Can anyone make Bush jump hurdles?

[Sean]

Who can give Bush a run for his money? (let's be realistic-no Al Sharptons)

So who's your pick, and why? This isn't just for democrats. Can any of the candidates beat an incumbent with so much unfinished business?

I think a good match up would be Mr. Clark and John Edwards. Clark has the military background and the leadership, and Edwards has the South, and the charm.

[dotComa]

Well, I think it's going to be hard for anyone to really beat Bush. I used to actually support his administration, but he's contrasting the republican thing by spending so much!

I think a good match for Bush would be Clark. He's got the military background that can counter anything Bush says. Also, it wouldn't hurt if Kerry was vice president.

[Tindell]

I do not believe Bush had a bad presidency. None of the other candidates during the last election could have done a better job after being put in the position that Bush was put in.

Bush will stay in office for another four years. I gaurentee it.

[GregC]

I agree Tindell.

[Spozguy]

As an observer from another country and a socialist, i don't think it really matters who wins the presidential election in America. There will still be invasions, and US hegemony will continue much to the complete hate of the world. But if i were American, I'd be voting for Wesley Clark. Not only has he come out and said that Iraq was a mistake. (Saddam wasnt behind 9/11, there are no WMD because they were all destroyed after 1991), He has also promised to reduce your military budget and put it into healthcare and education. Who would know bettewr about this than a former general? Howard Dean is pretty much out of the running, stupid yell. Bush is making this election about his conduct in Iraq.

Before people pledge support for Bush, look at his actions.
He turn the biggest surplus in American History into the biggest defict.
He ignored Clinton's warnings that Terrorists were planning a major attack on the USA possibly using aircraft.
He started 2 wars that he hasn't finished properly. Afghanistan; outside of Kabul areas have returned to Taliban Style rule, and Iraq. Where he is pledging to leave the country just before the election. Iraq isn't just about Saddam Hussein's 22(?) year old regime.
For the first part of his rule, the USA supported Saddam, even after he gassed the Kurds (Very famous picture of Donald Rumsfeild shaking Saddam's Hand) and after he invaded Kuwait, the USA with Britain, imposed sanctions on Iraq that at it's height were killing 5000 children a day.
And seriously, whats the deal with Florida?


- Spozguy

[JLK]

I really believe that Pat Buchanan could have given Bush a scare if he would have run in the Republican primaries. There are a lot of traditional conservatives out there who are unhappy with Bush and the neocons.

[Guest]

I think Wesley Clark can beat Bush. His tax proposal takes the bruden off of the poor and middle class and places it back where it belongs - on the wealthiest of Americans. He is strong, articulate, and thoughtful and beats Bush in those 3 areas.

[Simkin78]

I would have to say that if I were a democrat I would have voted for Carol Mosely-Braun(sp?). She has intelligence, quick wit and a straight forwardness that one rarely sees in any political candidate. But since she is right out, then I would go for Joe Leiberman because I tend to run more toward the conservative side of things.


And to the assertion that 5000 children a day were dying due to western trade embargos, you really need to return to basic algebra.

Let us assume that the average daily child death rate for iraq over the ten year embargo period was a generous 2,000. Each year that would mean 730,000 children died. And during the whole of 10 years 7,300,000 children died. And that doesn't even cover adult deaths.

Looking at the total pop., birth rates and infant mortality rates from that time we can see that the total births in a ten year period were about 8.5 million give or take. But according to the astonishing numbers of just 2,000 children a day in our average, there would only have been a population growth of 1 million plus over that ten year period.

So, knowing the the total growth in poulation from 1991 to 2003 in iraq is 5 million plus, we can know for certain that even the lax number of 2,000 a day is a complete fallacy, much less the proposed 5,000.

Spinning the truth is one thing, but this is absurd.

Numbers used to calculate my findings may be found at these two sites.
http://www.theodora.com/wfb1991/iraq/
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/iz.html

[Guest]

Mickey Mouse - in other words, just about anyone.

[Simkin78]

What a stimulating answer.....

[Jeanne]

Voted for Bush the first time on a single stance issue...the Second Ammendment, and will vote for him again because I agree with what he is doing, and think he is doing a good job in difficult circumstances. And I don't care how much it costs...I am absolutely thrilled that he is planning to get this country off its ass and back into space...should have been there a long time ago. If we want to save money, then stop lending small countries like Israel billions of dollars, stop the waste in our own pork barrel policies, and stop using our tax dollars to support illegal aliens. I was supporting Dean when he first started, but he blew it. I consider myself a Conservtive Democrat/Liberal Republican....I think Bush will win hands down.

Jeanne

[joegvb]

I am a republican and i have to say Bush is not unbeatable. He has though made some great improvments since his last campaing. he has started a war (a big plus), helped the country though 9-11 (but what president would not have) and captured sadam. If Kerry can get the support like he is getting now he will give bush a run but then again he might not. Its really to early to see. we need to have this topic agian in say july and october.

Joe