Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: AP Poll - Clark does best in H2h against Bush

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Associated Press Poll
    Will Lester, Associated Press Writer
    (01-09) 17:07 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

    Clark closest to Bush, 7 points behind after just 4 month campaign
    Dean trails by 15, even with Kerry¹s 17.

    Bush / Clark: 49 / 42 (-7)
    Bush / Dean: 54 / 39 (-15)
    Bush /Kerry: 54 / 37 (-17)
    Bush /Gephardt 56 / 35 (-21).

    It is notable
    1. that Clark holds Bush under 50, a sign of vulnerability, and
    2. does more than twice as good as Dean and Kerry against Bush.

    Men (49-26), evangelicals and rural voters are supporting Bush by big
    margins at the start of this election year, while traditionally.
    Democratic-leaning groups such as women have more divided loyalties,
    according to the poll. The public's growing confidence in the economy is
    helping boost Bush's standing as well.

    On the current president's re-election, 39 percent of women said they
    would definitely vote for someone else and 35 percent said they would
    vote for Bush.

    The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults, including 774 registered voters, was
    taken Jan. 5-7 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3
    percentage points.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Seeing how he was a Republican who supported the administration wholeheatredly on Iraq and everything else until last spring, he would be awfully fun to run against, with the Bush campaign using his own statements of his previous support to embarrass him.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    I didn't think it was legal to have a Republican face another Republican in the presidential election? :P

    Clark is about as much of a Democrat as Hillary is as much as a New Yorker.

    Besides, the Democrats could bring FDR back from the dead and he isn't beating W.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    To quote a personal hero of mine: Bring it on!

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did you hear that moron Dean yesterday in Iowa? He was talking about the turkey the President was holding when he went to visit our troops in Iraq, the one he said the "troops didn't get to eat."

    He then mentions it "was a fake turkey and not the only fake turkey in that administration!" :huh:

    Right, the idiot cannot even insult the President the correct way.

    Dean is right, the President and his men are all fake turkey's....Dean is the only real turkey! :lol:

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [i]It is notable
    1. that Clark holds Bush under 50, a sign of vulnerability, and
    2. does more than twice as good as Dean and Kerry against Bush.
    [/i]

    Let's put this in some perspective; four years ago to this point Governor Bush was leading vice-Pres Gore by 10-15 pts in most polling. I also remember, I believe it was William Safire, saying on "Meet the Press" (I love the show), "Gov-Bush is yet to be nominated and I don't see him debating on the issues." So for the second-rated Democrat to be 7 pts behind now is not a good thing.

    The sign of vulnerability is a President with approval ratings below 50% on January 1st of the year his is running for relection: right now the Presisdent's job approval ratings are anywhere from a low of 54% (Newsweek) to a high of 60% (Gallup-CNN)([url]http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm[/url])

    Now let's talk about real vulnerability: When Wesley Clark starts spouting off about the war in Iraq and the Republican run sound-bite after sound-bite of Clark in the late 90's under clinton stating Iraq is a threat and Sadaam should be taken out...that's vulnerability.

    When Clark starts spouting and says "were I in command UBL would've been captured by now" and someone asks "why Gen. Clark, when you were supreme allied commander (that's a joke) from '97-2000 did you not do something about him then or at least suggest something be done?"....that's vulnerability.

    And lastly, when he continues to make ridiculous claims like guarenteeing no terrorists attack under his watch.....that's vulnerability.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    you guys are serious?

    haha you guys make me laugh - Bush's campaign is gonna have fun quoting Clark???

    what about the Clark campaign having fun quoting BUSH?

    "Bring it on" - "Saddam pursued Nukes" i mean the list of questionable statments bush has made is virtually endless, in fact they have published two volumes of "bushisms" where he puts his foot in his mouth on every page!!!

    the fact that Clark Supported Bush is notable but not a death blow to the Clark campaign. There are many who supported Bush - ya know... before what is shaping up to be the worst single term in American history ...

    you guys make me laugh.

    Bring it on, indeed.

    by the way i don't know if anyone noticed but the rate of 1 soldier dead/day is holding strong in Iraq.

    there is FAR MORE antipathy nation-wide against Bush II then there ever was against his father or Reagan. People from all walks of life hate President George W Bush, its really impressive how that works out.

    [quote][b]When Clark starts spouting and says "were I in command UBL would've been captured by now" and someone asks "why Gen. Clark, when you were supreme allied commander (that's a joke) from '97-2000 did you not do something about him then or at least suggest something be done?"....that's vulnerability.

