Difficulties of predicting :re Bush voters.

[nclib]

yeah I'm sure a lot of muslims want Bush to lose, but they all aren't int he US.  Of course the terrorist want someone weaker, that is definately Kerry.

I'll grant that terrorists will vote Democrat, just like the KKK will vote Republican. Both are marginal groups that will have very little effect on the outcome. However, the percentage of Muslims in the US who are terrorists (or who support terrorism) is very small. Most Muslims feel alienated by Bush's anti-terrorism policies and therefore most will vote Dem.

[JNB]

 The problem Bush is going to face come Novmeber unless the Republicans can mount a successful GOTV effort is the alienation that core conservatives have over Bush. Between the fiscal wrecklessness of the Bush admin and the proposed immigration plans, the conservative base is both angry and alienated. Bush may gain some suburban votes this Nov, but rural and small city voters may very well stay home come fall.

[opebo]

I like his chances a lot better as a right-wing polarizing Reaganesque figure than as a moderate wishy-wash loser like his poor dad.

Don't let the manner fool you--remember he was former CIA, (and probably has had continued access thru the Reagan/Clinton/Clinton/W years, and was anything but a wishy-washy loser.......he set up the dual intelligence outfit, clandestine, and the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing---remember the Cocaine/Columbia/smuggling/Iran Contra, /Iraq/Iran---all these and many more had his name on it.
Icewater in his veins, and cares nothing for that doesn't have to do with greed or power.

Don't get me wrong, I *liked* Bush senior a lot.  But he was a mere machiavellian according to your description.  His failing was he didn't realize that in America, partisan ideologues have a real advantage over compromisers.

In spite of the fact that he's partly to blame for it because he raised taxes, I find his defeat by that nutball Perot to be one of the larger injustices in American politics.  Had he hung on in '92 the so-called 'Clinton boom' would've been the Bush boom.  We'll see if his son hangs on to claim credit for his own boom, or if some Democrat manages to hijack it.

[mossy]

Yes, 3 parties don't work. Period.  There's a book out I haven't read yet on the "Bush Dynasty" or something like that.     My opinion GW !, was a milquetoast.....how wrong I could be!  But we are paying mightily for his covert activities among Gulf states.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Yeah, but it's a little cheap. Actually, the opposite might also be argued. If America did less to upset Muslims it could make recruiting a lot harder for terrorist groups.

Your point isn't really valid from an objective view-point, since Kerry would not allow or embrace terrorism, just tackle it in a different way. You could say that this way will be less efficient, and you would probably be right, but it's still a little unfair o give the impression that he would allow terrorism. And I think all these Clinton-references that you Republicans are so fond of are very unfair. You cannot compare pre-9/11 policies with post-9/11 policies, two completely different worlds.

I was just making the point that the terrorists would be for the democrat becuase they would be weaker on defense.  We could return to the clinton years of ignoring them and pulling back, instead of takign the fight to them like Bush is.

yeah I'm sure a lot of muslims want Bush to lose, but they all aren't int he US.  Of course the terrorist want someone weaker, that is definately Kerry.

I don't really get you point...do you mean that all Muslims don't live in the US, b/c, though it might surprise you, I already knew that...

"The terrorists" are a very small group and few can vote in the elections and...ehhh...I don't even know what you're talking about, so I'll just stop here...

I see that Gustav understood that the “the terrorists” jravnsbo is referring to are not the American voting kind, but here he is describing international reaction to the victor of the 2004 election.

I agree with jravnsbo that in a war, you want somebody who, as he so succinctly put it, “will take the fight to them”. This is something I would not necessarily expect you to understand, Gustav, that many, perhaps most (I hope most) Americans quietly feel that this is a long-term war that will have to be waged on many fronts, including military conflict.

I do agree with Gustav’s response, in that Clinton was pre 9/11. Bush went through a big-time transformation as a result, allow that Clinton would have as well.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Gustaf, forgive the misspelling of your name, and I certainly hope the preceding message didn't cause any offense. I certainly didn't mean it to.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, forgive the misspelling of your name, and I certainly hope the preceding message didn't cause any offense. I certainly didn't mean it to.

I am not easily offended or angered, so no, not really. I admit that I live in a country that hasn't been to war since 1814, so I do know less about living with the danger that Israelis or Americans do.

