in the process.
I doubt that Kerry would take any significant military action without
permission from the United Nations. How do you see it?
Well, Kerry voted to give Bush authority to bomb Iraq, didn't he? I
think it was a big mistake to trust Bush with this, but it should please
you, no? BTW, what do you think of Bush's pleading with the UN to help
him with the elections in Iraq?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:41:25 PM |
|
|
"Rainer Haas" <rhaas808@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:c2dqhs$ko9$1@online.de...
Can you help us understand Kerry's policy? Please define "necessary" in the
following:
"Kerry will act militarily when necessary"
Why don't you just read the text:
"Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy
terrorist groups and their leaders."
You are correct. That was in the text and I didn't see it. I have serious doubts
that Kerry would take military action without permission from the U.N.
I believe Bush is willing to use military force anywhere terrorists are
found unless the consequences of such action are unacceptable.
So far Bush's biggest use of military force took place where no
terrorists were found (before Bush let them in, that is).
I suspect he thought that Saddam was aiding terrorists, and I believe that to be
the case.
I think Kerry sees the fight against terrorism as a legal matter rather than
a war.
What exactly has Bush's war done to defeat terrorists?
I seem to remember some intercepted communication where the terrorists in Iraq
were calling for help because the coalition was smothering them. A free Iraq in
the middle of that cesspool of terrorism will be a start to cleaning up that
mess.
According to a
recent report by the directors of the FBI, CIA and DIA, Al Qaeda is
active as ever, their recruiting is up, and the threat to the US has not
diminished.
That is not a reason to stop the war on terrorism.
On top of that, there is a real danger of Islamist
extremists gaining power in Iraq.
That is certainly a danger. I hope it doesn't happen.
All the real progresses against Al Qaeda (such as taking out some of its
operatives and freezing funds) weren't achieved by Bush's war, but by
tough police action with international cooperation. Much more could have
been achieved by now if Bush hadn't diverted huge resources for an
unnecessary war and alienated many other nations in the process.
Al Qaeda will have difficulty operating unless it finds friendly host nations.
If nations know that the USA, UK and Australia will not put up with nations
knowingly hosting terrorists, they will think twice before doing so.
I doubt that Kerry would take any significant military action without
permission from the United Nations. How do you see it?
Well, Kerry voted to give Bush authority to bomb Iraq, didn't he? I
think it was a big mistake to trust Bush with this, but it should please
you, no?
Yes it did. But all his backtracking on that vote have turned me away from
Kerry. He later voted against the money to support the military and rebuilding
work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
BTW, what do you think of Bush's pleading with the UN to help
him with the elections in Iraq?
I think it's good that the U.N. be asked to help with elections in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rainer Haas" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad newsfor Kerry |
07 Mar 2004 05:36:28 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
So far Bush's biggest use of military force took place where no
terrorists were found (before Bush let them in, that is).
I suspect he thought that Saddam was aiding terrorists, and I believe that to be
the case.
"Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that
Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism
network were in league. At most, occasional meetings may have occurred.
Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those
meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said.
That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of
Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, several months before the
war started."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8094015.htm
I think Kerry sees the fight against terrorism as a legal matter rather than
a war.
What exactly has Bush's war done to defeat terrorists?
I seem to remember some intercepted communication where the terrorists in Iraq
were calling for help because the coalition was smothering them.
Source? What "terrorists in Iraq" supposedly did this?
A free Iraq in
the middle of that cesspool of terrorism will be a start to cleaning up that
mess.
Nice theory. But Iraq is not free, and if they ever are, they will
probably develop into an Islamist state similar to Iran.
According to a
recent report by the directors of the FBI, CIA and DIA, Al Qaeda is
active as ever, their recruiting is up, and the threat to the US has not
diminished.
That is not a reason to stop the war on terrorism.
But it's a very good reason to change the strategy.
On top of that, there is a real danger of Islamist
extremists gaining power in Iraq.
That is certainly a danger. I hope it doesn't happen.
All the real progresses against Al Qaeda (such as taking out some of its
operatives and freezing funds) weren't achieved by Bush's war, but by
tough police action with international cooperation. Much more could have
been achieved by now if Bush hadn't diverted huge resources for an
unnecessary war and alienated many other nations in the process.
Al Qaeda will have difficulty operating unless it finds friendly host nations.
If nations know that the USA, UK and Australia will not put up with nations
knowingly hosting terrorists, they will think twice before doing so.
Is that why e.g. Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia are providing funding
for Al Qaeda to this day?
I doubt that Kerry would take any significant military action without
permission from the United Nations. How do you see it?
Well, Kerry voted to give Bush authority to bomb Iraq, didn't he? I
think it was a big mistake to trust Bush with this, but it should please
you, no?
Yes it did. But all his backtracking on that vote have turned me away from
Kerry.
