<p>Particularly in light of the trend lines!</p>
<p>renotse...</p>
<p>Bush first got REJECTED by the law school at U. Texas.
However, his father had friends at Harvard Business School who pulled some strings to get him in. At the time, law school admissions were much more competitive than business school admissions... and business school admissions are much less grade and test scores driven... making it very difficult to compare acceptance to business school and law school.</p>
<p>In any case, according to his professors, Bush was a mediocre student at HBS who bragged about being pro-Vietnam War while he shirked his own responsibilities by wimping out. Note that I don't consider everyone who used whatever means to avoid the war that way if they truly believed the war is wrong... but for Bush, he like to brag about his "military" background and how pro-war he was.</p>
<p>Those are highly partisan and hugely distorted versions of the "truth" - fully as scurrilous as anything the veterans' group dogging Kerry ever spewed out.</p>
<p>Byerly,
Which of my statements are false?
That Bush was rejected by U Texas law?
That he got into HBS based on Daddy's connections?
That he was a mediocre student at HBS?
That he boasted about his military experience and pro-war stance?
That he shirked his responsibilities in the TX Air National Guard?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/</a>
<a href="http://www.able2know.com/forums/about29063.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.able2know.com/forums/about29063.html</a>
<a href="http://www.bogartmedia.com/archive/thedunce.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bogartmedia.com/archive/thedunce.htm</a></p>
<p>Sorry, but I don't buy this nonsense that this is even remotely equivalent to the distortions and scurrilous attacks by the Swift Boat Veterans for Pseudo-Truth.</p>
<p>Well, then we can agree to disagree about partisan politics and get back to discussing important matters.</p>
<p>So, then, can I take it Byerly that you think who is running our country is less important than the college admissions process?</p>
<p>Hmmm I think the country is in fine hands; the admissions process, however, needs fixing!</p>
<p>"why don't you get off your high horse and stop being such a partisan elitist, hm? rather than say "oh my gosh, bush drank ALCOHOL in college!!!" i prefer to look at the issues. bush wins."</p>
<p>wow, pretty touchy aren't you. I am sure both Kerry and Bush drank alcohol in college. However, only the latter became a self admitted alcoholic and drug abuser. I was making no judgement on his stewardship of Delta Kappa Epsilon nor the merits of spending one's college days cheerleading a football team versus leading political debates in the Yale Political Union - though it appears you might be considering how sensitive you are about the perceived difference. And finally, it appears, in both of your overly defensive and redundant posts, that you have looked at no issues whatsoever.<br>
There is no liberal agenda to denigrate that embarrasment which occupies the white house - he's doing a fine job himself.</p>
<p>My friends, I've got news to break: the 2004 election is over.</p>
<p>Whatever grades Kerry or Bush got, it doesn't change the fact that Bush is a dumb-as-a-rock gorilla who isn't capable of forming coherent or meaningful sentences. The man is a joke, and not a very funny one at that.</p>
<p>Agreed, but Kerry is old news. Let's move on to 2008 predictions. I'm getting excited thinking about the candidates.</p>
<p>AnOnymOu5, I like your optimism! I'm naturally hoping a woman will run and win.........actually, at this point, I'm looking for anyone who is capable, intelligent, honest, and can correctly pronounce the word nuclear.</p>
<p>Haha, no worries. You'll definitely get one. Worst-case scenario for Dems is McCain, i think. Hopefully we don't get Condie.</p>
<p>Hard to beat two Harvard degrees - both Harvard Law School AND Harvard Business School.</p>
<p>...harvard shmarvard.</p>
<p>I get the impression that 2008 will be a name-recognition-based election, at least at first. A Clinton-McCain battle would be epic.</p>
<p>Hillary would certainly be a dream candidate (for Republicans) but McCain will be too old. (72 at the time of the election.)</p>
<p>Mitt Romney isn't even going to win re-election in MA for governor... if he wants to keep his presidential aspirations alive, he has to come up with a cover story to not seek re-election in MA... it's better to not run and not lose, than to run and lose governorship.</p>
<p>And Romney still has no chance because he is a Mormon... he'll get annhilated in the southern primaries where the pseudo-christian right wing dominates the primary nomination process...</p>
<p>Byerly, your "insights" are impressing me less and less...
best stick to mindless Harvard boosting...</p>
<p>Your political analysis is even more purile than your views on admissions matters. Romney has no intention of running for reelection as governor. He will, in fact, be the leading CONSERVATIVE candidate for President on the Republican side, and will be spending fulltime campaigning while Frist et al are tied up in Congress.</p>
<p>exactly Byerly... earlier in the year he had said he WAS running for re-election but has been backing off and is leaning towards not running for re-election? Why? BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE WOULD LOSE.
That's a great sign for a presidential candidate, right?</p>
<p>and you are delusional/naive if you think the GOP is going to nominate ANYONE from MA... and again, there is NO WAY the pseudo-Christian right wing will vote for a Mormon... especially in the must-win southern primaries.</p>
<p>Frist has received too much bad press from the filibuster business to have any hope for 2008.</p>