Heh. The Fat Man was on with Brian Lame this morning and he said
he thinks Kerry is going to win. But he did say if there is a major terrorist strike all bets are off. It was great. Some fundie lady called in and she could hardly talk because she was so upset that Germond would openly talk about being an atheist on national TV. Germond told her to "change the channel." She responded that she should be able to watch anything she wants without having to see an atheist. Too funny.
2. yeah "Washington Journal" is a great place to see the loonies of America.
Some real nutters call in there from all political views. Which is why I love watching that show. Every so often you get a good, reasonable, fairly intelligent caller who actually adds something to the topic at hand.
They source the Washington Times too often for my taste however. But that works well if you are watching for more loonies.
3. I still don't understand why people think a terrorist strike HELPS
bush*! The dynamic could not be more opposed to that result. His whole campaign and fear alert is set up specifically to say, I will keep you safe from all the terror even though you are safer but it is more dangerous.
A terror attack would change things, from a Kerry Landslide to a Kerry Avalanche!
6. It would help if, in the next 3 months, Bush is able to cast Kerry as...
...someone who wouldn't act decisively on terrorism.
A lot of DU'ers were pissed off that Kerry said he would still have voted the way he did on the IWR.
They should be happy that he's playing chess. They should be happy that he's playing an opening that still allows him a checkmate against th Black King in the event that some renegade Bush pawn allows another terrorist attack.
8. Germond made the point that it depends on when the attack occurs.
In his opinion, the closer it is to the election the better for Bush. Early on and people will have time to think second thoughts and maybe reason the way you are suggesting. I think he is right. All bets are off. We just don't know how voters would react. I would like to agree with you, but I just don't know.
If it happened two weeks before the election it would work against Bush*. People would say why didn't he protect us. If it happened two days beforew the election there would be a rally around the pResident effect. If that was the case we would have to work toward criminal indictments and impeachment.
11. I agree with Jack, and he's not the only one who has said this.
If there was an attack close to election day, shrub wins! It's instinctive for people to rally around the sitting Pres. It's a kneejerk reaction. But if there's enought time to think...the shock wears off, and lots of questions arise. Then I think Kerry wins.
Let's just hope there's not attack at all. I sure don't want anyone to suffer and die for any reason.
..45% would rally around Bush; 45% would say he let it happen/made it happen/did not protect us. And the media would hype the (cue the God Bless America singers)that in "times like these" Amurekeans come together behind their President. Result: Bush wins 55% to 45%. A bunch of Americans are going to die before November so that the greedy can stay in power.
15. Chimpy isn't smart enough to comfortably coordinate something like that.
Edited on Fri Aug-13-04 10:42 AM by oasis
Bush's handlers most likely thought a "traditional hijacking" would be adequate justification to mount their "War on terror" but events of 9/11 went beyond collossal.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
