The South (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 03:21:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  The South (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The South  (Read 14872 times)
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« on: March 13, 2004, 10:23:15 AM »

It IS a partisan issue.  Every issue is a partisan issue and the differences between the two sides need to be discussed.  During Clinton's 8 years we saw how the Democrat's would handle the terrorism issue, i.e. treat it as a law enforcement issue.  Kerry would be more of the same.  

During Bush's 3+ years we've seen how Republican's would handle terrorism.  There is a drastic difference between the two.  This needs to be discussed before the people.  Whenever I hear politicians say things like "Let's not politicize this issue", it signals to me that they're scared because they know the people don't agree with them.  

Logged
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2004, 10:37:46 AM »

Typical, they can't win in the arena of ideas so they resort to name calling.  

Logged
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2004, 10:47:06 AM »

You don't think the differences between Kerry & Bush on terrorism is a legitmate issue during an election?  I can't think of anything more important.

Logged
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2004, 11:02:44 AM »

Yes an interesting thread sorry, the terror issue really is strong with me.  I work 1 mile from ground zero, I'll never forget what I saw that day as long as I live.

Anyway, I think Kerry definitely can win with losing every Southern state.  If he wins all of the Gore states plus NH he's already up to 264.    

This is why Ohio & Florida are so crucial.  If you give Kerry the Gore states plus NH & Ohio it gives him 284.  Plus NH & FL gives him 291. It gets almost impossible for Bush to win if he doesn't carry OH & FL.  If Kerry wins both it's all over then, he wins the election.  

 
Logged
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2004, 01:09:09 PM »

GOPhound,

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than any previous President, and took it more seriously every year of his presidency, over the previous year. In the late 1990s counterterrorism funding surged. Security was beefed up, and beefed up once again. T

It's time for some facts here:
1. Clinton did nothing after the embassy bombings in Africa
2. Clinton did nothing after the WTC bombing in'93
3. Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole attack
4. Clinton did nothing to force Saddam to comply with the UN Sanctions he agreed to after the end of the Gulf War
5. Clinton did not want Osama captured and brought to the US because in his own words "It was a political hot potato" and he didn't think it was our legal right to bring him here.

You can throw all the numbers around that you want, the Clinton administration was a tremendous failure in dealing with terrorism.  He should have been killing these bastards after the first bombing in '93.  Now Bush has to deal with this mess.  





Logged
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2004, 02:48:50 PM »
« Edited: March 14, 2004, 02:50:44 PM by GOPhound »

Whoa...who did I call "the enemy within"?  Who did I say is a "hostile foreigner"?  I was merely stating that the Clinton administration did a horrible job of dealing with terrorism.  

When are you guys going to realize that lobbing some cruise missiles and treating this as a law enforecement issue just doesn't work?  How many more must die?  The only way to stop this madness is to kill these bastards where they hide.  Bush has them on the run.  They're scared sh**tless of him.  

No more game playing with cruise missiles and asking the UN for permission.  The stakes are too high.  Our way of life is at stake.  God help us if John Kerry is elected President.  And it has nothing to do with him being a Democrat.  I would never vote for anyone who thinks the terror threat is overstated and it should be dealt with as a law enforecment issue, be it Democrat or Republican.  
Logged
GOPhound
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2004, 06:55:23 PM »
« Edited: March 14, 2004, 06:59:35 PM by GOPhound »

That is a good point.  We hear a lot about how the Dems need to break the GOP lock on the South, but I think the Dems have an even stronger hold on the Northeast.  Also, they seem to be getting stronger in GA,NC,VA.  This is something that bothers me and I think the pubbies are going to have to deal it sooner rather than later.

Clinton showed that the right Democrat can win in the South.  I can't think of any Republican today who could do so well in the Northeast.  Maybe there are a few but they probably couldn't get the nomination.  

I really think it's going to be tougher and tougher for a Republican to win the Presidency with the way the demographics are changing.  Dick Morris has spoke about this.  Assuming Bush wins, he thinks Hillary is a certainty for President unless the GOP nominates Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 13 queries.