Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 766 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 3:40 pm:        TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 307 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 3:54 pm:        Not a surprise Mike. It was a perfectly run convention.   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 767 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 4:03 pm:        I never said I was suprised, as witnessed here... But double digits is more than I expected. /discus/messages/26018/44214.html?1091478795   singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 309 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 4:08 pm:        I predicted an 8 point bump last night. http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=26018&post=273956#POST273 956 I was a little closer.   Ed May Citizen Username: Edmay Post Number: 2123 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 4:32 pm:        I predicted to the New York Times in a "Man on the Street" interview in front of the Hotel Pennsylvania across from Madison Square Garden the other day that Bush will win 60% of the vote in November - yesterday's edition used the quote - so I am not surprised by the bounce. I spent time as an Honorary Delegate, transportation volunteer, and anti-protester (during the parade on Sunday). I was all around the Garden, inside Monday Night, and in the Media Center. Many cops, establishment employees, and even media personnel told me candidly that they are pro Bush-Cheney. Even some of the protesters I spoke to could end up voting for Bush-Cheney in the end.   parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 1144 Registered: 7-2001 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 5:17 pm:        If 60% of the country votes for Bush I hope he institutes free Universal Psycholgical Care cause the 60% is going to need it. Come to think of it the other 40% will also need it.   anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1349 Registered: 6-2002 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 6:24 pm:        60%? You wanna put some money on that? Do you really believe the polls can be so wrong or so many people have suddenly changed their minds? I think about 45% are in the anyone but Bush camp.   micah Real Name Username: Michael Post Number: 701 Registered: 1-2002 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 9:26 pm:        Thanks Ed for your service to this town and for your service to the party !   sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12009 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 10:04 pm:        Yes, thank you Ed. And you as well Micah. And the fabulous Marie. We Republicans must stick together.   Strawberry fields forever Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 3646 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:02 am:        This is really no surprise. One guy wants to eliminate Al Qaeda, other terror groups and states that sponsor terror. This while creating an economy that works with tax cuts along with a health and social security system that works. He also wants to create more small businesses and jobs. This to compete in an International market. The other guy wants us to know he served 4 months in Vietnam..   Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 157 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:59 am:        The other guy wants us to know he served 4 months in Vietnam. Set aside your opinion of Kerry, just for a second. Are you aware that you're indisputably factually incorrect about the above? Kerry's SECOND tour of duty was 4 months...the first was a full year. Is it possible you've been misled, or misinformed? If so, does that make you curious about what else you might have been misled about? The alternative is that you KNOW the four months was Kerry's second tour, and you're purposefully spreading lies about the man. Which is it?   Ily Citizen Username: Ily Post Number: 120 Registered: 7-2004 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 7:31 am:        Madden, You're wrong. Kerry served 4 months in Vietnam, November 17, 1968 to March 17, 1969. The following link is the timeline off the Kerry/Edwards website: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service_timeline.html Now who's misinformed?!   coke straw Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 3648 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 9:04 am:          tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 1180 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 9:33 am:        A Time Magazine Poll? I have worked for them, and sat in on business editorial meetings. They couldn't be more Milton Friedman if they tried. No bias there!   Duncan Real Name Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 2792 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 9:34 am:        A perfectly run convention would not have had protesters sneaking in. And Thats a fact jack.   coke straw Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 3649 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 9:56 am:        Duncan, I attended all 4 days. To get a credential you had to give your S.S. number for clearance. Then you received a pass with a number on it. There was nothing stopping someone from getting a credential if qualified as long as that person had a clean record. You could then give it to someone else if you wanted. Once at the convention, they searched and searched. The guy in front of me had his nail clipper confiscated. Believe me, once you were inside all you had to protest was a mouth. When that fat chick opened her yapper during Bush's speech (the second protester) she got 5 words out before 5 guards hauled her ••• outta there. Considering all the idiotic protesters that came to NYC, the convention security was a homerun. And so was Bush's speech (you know the part that really counts)   Ed May Citizen Username: Edmay Post Number: 2126 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 10:20 am:        Hey Michael Janay did you get the Bush-Cheney sign I planted on your corner property just befrore the convention? Is the sign still there?   