Because the average person knows the workings of a terrorist mind.
A survey by a Washington pollster released Friday found a majority of those surveyed think terrorists would prefer to have Sen. John F. Kerry as president.

The Andres McKenna Research survey of 800 registered voters shows Kerry defeating Bush in the general election, 47 percent to 45 percent, with 9 percent undecided.

Asked, "Who do you think the terrorists would prefer to have as president," the independent poll found that 60 percent said Kerry while 25 percent said Bush. (Full text here (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11118455&BRD=1697&PAG=740&dept_id=226958&rfi=6 )) A lovely little push-poll, and not surprising considering the source:
Gary Andres, Phd., Senior Managing Partner

As a partner of The Dutko Group, Gary is active in the development of public policy relating to telecommunications, financial services, health care, trade, tax and environmental issues. Gary earned his doctorate in Public Policy from the University of Illinois with a thesis on the history and analysis of campaign finance and election law in the United States.

Milestones:

* Legislative Assistant, Congressman Tom Corcoran (1982-84)

* Vice President for Washington Research, Prudential Securities (1984-85)

* Executive Director of Federal Relations, Southwestern Bell Corporation (1985)

* Deputy Assistant for Legislative Affairs for President Bush (1989-93)

* Joined The Dutko Group (1993)


Specialized Areas:

Gary has been engaged as a volunteer in various National Republican Congressional Committee and Republican National Committee projects, including coordinating floor operations at the 1988, 1992 and 1996 Republican National Conventions. Gary also writes numerous articles addressing corporate Political Action Committees, campaign finance reform and lobbying, which appear in national publications. link (http://209.150.228.163:10591/FMPro?-db=webcontent.fp5&-lay=web&-format=/amr/details.html&-error=/amr/details.html&projectname=amrteam&-find ) According to a poll I just conducted, Bush is the choice among rapists (64%-33%), child molesters (71%- 27%), and litterbugs (87%-9%). And he is the choice of 100 % of the nation's tax cheats and liars who would lead a nation to war for personal profit.

:rolleyes: Peace.

And to think that the GOP had the audacity to raise the issue that Clinton was a "career politician" who never held a real job in his life.

Remember that Kerry is also the choice of high school dropouts, especially those chased out of the Texas school system while Bush trumpeted better test scores.

But of all the sleazy endorsements in the world, Kerry is King, because he is the clear choice of those at home and abroad who would dare (gasp!) hope for a better human condition all around.

Putting the obvious push character of the poll aside, let us ask ourselves: what do the terrorists want, an american president that fights terrorism, while stepping on so many other toes, or an american president that would fight terrorism while trying to forge bridges and coalitions with foreign nations ?

In the end, what will motivate the muslim masses in the streetsd to be part of an all-out jihad that Al-Quaida seeks?

If Americans want more deaths overseas and at home vote Bush, vote for greater hate not only in the Muslim world, but the whole world. Ppl in Europe for instance don't hate the US, they hate Bush. Kerry could very well forge the bridges that are so desperately needed to combat this "terrorism", already foreign leaders prefer Kerry. Not only that, Kerry supposedly can speak French, oui oui!

I'm sure Kerry's recent claims of endorsements by the European aristocracy will lead to a groundswell of support from blue-collar, working class Americans. Joe Nascar is such a fan of French culture and German technology.

Kerry's handlers have got to be popping the pills and hittin the sauce every night trying to figure out some way to turn a Taxachussetts Euro-wannabe into something remotely attractive to the millions of Americans that drive Chevy S-10's with big #3 stickers on the bumper, a six of Schlitz on the front seat, and Aaron Tippin on the CD player. Yeah, this is gonna fly like a lead balloon down at the union hall with those guys. He'd better get Gephardt on board ASAP.

15ofthe19 is right, Bush owns a ranch, beat that Democrats!

Yes I see this election targeting the LCD’s aren't "NASCAR dads" the new target group? I mean really that shows how bad Bush is in office. They are traditionally Republicans, and since the economy is doing so badly they have to consider the Democrats. Isn't that simply amazing that a strong constituency is now wavering because the President isn’t doing his job right? But like Spy Moose said, what does education matter when you have a ranch? VROOM VROOM!

This poll seems misleading. You can take the result as either “terrorists think they can kill more people with Kerry,” or “terrorists think the American-led injustice they’re fighting will diminish with Kerry.” I think the latter is the case if terrorists truly prefer Kerry.

Nascar dads aren't traditionally Republican. The Republicans have certainly made significant inroads into this demographic in recent years, but over the last twenty years, I would say it's been a fairly even split between Repubs and Demos with regards to that fan base. Now if you were talking about the PGA, I would say most certainly that has always been a bastion of Republicans. It will be interesting to see the response from the left when Tiger finally reveals his political stripes. If you pay attention to his words, he may not be a right-winger, but he's anything but a liberal.

Of course the terrorists are pulling for Kerry. They know a gutless liberal squash-eater when they see one.

