Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Bold Strokes, Few Details

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 10:10 PM
Original message
NYT: Bold Strokes, Few Details
For a nation divided over his stewardship, distressed about the economy and dubious about the war with Iraq, President Bush had one overriding message last night: He's still the one.

Still the caring "compassionate conservative" voters met and liked four years ago, still the strong steward who has led them through tumultuous times of terrorism and war, still the man they can trust to face the problems of a second term - abroad, and at home.

But he offered few critical details sense of the second-term domestic agenda he outlined. His big policy ideas - restraining government spending, simplifying the tax code, offering tax credits for health savings accounts, allowing personal savings accounts for Social Security - were vague. And the specific proposals he cited - increasing funds for community colleges, opening rural health centers - were mostly small-bore.

And while Mr. Bush conceded in unusually personal terms that "some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called 'walking,' and that "now and then I come across as a little too blunt," he suggested those traits were bred in the bone and unlikely to change at 58. "For that," he said, referring to his mother, "we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there."

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03assess.html?hp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. He's 58 and he's still blaming his mother for his faults?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sagan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. "voters met and liked four years ago"???

WTF is that supposed to mean? Ok, so if "voters met and liked" Chimpy in 2000, that means that half a million more voters liked Gore BETTER.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-04 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. What the Cheney is that supposed to mean?
It's supposed to mean the electorate liked him so much, Albert S. Gore Jr. got more popular votes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. A *majority* of voters, in fact, did NOT like Bush
Combining the Gore and Nader votes puts the "Bush is a frickin' idiot" vote up over 50%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC