Fresh on the heels of his devastating loss last week to Jon Corzine in New Jersey's gubernatorial race, Douglas Forrester knows where the blame lies: squarely with President Bush and his abysmal approval rating (Republican incumbents take note). In comments made to the Newark Star Ledger, the nine-point loser believes he'd be the state's new governor-elect had he not nosedived off of Bush's coattails.
"If Bush's numbers were where they were a year ago, or even six months ago, I think we would have won on Tuesday," Forrester said. "I don't think that there's any candidate that has ever received such a pounding...Election night was emotionally much more difficult because we came in quite confident we were going to win."
With the economy sagging, the war spiraling our of control, the embarrassment over Hurricane Katrina and the mounting GOP scandals, the best Bush can do these days to shore up support in an attempt to get the party back on track is to blame Democrats for the debacle in Iraq. If that's all he's got, the GOP's in serious trouble, and there'll be many more Forrester's blaming the president this time next year.
7 comments:
Man, coat tails are nice, but if you can't stand on your own two feet in a campaign get out of politics. What a whiner. While there was a chance against a bum like Corzine, if Forrester had confidence of winning in a liberal state like NJ, he must have some overinflated ego. Then he blames Bush. I guess in the next race for mayor of San Fran the Republican will blame Bush for losing too.
Stands....are you always this narrowminded and ignorant! The GOP for years now has had its eye on NJ and every major poll showed it was within reach. You Repugs are so transparent it's laughable. Win NJ and you'd be screaming about what a major coup it was. Lose it, and you say it was nothing. Like little kids. That's what you are. Get used to losing, pal. You're going to experience a lot of that moving forward.
Winning in NJ would have been a major coup. Why is it you folks are so ignorant and narrow minded? one year ago when Bush was popular enought to win a majority of the vote in the country, he still lost NJ and somehow Forrester was suppose to win it now? Within reach means possible, not likely.
As far as losing. I have had my share of that in the 80's as far as Congress is concerned. I can deal with loss because all a loss to Dems is, is yet another chance to see why they shouldn't do it again. I think I am in a better position to deal with losses in '06 and '08 than anyone here. I think the left will not be able to deal with the disappointment I believe is coming their way. If the Dems happen to pull off a win, then we can sit back and laugh at them for a couple of years.
Spinach Boy said: And Shmoe, I would have thought by now your friends here would point out that you are not quite making yourself look sane here with your constant repetitive "recruiter" line.
No I don't think my recruiter question is out of line.
All you flag waving types that think the Iraq War and Bush's policy of preemptive strike is so great you should immediately do your part and put you money where GUTLESS CHICKENHAWK mouth is and report to your recruiter and serve.
I come from a military family and support the military 110%, but I will say without hesitation that the IRAQ WAR IS BS AND BASED ON LIES. None of these BASTARDS i.e. Bush, Cheney, and all the Neo Cons served when there country called during the Vietnam era. If you feel differently don't waste your time smearing me or anyone else that didn't support this debacle from the outset and get your GUTLESS CHICKENHAWK KEESTER to your recruiter and sign up NOW!!!!
GET CRACKIN CHICKENHAWK!!!! Your recruiter is tired of waiting for the BUSH TWINS to show. And bring all your tough talking bible banging pals with ya.
SMoe
MORAL QUESTION
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.
The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.
Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line.
THE SITUATION
You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions.
You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.
THE TEST
Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's George W. Bush!
At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two options--you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful politicians.
THE QUESTION
Here's the question, and please give an honest answer:
Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?
Once again.. thank you for everything Mr. President!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051115/en_afp/usbushpoll_051115161041
The Right Wing Agenda
Post a Comment