In a time of war? Absolutely it would
make it difficult. Being at war is the best thing to happen to Bush for
his reelection. American's historically are reticent to change horses in
mid stream. (Nixon being a notable exception)
Bush is extremely vulnerable in some
areas. The economy is rebounding, but the average American doesn't
understand the intricacies of economics. What they do understand is money
in their wallet....which is why the tax cuts were well received by everyone
except the dems. But, I bet not a single one of these folks screaming
about the cuts gave any of theirs back, you know. He's vulnerable on the
spending issue. When liberal dems can point to being less spend happy than
a republican majority they have an issue to run with.
He's vulnerable on energy policy, simply
because he doesn't have one. He's vulnerable on the Medicare bill.
It was his baby, and dems and repubs alike hate the bill. It will haunt
him.
However, the only dem running that I think
could really beat Bush won't win the primary because he is too
conservative. If Liberman were running against Bush I think he could
win. He's not a wild-eyed liberal like all of the rest of
them.
Charles Mims
IBM: Insultingly Boring Microcomputers
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 7:35 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
A beautiful thing...
But would that make it hard for them to become elected?
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 05:38 PM, Charles wrote:
LOL...read my answer slowly...I said they would support Clinton (or any other president) in Iraq. If Clinton were handling foreign policy the way Bush is, most (surely not all, but most) republicans would support it. They would attack his domestic agenda full force. Just like many republicans are now attacking *BUSH's* domestic agenda. I'm saying that they would leave foreign policy alone.<image.tiff>
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming, terrified, like his passengers.
Tim Harder
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:48 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
It seemed simple to me... sorry... <G>
In my hypothetical Clinton was president and did exactly the same thing as Bush.
If you answered that... you answered a question that wasn't asked.
So I take it that in your estimation... If Clinton was the president and the Republicans
were trying to unseat him... *Under the exact same circumstances we have now*
The Republicans would not say a word about Clinton's foreign policy?
The original question is still in this post. Please read it slowly this time. <G>
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 03:19 PM, Charles wrote:
I answered every question you asked?
You said how would a Clinton administration handle it...I answered that.
You said what would a republican candidate do if it were the other way around, I pointed out that when the very thing was occurring the republicans stood behind Clinton.
What answers are you looking for?
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2.
<image.tiff>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:17 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
You dodged the question just like Bethany did....
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 02:45 PM, Charles wrote:
I think that after 9/11 a Clinton Administration would have gone through some motions. I don't believe they would have prosecuted a war on Iraq. Probably would have done the action in Afghanistan, because the American people would have nothing less. After a bit of fighting in Afghanistan a Clinton administration would have begun to disengage, and certainly wouldn't consider a "war" on terror, but would opt for using police type tactics instead of military options.
As I recall, even in election cycles, the republicans stood behind Clinton when he threatened to get tough on Iraq. They only bucked when he wanted to make token gestures.
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link in the chain of destiny can be handled at a time. - Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
<image.tiff>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:03 AM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
I really don't see Clinton's quotes as haunting *him*... they haunt the Democratic Party.
What if this was the end of *Clinton's* first term and he had handled all of the events
after 9/11 exactly as Bush has. Yes exactly... What would the Republican candidates
be saying in there election speeches about Clinton's foreign policies?
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
Tim Harder
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
Tim Harder
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________ Sndbox mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
