Why Bush will win

[jravnsbo]

Plus as I have been sayiing Bush signed the farm bill and next year will sign the Energy bill which will play extremely well to Midwestern farm communities with its ethanol subsidies.

If Bush can battle the Dems on their Gore states in the Midwest he will break the Dems back.  

Bush didn't even compete there in 2000 and only went Dem int he last week, and in 2002 GOP swept everything.

[jravnsbo]

Why Bush will win,

Because your new God said so! Vote Bush!  cool 501 to be a God

[jravnsbo]

QUIET! are you challenging GOD, lol.

All in fun, on a few different boards so I can switch back and forth and get ideas all over the place , plus I do read a lot of online stuff, newspapers and such from different states.

[jravnsbo]

Yeah a new liberal springs up in MN after such huge defeats in MN in 2002?  Odd.

Gov Pawlenty , Sen Cleman, increased majority int eh state House and picked up seats in the state Senate to pull within a couple.  Now when Bush actually puts some money into MN unlike 2000, you might as well come on over to the GOP side, not near as gloomy over here!

Bush will win because he was in a war, and the economy is doing decently.

I'm forming a 'Liberal League' around my school, and the #2 reason why people say no is because Bush was in a war.  I asked one of them what would happen if he hadn't gotten into the war, and she said she wouldn't like Bush.

And, of course, the #1 reason is that either I'm stupid, or the organization is stupid.

*sigh* The perils of being a young overenthusiastic liberal.

[jravnsbo]

mr_prez are you on drugs??

Back away fromt he liberal PROPOGANDA for 2 minutes and listen.

Bush gave across the board tax cuts.  So naturally if you PAY MORE YOU GET MORE BACK.  Plus Bush gave tax cuts to the middle class and eliminated some harmful taxes such as the death tax, marriage penalty and gave more to child tax credit.  Dems want to raise taxes, Deana nd Gephardt even want to raise taxes on the middle class.

Next foreign policy.  9/11 suspects.  well we have captured a number of terrorists, including the bomber of the USS Cole.  OBL is hidding in a very mountanous area and it is not easy to get him.  The terrain and the locals are all against us.  Contrary to the Democrats rhetoric we have continually had forces there searching for OBL the entire time we have been in Iraq.

Iraq- 12 UN resolutions were violated.  Clinton did not act to enforce the agreements that Iraq agreed to to end the first Gulf war.  Next in 1998 Clinton asked the Congress for a resolution to use force against Iraq for violating the UN mandates and it was approved and he shot a few missles in there.  There are many Clinton and Dem quotes from this time.  Saddam continued to violate them and HARBOR TERRORISTS, so we went to war.  Recently links have been proven that Muhammed Ata ( the lead 9/11 bomber) was in Baghdad 3 months before 9/11 meeting with Iraqi military and gov't officials.  Plus there were terrorist training camps and they were continuing to try and build their WMD program.

Since Bush has went on the offensive instead of following the Clinton appeasement policy, we have knocked out the Taliban in Afghanistan, taken down the Iraqi regime ( mass killings have stopped) and the Libyas now with the show of force in Iraq have given up their WMDs.  Col Quadafi of Libya said "I'll do whatever the Americans want me to do, because I saw what happened in Iraq"  He saw that Bush was willing to use force to eliminate terrorists and the nation states that harbor them.  

Clinton was offered OBL by the Sudan in the 90s and REFUSED to go and get him.  HELLO!!!

Dean is stronger on National defense?  What do you base that on?  He has been the governor of a small state with no foreign policy or military experience.  Will Libya or other rouge nations be scared of the threat of force from an anti-war candidate such as dean?  NOPE.  They weren't scared of Clinton and continued their attacks and Clinton is light years ahead of Dean.
We definately are safer than before 9/11 and for Dean to say otherwise is crazy.  I mentioned the 3 states above, the collection of terrorists caught and killed around the world and the collection of massive amounts of weapons out of th hands of terrorists.  Plus Saddam is no longer financially supporting the suicide bombers in Palestine.

your turn.

[jravnsbo]

as for moderator remarks.