Because the average person knows the workings of a terrorist mind. A lovely little push-poll, and not surprising considering the source: According to a poll I just conducted, Bush is the choice among rapists (64%-33%), child molesters (71%- 27%), and litterbugs (87%-9%). And he is the choice of 100 % of the nation's tax cheats and liars who would lead a nation to war for personal profit.

:rolleyes: Peace.


GoofyFish, AWESOME!!!
please, who do these people think they are?

I have an idea about terrorists and about ourselves.
I've written more, but I'll just be concise right now.

Terrorists are afraid. They've gone through anguish and are lost, dead so to speak. So dead that in their last defiant act of life, they kill, and die themselves in an attempt to free themselves. They succeed as well, for they are no longer imprisoned in their torment

Whether we imprison them or not, they are already imprisoned.
We do imprison them, with our words to start out with.
Why do you think we call them "terrorist cells". I mean we imprison them with our language, placing them in cells in our very speech, for we know not the power of our word, whether it is spoken or written.

if you want me to eleborate, I have written MUCH more.
let me know

If Americans want more deaths overseas and at home vote Bush, vote for greater hate not only in the Muslim world, but the whole world. Ppl in Europe for instance don't hate the US, they hate Bush. Kerry could very well forge the bridges that are so desperately needed to combat this "terrorism", already foreign leaders prefer Kerry. Not only that, Kerry supposedly can speak French, oui oui!

Dont' forget about the Italian mansion. How many of those hard working Americans that Kerry supports live like this? Kerry sold his $7.8 million Italian mansion to George Clooney, who learned of it from Brad Pitt, who saw it while vacation at the Versace compound in Italy. Yep, sounds like a real commoner. For pics: http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryid1.htm

Of course terrorists would support Kerry, he is an appeaser in the grand tradition of Chamerblain or more recently the new Spanish socialist government.

Dont' forget about the Italian mansion. How many of those hard working Americans that Kerry supports live like this? Kerry sold his $7.8 million Italian mansion to George Clooney, who learned of it from Brad Pitt, who saw it while vacation at the Versace compound in Italy. Yep, sounds like a real commoner.

And Bush is not rich? Bush is even richer then Kerry and he lived like a rich person as well. You are trying to tell me that Bush is not like Kerry? The only thing that Bush has in common with Americans is being a drunk, and ignorant of anything beyond the continental US. I am sorry but fundraising about $200 million from your friends is not normal Americana, and Kerry has what? A mere $60 million in the coffers, if you want to play this game show the real numbers.

For pics: Of course terrorists would support Kerry, he is an appeaser in the grand tradition of Chamerblain or more recently the new Spanish socialist government.

What appeasement? Seriously?


ap•pease•ment ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pzmnt)
n.
An act of appeasing.
The condition of being appeased.
The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

There was no contract with the enemy here so the improper use of appeasement has been duly noted. Also it is not by policy that this is being done, add on to that what has Kerry done or said that would be characterized as “appeasement”?

Kerry Would Be Choice Of Terrorists
Shame they don't get the vote then. ;)
(unless they come from Oaklahoma or somewhere)
Dee Cee

Ho Ho back again!
Just spied truth's post. Big LOL all round.

How many of those hard working Americans that Kerry supports live like this?
And how many of GW's constituents have an ex president for a dad?

Real people don't live like pols otherwise they'd be err.. pols.

Thanks for the laugh.
Dee Cee

What appeasement? Seriously?

I think he's mentioning how Clinton dealt with the terrorists, and saying that John Kerry would do the same thing.

Clinton's the one who dealt with the first WTC bombing in 1993. He also had to deal with attacks on the two African embassies, and the attack on the USS Cole. You would of figured that he would of done something, but instead he did nothing (Okay, he launched a few cruise missiles (http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mylroie.html) at Iraq - Oddly enough there was no protesting from the UN or liberals). He also had warning about the 9/11 attacks years before it ever even happened. Clinton Admin. Ignored Specific Warning on 9/11 Hijacker (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/24/93348.shtml).

I do blame Clinton, partially, for the terrorists attacks. He had the opportunity to go after the terrorists but he didn't.

And I really don't see a difference between the monies that Bush and Kerry both have. They're both super rich, so it doesn't matter if you say Bush is richer than Kerry, or vice versa, because they are both richer than the average American so it really doesn't matter.

I think he's mentioning how Clinton dealt with the terrorists, and saying that John Kerry would do the same thing.

You mean having anti-terrorist meetings every week? Those same security meetings that were abandoned by Bush? Oddly it was under Bush that 9/11 happened.

Clinton's the one who dealt with the first WTC bombing in 1993. He also had to deal with attacks on the two African embassies, and the attack on the USS Cole. You would of figured that he would of done something, but instead he did nothing

Whoa, what are you babbling about? Clinton attacked Al Q targets in 1998 in Afghanistan with Tomahawks. Secondly Al Q could not have been attacked like she is today; public support did not exist for such actions. Most Americans simply did not care, and don't blame Clinton doing the most he could.

