Who's running again? You know seriously if someone were undecided and tried to read and comprehend the stuff on this post, they would probably not even bother to vote.

All the TV and radio ads throw stones at the opposing candidates, let's hope nobody here lives in a glass house.

Bsit, I thought he always retired early? It's such a hard job.

Seriously though, I agree with bait that at this stage, nobody is seriously on the fence and looking here won't help um, so lets go catch and release for a while.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with baits prediction, although not his analysis. Bush shouldn't be hurting this badly with a solid base and no real crisis looming against him. But he will end up as president again (note I didn't say he'd win, just stay where he is) anyway - regardless of which way the polls break (I don't think they are very accurate this season anyway).

In the end though, I believe that whoever loses this election will end up the winner in the longrun. People will be upset, energized, and will get organized, then lookout at the polls next time. About 40% of the poplulation doesn't vote as a rule. What if a large percentage of those did? We may be seeing some of that this election, which is why things may be so close.

So lets all hold our breath for another 2 days, then try to get on with things.

RayZ,

With all due respect, I must disagree with you.

Clinton warned Bush that Bin Laden was, in Clinton's estimation, the largest threat and security concern Bush would face. It was clear to Clinton right from the start, based upon his meeting with Bush and members of his incoming cabinet, that their number one issue was Iraq. (Time Magazine, June 2004.)

Furthermore, based upon Bush's first 9 months in office, and his cabinet's failure to pay adequate attention to the growing terrorist threat, while the threat may certainly have existed prior to their taking over the White House, they failed to adequately or effectively address this issue. They were too consumed with finding a way to justify a war in Iraq.

You posted: "Most, if not all of the problems the Bush administration and the current Congress have had to face are inheritated issues from previous administrations (I disagree)

and I see the criticisms as simply not agreeing with what Bush and Congress is doing (True),

at least they are doing something which is more than you can say about the ineffectiveness of their predecessors." (I again disagree)

Part of that is correct. My criticisms ARE largerly based upon disagreeing with what they are doing, as much as what they have failed to do. I disagree with your view that they are doing something more, or something better, than Clinton did, or Bush I, who were Bush II's predecessors.

Furthermore, the issue in this election is not Bush vs. Clinton. It is four more years of what we have already seen from Bush, vs. four years of something different from Kerry. For me, this choice is clear.


"National Guard duty for Bush? You didn't need connections to get Guard duty during Nam, I did it myself, joined a local unit in my senior year in college, the US government gave me a choice, I took the NG route and exposed myself for a 6 year obligation rather than a 2 year stint in the regular military, thousands of other patriots did the same thing."

I'm not knocking anyone who served in the NG. Forgive me if that is how you read that. But the unit that Bush got into was not your average enlisted NG unit. It was an elite unit largely made up of college grads who were the sons of wealthy and influential families. Furthermore, my BIGGEST problem with Bush is that his military record and his discharge are suspect, and I have no doubt that he received special treatment because of his family's wealth and influence.

Finally, I only bring up Bush's military service in the Vietnam era in response to those who try weakly to use Kerry's service AGAINST him. Since by your own admission you have not followed this thread, I will repeat something I posted previously:

Which is worse:

A. A man who enlists voluntarily for combat duty, serves four months overseas under enemy fire, returns home after 3 relatively minor wounds, resigns his officer's commission due to his moral and political convictions, accepts an other than honorable discharge as a result of his anti-war position, and goes on to protest the war?

OR

B. A man who uses his family's wealth and influence to secure a stateside ANG post, which he fails to fulfill and gets away with it again due to his family, and goes on to get an honorable discharge which he did not earn or deserve, again, because of his family's wealth and influence.

"Kerry has absolutley no connection with middle class America, which the Democratic party is supposed to represent."

And Bush DOES? This is the consumate "Silver Spoon Kid"! He has never done an honest days work in his life, got into Yale because he is a legacy, got into Harvard because of his family, barely graduated from either, has run every company he has ever been involved in into the ground until he took over the Texas Rangers baseball club, and there he was mainly a figure head who did very little actual "managing", was a poor governor, my father is from Texas and his entire family lives there, stole the 2000 election with the help of Jeb and Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court, and has made a complete mess of this country for the last four years! His foreign policy sucks, the economy sucks (unless you're in that top 1% or own stock in Halliburton or United Defense or other oil or defense related companies) the job market sucks, his record on the environment sucks, he's going to totally screw up social security and medicare, "No Child Left Behind" is a JOKE! My wife and my eldest daughter are both teachers........

Name one thing, ONE, that Bush has done in four years that should earn him another four? Name ONE redeeming quality or one example of his leadership that has demonstrated that he is qualified or worthy of being elected President of the United States for the next four years.

For an interesting look at how in touch Bush is with the middle class read "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips, a former aid, advisor, and strategist for Richard Nixon, and formerly a staunch Republican. He has written other books, before Bush was President, including "The Politics of Rich and Poor" 1990, "Post-Conservative America", "The Emerging Republican Majority", and "Mediacracy: American Parties and Politics in the Communications Age", and others.

The only time I have ever supported or applauded Mr. Bush was in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 and when he sent our military into Afghanistan, and THAT was a no brainer. Everything he has done since then has been a mistake, IMO.

Ray, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and your vote, but I must respectfully disagree with you sir.

Regards,

Jim

"...were effectively countered by the relatively less well funded Swifties."

I would opine that that statement is subjective and debatable.

Regards, Herr Baitrunner Extraordinaire!

I must sadly and reluctantly agree with Gerg, while I hope against hope that Le Baitrunneir is right! I see Bush remaining in the White House by hook, or more likely, by more crook :p .... again.

The race is tight, the polls fluid, Kerry could very well be getting "misunderstimated" by the pundits, since an abnormally large turn out by the populus will most likely favor Kerry, and the polls cannot accurately reflect that.

It will certainly be a nail biter. May make for some interesting dinner conversation on Thanksgiving (or even Christmas! ) Caught the end of a couple of Sunday morning news programs and the pundits predict court room challenges and recounts galore. :rolleyes:
Let's hope not!

And Baitboy, I agree with you on your "EDIT". Some meaningful and effective voting reforms would be nice. Bush and co. had four years to work on this, but everything worked out so well for them last time, they musta figured, if it aint broke, don't fix it! :p