    And lastly, when he continues to make ridiculous claims like guarenteeing no terrorists attack under his watch.....that's vulnerability. [/b][/quote]

    Hey Come Back - Clark is a military and diplomatic genius who knows how to get a job done. The Serbian operation was NATO&#39;s biggest challenge since its inception... and Clark not only worked it out but didn&#39;t lose a single American life. he didn&#39;t go after OBL when he was supreme commander of NATO ... because hmm i dunno maybe he had his hands full leading the largest assembled modern-day coalition against a genocidal war criminal? Yeah i know he should have done more... <_<

    He&#39;s a genius and i don&#39;t use the term lightly. Rhodes Scholar - #1 in his class at West Point - an American hero, decorated with the Medal of Freedom, not to mention the Silver Star and Bronze Star - taking bullets in the s**t in Nam all while Bush was nowhere to be found, AWOL from the alabama air national guard.

    at the very least i want my President to be smarter, braver and more responsible than the average citizen. Bush is about as bright as a candle 1000 feet down a mineshaft. His poppa got him through school with a bunch of C&#39;s - i mean come on

    the man is mediocre at best - no real accomplishments unless you want to count trading away Sammy Sosa and running several oil companies into the ground.

    Lets be real when you put 140,000 troops in Iraq (to find Saddam) and 10,000 in Afghanistan (to find OBL) which one do you think is gonna happen first? Which one do you think is a priority?

    The Clark campaign is licking its chops to get at Dubya. The man has so many points that are vulnerable its ridiculous. Kenny-Boy Lay is due for his second 15 minutes of fame.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 12 2004, 12:32 PM
    [b] you guys are serious?

    haha you guys make me laugh - Bush&#39;s campaign is gonna have fun quoting Clark???

    what about the Clark campaign having fun quoting BUSH?

    "Bring it on" - "Saddam pursued Nukes" i mean the list of questionable statments bush has made is virtually endless, in fact they have published two volumes of "bushisms" where he puts his foot in his mouth on every page&#33;&#33;&#33;

    the fact that Clark Supported Bush is notable but not a death blow to the Clark campaign. There are many who supported Bush - ya know... before what is shaping up to be the worst single term in American history ...

    you guys make me laugh.

    Bring it on, indeed.

    by the way i don&#39;t know if anyone noticed but the rate of 1 soldier dead/day is holding strong in Iraq.

    there is FAR MORE antipathy nation-wide against Bush II then there ever was against his father or Reagan. People from all walks of life hate President George W Bush, its really impressive how that works out.

    [quote][b]When Clark starts spouting and says "were I in command UBL would&#39;ve been captured by now" and someone asks "why Gen. Clark, when you were supreme allied commander (that&#39;s a joke) from &#39;97-2000 did you not do something about him then or at least suggest something be done?"....that&#39;s vulnerability.

    And lastly, when he continues to make ridiculous claims like guarenteeing no terrorists attack under his watch.....that&#39;s vulnerability. [/b][/quote]

    Hey Come Back - Clark is a military and diplomatic genius who knows how to get a job done. The Serbian operation was NATO&#39;s biggest challenge since its inception... and Clark not only worked it out but didn&#39;t lose a single American life. he didn&#39;t go after OBL when he was supreme commander of NATO ... because hmm i dunno maybe he had his hands full leading the largest assembled modern-day coalition against a genocidal war criminal? Yeah i know he should have done more... <_<

    He&#39;s a genius and i don&#39;t use the term lightly. Rhodes Scholar - #1 in his class at West Point - an American hero, decorated with the Medal of Freedom, not to mention the Silver Star and Bronze Star - taking bullets in the s**t in Nam all while Bush was nowhere to be found, AWOL from the alabama air national guard.

    at the very least i want my President to be smarter, braver and more responsible than the average citizen. Bush is about as bright as a candle 1000 feet down a mineshaft. His poppa got him through school with a bunch of C&#39;s - i mean come on

    the man is mediocre at best - no real accomplishments unless you want to count trading away Sammy Sosa and running several oil companies into the ground.

    Lets be real when you put 140,000 troops in Iraq (to find Saddam) and 10,000 in Afghanistan (to find OBL) which one do you think is gonna happen first? Which one do you think is a priority?

