Bob M. wrote:
"Bruce Roberts" <roberts@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:0m2xb.795$p8C.543@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Bill Clinton got the vote of most U.S. "soccer moms" during two elections.
So
did Al Gore in the 2000 election. But now out of fears for security
against
terrorism a growing majority of these women are going to support George
Bush
and the Republicans. So says an article in "BusinessWeek" magazine, "White
married women with children are helping Bush narrow the gender gap".
These women have more confidence in Bush in protecting American security.
And protecting its people from internal and external enemies is still the
prime
function of any national government. The article states "Terrorism fears
have
a lot of women who often vote Democratic thinking twice".
***
Yeah, that makes lots of sense. Soccermoms can prepare to send their kids to
Bush's wars and maybe they'll come home in a body bag or come home with no
legs fighting "terrorists" that otherwise would not exist. We're all safer
now because Bush is so good at fighting terrorism, yeah right! Soccermoms
are really going to love to see the draft reinstated next year when Bush is
re-elected. Of course the Democrats could not possibly fight a war or
protect Americans, no. The fact that Democrats were in power during WWII and
that is seen as the just and "good" war
Yes, American G.I.s were fighting for Uncle Joe Stalin' Soviet Union.
That's why a commie like you thinks it was a good war. Am I right?
and that the US won it decisively
means that Democrats are no good at protecting America.
But the U.S. had over 500,000 killed in WW II. So far the KIA in Iraq is
under 300.
What crap! Democrats
won't just rush into a war for no reason, (Vietnam?) that's the difference, but they
will answer the call when truly threatened.
The Democrats got the U.S. involved in Mogadishu, Somalia for
"humanitarian" reasons.
Bob
The Democrats were always soft on Communism and now they are soft on
terrorism.
.