I would be tough in enforcing the standards but fair to all, across the spectrum no matter their political opinion.

[jravnsbo]

TOUGH TIMES FOR TERRORISTS

By RALPH PETERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Email  Archives
 Print  Reprint
 
 
 
December 31, 2003 -- EVEN if terrorists attack our homeland before the stroke of midnight, 2003 will still have been a year of remarkable progress on every front in the global War on Terror - and the greatest year for freedom since the Soviet Union's collapse.
A decisive government in Washington, backed by the courage and common sense of the American people, worked with allies around the world to carry the fight to the terrorists' home ground. We continued to seize the strategic initiative from the most implacable enemies America has ever faced.

Unless we choose to defeat ourselves, there is no chance of a final terrorist victory.

In 2003, a new generation of enemies learned that America not only fights ferociously, but follows through with tremendous residual power. In one of history's great paradoxes, the provocation of 9/11 - intended to humble us - unleashed our dormant might and rejuvenated the historical trend toward liberty. The Twin Towers fell, but two years later America towers over the world as never before.

The autumn of 2001 saw our initial counterattacks, while 2002 broadened the international struggle and improved our domestic preparedness. But 2003 was our breakthrough year - 12 months of successes that changed the course of history.

Consider just a few of our achievements:

* We deposed and captured one of the world's worst tyrants, liberating 25 million people and demonstrating the inherent weakness of dictatorships.

 

In doing so, we destroyed a regime that had terrorized its own people and the region. We drew an unmistakable line between America's reinvigorated support for the liberation of the oppressed and "old Europe's" cynical defense of the status quo.

* The stunning campaign that took our troops to Baghdad in just three weeks made it clear to the world that no other state or combination of powers can oppose us militarily and left us with the most experienced, combat-proven forces of our time.

* Our president's courageous decision to target Saddam himself while sparing innocent Iraqis upset the traditional rules of warfare, according to which the draftees die while the ruler survives by signing a peace treaty.

Even though our attempted "decapitation strikes" failed, the message sent to the world's dictators and sponsors of terror had far more force than Western pundits yet realize. And our ultimate, humiliating capture of Saddam left every remaining tyrant worried that he might topple next.

* As a result, Libya has opened its nuclear facilities for inspection, while Iran hastened to strike a no-nukes deal with European governments anxious to save face after their support of Saddam backfired disastrously. North Korea has grown remarkably subdued. Syria treads cautiously. No tyrant wants G.I. Joe as his houseguest.

* Even Saudi Arabia, the great incubator of terror, has become newly cooperative, both because the terrorists - predictably - bit the many hands that fed them and because Riyadh's relative importance has declined precipitously with G.I. Jane in Baghdad.

* We've continued to kill and capture terrorists by the thousands, dismantling their networks, seizing their assets and destroying their bases. Terrorism won't disappear in our lifetimes, but its reach and capabilities have been powerfully reduced.

* Our president had the sound instincts to realize that you can't treat the deep cancer of terrorism with a topical salve. Apprehending terrorists isn't enough. Meaningful treatment of this long-untended disease requires radical surgery and great risk.

Those naive or disingenuous voices insisting that our liberation of Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror refuse to accept that the problem isn't a few deadly fanatics but a suffocating civilization.

The administration's resolve to force change in the Middle East was as crucial as it was courageous. We can't force Iraqis - or anyone else - to succeed, but we've done what no others have dared: We've given tens of millions of long-oppressed human beings a chance to live in freedom.

Much of this century will be shaped by what they make of that great chance.

* Most vitally for Americans, our government kept our country remarkably safe. Terrorists yearned to strike us massively, to punish us for our successes, while proving that they remain a potent force. Instead, our federal, state and local authorities achieved new, if still imperfect, levels of cooperation and blocked each terrorist attempt to wound us.

Politically motivated critics charge that the War on Terror has been a failure, despite the obvious proof to the contrary: Our enemies have been unable to harm our homeland. And while we will be struck again eventually - no defense is perfect - every day of safety is a victory.

Two Thousand Three was a year that changed the world. For the better. The reverberations will echo for decades.

