While we’re at it, why don’t we see how Bush would poll if Pat Buchannan ran as well? Or Perot? Taking Nader out of the mix is wishful thinking on the part of the pollsters. My guess is, Ralph’ll be there. So why not run a few other fantasy outcomes that give you the results you wish for?

I don’t believe them when they’re right, I don’t believe them when they’re wrong. There’s only one poll that matters, and it’s on 11/2/04.

To me, this is where “objectivity” is lost with the print media. Terrorists bring chemical weapons into Jordan in an attempt to decapitate the leadership and wipe out the US Embassy, and they bring them in from Syria. Syria’s in the business of WMD manufacture? Deaths estimated in the 10s of thousands - no matter, let’s not ask where the terrorists got the chemical agents, let’s just ignore the story altogether. Better yet, let’s see if George needed a penicillin shot 30 year ago in the Guard. Yeah, that’s real news.

Leftist ass hats.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at April 29, 2004 09:09 AM

T-8 “It was an HONEST expression…”.

Ooooops. Kerry said that.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 29, 2004 09:46 AM

Except that those morons are not running/have a negligable amount of the vote. Nader doesnt.

Posted by: Lakhim at April 29, 2004 09:46 AM

A few points about that CBS poll:

First, they did have a result which included Nader, and in that one, Bush leads by 2. Sure, maybe Nader will quit or become a non-factor by November, but then a lot of other conditions are expected to change between now and November. For now, Nader is part of the equation, and so the poll including Nader is valid, while one which ignores him is not.

Also, Democrats are over-represented in the poll (35% of respondents), while Republicans are under-represented (29% of respondents). People may differ as to whether that is a deliberate attempt to skew the results, sloppiness in the work by the pollsters, or poor methodology, but for Bush to do this well in what is not a balanced poll, is actually very bad news for Kerry. Battleground, Pew, and Harris polls on the national mood, reflect that Americans are evenly split between Democrat and Republican identification, 36%-36%, with 22% calling themselves Independent and 6% ‘Other” or “Undecided’.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 10:12 AM

Funny, last week Bush’s poll numbers looked very strong. Oh well, guess that’s old news now…like this will be in a couple of weeks, old and forgotten. I wonder if there’s a study out there which shows at what point before an election that polls actually start to become an accurate indicator of how the election is going to turn out?

Posted by: tagryn at April 29, 2004 10:12 AM

Actually, Tagryn, all polls are valid to some degree.

I find State polls to be the most valuable. For example, Bush continues to lead in Ohio, despite high Unemployment there, especially in Manufacturing. That is an indicator that Bush’s core is very solid. On the other hand, Kerry led in Maryland by 17 points when he became the Democrat’s leading contender. He now leads Bush by just 5 points, in a state many considered locked up for Kerry. In Missouri, a 3-point lead for Kerry in February has become a 4-point lead for Bush in April. In Oregon, a 5-point lead for Kerry in March has become a 2-point lead for Bush in April.

This shows that Bush’s base remains strong, while Kerry’s fluctuates. If Kerry is able to come back and win the White House in November, it will mean that he will have to pursue policies much more to the Right of where he is now. If Bush wins re-election, it means that Bush will enjoy broad support, provided he leads in his second term, as he has promised during this campaign.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 10:21 AM

GDubya: Where’d you get those party-registration numbers for the CBS/NYC poll? I can’t find it on either the CBS or NYC releases.

Posted by: Mitch H. at April 29, 2004 10:32 AM

The Internet really needs ONE web page that has a red-and-blue map with an electoral vote counter next to it. That’s all it really needs.

Then the webmaster uses a simple database for the States and territories. If the State is a “winner take all” for electoral votes, it is real easy—just plug in who is currently* ahead in the polls *right now, as the winner of ALL those electoral votes.

If the State isn’t “winner take all”, then plug in the number of electoral votes each candidate would get.

If the polls you use are +/- 3%, then the State remains undecided. If nationally the same, then the electoral race is undecided.

You must admit that this would be a VERY interesting web page.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2004 10:37 AM

I am compelled to restate the post I made about the Iraqi poll:

We are over analyzed as a society. Too many polls, too many focus groups too much “study” of ourselves.

Further, polls are just lazy reporting. As someone noted earlier, what the press has decided is newsworthy is startling at best, traitorous at worst.

