Posted on 11/01/2004 3:45:19 AM PST by 7thson
If you do, I'll just have to kill ya'......
I heard about these early voters also in Florida and was hearing that most of these people were the ones that were ''TOLD'' they were disenfranchised in 2000, or there votes were thrown away etc, yada, yada ,yada, so I came to the same conclusion as you. These were angry voters that were RATS and our side would crush them out on voting day!
This is similar to what Bob Kerrey was spewing on Sunday's Meet the Press. Russert shouted a question, "Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist?" Then, of course, Kerrey went into the typical Democrat spin that Saddam was a very bad guy, but he wasn't bin Laden. Then Russert pointed out Saddam had funded all those suicide bombers' families in Israel, and Kerrey said Saddam was a bad guy, but...
The Democrat Party remains the party of Clinton. Just look at how they're now redefining the word terrorist.
Based on these latest comments by Rendell and Kerrey, any U.S. military member would be justified by going AWOL in Iraq if the goose-hunter becomes president. The troops would all be worthy of presidential pardons from John Kerry because there's no reason they should continue fighting in Iraq if their commander-in-chief supports rhetoric that says they're basically wasting their time in that country.
"Early results in Iowa show a 51-43 percent Kerry lead."
Why are there any results at all? Is this exit polling?
See # 21.
I just happened to zip home to grab lunch (graveyard shift) and caught that too. The Dem spokeswoman pulled a "I'm not going to comment on Rendall's comment blah blah " then in response to a question regarding the politiazation of 9/11 " Of course it's a political issue, George Bush made 9/11 a political issue ever since it happened". These people have no shame whatsoever. (I missed her actually saying what Rendall had said, it sounded like she dodged it completely)
Gen Clark just denigrated efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq...He was dismissive of both Tommy Franks and the commander in Tora Bora.
ED exposed General Clark. She tried to get him to state what Kerry would do different than Bush and the best Clark came up with is that we need to work with other countries to get a good definition of what a terrorist is. I kid you not.
ED exposed General Clark. She tried to get him to state what Kerry would do different than Bush and the best Clark came up with is that we need to work with other countries to get a good definition of what a terrorist is. I kid you not.
I was listening. Clark disgraced himself...
Bad weather suppresses Democrat voter turnout, (Oh yeah and fire hoses used by Union Members) but a heavy voter turnout favors Republicans.
Wesley Clark is a thoroughly repulsive human being. If you put him up beside John Edwards and told me I could throw one on the garbage heap, I would have a hard time deciding.
Claims "John Kerry Will Track Me Down & Kill Me!"
A little General envy is always a good way to start off what's hopefully a disastrous day for the Kerry campaign!
An armchair General for Kerry denigrating our troop's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not smart!
Gen Clark is a certifiable loon.His statements this morning prove it.
He "was sorry Franks had gotten involved in this".....Franks has every bit as much right as Clark..and he was actually serving during the wars for heavens sake...He was dismissive of the opinions of the ones in charge...GRRR
There are more registered democrats than Republicans
in this country. How does turnout help Republicans?
From the Des Moines Register today:
Twenty-seven percent of Iowa adults surveyed said they had already voted. Kerry leads Bush, 52 percent to 41 percent, among that group of early-bird voters.
Panic! Kerry leads by 11 in Iowa! It’s a disaster for Team Bush! Run and hide!
Or, you know, we could listen to Kerry Spot reader James, who observes here: “The Iowa Poll, conducted for The Des Moines Register by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines, is based on interviews with 806 Iowans age 18 or older who say they already had voted or they definitely will vote in Tuesday's presidential election.”
27 percent of 806 Iowans is 217.62. So let’s assume that no fraction of a person voted, and that this sub-sample is 218 voters. Kerry’s 52 percent of those 218 translates to 113.36, which let’s round up to 114 voters. Bush’s 41 percent of those 218 comes to 89.38, so let’s round that up to 90. (Could this poll be accurately suggesting that Nader and other candidates will get around 7 percent? Weird.)
James also notes that a Democrat leading the early voting isn’t new. From MSNBC: “In 2000, Bush won Iowa by 7,000 votes if one counted only the ballots cast on Election Day. But once the absentees were tallied, Gore won the state by 4,144, or three-tenths of one percent.” In other words, Gore had an 11,000 vote advantage in the absentees.
Hey, give Kerry credit - I’d rather be ahead than behind among the 218 absentee and early voters polled by the Register.
But why don’t we see Terry McAuliffe bragging, “In Iowa, Kerry is ahead by 24 votes”?
What do you think Rendell will say: vote for Kerry, wink, wink?
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.