Posted on 08/23/2004 7:20:29 AM PDT by pabianice
I saw that too. He was pretty honest, for a Clintonite. But how can you not be honest when you see what's happening with the Kerry campaign.
What's unfortunate about noting that Kerry has done next to nothing in 19 years as a senator?
Free speech shouldn't be this complicated. My head hurts. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't care for Kerry either but at least if I was going to bring up his deficiencies, I would try to be factual as to maintain my credibility.
If you had followed his career as yo claim, then you would know he was elected in 1984 and started serving in 2005. That means it's been 20 years since he was elected and 19 years since he started serving. As you can see, the 12 year tenure you attribute to him is incorrect.
However, there is a silver lining of sorts in that his lack of 'productivity' now spans a longer period of time.
I've been wondering about that. Kennedy was motivated to bail out the French and help out his Vietnamese co-religionists (who were also culturally French at the upper class levels),but were the masses Catholic, as well?
Do you have a link to this information about the Vietnamese people?
South Vietnam was about 9% Roman Catholic. Don't exagerate.
Somebody, please, please post this on the DUmmy site. I want to see how they handle this SWEET news!
You said it. Especially since this is also on the gallup site ...
---
Bush campaign chief strategist Matthew Dowd's spin on our latest Bush job approval number -- 51% according to an Aug. 9-11 poll -- raised a few eyebrows among the sticklers for accuracy around this shop. Dowd reportedly said, "no president who has been at or above 50% at this point in an election year has lost."
Looking at historical job approval ratings from August of election years involving incumbents seeking re-election, the fact is, no president who has been at or above 52% at this stage has lost. But even that figure is misleadingly low because it is based on an outlier low point for Bill Clinton in 1996. For most of that period, Clinton's approval scores were in the 57% to 60% range. More broadly, no president who has had an average approval score of 55% or higher in the third quarter of an election year (spanning August to October) has lost.
Losing incumbents have had average approval ratings in the second and third quarters of an election year ranging from 35% (Carter and Bush I) to 46% (Ford).
Thus, while a 50% job approval would logically seem to be an important threshold for re-election, we just don't have a precedent to say anything definitive about whether that is the magic number. It could be 50%, but it could be as high as 55% or even as low as 47%.
Although Bush's latest rating of 51% is the highest he has achieved since April, it is within the statistical margin of error of the 47% to 49% approval scores he has consistently received since May. His average approval for the second quarter of 2004 (spanning May to July) was only 48%. In order to be in the company of successful incumbents, he will have to push that to 55% in the current quarter. If he continues to hover around 50%, he will be in uncharted territory, and the best one might say is that the election still figures to be extremely close.
I certainly hope so, too, but I just don't want us to become complacent. We cannot take a Bush victory for granted. The other side is just too dirty.
In 2000, people who weren't even registered to vote were permitted to vote for Gore in Allegheny County, Pa. Also in Allegheny County, residents of Mayview state mental hospital were bused to the polls (by the head of the Pittsburgh NAACP) and told how to vote - even thought they weren't registered in that district. Homeless people were given cigarettes in Milwaukee in exchange for their Democrat votes. The polling places in overwhelmingly Democrat St. Louis stayed open beyond the legal hours.
We can't expect these things won't happen again, no matter how much we try to keep an eye on them. That's why we have to do all we can to persuade the undecideds, the shut-ins, the apathetic to vote for Bush in 2004.
"you do not want to know about Hillary's 'torpedoes'."
EEEeeewwwwwwwww . . .
("ALWAYS REMEMBER - Hitlery will not allow Kerry to win this year. It will ruin her Master Plan.")
This is so very very true!!!!!!!!!!
I think Clinton's "unfavorables" were this high when he was re-elected by 6% in 1996.
I can't find the threads, but there were several on the subject of Kerry's lack of activity in the Senate over the last 20 years on FR.
'cause it's not nothing. "Next to nothing" the press could ignore as Kerry working behind the scenes (which is what they've done); "nothing" couldn't be ignored.
Clinton averaged 57% that August. There's still time, but we've got to motivate our forces now!
His UNFAVORABLES were 57%? No way.
No! Definitely, you're right. I was referring to his favorables (which, according to Gallup, averaged 57% in August 1996.)
But then his unfavorables can't have averaged higher than 43% in that time period. We're just desperate for tips like we're playing the horses - but unlike horses, the race isn't over tomorrow, and there's still time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.