Gustaf is an odd spelling, most Swedes spell it wrongly as well, so I am used to it...

I just thought that JR was taking a cheap shot at Kerry in a discussion that was about something else. There are threads to discuss terrorism, and I thought his little lash-out against Kerry was a little unwarranted. I agree that offensive means will have to be used every now and then, but I don't think it's a good idea to make invasions of foreign, sovereign states a regular business, it won't work in the long run. You made your point with Afghanistan and Iraq, hopefully that will be enough.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Gustaf, forgive the misspelling of your name, and I certainly hope the preceding message didn't cause any offense. I certainly didn't mean it to.

I am not easily offended or angered, so no, not really. I admit that I live in a country that hasn't been to war since 1814, so I do know less about living with the danger that Israelis or Americans do.

Gustaf is an odd spelling, most Swedes spell it wrongly as well, so I am used to it... ;)

I just thought that JR was taking a cheap shot at Kerry in a discussion that was about something else. There are threads to discuss terrorism, and I thought his little lash-out against Kerry was a little unwarranted. I agree that offensive means will have to be used every now and then, but I don't think it's a good idea to make invasions of foreign, sovereign states a regular business, it won't work in the long run. You made your point with Afghanistan and Iraq, hopefully that will be enough.

Well, it was pretty stupid to mispell your name in the same post that I was pointing out the possible differences in national sentiment.

Hopefully Afghanistan and Iraq is enough. Hopefully the leaders of Iraq will prove wise enough to operate free of the influence of us, also the French, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Syrians, and maintain a democratic state.

Hopefully for the Republicans, they can do all this before Fall 2004.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, forgive the misspelling of your name, and I certainly hope the preceding message didn't cause any offense. I certainly didn't mean it to.

I am not easily offended or angered, so no, not really. I admit that I live in a country that hasn't been to war since 1814, so I do know less about living with the danger that Israelis or Americans do.

Gustaf is an odd spelling, most Swedes spell it wrongly as well, so I am used to it...

I just thought that JR was taking a cheap shot at Kerry in a discussion that was about something else. There are threads to discuss terrorism, and I thought his little lash-out against Kerry was a little unwarranted. I agree that offensive means will have to be used every now and then, but I don't think it's a good idea to make invasions of foreign, sovereign states a regular business, it won't work in the long run. You made your point with Afghanistan and Iraq, hopefully that will be enough.

Well, it was pretty stupid to mispell your name in the same post that I was pointing out the possible differences in national sentiment.

Hopefully Afghanistan and Iraq is enough. Hopefully the leaders of Iraq will prove wise enough to operate free of the influence of us, also the French, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Syrians, and maintain a democratic state.

Hopefully for the Republicans, they can do all this before Fall 2004.

If you want to call yourself stupid, I don't mind... Why did you misspell it though, I'm asking out of curiosity, since I wouldn't have thought you would have encountered it a lot outside this forum.

I am a little worried about Iraq, the Shias are dangerous. Iraq *should* be able to work out fine, but Saddam Hussein's secularity is working both ways here. On the one hand, Iraq is very secular, and that improves their chances of becoming democratic. On the other, Hussein's persecution of religious leaders, etc. gives the Shia fanatics a good base now that Hussein is overthrown. The problem is if the Iraqi leadership is seen as American puppets, b/c puppet governments can never aquire the necessary legitimacy.

[Dave from Michigan]

 
 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what was that war?
 
 
 
 

[Gustaf]

 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what was that war?
 
 
 
 

We conquered Norway! We recieved it from Denmark in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, settling a Scandinavian power struggle that had been going on since, well, the 1430s, at least.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Gustaf, forgive the misspelling of your name, and I certainly hope the preceding message didn't cause any offense. I certainly didn't mean it to.

I am not easily offended or angered, so no, not really. I admit that I live in a country that hasn't been to war since 1814, so I do know less about living with the danger that Israelis or Americans do.

Gustaf is an odd spelling, most Swedes spell it wrongly as well, so I am used to it... ;)

I just thought that JR was taking a cheap shot at Kerry in a discussion that was about something else. There are threads to discuss terrorism, and I thought his little lash-out against Kerry was a little unwarranted. I agree that offensive means will have to be used every now and then, but I don't think it's a good idea to make invasions of foreign, sovereign states a regular business, it won't work in the long run. You made your point with Afghanistan and Iraq, hopefully that will be enough.

