Kerry asks Bush to, "Make it go away!"

This is all a put on sponsored by Hilliary R. Clintonista..If Kerry were to get
elected, he might get a second term, that would put Hillary in a bad position
having to wait until '12.
With Kerry losing in 04, it sets HRC up to run against a new Republican in '08.

Rick

"BOB" SD wrote in message ...

Oh, Bush has a "record" Dave, but not one that he nor anyone else would
want to run on. He will lose in November and I don't think it will even
be close. That's just my opinion.


Well, Bush IS running on his record, and Kerry is running FROM his!

In article , BOB SD wrote:

(David Fritzinger) wrote in
om:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
message ink.net...
"rstro" wrote in message
. net...

He is calling it off--because they should be discussing the issues
that are currently affectign this country--and we all know George
The Monkey can't do that!


No? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but George Bush is running on the
basis of his recent service as an elected official while John Kerry
is running on his record of military service during the Vietnam War.
Discussing the issues that are currently affecting this country will
mean a landslide for Bush. Kerry knows that, that's why he's making
Vietnam the issue.

Bush is running on his record? Where? How? It appears he is trying to
trash Kerry as much as possible, because he knows he has no record to
run on.

Oh, Bush has a "record" Dave, but not one that he nor anyone else would
want to run on. He will lose in November and I don't think it will even
be close. That's just my opinion.

I agree. It won't be close. Out of the frying pan into the fire, as they
say.

--
George Graves
------------------

Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?

rom: (David Fritzinger)
Date: 8/24/2004 5:00 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...
"rstro" wrote in message
. net...

He is calling it off--because they should be discussing the issues that
are currently affectign this country--and we all know George The
Monkey can't do that!


No? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but George Bush is running on the basis
of
his recent service as an elected official while John Kerry is running on
his
record of military service during the Vietnam War. Discussing the issues
that are currently affecting this country will mean a landslide for Bush.
Kerry knows that, that's why he's making Vietnam the issue.

Bush is running on his record? Where? How? It appears he is trying to
trash Kerry as much as possible, because he knows he has no record to
run on.

--
Dave Fritzinger

Have you listened to kerry? In between talking about his military time he does
nothing but bash Bush. I have tried very hard to find out what the man is FOR
other than the usual platitudes his party emits.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: Snit
Date: 8/24/2004 9:56 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Under Clinton we had a surplus.


We did? When and how much? Was it GDP, GNP or what? No one bought bonds and all
the bonds were redeemed?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: ZnU


In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"rstro" wrote in message
. net...

He is calling it off--because they should be discussing the issues that
are currently affectign this country--and we all know George The
Monkey can't do that!


No? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but George Bush is running on the basis
of
his recent service as an elected official while John Kerry is running on
his
record of military service during the Vietnam War. Discussing the issues
that are currently affecting this country will mean a landslide for Bush.

At a time when more than half of the population thinks the country is
headed in the wrong direction?

Kerry knows that, that's why he's making Vietnam the issue.

Kerry has not made Vietnam *the* issue. He obviously wants people to be
aware of his record (there's such nice contrast with Bush's record), but
if you listen to his speeches, they're almost entirely about policy
issues. He doesn't stand at the podium telling war stories.

--

Every speach I have heard kerry make in the past half year are slamming Bush. I
have yet to hear him tell us what his is going to do for us other than keep us
in Iraq. His speaches offer no other solutions to the problems at hand other
than to tell us what Bush is doing wrong.

I want to know what he is going to do for us other than replace Bush.

I want kerry to discuss his actions after he came back starting with his
acusations of war crimes and continuing through his political career to date.
To hear him speak the only thing in his he has done in entire life life was to
serve in Viet Nam. Why won't he tell us what he has done since then. He is the
one who made Viet Nam a campaign issue, not Bush.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"David Galehouse" wrote in
:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...


What's your evidence of that? What's abysmal about his record?


I don't have time to list all of his failures, so let's just start
with the fact that he let his guard down before 9/11,

Uh,there were many Al-Queda attacks upon the US (WTC-I,overseas
attacks)during the Clinton years.
So,what "guard" was there to "let down" ?
If anything,CLINTON was responsible for 9-11,as he gave an appearance of
weakness to OBL and Al-Queda(by doing nothing effective),and cut the
military,too.Clinton essentially did nothing about OBL or terrorism.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
nk.net:


"BOB" SD wrote in message ...

Oh, Bush has a "record" Dave, but not one that he nor anyone else would
want to run on. He will lose in November and I don't think it will even
be close. That's just my opinion.


Well, Bush IS running on his record, and Kerry is running FROM his!




Kerry has not said one word about his past performance in the Senate,nor
about his (traitorous) anti-war activities.
And what about his many absences from voting?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Gactimus wrote in message ...

It's a very amusing situation.

Bush has been attacked by these Democrat 527s for months. A good chuck
of their funding comes from wacky billionaire George Soros, who, no
doubt, would like to see a more "European" America.

Now, along comes these swift boat vets with relatively poor funding
and the Democrats are calling foul!

They say there's a connexion between them and the Bush campaign.

But never mind the fact that at the Democratic National Convention
most, if not all these Democrat 527s, were present/hosting hospitality
suites etc. And that the heads of some of these Democrat 527 have
prior affiliations with Kerry ....

Now, along comes Max Cleland saying that 1) Bush should stop the
Swift Boats (but if you don't have any control how can you stop,
and whatever happened to the 1st Amendment?) and 2) that the
swifties dishonor vets by dissing Kerry's service!

Max and his fellow petitioners have their heads up their collective
asses.

John Kerry came back from Vietnam and repudiated whatever honors
he earned when he made the (in)famous medal toss and made numerous
public statements characterizing US troops in Vietnam as
war criminals etc.

The swift boat 537 clearly don't think much of John Kerry. Why?
Because he did the above, he dishonored himself and his fellows.

But, according to Cleland, by making an issue out of Kerry's
Vietnan service and post-Vietnam activities as related to Vietnam,
all vets are being dishonored! (Never mind the 1st Amendment, the
thing that let Kerry make all those charges in the first place.)

In other words, Kerry was right about the war crimes etc. One can only
conclude, then, that according to Cleland and his fellows being
a war criminal isn't dishonorable.

In short, Cleland and crew would find people like Hitler, Saddam Hussein
et alia satisfactory candidates for public office. Well, like I said
they've clearly got their heads up their asses.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130010,00.html

wd

"William Davenant" wrote in message
m...
Gactimus wrote in message
...

It's a very amusing situation.


Sure is! Which side had a campaign worker resign after it was revealed that
he lied about directing the No-So-Swifties' activities? Bush's side, of
course.