marie Citizen Username: Marie Post Number: 1126 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 11:53 am:        It's official - my sign was stolen sometime yesterday. (I think Sbenois took it) Ed - do you have any left?   Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 40 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:12 pm:        Just a sampler. For more go to counterpunch.org _______ The Life and Crimes of George W. Bush By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR Jesus Told Him Where to Bomb Get George Bush in front of a bunch of preachers and his tongue tends to loosen up a bit and occasionally some luminous black pearls spill out. Shortly after the Supremes invested him with the presidency, Bush confided to the Reverend Jim Wallis, head of the Call of Renewal coven of churches, the following: "I don't understand how poor people think." This presidential gem, worthy of Antoinette herself, neatly mirrors a statement made during the darkest trench of the recession by Bush's director of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson, who deflected criticism of the Bush economic disaster by pronouncing that "being poor is a state of mind, not a condition." Jackson's coarse declaration reflects a kind of economic phenomenology that might even give Milton Friedman the willies. Naturally, Bush doesn't know the difference between phenomenology and proctology, but he keenly intuits its essential meaning: The suffering of the poor is entirely self-inflicted. They simply lack faith. And the circle of blow-dried Cotton Mathers the president surrounds himself with sanction his cold sense of compassion. Blaming the victim is not only a political device; it's infused with ecclesiastical authority. The downtrodden must be blamed for their own good. Bush presided over the loss of more than 2 million jobs, the cruelest blow to working people since the Great Depression. Not his fault. Homeless and poverty rates have soared as a result and thanks to Clinton when this recession hit the social safety net of welfare and food stamps had already been sheared away. Not Bush's responsibility. The mounting piles of corpses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others are to blame. Here you have the prime virtue of being a born-again politician: automatic absolution from responsibility for inflicting even more deprivations on the weakest in society. (For more on Bush and the fundamentalists I highly recommend David Domke's excellent new book, God Willing: Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror' and the Echoing Press.) All of this feeds Bush's stunted capacity for human empathy. His joking about executions. His refusal to comfort the families of the slain in Iraq and Afghanistan. His imperviousness to the plight of the poor. How else can you explain his bizarre remarks at a White House Christmas party in 2001 made in front of Billy Graham and other guardians of the faith. "All in all, 2001 has been a fabulous year for Laura and me," Bush gushed, even though the ruins of the Twin Towers were still warm to the touch and cruise missiles were cratering hovels in Kandahar. In the spring of 2001, Bush invited a flock of religious leaders to the White House for tea and a prayer session. The president soon strayed from his prepared script. "I had a drinking problem," he confessed during the gathering. "Right now, I should be in a bar. Not the Oval Office." There's no record of any objection being lodged. Of course, perhaps the pastors of doom and damnation sensed that the cure had not entirely taken hold. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that Bush continues to nip at the bottle every once in a while-and it's almost certainly good for the country and the world that he does imbibe. An Austin musician told us of a night in the mid-1990s, a decade after Bush went on the wagon, when he hustled into the bathroom of a bar between sets only to find the Governor face down on the less than spic-and-span floor, mumbling inanities. It was an episode of foreshadowing worthy of O. Henry, for years later Bush would be similarly felled on the floor of the Oval Office by a renegade pretzel. Some presidents need a blowjob to unwind; others just crave some blow. Save an Iraqi child; get George high.   sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12027 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:33 pm:        Nothing like leaving out a key sentence... The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his election, Bush had said to him, “I don’t understand how poor people think,” and had described himself as a “white Republican guy who doesn’t get it, but I’d like to.” What’s annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has acquired more power.   sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12028 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:43 pm:        Or taking a line out of context from an interview that was given in 12/01 where Bush spent the majority of the time speaking about Al queda and securing the country.... THE PRESIDENT: Don't step on the new rug! (Laughter.) We wanted you to see the new rug. It's a tradition for each President to design a rug. And Laura helped design this rug, and I think she did a fantastic job, as you can see. It's just beautiful. That's the seal in the middle. The border here has got a little Texan in it -- MRS. BUSH: We have the Lone Star. THE PRESIDENT: The Lone Star. The rays are, I think, very dramatic. And so we wanted you to come by and take a look at it. The other thing is, it's been an extraordinary year for us. We will continue to ask the good Lord's blessings on America during the holiday season, particularly on those who suffered incredible loss. And we -- I hope our soldiers are safe overseas. We appreciate the job they do. I'm real proud of how the administration and our government has