Bush's approval rating drops To 34 % in California

[KrazyHorse]

If the opposition weren't far out there relative to mainstream Central Canada then maybe they'd stand a chance.

Look within for the answer. Don't blame the electorate for not being as conservative as you'd like...

[notyoueither]

Far out? You mean they are on the same side as the majority of Canadians on same sex marriage?

Or do you mean they are on the wrong side of the CBC and CTV?

It really doesn't matter. What matters is that what would have defeated MacDonald, St Laurent, King, Pearson, or even Tredeau, no longer cuts it for defeating a government.

Theft is better than the barbarians from the regions getting a say in things.

Oh, Canada!

[Ben Kenobi]

And I feel, personally, that Rove would be in a quagmire. How much personal **** can he dig up that we don't already know?

Awesome! I win my bet. I got a liberal to blame Karl Rove.



As for the man that is Clinton, I don't doubt that he is a man. I only said that charm and charisma can only go so far. Bush has proven himself to be able to deal with the problems, and therefore, it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The issue is a vote of confidence on Bush.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Far out? You mean they are on the same side as the majority of Canadians on same sex marriage?

a) barely

b) that's one issue, and not one the majority of Canadians is too worked up about...

[notyoueither]

And since when should blatant theft not be the only issue?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Considering that Bush beat out Kerry who got a higher percentage of the vote than Bill Clinton ever got, yes I do believe he wins in a two party race.

Bush wouldn't have snowball's chance in h*ll of winning against Bill Clinton. People were more than willing, according to poll numbers, to elect him to a third term when he left office. Its only primarily conservatives who don't like him, and they are a minority compared to the overall population.

[notyoueither]

Elect the freekin' NDP for all I care, just turf the thieves.

But no, it seems that we are bound for a siesta of responsible government.

Hopefully, we wake up from it before we are the Mexico of the North.

[KrazyHorse]

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Awesome! I win my bet. I got a liberal to blame Karl Rove.



As for the man that is Clinton, I don't doubt that he is a man. I only said that charm and charisma can only go so far. Bush has proven himself to be able to deal with the problems, and therefore, it doesn't really matter who runs against him. The issue is a vote of confidence on Bush.

First, Rove is Bush's top campaign advisor. How can he not be responsible for statements made during a campaign?

Second, Clinton has proven himself FAR more capable at doing the job of President than Bush II. Do you really think the American people are dumb enough to elect Bush over Clinton based on who is the better leader?

Wait...don't answer that...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I am curious why you laugh.

Two 'opposition' parties just cooperated with the government of... 'Fagin' to prolong the corruption.

They really seem to be opposed to corruption, don't they?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


First, Rove is Bush's top campaign advisor. How can he not be responsible for statements made during a campaign?

Second, Clinton has proven himself FAR more capable at doing the job of President than Bush II. Do you really think the American people are dumb enough to elect Bush over Clinton based on who is the better leader?

Wait...don't answer that...

I don't think I would like to run on a record of ignoring growing terrorism warnings, with only the destruction of the odd tent in the desert, if I were Bill Clinton.

He would get shredded.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I don't think I would like to run on a record of ignoring growing terrorism warnings, with only the destruction of the odd tent in the desert, if I were Bill Clinton.

He would get shredded.

There's plenty of evidence that the Bush admin ignored growing terrorism warnings as well. Plus, Bush couldn't find Osama. That's enough to get him "shredded".

Oh, and Bill Clinton never went to war with Iraq. By 2008, I feel that that would be an asset.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't think I would like to run on a record of ignoring growing terrorism warnings, with only the destruction of the odd tent in the desert, if I were Bill Clinton.

Let's not forget attacking a country that wasn't a real threat to us without UN approval. A country where we still have troops BTW.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


There's plenty of evidence that the Bush admin ignored growing terrorism warnings as well. Plus, Bush couldn't find Osama. That's enough to get him "shredded".

Oh, and Bill Clinton never went to war with Iraq. By 2008, I feel that that would be an asset.

And of course you think Clinton has a better war record than Kerry, so of course Clinton would be a shoe in, after the ***** slap Osama gave the US after Clinton ignored him for years.

BTW, which embassies or ships were blown up under Bush before 9/11?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Uh, Boris, if you read my posts I read the analysis. I quoted the same section you quote including the caveats.

Yeah, but you didn't actually read the state-by-state summaries wherein it was explained why Clinton would still win, even if the split in those state was more generous to Bush. Read it again.