With all the stuff going on, why do polls make news? I think it’s because the press no longer wants to do any actual “reporting” it’s sooooo much cooler to do talking head analysis. So pontificating about the meaning of the tea leaves (i.e. poll numbers) is much more rewarding that doing the spade work necessary to flesh out a story about Syria or UNSCAM.

Posted by: skip at April 29, 2004 11:06 AM

Re: National electoral map

There’s Election Projection, though it hasn’t been updated lately.

The best interactive map I’ve seen is still on the John Edwards 2004 site: John Edwards: Interactive Electoral Map.

I just load that alongside the RealClearPolitics State by State polls page and fill it in myself. Florida may not matter at all if Pennsylvania stays red.

Posted by: Joe Maller at April 29, 2004 11:28 AM

Mitch, I’m not ignoring you (RL job getting in the way).

I’ll dig up the source and post it for the respondents’ numbers.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 02:05 PM

It seems to me that Bush’s historically low approval ratings might have something to do with the campaign he is running. His attacks on the service record of a decorated veteran even upset me and I’m a Republican. It is commomly acceptted that his press conference was a disaster . I am losing confidence in this administraion and it appears I am not alone.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 29, 2004 02:07 PM

Anything that points out Kerry’s record is automatically termed an attack. Actually I think the ad campaign has been very clever.

further the entire flap about Kerry’s record was created by the press. I have not heard of one single Bush ad that references Kerry’s poor behavior.

The press conference was very far from a disaster, IMHO. the running dogs of the left tried as hard as they could, they were rude, obnoxious and disrespectful yet they still did not get the sound bites they wanted.

No, Bush is not a glib person, and I’m OK with that, I’m voting based on his positions not his speech patterns.

Sorry that you’re losing confidence in the admin, but take heart and have patience.

Posted by: skip at April 29, 2004 02:12 PM

Here’s the breakdown on the Respondents on the CBS/NY Times Poll.

(CBS took the respondent details off their website, but the NY Times still has the information on theirs, if you dig).

Go to “http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/29POLL.html?pagewanted=2&hp”, and look to the upper right. You’ll see a box titled “Multimedia”.

Click on the pie chart with the title “Interactive Feature: The New York Times/CBS News Poll”. An Adobe Acrobat Reader will open, with the questions, answers, and history for the questions.

Scroll all the way down to Page 31, and the breakdown of respondents is listed. Note that the breakdown at CBS is usually tilted towards the Democrat, unlike other polling agencies.

The bias is documented here, but it is noteworthy that neither CBS nor the New York Times mentions they have a different respondent breakdown from other polls. It is further worth noting, that CBS had the respondent breakdown on its site this morning, but have removed the detail from their website.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 02:58 PM

Skip, “Lincoln” is not a real Republican. For instance, ask him to name one thing he’s proud of that Bush has done, and he will respond with a litany straight from the DNC. He’s even used Democrat phrases in his posts. He seems to get his amusement by trying to fool Bush followers into thinking Bush is losing his support. This is a recurring issue.

You’re right about taking heart, though. Bush will win in November, no worries.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 03:06 PM

I don’t think I could actually fool anybody into thinking I’m a liberal. It’s just hard to spout that stuff and keep a straight face.

Actually I think the old lefties out there should be glad there’s a war going on. It gives them a chance to remember their glory days (Yeah, they’ll pass you by, glory days, in the wink of a young girl’s eye). the can wrap bandanas around their now balding heads, light up a big ole’ numbah, hop in the Vdub and go to a rally.

Thanks to viagra they can even re-enact the whole free love thing.

Posted by: skip at April 29, 2004 03:58 PM

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: x at April 29, 2004 04:11 PM

Again GDUBYA disrespects fellow Republicans and refuses to engage in real discussion. One thing I am proud of that Bush has done? The Tax Cut and taking out the Taliban and there are many other issues I agree with him on. But to say I am not a real Republican because I disagree with Bush’s Iraq war is ludicrous (look it up if you are unfamiliar with the word’s meaning.) Bush said himself that “Saddam tried to kill my Dad” and I am affraid that he used he great United States military to settle a family feud. Has it made us safer? Was he honest about the cost in dollars and lives? Bush did exactly what Bin Laden wanted and expected. I hate to say it, but Bin Laden played our administration like a fiddle.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 29, 2004 04:15 PM

See what I mean, Skip? If you close your eyes, it’s like he’s channeling James Carville…

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 04:36 PM

lincoln, if you’re going to paraphrase, don’t use quotation marks. why are you so happy that he took out the taliban?