He also had warning about the 9/11 attacks years before it ever even happened. Clinton Admin. Ignored Specific Warning on 9/11 Hijacker (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/24/93348.shtml).

Could you please try and get another source to substantiate this? All evidence points to August 2001 when they knew pretty much the basics and did nothing to stop it. (A neutral source).

I do blame Clinton, partially, for the terrorists attacks. He had the opportunity to go after the terrorists but he didn't.

In hindsight we can say many things, if you are so angry. Then why didn't you complain in the 90's? I know why, because you like most Americans didn't care.

You mean having anti-terrorist meetings every week? Those same security meetings that were abandoned by Bush? Oddly it was under Bush that 9/11 happened.

Bush went straight to source and started an organization to specifically take out terrorists. Clinton had a meeting, whoopie.


Whoa, what are you babbling about? Clinton attacked Al Q targets in 1998 in Afghanistan with Tomahawks. Secondly Al Q could not have been attacked like she is today; public support did not exist for such actions. Most Americans simply did not care, and don't blame Clinton doing the most he could.

Are you talking about Clinton's Wag The Dog moment? Wow, two cruise missles were launched at rock huts in Afghanistan! That'll show them terrorists! And shortly there after the USS Cole was attacked. Clinton should of caught on then. Public support exists for any issue any President wishes to exist. And I don't blame Clinton fully, by the way. I said partially (Probably about as much as I blame Bush).


Could you please try and get another source to substantiate this? All evidence points to August 2001 when they knew pretty much the basics and did nothing to stop it. (A neutral source).

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1110193,00.html) - It fails to mention the oppurtunity that Clinton had to go after bin Laden and places most of the blame on Bush. There you go, your unbias leftist source.


In hindsight we can say many things, if you are so angry. Then why didn't you complain in the 90's? I know why, because you like most Americans didn't care.

I'm not angry with Clinton. I have no beef with him. What resulted from his administration was faulty intelligence and miscommunication.

Do not act like you know me, Undecided. In the 90's I was 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. When I was out being a teenager. I was out being normal, going out on dates and stuff. I didn't care then, I care now.

Could you tone it down a little bit? You're being very rude to me and I do not appreciate it.

Bush went straight to source and started an organization to specifically take out terrorists.
Well didn't that turn out to be a pointless waste of time?
You can't fight terrorism.
Not unless you can figure out a way of stopping me from putting gasoline in glass bottles.

Dee Cee

Bush went straight to source and started an organization to specifically take out terrorists. Clinton had a meeting, whoopie.

Wait Bush only did that after the attack, you are complaining about what happened prior to 9/11. What did Bush do before 9/11? Well he gave up on those meetings which could have told Bush about the impending attacks, whoopee indeed. Bush became an isolationlist, in total and complete contradiction to what you claim. It was only after 9/11 that Bush dick all, Bush was actually worse then Clinton in combating terrorism.

Are you talking about Clinton's Wag The Dog moment? Wow, two cruise missles were launched at rock huts in Afghanistan!

Completely irrelevant, you said Clinton did nothing. He did, you have lost your point.

It fails to mention the oppurtunity that Clinton had to go after bin Laden and places most of the blame on Bush. There you go, your unbias leftist source.

Clinton could not have gotten OBL in 2000, it would have taken 6 hours to get an attack working, and OBL was in a heavily populated area with families. Clinton did not know what would happen, so let's not claim superiority.

What resulted from his administration was faulty intelligence and miscommunication.

Then it was the CIA I assume?

Do not act like you know me, Undecided. In the 90's I was 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. When I was out being a teenager. I was out being normal, going out on dates and stuff. I didn't care then, I care now.

Well then, the thing is that you should have cared.

Could you tone it down a little bit? You're being very rude to me and I do not appreciate it.

Where? When? How? :eek: Thin skin, ok next time I will show flowers to soften the blow!

Here is a little more of Kerry's character, nice guy:

KERRY CALLED SECRET SERVICE AGENT 'SON OF A B*TCH' AFTER SLOPE SPILL
http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryid2.htm

The drudge report:bugeye:
I see they pulled that picture of Kerry sitting with Jane Fonda off the server.
Now why would they do that I wonder?

If your really into your 'net gossip then here's an article you might wanna take a peak at.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1158978,00.html?

Seeing as registration is required and we're all lazy buggers I'll quote a little bit of it for you.

Thanks to people like Drudge, the internet is turning into a gigantic gossip laundering operation for cowardly print hacks. Heard a juicy rumour about a presidential candidate? Know it's probably total rubbish but want to print it anyway? No problem! Just leak it to Drudge, wait for him to print it and then run it in your own pages as an "internet rumour". Job done....

....And pity the poor online hack who stumbles across a genuine scoop about a presidential candidate. Who's going to believe him? Not me. And not you. And not anyone else. Instead we'll just wait until a journalist from a proper print newspaper copies the story, fact-checks it properly and prints it under their own byline. Only then will it become a "story" rather than an "internet rumour". It's win-win for the print world, and lose-lose for us. Way to go Matt.


Just had to get that off my chest.
Dee Cee