fayfreethinkers.com

A September 5 article by New York Times reporter David E. Sanger noted that while President Bush had "used Labor Day for maximum political effect" during previous election cycles, this year, "there were no candidates with him" during an appearance at a union facility in Maryland. The article's headline -- "Forsaking Politics, Bush Has Low-Key Labor Day" -- suggested that it had been the White House's own choice to keep the September 4 trip free of politics. In fact, there appears to be a different reason "there were no candidates with him." Maryland's two most prominent Republican candidates -- Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, who is running for re-election, and Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, who is vying for an open U.S. Senate seat -- both declined to attend the event with Bush, according to a September 5 Washington Post article. In contrast with the Times, the Post noted that "60 to 70 percent of [Maryland] voters do not approve of Bush's performance" and reported that both Ehrlich and Steele had passed up the presidential visit to attend events elsewhere in the state. The Post specifically mentioned that Steele, when asked recently if he wanted Bush campaigning for him, responded, "To be honest . . . probably not."


Read the rest here.

Just hope the tactic doesn't work. But then, I'm still working on hoping the elections aren't rigged (at least not enough to steal them again) this time.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Just hope the tactic doesn't work. But then, I'm still working on hoping the elections aren't rigged (at least not enough to steal them again) this time.

Don't get your hopes up

JD Allen wrote:

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Just hope the tactic doesn't work. But then, I'm still working on hoping the elections aren't rigged (at least not enough to steal them again) this time.

Don't get your hopes up

DOUG
I agree. The elections WILL be rigged. The most we can hope for is that the cheating is detected, it can be proven, and the bogus results, if any, can be nullified. Those are big hurdles to get over. The last two times only the first stage was done.

Oh, I know they will be rigged. The last two required very close races, combined with destruction of "spoiled" ballots from the Dem's precincts, to somehow, inadvertantly, add enough more votes for their candidates (than there were voters in a specific precinct) to actually win. The more computer "paperless" voting machines out there, the less they will need close races, but what I'm hoping is that we still have enough paper trails and also that the elections won't be close enough to fudge.

DAR
If Bush didn't require signed loyalty oaths to attend his speeches he would have events like this:

***
International Herald Tribune: Tony Blair received a tense farewell Tuesday in his last speech as prime minister to the annual gathering of Britain’s labor unions.More than a dozen activists walked out as he began speaking to protest his pro-business stance and aggressive foreign policy. Many others booed and hissed as he mentioned controversial topics like Iraq.

[..] He was heckled repeatedly during his 30-minute speech on economic globalization and grilled on employment issues during a combative question-and-answer session afterward.

[..] About 20 demonstrators stood at the start of the speech holding placards that said "Go Now!" Others booed as Blair was introduced and more than a dozen walked out - followed by TV cameras - as he began.

The prime minister jokingly thanked the delegates "for that fine introduction - more or less."

Some of the roughly 1,000 who remained in the hall shouted and heckled when Blair mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his overhaul of Britain’s public services, all issues on which he has angered many Labour Party stalwarts.

more

Which is precisely why W requires signed loyalty oaths before allowing anyone to attend his speeches (and sometimes I think, before interviewing him, as well).

Darrel wrote:DAR
If Bush didn't require signed loyalty oaths to attend his speeches he would have events like this:

***
International Herald Tribune: Tony Blair received a tense farewell Tuesday in his last speech as prime minister to the annual gathering of Britain’s labor unions.More than a dozen activists walked out as he began speaking to protest his pro-business stance and aggressive foreign policy. Many others booed and hissed as he mentioned controversial topics like Iraq.

[..] He was heckled repeatedly during his 30-minute speech on economic globalization and grilled on employment issues during a combative question-and-answer session afterward.

[..] About 20 demonstrators stood at the start of the speech holding placards that said "Go Now!" Others booed as Blair was introduced and more than a dozen walked out - followed by TV cameras - as he began.

The prime minister jokingly thanked the delegates "for that fine introduction - more or less."

Some of the roughly 1,000 who remained in the hall shouted and heckled when Blair mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his overhaul of Britain’s public services, all issues on which he has angered many Labour Party stalwarts.

more

Which is how government should be run. If President George doesn't have the ability to back himself up to his detractors then maybe there is a problem. You think?