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 29, 2004 04:37 PM

You have to disrepect members of your own party rather than discuss the issues I raise. I might be a more moderate Republican than you but what ever happen to the 11th commadment? If you do not show more civility and respect I will report you to the moderator. I am here to talk issue not to argue.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 29, 2004 04:42 PM

The exact quote was “Besides, Saddam Hussein tried to kill my dad.”

Posted by: Lincoln at April 29, 2004 04:48 PM

News flash, “Lincoln”. Bush never attacked Kerry’s service in Vietnam. The media brought that up themselves, along with a few Right-Wing commentators. The rest of the damage, Kerry did to himself trying to answer simple questions.

News flash, part II. Bush told the truth about the reason and cost of the war. Sorry you prefer to believe Ted Kennedy instead of the President, but then, most of us have a good enough memory to know Bush has a better record than the Democrats on keeping their word.

News flash, part III. Just because I let it drop, doesn’t mean you answered the simple quesitons from another thread. But since most of us have already figured you out, there’s no need to rehash that, except to remind you, we all figured you out; your acting just isn’t good enough, and your lines are too Left-wing to be believed.

But, do keep posting. It’s a good indicator of just how desperate the Democrats have become, that some of them are now trying to play Jackass in Elephant clothing…

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 04:48 PM

“Lincoln”, I am being civil. I have neither threatened nor demeaned you, just identified you.

And you have to earn respect, which you could start to do by trying a truthful post.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 04:51 PM

Ah, a CBS/NYT poll. The very paradigm of honesty and non-partisnship.

Who could doubt that Bush’s days are numbered? Dan Rather says so(well, he tries to, but he’s still grinding his teeeth together in rage because Koppel thought of the ‘names’ stunt before he did)

Please..

When I saw the major media whining about Bush’s numbers not suffering after their concerted effort to get them down—and they even reported an uptick, I figured that actual numbers were around 70% approval and they were saying something because the disconnect from reality was becoming too apparent.

Anyone who accepts any poll without a mountain of salt is living in a dreamworld.

Posted by: jack at April 29, 2004 04:58 PM

You mean the “decorated war veteran” who tried to get a one year deferment and when denied decided to join the Navy (no problem with that whatsover, B-T-W. One goes where one’s interests lie.), who “decorated” himself, who wrote up his own Purple Hearts (“That was an EGG shell fragment at breakfast this morning, Frank.” Hawkeye), three of same gets you out on the spot, who mistreated puppies with ship-to-ship slingshot, who disparages the honorable service of volunteers for the National Guard (me), who came home and threw some decorations over a fence in protest, who testified before Congress on GI war atrocities supposedly committed by ground troups (from a naval commander?), who allegedly violated standing orders by beaching his craft without backup in order to chase a wounded insurgent? That one? By the way, Bush didn’t question his patriotism.

Posted by: Loren at April 29, 2004 06:41 PM

……who helped snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory by helping to withdraw support from the South Vietnamese thus condemning them to genocide at the hands of the North? I was in college, or just out of college at that time. I really hated those “peace” demonstrators.

Posted by: Loren at April 29, 2004 06:48 PM

you are too funny lincoln. google this:
“Besides, Saddam Hussein tried to kill my dad.”
include the quotes since it is the “exact” wording

1 hit on the entire internet. it links you to a site that also paraphrases what he said. do you need help on this, or is there some alternate meaning of the word exact that i am unaware of? let me guess, you’re one of the liberals that puts the word “imminent” in quotes too, am i right? (sometimes i’m amazed at how big the big tent really is)

by the by, are you still trying to think of a reason why it was worth supporting taking down the taliban that can’t be applied to saddam’s regime?

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 29, 2004 07:06 PM

Alphabet soup polls are always biased.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 29, 2004 07:21 PM

loren, i think we were talking about the guy who was too much of a pussy to go to vietnam. you know, your president.