responded to the attacks on America. Got a good strategy in the first phase of the war, to rout terror. Held the doctrine that says that we will bring the murderers to justice and we will hold those accountable who help the murderers. Responded quickly to threats to our homeland. Tom Ridge is doing a really good job in coordinating with those whose job it is to keep America safe. Every morning I come into the desk, and I would read the threat assessments to America. And it reminds me that my most important job of all is to protect the American people from further attack. On the domestic front, I'm really pleased with what's happened in the Congress to get the education bill, a significant piece of education reform that believes that the nation should have high standards for every single child; and that we ought to make sure that when we spend money that there's results. And along those lines, we also -- this bill trusts the local governments to make many decisions about educating children. We also recognize there's a federal responsibility to make sure that we help schools achieve a very important goal, and that is every child learn to read -- something that Laura's been very much involved in. I'm pleased that we were able to pass the tax relief plan that gave working people their own -- let them keep their own money. It turned out to be -- by simplifying the code and dropping the bottom rate, for example, to 10 percent, as well as making sure that there's a child credit, increasing the child credit, getting rid of the death tax -- all the tax measures were very fortuitous because the economy began to slow down in March. And I strongly believe that by providing the first phase of tax relief, it helped cushion what could have been a very, very hard landing. In the House, we passed an energy plan. It's the first time an administration laid out an energy plan. And the House passed it; it's stuck in the Senate. I'm pleased that a good piece of environmental policy was passed last night and that I intend to sign, which is the brownsfield legislation -- legislation that will help cities around America clean up all industrial sites. It's really good work, bipartisan work. We've worked closely with members of both parties to get the bill passed, and I look forward to signing that. The faith-based initiative is such a vital initiative for making sure that there's something beyond welfare for people who have lost hope in life. And that bill passed the House. I look forward to working with the Senate sponsors, Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum, to get it passed the Senate. We need to get a patients' bill of rights done -- bill of rights done next year. I must tell you, I'm disappointed that the Senate did not follow up on the opportunity to pass a stimulus package that would have taken care of workers. We worked really hard with members of both parties to get legislation that would do two things -- one, help workers by extending unemployment insurance, as well as helping with their health care. And then there was a -- part of the package that would encourage investment and job creation. It just didn't get done, and that's a big disappointment. I know there was enough votes to get it out of the Senate, had there been the will to get the bill done. And maybe early next year we can work on it again. But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me. We're so grateful to be living in this compound and I'm grateful to be working in this office. It's a joy to walk in here every morning, realizing that I'm the President of the greatest country on the face of the Earth. Anything you want to say? MRS. BUSH: Happy holidays to everybody. Very happy New Year. THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you say something about the rug? MRS. BUSH: Do you want to hear more about the rug? QUESTION: Where was it made? THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Terry. (Laughter.) MRS. BUSH: It was made, actually, in New York. Edward Fields is the company. I went and watched as it was being made. They have -- it was very interesting. They have huge racks the rug is up on, and then they developed this electric needle that sort of looks like a drill, and the yarn is actually sort of painted on with this electric drill. We took a long time working on the design of it, and the colors. We went back and forth several times with strike-offs on the colors until we got what we liked. I think it's really pretty. They've done a beautiful job. In late January, we're going to ask everyone who had to do with the Oval Office -- Scalamandre, who made the couches and -- the fabric on the couches; Brunschwig, the fabric on the drapes; the Drapery House, which is also out of New York, that made them. The museums that loaned these paintings from Texas. Tom Lea's widow, Sarah Lea. W.H.D. Koerner's son, who we found through Joey O'Neill, who loaned that painting to us. So we'll ask you back at that time to meet all the people who had something to do with the decorating of the Oval Office. QUESTION: Mr. President, can we ask you -- THE PRESIDENT: Sure. QUESTION: Do you think that perhaps the cease-fires and the talks about possible surrender negotiations gave bin Laden a chance to sneak out of Afghanistan or -- THE PRESIDENT: Ron, I don't know where he is. I haven't heard much from him recently. And -- which means he could be in a cave that doesn't have an opening to it anymore, or could be in a cave where he can get out, or may have tried to slither out into neighboring Pakistan. We don't know. But I will tell you this: We're going to find him. And one of the things I said early on in this war was that -- I told the American people that this administration would be patient and would be relentless. And you're talking to a patient man when it comes to achieving the objectives, because I understand the degree of difficulty has increased significantly. The first part of the objective was to destroy the Taliban's military. That was relatively easy. Secondly, the objective was to hold