He backtracked once he saw how the congress had been mislead by Bush's
stories about mushroom clouds over Manhattan, tons of biological
weapons, and remote controlled drones capable of reaching the US. As I
said, big mistake to trust Bush.
He later voted against the money to support the military and rebuilding
work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here's what he actually voted against:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday he would not
support President Bush's $87 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan
without a dramatic shift in White House policies.
"I'm not going to vote for an open-ended ticket," Kerry told The
Associated Press. He said Bush should get more foreign troops into Iraq
and use oil revenues to help pay for reconstruction before Americans are
forced to foot the bill. Kerry said the United States cannot abandon the
Persian Gulf nation.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0909.html
BTW, what do you think of Bush's pleading with the UN to help
him with the elections in Iraq?
I think it's good that the U.N. be asked to help with elections in Iraq.
So on one hand you don't want the UN to be involved in the decision
process before the war, but afterwards you want them to clean up?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Byfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 10:20:17 PM |
|
|
You may be right, but I think that would make more people think about
terrorism .. which would certainly benefit Bush. I can't see how
anyone could think Kerry would do a better job than Bush at fighting
terrorism ... other than the party faithful.
Think of it like this: When Vietnam was a real war, Kerry went and fought
it. Bush hid in a fake reservist position, using the money and political
power of his father to save him. Which do you think is best qualified to
lead the US defenses?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 10:27:43 PM |
|
|
"Bert Byfield" <BertByfield@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:Xns94A4ED52EF290bertbyfieldcaravelab@24.24.2.165...
You may be right, but I think that would make more people think about
terrorism .. which would certainly benefit Bush. I can't see how
anyone could think Kerry would do a better job than Bush at fighting
terrorism ... other than the party faithful.
Think of it like this: When Vietnam was a real war, Kerry went and fought
it. Bush hid in a fake reservist position, using the money and political
power of his father to save him. Which do you think is best qualified to
lead the US defenses?
At that time, neither of them. At this time, Bush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:19:46 AM |
|
|
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how to deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative to what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership skills of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christian Williamson" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad newsfor Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:23:47 AM |
|
|
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how to deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative to what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership skills of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
I disagree. If people think that Bush has screwed up on protecting the
nation they will look for another chief. Kerry is a war hero, along with
all that duplicity. People could just overlook all that duplicity to
hand the reins to a decorated veteran.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:32:18 AM |
|
|
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049d0e4$0$3082$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how to
deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative to
what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership skills
of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More
Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
I disagree. If people think that Bush has screwed up on protecting the
nation they will look for another chief.
But unless they can find a potential chief who looks BETTER than the current
chief, they will stick with the chief they know.
Kerry is a war hero,
So he claims. But so was Bob Dole. So Kerry's claim means little in terms
of winning elections.
along with
all that duplicity. People could just overlook all that duplicity to
hand the reins to a decorated veteran.
Did they hand the reins to Bob Dole?
.
|
|
|
| User: "support_our_troops" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 08:21:18 AM |
|
|
"John Fraud Kerry" <JFK@DNC.com> wrote in message
news:Cpk2c.494213$na.1169679@attbi_s04...
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049d0e4$0$3082$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered
voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how
to
deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has
been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative to
what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership
skills
of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More
Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
I disagree. If people think that Bush has screwed up on protecting the
nation they will look for another chief.
But unless they can find a potential chief who looks BETTER than the
current
chief, they will stick with the chief they know.
Kerry is a war hero,
So he claims. But so was Bob Dole. So Kerry's claim means little in
terms
of winning elections.
along with
all that duplicity. People could just overlook all that duplicity to
hand the reins to a decorated veteran.
Did they hand the reins to Bob Dole?
They need to assault this bogus jobless recovery claim, the bogus jobs
going overseas crap and exploit the gay marriage issue. China and just about
everyone else is losing jobs except the USA. The USA is the only country in
the world that's been economically growing.
It's all a matter of cash really. GWB raised 5 million.
Last Thursday.
GWB still has 150 million and he needs every penny.
Kerry has 3 million left--only raises just under a million in about a week.
But estimates are that the 4 major networks GAVE the dems over 100 million
more than Bush in "free" advertising so far. See www.mrc.org for how they
operate on a daily basis.
The dems also are sticking to their cheating ways by exploiting loopholes in
campaign finance and it's been claimed that they have over 200 million in
extra double top secret campiagn funds stashed away in accounts--prob.
Usama's bank accounts.
Bush will make them spend money now so in a few months the dem contributors
will be turning their pockets inside out. That's what the dems did to
Bobdole. And they had the nets giving out "free" advertising that election
as well--objective my *****.
The current ads the reps are running got everyone to remember sept. 11 when
Bush was at his highest approval and the ENTIRE country was united. Remember
when he gave little Tommy Dashole a hug?
Lolly pops, rainbows and puppy dogs will only get you so far.