Posted by: x at April 29, 2004 09:36 PM

“who helped snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory by helping to withdraw support from the South Vietnamese thus condemning them to genocide at the hands of the North? “

Guys like Kerry and other World Leftists practically had to goad the North Vietnamese to invade the South after the war. 1975

Posted by: hound at April 29, 2004 11:24 PM

Why launch personal attacks? All I have said is that I find it unpatriotic and unwise for Bush to attack Kerry for military service. Even when I, as a proud Republican, challenge the deficit that our administration has created I am showerd with personal attacks. I present documented quotes and I am met with lies: there are many links to Bush’s “he tried to kill my dad” speech. Let just stick together as Republicans but let’s not blind ourselves to the shortcomings of our administration because maybe people like you and me can help get this administration back on the right track. Wafflestomper? Don’t be silly, everyone knows why the Taleban and Iraq are different…it’s called 911.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 11:10 AM

Then in 1988, when we won with the Bush senior campaign and carried the highest total of evangelical votes ever in American history, we lost as we always do — the Republicans — we lost the Jewish vote and the Hispanic vote and all those votes. We lost the Catholic vote. We were the first modern presidency to win an election and it was a landslide and not win the Catholic vote. It was barely, but we lost the Catholic vote.

How did we do it? We carried 82 percent or 83 percent of the evangelical vote. I remember when it was all over— this was one of the reasons I got a job in the White House — but I remember when it was all over, there was great shock from me and others saying, “Whoa, this is unhealthy.” We immediately began going after the Catholic vote.

While at the same time, we were frightened by the fact that we lost all these votes and still won the White House. The message did come home. My God, you can win the White House with nothing but evangelicals if you can get enough of them, if you get them all, and they’re a huge number. …

more;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/wead.html

Posted by: scoooby at April 30, 2004 12:58 PM

Want Cheney questioning Kerry’s service? Isnt he like the vice president? How about Karen Hughs? She’s been questioning Kerry’s service.. Isnt she on Bush’s staff? Is this all part of Bush’s ‘relentlessly positive message’?

Posted by: typhonus at April 30, 2004 01:24 PM

“Linc” tries another Democrat’s trick: blame the other side for what you do!

As for lies, Linc, it’s a lie to claim Bush attacked Kerry’s service record. He never did. I corrected you on this yesterday, so if you still press it, the error becomes deliberate prevarication on your part.

Second, as I explained yesterday, no one is attacking you personally (no profanity or insults), we just are explaining to the new arrivals that your “I’m a Republican” claim is not valid.

Now, let’s explore this point. You have said that on the one hand, you are glad that Bush sent troops in Afghanistan, but not to Iraq. You have denied his honesty and intentions, you have twisted his statements, you have blamed Bush personally for Congressional actions, and you have said (in another thread) that you couldn’t see even voting for Bush to be “dog-catcher”.

That is the profile of John Kerry, James Carville, or Terry McAuliffe. It does not fit any Republican, especially given the manner in which you express these opinions.

Therefore, while any of these opinions are fine for you to express, to do so and claim that you are a Republican is disingenuous. This is further reinforced, by the fact that you will not answer any of the specific questions put to you, which could explain why you consider yourself Republican.

All we want is honesty from you.

Posted by: GDubya at April 30, 2004 01:25 PM

Sorry Typhonus, but you’re wrong.

Cheney has been criticizing Kerry’s post-war activities, especially his present inability to say, exactly, what those were during 1971.

Same for Karen Hughes.

That “Bush attacked Kerry’s service” lie is laughable for its ludicrous attempt to blame Bush for Kerry’s inability to keep his stories straight.

Shoot, even the “Village Voice” thinks Kerry is a disgrace!

Posted by: GDubya at April 30, 2004 01:29 PM

I have answered your questions. My last post answered a “specific question.” Please let’s talk issues here and please rather than launching personal attacks answer my question as honsestly and thoughtfully as I answer your questions. My questions you refuse to answer: Is Bush’s deficit spending typical Republican budgeting? Does Bush’s well documented “Besides, he tried to kill my Dad” quote suggest that he used 911 to settle a family feud? Do Republicans typically demean decorated military veterans? Did Bush’s press conference help his case or hurt it? Just because I’m a proud Republican doesn’t mean I am incapable of critical thinking.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 01:54 PM

lincoln,
the taliban did not plan or put into action the events of sept. 11 any more than hussein did. you are aware that al quaida and the taliban are not the same thing, right?

and on the topic that i didn’t see going on past my first post: three times you have attempted to quote the prez. three times you have screwed it up. it’s obvious now you are unable to figure this one out on your own, so here you go:

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”
link

also acceptable are:
saddam “tried to kill my dad”
he “tried to kill my dad”
“(saddam hussein) tried to kill my dad”

every occurrence of “‘he tried to kill my dad’” attributed to bush that you have ever seen is a misquote.

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 30, 2004 01:58 PM

four times and counting

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 30, 2004 02:00 PM

I guess that the quote is so troubling to you that you instead want to discuss punctuation. Maybe you should moderate a sophmore English blog instead of wasting my time avoiding the issues. Still no answers…I expect more from my fellow Republicans.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:18 PM

As a Republican Bush’s “after all, his is the guy who tried to kill my dad” quote is very troubling. It seems that rather than fight the war on terror he used our military to settle a family feud.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:23 PM

C’mon, get off it, Linc, no one’s buying your act.

Your attempts to skirt your identity by playing the victim, yet another Democrat tactic, are old and silly.

Just admit you like Kerry or Nader, and we can talk about the campaign. Pretending you have anything in common with Republicans is just silly.

Here, by the way, are the issues, as I see them:

• We are at war. Attendant issues to that point include respect for the President and Troops, a show of Unity where foreign nations/groups are concerned, and agreement to let the military do its job.

• The Economy is inarguably improving. Attendant issues are jobs, taxes, productivity, and the role of Federal oversight.

• Terrorism remains a front of the war, as well as a deep wound in the nation. Attendant issues are planning for future security and cooperation, and the proper resources for the task

• The 2004 Presidential Election offers a clear choice. Supporters can choose between a President with a clear plan and focus,or a man who basically hopes hatred and divisiveness will usher him in to the White House.

Posted by: GDubya at April 30, 2004 02:33 PM

An honest question: Was the following statement true?

“My fellow Americans,” Bush intoned May 1, 2003. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:33 PM

Blaming Bush invites rebuke, by the way. No one who isn’t running for office as a Liberal, or who is far out to the Left, thinks Bush is to blame for 9/11, or went to war in Iraq for anything but what he said.

Perhaps it is convenient for you to ignore the prisons for torturing children, the mass graves, the camps for training terrorists, or the rape rooms in Saddam’s palaces, but the average American, to say nothing of every Republican, knows better.

Posted by: GDubya at April 30, 2004 02:37 PM

Sadly, it appears that the prisions for torturing are still open and under our command.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:44 PM

GDubya: ” or went to war in Iraq for anything but what he said.”

I thought he said a little something about WMD’s?

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:46 PM

GDubya: ” or went to war in Iraq for anything but what he said.”

Opps, I guess you are right.

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”

I guess he did say it aloud.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:50 PM

lincoln on April 29, 2004 02:07 PM: “I am a Democrat that is pretending to be a Republican”

oops, my punctuation must be wrong.

you don’t get it, do you. a misquote is just making stuff up. my original post was friendly advice so you wouldn’t fuck up again, and again, and again…

i would have been satisfied with the paraphrase. you screwed up and presented inaccurate information. that, my liberal republican friend, has nothing to do with the english language or proper use thereof. it is like those who say that bush say that saddam was an “imminent” threat. oh, but i’m sure you are among the folks that think he said that it was. and why would folks think that? because some people make sophomoric mistakes like misquoting the president. do you know people like that?

Lincoln at April 30, 2004 02:14 PM “i was wrong when i tried to provide Bush’s statement earlier, and hideously wrong when I tried to give the ‘exact quote’. I hope this doesn’t cause all the readers to not give deference to the remainder of my comments.”

why, how republican of you to say.

and any time you would like to join the discussion group on my english blog, you are welcome to join. the fact that you are able properly attribute the correct comment to the president twice in a row sorta indicates you are capable of learning. we’re discussing capitalization tonight. look forward to your comments.

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 30, 2004 03:56 PM

“Perhaps it is convenient for you to ignore the prisons for torturing children,[…], or the rape rooms in Saddam’s palaces, but the average American, to say nothing of every Republican, knows better.”

You’re talking about what the US Military was doing, right? I’m so confused.

Posted by: x at April 30, 2004 04:06 PM

You are still affriad to address the statement that Bush made. Why? Your thesis on the proper use of quotation marks does not provide you wth adequate cover to hide from my question.

Posted by: Lincoln at April 30, 2004 04:11 PM

you quoted cnn who in turn quoted bush. you want the link?

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 30, 2004 04:12 PM

are you suggesting that maybe major combat operations never ended? that they went on continuously until now? that major combat didn’t end, stay ended for quite some time, and then didn’t just recently initiate again?

are these the questions you want me to respond to?

and btw, you didn’t seem to want to address the initial portion of my 1:58 comment.

