Good news for Republicans has become so rare, that I though it necessary to start this thread for a compilation, so that we're sure not miss any of it. For example: Backlash against Michael Moore: Spiderman 2 Beats out Farenheit 9/11 at the Box Office!
Just to piss on any good news coming out of the Reep camp: ABC's Dan Harris reports that Senator John Kerry's campaign will announce today that they've raised $175 million since the cycle began, including $30 million in June. The campaign says that $100 million came from grassroots donors. The average donation is about $100. Bank of America, who processes JohnKerry.com credit card requests, was allegedly overwhelmed with contributions yesterday and had to shut down for seven minutes due to an overload. [/chortles]
The reason Spiderman is doing so much better that Farenheit 1984 is that the villian from Spiderman is more complex and more intelligent, not to mention more believable. (Of course, they are both fictional villains. One is based on a comic book hero and the other one is a figment of a fat man's imagination.)
Well Doc Ock is a scientist while Dubya is just dumb. Farenheit 1984? I would think people using that term would be against the people who are trying to make sure the movie is not shown. Then again Dubya and the BushCo Sheeple are a bunch of flip-floppers.
Hate to tell you but the $100 million being attributed to "grassroots donors" was actually a single contribution from his wife! Sorry... do not pass Go...return!
Wish we had a movie that was only finishing behind "Spider-Man." Sincerely, Paramount Warner Bros. DreamWorks Disney Universal Fox MGM
Maybe you see some irony, but it doesn't take a Bush supporter to see the paralels. My liberal friend (A Dean supporter, no less) saw it too. Michael Moore, by skillful editing and distortion, created a caricature version of our president which reminded me of the propaganda movies featuring Emmanuel Goldstein, from Orwell's brilliant novel. And the reaction of the hard core Bush-haters, booing and yelling obscenities at the screen, was no different than what Orwell described for the followers of Big Brother. I felt like Winston Smith must have felt at those screenings of Goldstein. Am I the only sane person who sees through this charade?
IUf Clinton jumped off a bridge, would Bush have to jump also? Clinton was stupid for not getting a hummer from a better looking intern. He also didn't invade Iraq on pretenses that were either inexcusably faulty or deliberate lies, did he? It was only when Bush took office that a WMD threat to us worth invading over suddenly appeared. Funny, that. Come on, Alex, I know you feel obligated to spout the party line no matter how silly, but I hope that even you can see the difference here.
You're kinda cute when you're really, really wrong like this. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/complete/la-na-money17jun17,1,5960538.story?coll=la-elect2004-complete Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign raised more than $100 million in the last three months, a record-breaking surge that helped him stay competitive with President Bush's once-overwhelming war chest, according to figures released Wednesday by Kerry's campaign. In May, Kerry's campaign reported, it received 90,000 contributions through its website; the average donation was $108.
I am a business man, and have generally supported fiscal conservatives in the past, including writing some regrettable checks to GWB. I just wrote Kerry $1,000 and my wife will donate next week. Kerry has tapped a new vein of people who in the past didn't contribute. This is because Bush has been so Baaaad. Even the Republicans I know kind of keep it qiuet if they support Bush. Borrow and spend deficits. Reducing military benefits. Unwinnable, poorly thought out wars. Chest thumping bravado on TV. Reductions in civil liberties. Lack of transperancy in government. These are not core Republican ideas. His base is the religious right, some wacko neo-cons, and a few country club Republicans who aren't paying attention. The rest are abandoning ship because the he is a lousy, unsuccessful president. We are phucked if he wins another term and many, many people who voted for him last time know it. That is why people are throwing money at Kerry.
This is an interesting story. Apparently, there are at lot/a few/many/some Reeps out there who are NOT voting for Bush. There are zero/extremely few/no folks who voted for Gore who are now NOT voting for Kerry.
There are some -- they're the "scared straight" group who glugged down the "Islamofascism" Kool-Aid without bothering to sniff at it. And even some of them are having second thoughts.
I'll agree with this. In my book, it has become a "lesser of 2 evils" election. I supported Bush's intentions, but the overall planning and execution has been lacking. On the other hand, Kerry has done nothing to impress me at all. This election, I will quite simply probably stay out of the voting booths.. I dont buy the "what?! you HAVE to exercise your right to vote!!" sheninigans, b/c I find it hard to vote in an election in which, I hold so little enthusiasm for the candidates...
Is that an opinion or do you have some polling evidence? There is some sense in that opinion though. If somebody voted for Al Gore, they'll probably vote for Kerry. Kerry has his flaws, but in my estimation he is still a better candidate than Al Gore was. On the other hand, if the left keeps spewing out ridiculous anti-Bush spin it might backfire. There could potentially be a backlash to all that hatred. (At least from anecdotal evidence, we see it happening already.) This might offset the Nader factor. Nader I think will be neutralized this time by the dislike for Bush by the typical Nader supporters. The biggest factor, I think, will be the people who didn't vote last time but will want to vote this time. I think the turnout will be higher. Both the right and the left are getting more energized, and even moderates feel strongly about their position. At this point it is hard to predict whose new supporters will turn out in larger numbers.
Really? Where? I, for one, am not part of the "Democratic base". I voted Browne in 2000, and somebody would have to shoot me dead to keep me from voting for Kerry this time around, and it's completely because Bush has been such an awful President.
Ideally, yes, but we all know that in this type of democracy we currently have, a third party candidate running, is simply pissing in the wind. Unfortunately, that is reality.
Oh no, I understand how Moore's film could be seen a highly opinionated, manipulative and effective piece of propaganda. But he's an independent filmmaker. And he's admitted that his film contains facts and it contains his opinion. On the other hand, we have members of the current administration -- you, know, those in power -- continuing to defend their half-truths, intentional misleading statements, willfull use of bad intelligence, pie-in-the-sky military forecasts and oh-so-close to blatant lies about why we needed to make a U-Turn from US history and pre-emptively invade Iraq as a response to the events of 9/11. That is the where the irony comes in when Bush supporters try to invoke Orwellian parallels to Moore's film. Because, honestly, which one has the opportunity to be more "Big Brother-ish"? Fat dude with a camera? Or the Supremely Appointed Bush Dynasty and Vulcans Inc.? And I didn't even mention the Patriot Act.
A very good way to convince Republicans to vote for Kerry in 2004 is to remind them of the Patriot Act, and to point out that a Saudi lobbyist works in the White House. You don't even need to describe deficits, big government, poor planning and post-war tactics, etc. The only people at this point in time that I know are still voting for Bush are people that are scared, or they are evangelicals and consider Bush annointed by God.