Posted on 04/19/2006 6:48:57 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Not this time. Bush and the COP have really stepped on their cranks with the immigration issue. Hope you enjoy a democratic legislature this Nov.
You can't cherry pick your states. Each election has its own dynamic based on the candidates and the issues. There are always battleground states. 2004 wasn't just about Ohio. Kerry narrowly won WI by 11,000 (10 votes,) NH (4 votes) by 9,000 and Iowa (7 votes) by 10,000. That's 21 votes versus Ohio's 20.
Bush had 286 Kerry 252. You need 270 to win. Virginia has 13 NM 5 which is 18, you are correct. With everything being the same and Demcrats take VI and NM, the Democrat has 270 the Republican 268 and that's my point.
You can do all kinds of scenarios making different assumptions. Of course, that's why Kerry always talks about Ohio and what would have happened if 60,000 voters had voted the other way. He never mentions WI, NH, and Iowa and what a voter shift might have done in those states. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a fine time we would have.
Warner/Richardson seems to be the most likely scenario since Hillary will not change anything red to blue, nor will Kerry. Gore? Don't think so. That means new blood which could make a Red State Blue. Both have Presidential aspirations.
Never happen. Warner doesn't have the political organization [read money] and name recognition to mount a serious presidential campaign. Warner and Richardson are seeking the VP nomination. They are the front runners because the dems would like to get a moderate southerner on the ticket or someone from the West with name recognition and Hispanic ties like Richardson.
If Hillary wants the nomination, she will get it. Simple as that. She is a polarizing figure, but she has the political organization and name recognition to win the primaries. Her problem is being elected President once she gets the nomination.
I see the hand of Rove in the way the Wilson/Plame case was handled. He was too clever by half. A direct repudiation would have been much better.
Won't happen. Simply because smart Republicans understand that allowing a Democratic legislature is worse than keeping a GOP that doesn't seem to listen in power. We will keep the House and Senate and keep on demanding they listen. It's the only acceptable thing.
I am not satisfied with the immigration issue as it is right now but I will be less satisfied with the Dems running things. Imagine Nancy Pelosi as Speaker!! No way, no how will I let that happen...and I cannot imagine any other Republican or Conservative allowing that to happen either. So yes, we shall win in the mid-terms. The stakes are too high not to.
Oddly enough, vote fraud in each.
I did as well, four times BTW.
But that is not relevant to your accusation.
The major use of 527's was attributed rightly to Democrats. They used them as a workaround to CFR during the first term election. The politics of it, put the RNC on the other side of the issue because it had to be that way.
The comments were specifically directed to the use of 527's and it was the Demorats who played the issue of SBVFT, and put the RNC in the uncomfortable position of making these comments. They could not make exceptions to what is essentially a correct position IMO.
They were not intended to smear SBVFT, but the Dems wanted it to look that way and you bit off a big hunk of their manipulation of the issue.
This is hard ball politics, and it seems to me that many on this site fall for the crap every time and end up with a knee firmly implanted into their face.
It has happened dozens of times, and it makes me angry to think that our side is no brighter than they are. Maybe worse.
You nailed it on Rove....he's way overrated. In 2000 he had Bush in California most of the last week of the election. Bush lost California by 13 points.
This suicidal fantasy that Hispanics are going to vote Republican if we just let 20 million poor, uneducated illegal criminal aliens get citizenship is insane.
BTW......Hispanics were just 6% of the national vote for President in 2004. They will be less than 8% in 2008.
Only dems or the uninformed would think that. Karl Rove can be single handedly credited with Bush's 2004 win. His political genious is unmatched by anyone inside or outside the beltway. Rove had no business in policy development and was sidetracked by the stupid Plame blame game.
Glad to see Karl getting back into the political game. Hopefully, he'll shake things up a bit and get the GOP back on track to beat the dems in Nov.