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 30, 2004 04:17 PM

It has now been revealed to us through the miracle of electronic communication that Bush is disgusted by the abuse of imprisoned Iraqis.

He vows to act.

He vowed that those responsible would be “taken care of” after photographs depicting the acts were published and broadcast around the world.

The photos showed U.S. troops smiling, posing, laughing or giving the thumbs-up sign as naked, male Iraqi prisoners were stacked in a pyramid or positioned to simulate sex acts with one another.

“I didn’t like it one bit,” Bush added.
“And there will be an investigation.”
“I think they’ll be taken care of.”

One Iraqi man had a slur written on his skin in English. Another was directed by Americans to stand on a box with his head covered, and wires attached to his hands, and was informed that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, in charge of the prison, could be relieved of her command, blocked from promotion or receive a letter of reprimand.

I don’t think that’s enough. There should be more. I believe it would be most appropriate to provide swift and terrible punishment for these heinous acts.

I propose that those involved be immediately spanked – hard.

They should be forced to lean way over one of those metal office chairs with their bottoms, high, high up in the air and then they should be paddled.
Paddled with a very large paddle.
Very hard.
For a very long time.
Yes.
Yes!
Yes!!
Isn’t war hell?

I can’t wait for the report on the canine corps. You would be amazed what they really use those dogs for. Woof! Woof!

Posted by: Frist's Freedom Fighter at April 30, 2004 06:08 PM

BTW, Lincoln is dead on, all the republican presidents of the 20th century spent like democrats, eg. eisenhower, nixon,

“My force was standing knee-deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a dead goat, or a chicken, or song-bird, as the people were dead, their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs.” quoted in A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide (Zed Books, 2000),

Posted by: hound at May 1, 2004 04:26 AM

“When our troops enter a bombed village the pariah dogs are already at work eating the corpses of the babies and old women who have been killed. Many suffer from ghastly wounds, especially some of the younger children who…are covered with flies and crying for water.” Colonel Osburn of Britain, quoted in May 1935 issue of Manchester Guardian.

Posted by: hound at May 1, 2004 04:30 AM

“If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you;
This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. ” Mark Twain.

Posted by: hound at May 1, 2004 04:33 AM

“… and that’s all I’m gonna say about that.”

Forrest Gump, fictional pundit

Posted by: GDubya at May 1, 2004 12:54 PM

Lincoln

My questions you refuse to answer:
Is Bush’s deficit spending typical Republican budgeting?

Bush has spent too much money. I hate it. This is the primary negative of his administration, IMHO. It is expected that spending will increase in times of emergency, and that is acceptable. But he has spent too much money on non-emergent domestic programs, and it sickens me. Is it typical of Republican budgeting? I don’t know, but I do know that is not typical of the desires of Republican constituents. In this particular election, however, his opponent does not suggest that he will spend any less, and even if he did, spending is presently so far down the priority totem pole that it is nearly irrelevant. This priority will change, but not this election.

Lincoln

Does Bush’s well documented “Besides, he tried to kill my Dad” quote suggest that he used 911
to settle a family feud?

No. His dad is a former president, who survived an assasination attempt in Kuwait. If anyone saw this as a Family Feud, it would seem that it was SH. This action in Iraq was long in coming and long overdue. We should have done this in 96 when SH first kicked out the weapons inspectors.

Lincoln

Do Republicans typically demean decorated military veterans?

No. But, sometimes decorated military veterans do demean themselves, and their service, and in an election season, it is fair to point their own actions out.

Lincoln

Did Bush’s press conference help his case or hurt it?

If you’re talking about the ‘Why won’t you appologize?’ press conference, I would say, neither. But it sure made the press look bad.

Lincoln

Was the following statement true?
“My fellow Americans,” Bush intoned May 1, 2003. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

Yes. The SH regime was no longer governing the country, and had no effective maneuver elements on the field.

Lincoln (about reasons for going to war in Iraq)

I thought he said a little something about WMD’s?

He did. So did everyone else. The threat of WMD’s was high, and everyone took it seriously; the UN, the previous administration, even France. But that threat of SH using WMDs was removed by this action. Even if it was an empty threat, it was still a threat. And just because they were not found, does not mean that they were not there.

There, your questions answered; I hope to your satisfaction. I wish I could stick around to see your response, but I’m headed north for several weeks.