    The Clark campaign is licking its chops to get at Dubya. The man has so many points that are vulnerable its ridiculous. Kenny-Boy Lay is due for his second 15 minutes of fame. [/b][/quote]
    Glad I make you laugh....you must need a reason to smile with the miserable life you have backing losers&#33; ;)

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 12 2004, 01:28 PM
    [b] Glad I make you laugh....you must need a reason to smile with the miserable life you have backing losers&#33; ;) [/b][/quote]
    hey that&#39;s not nice, you are a JETS fan too :P

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jan 12 2004, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jan 12 2004, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 12 2004, 01:28 PM
    [b] Glad I make you laugh....you must need a reason to smile with the miserable life you have backing losers&#33; ;) [/b][/quote]
    hey that&#39;s not nice, you are a JETS fan too :P [/b][/quote]
    we all have our crosses to bear&#33;

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Like I&#39;ve said-it&#39;s a little hard to say how awful and wrong Bush is when only last year, CLARK AGREED 100%. From that noted member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the New York Times-

    THE RETIRED GENERAL
    Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
    By EDWARD WYATT

    MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

    The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general&#39;s position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.

    [i]"Certainly there&#39;s a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn&#39;t surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don&#39;t have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?" [/i]
    At numerous campaign events in the past three months and in a book published last year, General Clark has asserted that there was no evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda. He has also accused the Bush administration of executing "a world-class bait-and-switch," by using the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as an excuse to invade Iraq.

    At a town hall meeting here on Jan. 4, for example, General Clark said, "There was no imminent threat from Iraq, nor was Iraq connected with Al Qaeda."

    "If Iraq had been there as the base of Al Qaeda to organize and train everybody, then maybe we could have justified the attack on Iraq," he added.

    In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

    The 2002 comments, he said, were based in part on a letter to Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, from George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, which said that the C.I.A. had credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction. The content of the letter was reported in a front-page article in The New York Times on Oct. 9, 2002, the day that General Clark made the comments at the New Hampshire endorsement.

    "I never thought there would be any evidence linking Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein," General Clark said. "Everything I had learned about Saddam Hussein told me that he would be the last person Al Qaeda would trust or that he would trust them."

    "All I was saying is that it would be naïve to say that there weren&#39;t any contacts," he said. "But that&#39;s a far cry from saying there was any connection between the events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein."

    In his most recent book, "Winning Modern Wars," (Public Affairs, 2003), General Clark states, "No evidence thus far suggests any link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists of Al Qaeda."

    On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no concrete evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and Iraq.

    The general&#39;s 2002 comments appeared on a home video of the press conference in Nashua at which he endorsed Katrina Swett for New Hampshire&#39;s Second Congressional District. A copy of the videotape was made available by a rival presidential candidate&#39;s campaign.

    General Clark&#39;s appearance with Ms. Swett has come up before in the presidential race. He advised her at the time that if she were in Congress, she should vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut used that statement to accuse General Clark of inconsistency on Iraq. General Clark subsequently said that at the time he did not understand exactly what was in the resolution and would have voted against it.

    Similarly, on the first day of his campaign, General Clark said that he probably would have voted for the resolution on Iraq. He later said he "bobbled" the question and has asserted that he made clear well before the start of the war his belief that Iraq was not an imminent danger to the United States and, therefore, that an attack was not justified at that time.

    General Clark had known Ms. Swett and her husband, Richard N. Swett, a former congressman and ambassador to Denmark, when they lived in Denmark and General Clark lived in Belgium as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

    In an interview, Ms. Swett, who is a national co-chairwoman of Mr. Lieberman&#39;s campaign, said she recalled General Clark as "saying pretty unequivocally" that a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    Within days of the endorsement, General Clark was reported to be considering a run for the Democratic nomination. He had come to New Hampshire as a guest of George Bruno, a former ambassador to Belize who is now a co-chairman of General Clark&#39;s campaign in that state.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bugg

    is that the best Clark&#39;s opponnets can come up with is the guy used to support the President&#39;s decision and now he doesn&#39;t

    even if its true - so what? people aren&#39;t allowed to change their mind?

    if Bush is allowed to say "bring it on" and "Saddam pursued nukes" then this is nothing and you know it buddy. a blip on the radar screen...

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]even if its true - so what? people aren&#39;t allowed to change their mind? [/b][/quote]

    Repblican&#39;s don&#39;t change their mind.

    [i]During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don&#39;t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we&#39;re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I&#39;m going to prevent that."

    “The thing that&#39;s most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.” [/i]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us