Originally Posted By Beaumandy TDLFAN is an old regular at WE. We have had a few people come and go over the years who will occasionally pop in for a guest visit. TDLFAN nailed me plenty back in the day. My favorite ex lib on here was WorldDisney. I need to see if he ever married that girl he was seeing. ( Those long distance relationships are tough )
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>He is a moderate for the most part (I know cmpaley will disagree). When the electorate has risen up to protest something he is proposing, he usually backs down. He will win because his opponent is a jerk and not because the people love him.<< I also beleive he learned a lesson in humility during the special election. The whole thing blew up in his face, and he was smart enough to know when he had gone too far. Rather than claim victory in spite of the evidence, he did something unheard of in politics -- he apologized to Californians for the whole thing, and said he'd learned something. Most people are fair. If someone makes a mistake or crosses the line, as long as the person owns up to it and truly tries to not repeat it, it's forgiven. But when people instead choose to get more entrenched, stubborn and caustic, they usually get shown the door and not reelected.
Originally Posted By cmpaley We'll see. I still think he's a rabid-right-wing wolf is moderate sheep's clothing.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Here is a good rundown of why the GOP is going to keep power this fall. No ideas from the democrats means no votes from straight thinking Americans. <a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/" target="_blank">http://www.captainsquartersblo g.com/mt/</a> The Times underscores this last point by contrasting 1994 and 2006. In the year that Republicans gained a whopping 53 seats to wrest control of the House from the Democrats, the GOP published its Contract With America, a clear delineation of its policy objectives that they would pursue if they gained control. In 2006, however, the Democrats have issued their seventh version of the party's electoral platform, enitled A New Direction For America. Why can't they take advantage of the opening that the Bush administration has left them in these midterms? It's because the Democrats have no clear policy goals or even political vision. All they have managed to gin up after six years in the wilderness is Bush Derangement Syndrome, a malady so powerful it leads them to attack members of their own party -- members with solid voting records and a history of party leadership. Perhaps the Republicans went through this phase in the 1950s after losing the House the last time, where they spend years bitterly accusing their opponents of every crime under the sun, although no one has ever produced any evidence of it. The Democrats have done little else in the last six years. They have actively avoided revealing their policy goals, assuming they have any, in order to keep all criticism directed at the Republicans. We don't have any policy goals, they have said, because we have no way to get them implemented. Only after voters give power back to the Democrats will they agree to discuss their solutions for Iraq, the economy, terrorism, national security, and so on. They have discovered that Americans do not like buying pigs in a poke. Even the British have begun to wonder why the Democrats want power when they have no clear idea what they will do with it. The upswing in Republican fortunes at this point in time reflects a growing understanding that the Democrats have no answers, only complaints, and that the GOP has managed to grow the economy and keep the country safe through five very perilous years. They should prepare for the situation to get even worse. After the lunatic rantings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez at the UN this week, Americans will understand better than ever that the Democratic insistence on deferring to international leadership that applauds these nutcases make Democrats even loonier than the Mutt & Jeff of petrotyrants. It will also remind voters of how dangerous the world is at this time, and that only the GOP seems to comprehend it. At this rate, the Republicans might even pick up a few seats at the midterms.
Originally Posted By Spree <<<<We have had a few people come and go over the years who will occasionally pop in for a guest visit>>>> That almost never happens')
Originally Posted By Spree <<<"President Bush's approval rating has reached its highest level since January>>> <<<But it is still at 44%. That is still pretty dismal.>>> That's more than what Bill Clinton had when he won the White House in '92.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "That's more than what Bill Clinton had when he won the White House in '92." Which has what to do with the here and now?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Again fail to understand how that is not a fair question. That spoken from someone who is not a Bill Clinton fan... both approval ratings of sitting presidents at some point in time...if the number is bad for one, it's also bad for the other.no ?
Originally Posted By Spree I just don't think 44% is a dismal number...that's all. If someone can win the WhiteHouse with only 43% durring an election in which he is running how can having 44% as an incumbent not running for anything be a bad thing?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Spree, are you going to the Hawks opening game?? My son is skating between periods with his squirt team. It should be fun!
Originally Posted By DlandJB If someone can win the WhiteHouse with only 43% durring an election in which he is running how can having 44% as an incumbent not running for anything be a bad thing? >>>>>>>>>>> The 44% favorable rating isn't necessarily among voters - but is a reflection of all Americans surveyed. In reality, the sampling represents a greater number than those who probably voted. Only voters are reflected in the percentage of votes gotten. That means the number of people who voted was smaller, so we are talking about a percentage of a smaller number than the number of people who expressed displeasure with Bush's performance. Whether or not that displeasure is enough to bring those people to the voting boothes remains to be seen. Personally, I have no clue as to who will win, but I think more people will voice displeasure by sitting it out. So it will depend on who can energize their base more. Anyone's guess.
Originally Posted By Spree <<< Spree, are you going to the Hawks opening game?? My son is skating between periods with his squirt team.>>> I am going to try to be there. I noticed there will be a lot more games in the Glass Palace this year so I am kinda excited.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Spree, The Hawks have new owners and know the way to make money is by getting out of the expensive Rosse Garden and into the Glass Place. I love watching games in the MC, the smaller ice surface makes for bigger hits and a fun place to watch the games. Old school!