Posted by: coy at May 2, 2004 10:38 AM

I think the president numbers will remain as they are until the Iraqi Guerilla’s tet offensive. That should occur right about June 30 of this year. At that point Fox news and Bush will both talk about how much we’ve accomplished.

Posted by: typhonus at May 4, 2004 12:25 AM

Still trying to make Iraq into Vietnam, Typhonus?

Well, let’s see…

North Vietnam never used poison gas on their own people…

North Vietnam, think of them as you will, did not have palaces for the dictator with rape rooms, nor did North Vietnam build prisons specifically to torture children…

We never invaded North Vietnam, and never captured Hanoi…

We never caught any of the top Viet Cong leaders, to say nothing of the North Vietnam tyrants…

Since we never took over North Vietnam, we never built schools and water purification facilities…

There has never been a poll showing the North Vietnamese people are glad we came in…

We never set up a constitution for North Vietnam, which guaranteed human rights and self-rule by the people.

But sure, keep telling me how much this is Vietnam all over again. But first, maybe you’d better get some facts.

Posted by: GDubya at May 4, 2004 11:47 AM

People have been asking about an electoral college interactive map. I created one, similar to John Edwards’, but unbiased and no ads. Check it out at http://www.mockelection.org/electionmap/

Posted by: pigman at May 4, 2004 01:01 PM

Everyone is biased, pigman. The key is, to recognize one’s bias, and compensate.

Posted by: GDubya at May 4, 2004 01:12 PM

Of course I’m biased, I didn’t say I wasn’t. But my map is neutral, please check it out…

Posted by: pigman at May 4, 2004 01:28 PM

I did. Sorry, but it’s just a recap of 2000, not a projection.

If you want an interesting “poll” of projections, go to Dave Leip’s Election Atlas (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/), and see the Interactive Projection maps.

He also takes the average of everybody’s maps, to show what the concensus is right now.

Way cool.

Posted by: GDubya at May 4, 2004 03:26 PM

Gdubya- You forgot to mention that Iraq and Vietnam occupy entirely different geographical regions, their people are entirely different ethnically, and they speak very differnt languages. Also the vietnam war occured many years ago… and the words iraq and vietnam have an even versus an odd number of letters. All of which is completely besides the point when one considers the RELEVENT HISTORICAL LESSONS-
in both cases:
1)the president lied about the need for war- in both cases claiming it was necessary for our safety.
2) the president kept lying and claiming we were getting closer to victory when clearly it kept getting further away.
3) the president kept US soldiers in the firing line, getting Americans needlessly killed every day, long past the time when anyone had a reasonable expectation of winning this war.
4) the civilian populace that we were trying to ‘bestow the blessings of democracy’ on- at best didnt care and more often- hated our guts becouse of the war zone and random killing that we made of their country.
5) we were doing our best to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of the populace. and failed.
theres more….
as for #3- thats the significance of the tet offensive… not a military success, but it made clear that we couldnt win… frankly, I hope that hasnt come to pass yet our not being able to win… but frankly, Bush doesnt have the intellectual or moral fortitude to turn this one around- there are only so many levers to pull, and Bush wont, and by the time Kerry is pres. they wont have enough effect. Personally, I hope Im wrong. I hope we can win this one. but bush has made far to many bad decisions (#6- gradual escalation- didnt Bush ever hear of the powell doctrine- morons.) and I dont think its possible…If Bush is re elected- well lets look forward to 4 more years- of Americans dying at an ever increasing rate in Iraq…. and I think he’s going to bring back the draft too…

Posted by: typhonus at May 5, 2004 09:12 PM

Typhnonus, I had a nice point-by-point refutation all done, then accidentally hit ‘cancel’.

But I really don’t need to bother. If you are just spewing as you usually do, you know how much of what you just posted is false and wrong (like the draft - anyone who has bothered to check, knows that only Democrats have proposed bringing back the draft - how convenient for them, to propose something stupid, then claim the GOP did it - then again, how typical).

And if you are stupid enough to believe that drivel you wrote, then all the facts and logic in the world won’t make you understand.

When Bush is re-elected, just remind yourslef there will be another election later. But then, the same logic most of us can see will still be in effect, and unless the Democrats finally wake up and return to what they were 50 years ago, they’re just going to keep failing to fool the public. Except in Massachusetts, where they appear to be politically masochistic.

Posted by: GDubya at May 6, 2004 02:04 PM