the whores have their work cut out for them in 2004

[Cocoa]

The truth is just so obvious, everything that Bush has done is a failure. The worst terrorist attack in history, the worst economy since the Depression, quagmire in Iraq, failure in Afghanistan.

Plus, on top of that, conduct in office that is truly impeachable. It doesn't matter that he didn't get impeached, he really should have been. Lies and coverups. Total secrecy.

Plus, he's a total idiot, he proves it every time he appears anywhere or opens his mouth.

Of course they'll try to puff him up, but they are going to have to get real creative. Probably their best strategy is to avoid talking about Bush at all. But how long can they keep that up?

I'm looking forward to a surreal presidential campaign.

[eissa]

1. It's OUR fault

for not capitalizing on these failures. Geez, Clinton would have a bad hair day and the repukes would demand an investigation! We have leakgate, a screwed-up foreign policy, corporations making policies, a "president" who lied to wage war, an international community that hates us, etc., etc., and our dems spend more time bashing candidates than shrub!!!

[Cocoa]

2. that's not factually true

the dems have spent FAR more time thrashing Bush.

The press, on the other hand, focusses on the infighting.

This is the press's fault. They are really failing in their responsibilities, almost all of their criticism is in the form of reporting on the Dems' criticism. And they ignore most of the criticism, I hear tons of stuff on C-span that the dems say that never make it into the papers.

When Bob Schieffer asked Bob Graham about his saying Bush should be impeached, Graham said he should be, but it's academic because the republicans control Congress. But he told Schieffer, there's no reason the press shouldn't be writing about this, comparing the Bush standard to the Clinton standard, but they never do.

[eissa]

5. I'm not saying the media

is blameless, but I've seen many times now our own democratic "leaders", if not outright bashing the candidates, then showing mild, lukewarm support for them. The only exception is Carville. Perhaps they want the repukes to underestimate us, I don't know. I just know I'm tired of it.

[tom_paine]

3. Oh, I think you underestimate the Power of Pravda

especially when the people they are manipulating are utterly unaware, carry vestigal beliefes from the height of the American Media which are laughably out of date.

The Imperial Subjects of Amerika still carry the institutional memory of the 40s-70s, when Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin perverted medias spread lies, disinformation, and propaganda. As a result, the FCC drew up it's regulations based on what these monsters did, trying to set up a series of roadblocks so that it couldn't happen in the Old American Republic.

But of course it is no coincidence that the Busheviks have been working so hard to remove those regulations with the lame excuses that technology has rendered them obsolete.

But these regualtions were written with Human Truth in mind, and that transcends technology.

Anyway, to get back to the original point, the Imperial Subjects of Amerika have not yet realized that their media is only a handful of step above Old Soviet or Chniese media. Because mechanisms of Totalitarioan Control, under the Bushevik Model are "incentive-based", shall we say, instead of a result of direct forceful oppression, the Busheviks and their Whores are given further camoflauge.

Finally, the Imperial Subjects of Amerika rae the weakest and most pathetic generation perhaps ever to live. They (we) haven't desrved freedom in at least a decade so it is no surprise that finally we are losing it.

Power abhors a vacuum, you know, and it is only the vestigal scraps of the Consititution and Bill of Rights that prevents the Busheviks from going straight to Tyranny.

[Cocoa]

7. true, but more people voted for Gore in 2000

back then, Bush's utter inadequacy was not as clear as it is now.

Also, he got the benefit of the doubt on his character and his promises. He was, incredibly, portrayed as the more moral and HONEST candidate. Can you believe this? I have a hard time getting my head around it.

Now there's no excuse for giving him the benefit of the doubt. If a voter does, they are doing some serious mental exercises, and if a pundit tries to make a case for Bush's honesty, they better be a master propagandist. I'm looking forward to, and dreading, seeing them do their work.

[salinen]

10. Masterful Tom

Freedom of the press stolen without a fight. Democracy is hindged on a free, non-corrupt press. Totalitarianism bloosems under these conditions.

[killbotfactory]

4. He's a miserable failure

All the have left is "Democrats are too angry!" and "we'll give you tax cuts!"

[Cocoa]

8. and gay marriage

UGH!

[OneTwentyoNine]

6. Ha....Not waiting until 2004

All one needs to do is listen to the whores newest baby the "BOOMING ECONOMY!! They've been pimping it for weeks while they know the fact is that its total BS. I've been hearing more of this crap than about how well things are going in Iraq.

David

[Cocoa]

9. faux successes

I think there's a lot of that. Bush's actions are automatically considered to be successes, just by the fact that Bush did them. Soft bigotry of low expectations, Bush gets credit for trying, regardless of how things turn out.

Their judgement of the Iraq situation is pre-ordained: it's a success no matter what.