Not every result will please us. We will not turn broken states into little Americas overnight. Each culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. But we're making a noble effort to help the wretched of the earth make their societies better.

Perfection belongs to God. Progress is the best that humans can do.

Whether facing down Taliban remnants in Afghanistan or shaming the rest of the world into providing more assistance to Africa's struggle against AIDS, we've made an epochal break with the tradition of wealthy states embracing easy short-term solutions instead of engaging long-term problems. Future historians will regard 2003 as one of the dates when history made a great turn, as a global 1776.

Yet 2004 is going to be a year of decision in the War on Terror. As our presidential election approaches, the terrorists remaining at large will sacrifice their last reserves in an effort to dislodge President Bush, freedom's great crusader, from the White House.

The terrorists will seek to convince American voters that the War on Terror is failing, paving the way for the electoral victory of a weakling and allowing them to surge back into vacuums created by an American retreat.

Their last, desperate hope will be to hit us so hard that we elect a coward in place of a hero.

I'm betting on American guts. And glory.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad."

[jravnsbo]

A Strategy of Partnerships
Colin L. Powell
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004

   
   
 

Summary: Pundits claim that U.S. foreign policy is too focused on unilateral preemption. But George W. Bush's vision -- enshrined in his 2002 National Security Strategy -- is far broader and deeper than that. The president has promoted bold and effective policies to combat terrorism, intervened decisively to prevent regional conflicts, and embraced other major powers such as Russia, China, and India. Above all, he has committed the United States to a strategy of partnerships, which affirms the vital role of international alliances while advancing American interests and principles.

Colin L. Powell is the U.S. Secretary of State.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83104/colin-l-powell/a-strategy-of-partnerships.html

[jravnsbo]

Well IF dave needs some help we should do it like a democracy.

Take nominations by a certain date, give a little campaigning time and then take a vote.

[jravnsbo]

U.S. Team to Visit North Korean Nuclear Facility
 
Friday, January 02, 2004
 
SEOUL, South Korea  — In a startling diplomatic breakthrough, a U.S. delegation will visit North Korea's main nuclear facility at Yongbyon next week, a South Korean official said Friday.

 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107218,00.html


--sounds good.

[jravnsbo]

Because if they let us in to look at least we will have more knowledge as to what they actually have.  

Plus we must be making some progress int he talks if they are willing to let us in.


Yes i know paying them off the Clinton approach, didn't like it then or now.

[jravnsbo]

No but you could continue to isolate them and tellt eh Chinese we will arm Japan and the South fully if they don't head off North Korea.  China doesn't want that either.

Because if they let us in to look at least we will have more knowledge as to what they actually have.  

Plus we must be making some progress int he talks if they are willing to let us in.


Yes i know paying them off the Clinton approach, didn't like it then or now.

It may be the only way to do this in the end.  we can't start another war, you know that as well as anybody.

[jravnsbo]

China could simply tell them straight up.  Get rid of your nukes or you go it alone.  We will not support you if the US attacks as we did in the first Korean war.

Without China , N Korea militarily is toast.

No but you could continue to isolate them and tellt eh Chinese we will arm Japan and the South fully if they don't head off North Korea.  China doesn't want that either.

Because if they let us in to look at least we will have more knowledge as to what they actually have.  

Plus we must be making some progress int he talks if they are willing to let us in.


Yes i know paying them off the Clinton approach, didn't like it then or now.

It may be the only way to do this in the end.  we can't start another war, you know that as well as anybody.

I am not sure how much influence China can excercise over NK. Asian communists are really scary, I'm not convinced they can be negotiated with. NK in particular.

[jravnsbo]

encouraging signs in California for President Bush!.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7705225.htm

[jravnsbo]

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.

If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%

[jravnsbo]

Bush: Bin Laden Aide Is Caught in Iraq    

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The minister in charge of Iraqi police said Monday that al-Qaida was probably behind some suicide bombings in Iraq (news - web sites), and President Bush (news - web sites) praised the capture of a senior member of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network.

"There is a presence of al-Qaida in this country. We've announced that directly and indirectly," Interior Minister Nouri Badran said.