those accountable who had harbored al Qaeda. It took a while, but once we were able to bring our military strength, made our military strength -- air strength, in particular -- with boots on the ground, commitment of troops, it unfolded well. Now we're on the hunt. And we're chasing one or two, three or four, 20 individuals at a time. And this is pretty rugged country, as you know. And so we're slowly, but surely chasing down every single lead. And as our friends and allies take over more and more of the country, and as the new government gets, in the beginning, gets into place, we'll continue to get good intelligence and we'll continue to chase Mr. bin Laden -- and others -- Abu Zabeda, Zawahari. I could give you the list of names. But if they think they can hide from the United States, they're making a terrible mistake again. And we'll get him, we'll bring him to justice. I wish I could give you the exact moment, but I can't. And frankly, since this administration is in the fight against terror for the long pull, I am not the least bit anxious about bringing a particular individual to justice. I know that we've disrupted the al Qaeda network. Today I was briefed that there are hundreds of al Qaeda fighters being held hostage. And by the way, we're in the process of developing a system to deal with each and every fighter, depending upon the nature of the fighter -- how to deal with them, legally. And I've instructed the National Security Council to take their time and to come up with a process to deal with foreign al Qaeda fighters, Taliban, Walker. I have no answer on Walker yet, because I want the process to be able to address all the different circumstances that may arise, and then we'll be able to brief the country as to how we're going to deal with these people. QUESTION: Are you nearing, though, a decision? Can you describe who you're consulting with, and have you -- THE PRESIDENT: Well, I tasked the National Security Council to work up a strategy on how to deal with each and every person that we capture. And obviously, Walker is unique in that he's the first American al Qaeda fighter that we have captured. And we will announce to the country when we have made up our mind on all -- on how to deal with a wide variety of cases. Walker, himself, is being well-treated on a ship of ours that is -- I suspect he's finding his berth a little better than it was when he was placed in the prison in Afghanistan. And we've heard, the administration has heard from his lawyer and we've told his lawyer that at the appropriate time we'll let everybody know, including his family, how we're going to proceed with Walker, as well as others that have become captured during this war. But, no, we don't have an announcement today. QUESTION: And nothing has been ruled out? Like treason -- have you ruled out treason? THE PRESIDENT: No, nothing has been ruled out because I want to make -- obviously, every decision we make at this point will set precedent for future decisions. And I want us to fully think through all the ramifications of the different options. And Defense and the Justice Department are taking the lead on preparing a strategy. This ought to be a strategy, by the way, that when we capture somebody who has a certain characteristic to him, that then the process ought to automatically kick in as to how that person is dealt with. And I think we owe that to the country, to take our time. And then I'll make it clear -- somebody will make it clear once the decision is made. QUESTION: Sir, would you consider bringing -- or asking Congress to come back early and finish the economic stimulus? THE PRESIDENT: No. QUESTION: Are you angry at anyone in Congress? THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not angry at all. I'm joyous. I welcome the holiday season. No, but I don't intend to bring them back early. QUESTION: What is the impact of not passing a stimulus before the end of the year? THE PRESIDENT: Well, the impact was it was disappointing. QUESTION: What about for the American people? THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll just have to see. We'll have to see what the effects are. And we'll have time when they come back to take a look-see at the state of the economy. We're continuing to get mixed signals; hopefully, the economy will be good, but we'll just have to -- we'll deal with it when we get back. But I think the people, a lot of people are going to ask the question, why couldn't they get something done. And one of my jobs was to facilitate an agreement. And I went up to Capitol Hill, as you know -- one of my rare appearances up there -- and sat down with Democrats and Republicans from both bodies who had made the commitment to work together to get a bill. And there was a great -- it's a very good bill, by the way -- billions of dollars of help for displaced workers. And the will to get something done just wasn't there. QUESTION: Mr. President, do you think a stimulus is a must? THE PRESIDENT: Is a -- QUESTION: Is a must. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, a must. We'll see. I thought it was important to get a good stimulus package out. As well as I thought it was very important to take care of displaced workers. And the bill that I supported and my administration helped craft with both the Democrats and Republicans would have done just that. But we'll see when we come back and take a look. QUESTION: Mr. President, you had said that the next phase of the war following the defeat of the military in Afghanistan would be hunting down these groups wherever they -- across the globe, and that countries who didn't work with us were against us. So do we have any sort of time lines or goals that we've set up for these countries where we know al Qaeda and other groups that we've put on our list of terrorism are functioning, where we're going to say at a certain point, you're not doing as much as we had expected of you? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I hear what you're saying. Well, I also said that sometimes the war will take place and actions will take place that the American people won't be able to see. And by that I mean that this is a multifront war that will be effective when we cut off money, or encourage governments to round up al Qaeda cells. And we are encouraging governments to try to round up and sometimes -- and bring to justice al Qaeda cells. But it wouldn't be very wise for me to describe those to you because the al Qaeda cell we're trying to round up may flee. But, yes, we're constantly talking to countries, reminding them that if you're with us, perform. I'm a performance-oriented person. I believe in results. And many of the world leaders that have been here in the Oval Office will tell you that one of the strong messages that I send is, thank you for your condolences; I appreciate your flowers; now arrest somebody if they're in your country. And we will help you. We'll give you the intelligence necessary to show you who they are and where they are. And we will -- if you need be, we'll be glad to lend some troops. Now, that hasn't happened yet, but the enemy needs to know that we're on the hunt. And part of being -- and friends need to know, if you're a member of the coalition we expect you to perform. QUESTION: Are there any -- I mean, obviously, you're not going to delineate for us the conversations that are happening, but are there any phone calls going to countries, friends or allies -- THE PRESIDENT: All the time. All the time we're reminding people that this is a performance-oriented world. If you want to win the war on terror, you must perform. And a good area, for example, is in the financial area, where we're constantly working with nations to help them chase down money that is moving illegally. There's a lot of cooperation. But you asked a very interesting question -- do you keep a scorecard. And the answer is, I do. I do, because I'm an old baseball guy and I like to keep the score. I like to see who's performing and who's not performing. It's a part of being a coalition. Tommy Franks said something interesting the other day -- and by the way, he was one year ahead of Laura at Midland Lee High School. (Laughter.) They were "fighting rebels" together. (Laughter.) But Tommy said, this war -- the phase of this war is kind of like a baseball game. Of course, my ears perked up. He said there will be a lot of moments of boredom, and then there would be some great joy as we -- what he was saying was that we're in a slow pursuit to achieve the objective that Ron talked about. Last question. QUESTION: Sir, can you say that the country is more secure today and less vulnerable to terrorism than it was before September 11th? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir. The country is more secure today and less vulnerable to attack than before September the 11th, because the enemy has made it clear that we are a target, and we responded. America never dreamt before September the 11th anybody would attack us. We knew there were threats. During the summer there had been some threats to overseas assets that we responded to. But we really never felt that -- we had the sense that we're invulnerable. And now they've made it clear that they're not afraid to attack us. And so, one, we're aware. Secondly, we have got a much better system of sharing information -- information we gather overseas to agencies here at home. When we get a hint -- and by the way, as a result of the coalition, there is much more intelligence sharing going on. So, oftentimes, we'll get a lead from an intelligence service, say, in the Middle East, or in Europe, and that piece of information will be analyzed and passed immediately on to the FBI, that has now shifted its culture from one of doing important work, like white-collar crime or spy-on-spy work, to prevention. That is the most, primary job of the FBI, is to prevent a further attack. And there's over 4,000 agents working on every single lead we get -- leads that sometimes prove to be false, but sometimes indicate that there could be somebody here in the country that is -- intends to do us harm. And we will use whatever resources necessary to haul them in if that's the case. So, yes, the country is safer. Is it still -- totally safe? No. And that's why, as I've told you, my main job, my main worry for America is to prevent another attack. Every morning at 6:50 a.m. in the morning, I come in here and I think about the possibilities. And every day I meet with the FBI Director and Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft, along with George Tenet, reminding them that we have an awesome responsibility to do whatever we can to protect the American people. And we've made great progress since September the 11th. The American people need to know that even though we go into a holiday season, this government will be doing everything we can to keep our country safe. We're keeping CAPs up, we're keeping -- those are military flights around -- just to make sure if somebody tries to attack us, there will be -- we'll have the measures in place to prevent it. Listen, I hope you all have a great holiday. Thank you.   sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12029 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:50 pm:        And then there is this gem which omits the points that explain Bush's drinking comment... You know, I had a drinking problem. Right now I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office. There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the power of prayer What, exactly, is wrong with what Bush said? He was reflecting on how his life has turned around. Good for him The "objections" should be directed at St. Clair for taking these quotes completely out of context. Repent Tulip.   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 1188 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:58 pm:        Barking up the wrong tree again, S.? Look at the poll numbers for Zogby for Sept. 2, All that sound and fury for a two point lead, and the Time Magazine poll includes LEANERS. That's dirty polling. It's all in the questions, eg, "Are you leaning for Bush" comes out as a positive for Bush. Not real numbers, folks.   Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 264 Registered: 6-2004 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 1:04 pm:        most of the polls do include leaners. The problem with Time is that they excluded leaners in their previous poll conducted right before the RNC and then included them in the latest poll taken during.   sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 12030 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 1:04 pm:        Repent Tulip. Your despair is justified. Repent and you will get help.   ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3028 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 1:08 pm:        ... thanks for sharing all that, but what did you make it mean?   Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 158 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 1:24 pm:        Madden, You're wrong. Kerry served 4 months in Vietnam, November 17, 1968 to March 17, 1969. The following link is the timeline off the Kerry/Edwards website: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service_timeline.html Now who's misinformed?! Still you and Strawberry. I encourage everyone to follow the above link, and note the following: June 8, 1967 Kerry reports to USS Gridley-serves in several capacities February 9, 1968 USS Gridley departs for a Western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment, to engage in operations in support of the Vietnam War November 17, 1968 Upon completion of his [swift boat] training, Kerry reports for duty to Coastal Squadron 1, Coastal Division 14, Cam Ranh Bay, South Vietnam. Early April, 1969 Kerry departs Vietnam February 1968 to April 1969...four months, according to GOP math. And we're supposed to trust them with the economy?   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 769 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 10:42 pm:        Madden, its your math thats off, or you just don't know the actual facts. John Kerry served a deployment in the western Pacific aboard a guided missile frigate. Some seven weeks of this deployment were within the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin and qualify as Vietnam service, the rest of the 12 month assignment (tours on ships like this are 2 years minimum) was spent in Australia, Hawaii, San Diego, San Francisco, and other non combat areas. But the official term for such service is “deployment”, not “tour in Vietnam”. John Kerry was assigned to a full twelve month tour of duty in Vietnam as OIC of a Swift Boat. However, he actually completed only four months of this tour before bugging out. To everybody except John Kerry, the term “tour in Vietnam” means boots on the ground for 12 or 13 months of mud, sweat, rain, mosquitoes, bad food and too little sleep, interspersed regularly with moments of intense trauma. John Kerry did not serve even one such tour.   Ed May Citizen Username: Edmay Post Number: 2133 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 10:57 pm:        Marie You got your new sign today Ed   micah Real Name Username: Michael Post Number: 704 Registered: 1-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 11:07 pm:        Thanks Ed. I'm using my laptop/wireless on my porch with my trusty loaded shotgun at my side. All ye who dare to attempt the desecration or theft of my Bush/Cheney lawn sign be forewarned !   cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2324 Registered: 8-2003 Posted on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 7:00 pm:        You heard it from Tulip first. Time Magazine is counting 'leaners' for Bush -- among registered voters at that. One can only conclude that Time Magazine is in the tank for Bush and always has been. Their editorial slant was a ruse.   tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 1233 Registered: 3-2004 Posted on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 7:14 pm:        Maybe not intentionally cjc, but if you look at my posts, Henry Luce was a died in the wool republican, and Michael Dowd was an editor before he was hired by the Bush campaign, and there was another editor who became an ambassador under the elder Bush. They like each other, Time Magazine and the Republicans. As another poster pointed out, if you are doing a poll and you don't take note of the "leaners" before you go into a convention, you shouldn't compare the results during the convention if they do include "leaners." Timing of the poll should be somewhat similar to the other polls being compared to it, also, including the polls for Kerry, which occured for the most part two or three days after the DNC convention.   Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 764 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 7:55 pm:        I wish I can say I like Kerry, but I don't.   Duncan Real Name Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 2799 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 9:55 pm:        I wish I could say I liked Bush. But I dont.   Ed May Citizen Username: Edmay Post Number: 2149 Registered: 9-2001 Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 9:58 am:        I wish I could say that I like Pizzaz and Duncan, and I do.   Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 767 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:49 am:        I wish I knew whether Justin was done with his bathroom. I've been waiting for three weeks to have some work done in the back yard.   Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 784 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 5:56 pm:        Looks like Gallup/CNN/USA Today must be Bush operatives too. Bush 52% Kerry 45% Can you say bounce?   Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 266 Registered: 6-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:36 pm:        Pre-convention, Gallup had it 50-47 Bush. 2 points is a "bounce?" It's within the margin of error. Can you say spin?