The Democrats were responding to the SBVFT, they were not the ones who were playing the issue, but rather reacting to it. Kerry became paralyzed for almost a month because he was unable to respond to the charges. He was like a deer caught in the headlights while his aides and MSM tried to spin their way out and attack the SBVFT, including using the charge that they were not really a 527, but rather, an arm of the GOP.
No, Bush's remarks were not directed just to 527s. That's my point. In response to the allegations contained in the first ad, Bush said, "I think Sen. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record. But the question is who is best to lead the country in the war on terror? Who can handle the responsibilities of the commander in chief? Who’s got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces?”
Bush also said, “That means that ad, every other ad,” he said. “I can’t be more plain about it. And I wish — I hope my opponent joins me in saying — condemning these activities of the 527s. It’s — I think they’re bad for the system. That’s why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold.”
They could not make exceptions to what is essentially a correct position IMO.
I couldn't disagree more. McCain-Feingold is a disgrace and a violation of political free speech. Both parties are now out to eliminate the 527s as part of this misguided effort to get money out of politics. The Dems have used the 527s to circumvent McCain-Feingold. We should do the same, not eliminate them.
They were not intended to smear SBVFT, but the Dems wanted it to look that way and you bit off a big hunk of their manipulation of the issue.
It is not a matter of intention, but the result that matters. The MSM was smearing the SBVFT big time as were the Dems. McCain called them dishonest and dishonorable. The President undermined the SBVFT message by stating that Kerry served admirably and should be proud of his record. He also referred to "that ad" and any subsequent ones originated by the SBVFT should be stopped.
I understand why the President was trying to distance himself from the SBVFT. They are a 527 organization and, by law, cannot be associated with a political party. My complaint has to do with Bush's gratuitous comments about Kerry's service, lumping the SBVFT with the other 527s, and expressing his desire to get rid of all 527s. I am a partisan Republican. My vote is not going to change because of Bush's remarks, but the general voter may not understand the political nuances. All they know is that Bush has condemned the SBVFT ad and said that Kerry had an admirable record and should be proud of his service, which undermines the basic message of the ad.
This is hard ball politics, and it seems to me that many on this site fall for the crap every time and end up with a knee firmly implanted into their face.
I don't quite understand your analogy. Who is planting whose knee in whose face? If criticizing the WH for making a mistake equates to falling for "crap," I plead guilty. I have served as a GOP poll observer and participated as a volunteer for the 2005 Inaugural Ball. I understand politics and in this case, the GOP did not play hard ball politics.
The 2004 race should never have been that close. Kerry was an extremely flawed candidate yet he received 9 million more votes than Gore and came very close to winning. Rove mismanaged the campaign and failed to capitalize on the opponent's weaknesses. As I said previously, the Dems intimidated the WH from the very outset by focussing on Bush's national guard service and comparing it to Kerry's war hero status. By putting Bush on the defensive, they stopped Bush from raising Kerry's vulnerabilities on his service and subsequent antiwar activties. Kerry's saluting and reporting for duty gave the GOP the perfect opportunity to go after this guy who mentioned Vietnam at every opportunity and who had a license plate with 3PH on it.
It has happened dozens of times, and it makes me angry to think that our side is no brighter than they are. Maybe worse.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but then again, I am not as bright as you are or at least, think you are.
Gee, I hope he finds it.
One would think the stupid press would get a clue. All their slant drilled articles & rants will backfire because Rove will make them pay by having the last laugh.
Kerry lost Iowa.
"I do not know what could be said that would open the ears and minds of liberals, and a lot of conservatives as well."
A Nuke bomb in their laps is about all that will move these traitorous morons.
"Rove ran a very poor campaign in 2004 and was bailed out by the SBVFT, which was denounced by the WH that advocated closing down all 527 groups."
Yep!
Right you are. My mistake. Gore won Iowa in 2000, but Bush won it in 2004 by 11,000 votes.
I'm fired up about this - 2002 all over again! This was not what the Democrats wanted to hear.
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.