People know GWB is much stronger than Kerry on national security issues and
unless they capture UBL it won't be as much of an issue compared to bringing
spending under control, keeping taxes lower and growing the economy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 08:28:18 AM |
|
|
"support_our_troops" <nooneuknow@REMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message
news:y7l2c.30874$W74.26763@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"John Fraud Kerry" <JFK@DNC.com> wrote in message
news:Cpk2c.494213$na.1169679@attbi_s04...
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049d0e4$0$3082$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than
before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered
voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly
the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A
terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how
to
deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has
been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative
to
what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership
skills
of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More
Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
I disagree. If people think that Bush has screwed up on protecting the
nation they will look for another chief.
But unless they can find a potential chief who looks BETTER than the
current
chief, they will stick with the chief they know.
Kerry is a war hero,
So he claims. But so was Bob Dole. So Kerry's claim means little in
terms
of winning elections.
along with
all that duplicity. People could just overlook all that duplicity to
hand the reins to a decorated veteran.
Did they hand the reins to Bob Dole?
They need to assault this bogus jobless recovery claim, the bogus jobs
going overseas crap and exploit the gay marriage issue. China and just
about
everyone else is losing jobs except the USA. The USA is the only country
in
the world that's been economically growing.
It's all a matter of cash really. GWB raised 5 million.
Last Thursday.
GWB still has 150 million and he needs every penny.
Kerry has 3 million left--only raises just under a million in about a
week.
But estimates are that the 4 major networks GAVE the dems over 100 million
more than Bush in "free" advertising so far. See www.mrc.org for how they
operate on a daily basis.
I don't think the so-called "major" networks are so major any longer. I
think that's why Kerry's numbers have sagged so badly (4 point drop) after
only THREE DAYS of the Bush ads!
Katie Kouric and her leftist minions simply CANNOT deliver the goods for the
DNC any longer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christian Williamson" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad newsfor Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:39:19 AM |
|
|
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049d0e4$0$3082$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how to
deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative to
what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership skills
of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More
Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
I disagree. If people think that Bush has screwed up on protecting the
nation they will look for another chief.
But unless they can find a potential chief who looks BETTER than the current
chief, they will stick with the chief they know.
Possibly. I think, though, that, depending on the attack and Bush's
response to it and Kerry's using it in the campaign, things could swing
Kerry's way.
Kerry is a war hero,
So he claims.
No. It is a given fact that Kerry was a war hero.
But so was Bob Dole. So Kerry's claim means little in terms
of winning elections.
Unlike Dole, Kerry is using the war hero angle; Kerry didn't rise in the
polls against Dean until he did this.
along with
all that duplicity. People could just overlook all that duplicity to
hand the reins to a decorated veteran.
Did they hand the reins to Bob Dole?
Bob Dole ran a poor campaign; I was not excited about it, and I know
many others weren't.
We'll just have to see how Kerry's campaign goes forth. I think he's a
better campaigner than Dole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraud Kerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Majority feels the country is safer today, which is bad news for Kerry |
06 Mar 2004 07:43:47 AM |
|
|
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049d489$0$3099$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049d0e4$0$3082$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
"Christian Williamson" <cdwilli@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4049cd24$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
John Fraud Kerry wrote:
The majority (58 percent) says the country is safer today than before
9/11
and agree (57 percent) with Bush's view that taking military action
abroad
is necessary to keep from fighting terrorists on U.S. soil.
Latest Opinion Dynamics Corporation national poll of registered
voters,
March 3-4.
Bush's efforts are paying off, and he gets my vote this year. He has
taken the war to the terrorists around the world; this is exactly the
right response to 9/11.
However, I still think his is a tenuous position to be in. A terrorist
attack in the US between now and November would be catastrophic to
Bush's campaign.
Only if Kerry offered, AHEAD OF TIME, a more viable proposal for how to
deal
with the Muslim terrorist threat. And, so far at least, Kerry has been
TOTALLY unable to offer anything useful or viable as an alternative to
what
President Bush is ALREADY doing.
IOW, Kerry is an empty suit, a fraud who has NO useful leadership
skills
of
his own, but who can instead only criticize others AFTER the fact.
What, for example, is John Kerry's Comprehensive Plan for More
Effectively
Dealing with the Muslim Terrorist Threat?
ANSWER: Kerry doesn't even HAVE such a plan
I disagree. If people think that Bush has screwed up on protecting the
nation they will look for another chief.
But unless they can find a potential chief who looks BETTER than the
current
chief, they will stick with the chief they know.
Possibly. I think, though, that, depending on the attack and Bush's
response to it and Kerry's using it in the campaign, things could swing
Kerry's way.
Only if Kerry was able to propose a SUPERIOR method of dealing with the
terrorist threat, and did so PRIOR to the attack. So far, Kerry has been
unable to do that.
Kerry instead comes across as an empty suit, a man who CANNOT lead, a man
who can ONLY criticize others AFTER THE FACT. That's NOT a leader. That's
a whining LOSER.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