Well, it was pretty stupid to mispell your name in the same post that I was pointing out the possible differences in national sentiment.

Hopefully Afghanistan and Iraq is enough. Hopefully the leaders of Iraq will prove wise enough to operate free of the influence of us, also the French, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Syrians, and maintain a democratic state.

Hopefully for the Republicans, they can do all this before Fall 2004.

If you want to call yourself stupid, I don't mind... ;) Why did you misspell it though, I'm asking out of curiosity, since I wouldn't have thought you would have encountered it a lot outside this forum.

Being from New York City, I encounter every name the world has to offer on a regular basis.

To me Gustaf is a Scandinavian name and Gustav is a German-Central European name. It would have shown a bit more finesse getting it right, since I was trying to make a point regarding attitudes about war and concerns about security here, and with the misspelling the remarks began to resemble some kind of boorish nationalistic dissing of non-Americans, which was not at all my intent.

The question for the election is, do enough voters see the war on terror as a protracted struggle with military phases, and will vote on that basis, or do a significant enough number feel that the likelihood of another major attack here is not so great?

I believe that the Republicans will try to convince the American people that the situation is still perilous, but the Dems will counter that the Republican security team is not to be trusted, they lied to us on Iraq, etc., and thus attempt to downplay the importance of nationality security as an issue, which is just not their issue.

Let's face it, Kerry is only going to get so much mileage out of his Vietnam hero persona as a qualification for leading America in the war on terrorism.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, forgive the misspelling of your name, and I certainly hope the preceding message didn't cause any offense. I certainly didn't mean it to.

I am not easily offended or angered, so no, not really. I admit that I live in a country that hasn't been to war since 1814, so I do know less about living with the danger that Israelis or Americans do.

Gustaf is an odd spelling, most Swedes spell it wrongly as well, so I am used to it...

I just thought that JR was taking a cheap shot at Kerry in a discussion that was about something else. There are threads to discuss terrorism, and I thought his little lash-out against Kerry was a little unwarranted. I agree that offensive means will have to be used every now and then, but I don't think it's a good idea to make invasions of foreign, sovereign states a regular business, it won't work in the long run. You made your point with Afghanistan and Iraq, hopefully that will be enough.

Well, it was pretty stupid to mispell your name in the same post that I was pointing out the possible differences in national sentiment.

Hopefully Afghanistan and Iraq is enough. Hopefully the leaders of Iraq will prove wise enough to operate free of the influence of us, also the French, the Russians, the Iranians, and the Syrians, and maintain a democratic state.

Hopefully for the Republicans, they can do all this before Fall 2004.

If you want to call yourself stupid, I don't mind... Why did you misspell it though, I'm asking out of curiosity, since I wouldn't have thought you would have encountered it a lot outside this forum.

Being from New York City, I encounter every name the world has to offer on a regular basis.

To me Gustaf is a Scandinavian name and Gustav is a German-Central European name. It would have shown a bit more finesse getting it right, since I was trying to make a point regarding attitudes about war and concerns about security here, and with the misspelling the remarks began to resemble some kind of boorish nationalistic dissing of non-Americans, which was not at all my intent.

The question for the election is, do enough voters see the war on terror as a protracted struggle with military phases, and will vote on that basis, or do a significant enough number feel that the likelihood of another major attack here is not so great?

I believe that the Republicans will try to convince the American people that the situation is still perilous, but the Dems will counter that the Republican security team is not to be trusted, they lied to us on Iraq, etc., and thus attempt to downplay the importance of nationality security as an issue, which is just not their issue.

Let's face it, Kerry is only going to get so much mileage out of his Vietnam hero persona as a qualification for leading America in the war on terrorism.

Well, you're right, though the "Gustav" spelling is not at all uncommon in Sweden either. If you're that knowledgeable about names, it does make the insult much worse...

I really didn't take it that way, so don't worry. We all make mistakes.

I agree that the Dems have to defuse national security. That's why I don't think the Democrats would be helped by a new terrorist attack.