"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ks says...

No wonder public opinion polls show Bush can garner only a razor-thin
margin
over any generic Democrat.

Bush hasn't even started to campaign yet.

Tell us all about it in November 2004.

His original point is wretchedly stupid, anyhow. Note his use of
"generic Democrat." Who does the person polled fill in as a "generic
Democrat?"

I think there are still plenty of "yellow dog" Democrats (who would "vote
fer a yaller dawg ez long ez it was a Demmycrat"). I've known quite a few,
and for such folk I suppose any and all Democrats are more or less generic.



Andrew Jackson? Harry Truman? FDR?

[****, *I'd* vote for any of these three against Bush - in a heartbeat.]

Well, I'd go with you as far as Jackson, probably. (I don't remember who he
ran against.) HST, I don't think so. FDR, definitely not.

Not that I think Bush is a great president. Certainly he seems to fall well
short of Ronald Reagan, and I cannot imagine him ever doing anything that
would raise him to that stature. But he's an honest, decent guy doing a
generally good job in really tough circumstances, and is showing backbone
where that is the quality needed. We can thank our lucky stars we didn't get
shudder the Sore Loserman duo.



Trouble is, the Democrats cannot run a hypothetical, perfect candidate
against Bush; they're stuck with Howdy Dean. How does he match up? Ten
points down - a *year* before the election, in the middle of a war, with
a shaky economy only starting to recover, and after about a year of
relentlessly hammering away against the president - before the average
voter has seen a single Bush response.

Ooooouch.

Yes. Actually there are some things I like about Dean, and if forced (with a
gun to my head) to pick one of that Democratic gaggle he's the one I'd pick.
I'd even give Sufferin' Joe Lieberman the job he didn't get last time. The
rest of them are worse than worthless, to put it mildly.

Latest word is that GDP grew 8.2% in the third quarter, so there seems
little doubt that the economy has turned the corner. Glum news for the
Democrats, who surely have been hoping for a worsening economy. Now they'll
just have to pray for some other national disaster to come along that they
can blame on W.

Neil