"A lot of the suicide attacks have the fingerprints of the crimes committed by al-Qaida," he added. Asked if al-Qaida is operating in Iraq, he said: "Yes, it is."

But he provided no evidence to back his claim. There was no immediate comment from U.S. military commanders.

During a visit to Little Rock, Ark., on Monday, Bush said Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq last week.

"He was a killer. He was moving money and messages around South Asia and the Middle East to other al-Qaida leaders. He was a part of this network of haters that we're dismantling," Bush said.

Iraq has witnessed a number of devastating suicide vehicle attacks since the ouster of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime in April — attacks aimed at both coalition forces and their Iraqi allies.

A few non-Iraqi Arab and foreign fighters have been detained or killed in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, but coalition forces have been reluctant to clearly say if they were part of or directly linked to al-Qaida.

[jravnsbo]

exactly! we win OHIO it is over.  I do like that site though for many polls.

Polls were from jan 12 though and before IA.


www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jravnsbo]

Honestly I like Kerry better for GOP win than Dean.  Dean has the potential to try and look moderate with record from VT.  Kerry is a liberal, was a liberal and always will be a liberal.

Love it.  I'd rather they nominate kerry than Dean.

[jravnsbo]

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[jravnsbo]

no but allt he dems do is blame them for THEIR loss.  If i was a green I sure as h*ll wouldn't vote for a Democrat that was chastizing me all the time.

Constitutiona dn Libertarian parties are not costing GOP anything.  Simply B/c GOP is growing and controls all facets fo gov't by winning.

Why should we have to do anything for them?  Their radical views are the ticket to nowhere.  It's like saying the Republican party should cater to the views of the Constitution Party.

[jravnsbo]

I am pro environment , but not pro RADICAL ENVIRONMENT.  You must have balance not extremism.  The radical environmentalists groups we have int he US don't ever give any credit to the GOP and want EVERYTHING There way to protect a shrew.  Hello move the darn thing.  Oh no it has always lived here.  geez!

I grew up on a  farm and the midwest thrives on the beautiful and love of the land.  We get very offended by coast groups that come in and tell us they know better than we do about our own lands.  hello!

Case in point Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) has a very good environmental record.  He has founded a committee that has grown to be bi-partisan int he senate to study and develop alternative energy resources.  He has pushed legislation through that Bush signed for a ton of extra money there.  He is big in developing solar energy programs and setting aside lands in his own state of Colorado.  However int he 2002 elections the radical groups demonized him, if you didn't know better you'd think he was grabbing kids and feeding them pollution.  It was reprehensible.  They then went and hen picked bills they were for and showed his record to be like 15% and didn't give him any credit for the environmental things he was doing, completely distorting his record.  Luckily he won easily.

Bush has done a lot for the environemtn but the media will never let you know it you have to research for it.  He repeals some act or eases it like the brush clearing legislation and its front page news.  Talk about bias.  Yeah lets let the trees have useless brush so we can have ALL the trees burn up in forest fires.

That's interesting, being pro-environment is very unusual for a right-winger, which isn't really logical though, btw.  

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[jravnsbo]

California Opens Arms to GOP, for Now

LOS ANGELES — In the 2000 presidential election, President Bush got clobbered by Al Gore in California, 53 percent to 42 percent.
 
And although the Golden State is perceived to be chock full of mostly registered Democrats, a recent poll shows that Bush's performance approval rating in that state is now at 52 percent. That means for this year's presidential election, California may be a key state for the GOP — the first time since 1988.

Democrats and Republicans surveyed said Bush is favored for three reasons: Saddam Hussein is in custody, there's more money in their pockets after Bush-imposed tax cuts and actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is in the governor's seat in Sacramento.

Democrats acknowledge there's a bit of a honeymoon period with the Terminator but they believe that will soon wear thin and Bush will have to stand on his own.

State GOP leaders aren't sure if Bush's uptick is an aberration or a turning point, but, to use a California term, they're getting their boards waxed and ready to ride.


--not ready to say Bush will win California, but an encouraging sign if he is running strong there.