Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush says he'll win

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush says he'll win

    The campaign is just beginning. Should be a fun summer, eh fellas?

    From Drudge:

    BUSH: ELECTION WILL BE CLOSE, BUT I'LL WIN
    Sun Feb 29 2004 09:53:30 ET

    The Bush campaign no longer uses the shorthand phrase Massachusetts's liberal, TIME's Matt Cooper and John Dickerson report. "Campaign and Republican National Committee rapid-response makers had been labeling Kerry a 'Massachusetts liberal,' not knowing that Bush likes attacks to be more specific," Cooper and Dickerson write. "He doesn’t like it because it doesn’t tell you anything," a top Bush aide tells TIME. "Tell people what that means. That’s what he wants."

    President George W. Bush predicted the November election will be close – but that he will win – last Monday night at the White House, TIME reports.

    After Bush had given his first real campaign speech of the season to Republican governors last Monday, he invited five back to the White House for dinner and a chance to spend the night. "Over a batter-dipped feast in his private dining room that would have given Dick Cheney’s cardiologist the bends—fried shrimp, fried onion rings, corn on the cob, French fries, cole slaw and cheesecake—Bush was jovial, confident," TIME reports. "He told the group—George Pataki of New York, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Jim Douglas of Vermont and his Floridian brother Jeb—that the presidential race would be close but that he would win. Bush’s legendary self-confidence was on full display. 'You guys have the best job in government.' He smiled, leaning back. 'Actually you have the second best job in government.'"

    This week the President’s re-election team will air its first television ads of the presidential campaign, "a salvo designed to re-establish the President in the public mind as a decisive, principled leader, uniquely equipped to strengthen the economy and win the war on terrorism," Cooper and Dickerson write.

    Bush advisers say the spots will not go after Democratic frontrunner John Kerry. "We’re going through a process: first, correct everything that’s been said about the President, and then we’re going to correct the impressions about the [Democratic] nominee," says pollster Matthew Dowd.

    The Bush campaign has asked focus groups about the Massachusetts Senator. Not surprisingly, officials say, he comes across just as Republicans have tried to caricature him: aloof and ambivalent. "He is not a look-you-in-the-eye kind of guy," one tells TIME.

    Much of the $41 million the Bush campaign has spent so far out of the $140 million raised has been on ground organization, Cooper and Dickerson write. "The Bush team has county chairs in all the 1,189 counties in 18 of the target states from 2000. They have held 127 regional training sessions. By June, they will have made 800,000 phone calls to Republicans. Almost 200,000 volunteers have signed on."

  • #2
    Like he would say that he'd lose...

    "Can't buy what I want because it's free...
    Can't buy what I want because it's free..."
    -- Pearl Jam, from the single Corduroy

    Comment


    • #3
      He knows Florida will come through in a chad, er, I mean pinch
      Make America Great For Once.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Kev@Feb 29 2004, 08:05 PM
        He knows Florida will come through in a chad, er, I mean pinch
        Oh man, I hope we don't see a repeat of that shit.

        That's what burned me out on politics.
        RIP Chris Jones 1971-2009
        You'll never be forgotten.

        Comment


        • #5
          That won't happen again.
          And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

          -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

          Comment


          • #6
            Interesting fact about Presidential re-elections: they are rarely close.

            Usually, the incumbent wins by a good margin, ranging from Good Margin (Clinton) to Gigantic Landslide (Reagan).

            Sometimes, he gets his ass kicked (Taft, Hoover, Carter, Bush Sr).

            But it's rarely close. People remember Truman being close, but he won the popular vote by 4.5% and the EC by over 100 votes. Ford was close, but he was the most accidental president ever and IMHO doesn't really count. The only contest with an incumbent that you could definitely call "close" in the last 100 years was 1916, when Charles Evans Hughes went to bed thinking he'd won and woke up to find out that the West had gone solidly for Wilson and re-elected him by a vote of 277-254.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Damtoft@Feb 29 2004, 09:11 PM
              That won't happen again.
              No they will "fix" things better this time.
              Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kah2523@Feb 29 2004, 08:15 PM
                The only contest with an incumbent that you could definitely call "close" in the last 100 years was 1916, when Charles Evans Hughes went to bed thinking he'd won and woke up to find out that the West had gone solidly for Wilson and re-elected him by a vote of 277-254.
                How much 20th Century blood may have been spared if that idiot had not been elected predident on that fateful night?????????

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by King in KC+Feb 29 2004, 08:25 PM-->
                  QUOTE(King in KC @ Feb 29 2004, 08:25 PM)

                • #10
                  Obviously, that evening bode ill for the nation's future.
                  And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                  -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by kah2523@Feb 29 2004, 08:32 PM

                    Since World War I was started by a bunch of Europeans, Wilson didn't join the conflict until it had been going for 2 1/2 years and such battles as Verdun and the Somme were over, and American troops did not join the combat in mass until the last five or six months of the war, not all that much, comparatively speaking.

                    Unless you are suggesting that the Germans would have won if the United States hadn't entered, which is highly debatable. America's contribution to WWI was rather limited, as I mentioned above, and even at the very end the great majority of the troops pushing the Germans back on the Western Front were English and French. Indeed, our entry into the war brought it to a halt much sooner than it might otherwise have, since the Germans in the fall of 1918 not only realized that they were tapped out, but that they were totally screwed by the fact that 100,000 American troops were arriving every month.
                    It wasn't the war (WWI) that was the problem, it was the peace.

                    And Wilson was an idiot.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      He valued his utopian vision for a "League of Nations" more than his own word.

                      What a piece of shit.
                      And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                      -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Damtoft+Feb 29 2004, 08:48 PM-->
                        QUOTE(Damtoft @ Feb 29 2004, 08:48 PM)
                        He valued his utopian vision for a "League of Nations" more than his own word.[/b]

                        And his own countrymen.


                      • #14
                        Woodrow Wilson is one of the best presidents this country ever had. He should not be mentioned in the same thread as george bush.
                        First Fan of the Halifax IceBreakers!

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by glen a richter@Feb 29 2004, 09:00 PM
                          Woodrow Wilson is one of the best presidents this country ever had. He should not be mentioned in the same thread as george bush.
                          You bet. And Wilson's wife was an even better president than he.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X