#1 Bush has raised more $ than all of the democrats combined #2 Bush can focus on the election now..while democrats are fighting each other #3Bush's approval rating will not drop enough for a democrat to win. #4 There isn't a decent democrat running #5 All liberals are stupid dipshits..and America is a catching on #6 Al Gore is a chickenshit68 responses total.
#7 No President has suffered a net loss of jobs on his watch since Herbert Hoover. #8 $450 billion federal budget deficit this year and more next year. #9 Where's Saddam? Where's the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which were an immediate threat?
Ken - are you arguing the democrats will *lose* the next election, or win it because of ##7,8 and 9? sound like arguments against Bush, if you ask me... #0 reason #5: Takes one to know one...
#1: Being in the pockets of more people than any president ever before is
certainly a big selling point.
#2: Isn't he supposed to be focusing on running the country?
#3: At least not if he starts another war. Expect to hear soon that
Iceland is harboring Weapons of Mass Distraction. A country we can
defeat on a budget.
#4: Bet you don't know anything about the democratic candidates.
#5: Right.
#6: Yup, you don't know anything about the democratic candidates. News
flash: Gore isn't running. That was the last election.
Well, I have to admit to being depressed and in the state of mind that I don't think the American public will be angered enough to vote for someone else besides Bush. Joe Average American doesn't see the cause and effect in federal budget deficits. Until unemployment reaches 8% and the aforementioned Joe hears that more than a handful of people on his quiet street are unemployed, he won't be angry enough to show up to vote, let alone for someone besides Bush.
so tod...what's the unemployment rate here in Wa?
The Clinton surpluses were at least in some measure illusory - Worldcom is trying to get back some of its overpaid income tax after it got caught cooking its books. Enron, Global Crossing, etc. Meanwhile the SEC under Clinton looked the other way.
Enron didn't pay any taxes, so they can't have contributed to the surplus.
(and their employees didn't pay taxes either, right?)
Their employees presumably paid taxes on what they got paid, which is hardly book cooking on the part of the employees, and will not get the employees taxes back.
Re #6: A lot of Clinton's fiscal/business policy was essentially Republican, though.
re#10: What a brilliant strategy! Clinton was secretly a Republican.
Halfway he was. Pissed off a lot of people by coopting Republican themes.
This response has been erased.
This weekend I hung out with a bunch of acquaintances for a couple of hours. In a group of about 20, I think 5 or 6 were unemployed. Several more had recently been unemployed and were working desperation jobs. The main topic of discussion was how to file for bankruptcy.
re: #0...Sabre, you forget one important factor. George Bush technically (if you just counted the popular vote), LOST the last election. More people voted against Bush than for him. More people voted for Al Gore than for George Bush. That's a fact. George W. Bush is the only president in American history to be elected while actually getting fewer votes than his opponent. So ask yourself this, if all those people who didn't vote for him last time don't vote for him again, and given the economy why should they, why is his re-election so assured? If things shake out the same way, it'll probably be another barn burner.
Especially if the democrats can find a more attractive candidate than Gore...
And I haven't been as enthusiastic about a Presidental candidate since McGovern. Go Howard Dean!
Yes!
re: "#15 (richard): ... George W. Bush is the only president in American history to be elected while actually getting fewer votes than his opponent...." Care to reconsider that statement, wise one?? (Or perhaps you are the only fan of President Tilden.) http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes, Rep. 185 4,035,924 Samuel J. Tilden, Dem. 184 4,287,670 1888 Benjamin Harrison, Rep. 233 5,445,269 Grover Cleveland, Dem. 168 5,540,365
Ok, so this was the only such election that didn't include a candidate with a name like Rutherford or Grover. ;) A lot has happened in the last two years, and Bush has been a very different sort of President than he said he would be. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he'll have a somewhat different, while certainly overlapping, set of supporters. Dean strikes me as saying most of the right things, but it bothers me how exactly he's sticking to the Berkeley liberal democrat line. It's not that I disagree with him much, but I'd like to see him disagree with his core constituency on *something*, just so I'd have some sort of evidence of his ability to engage in independent thought. Newsweek has an article on Howard Dean's background this week. According to that, like George Bush, Dean is a Yale "educated" recovering alcoholic from an New England aristocratic family. I feel like I've dealt with enough alcoholics in the last few years that Bush's complete irrational obsessiveness over war, oil, and tax cuts looks very familiar. Dean appears irrationally obsessive about things I agree with much more, and there's no question which of them I'd pick if given the choice between the two, but I still don't think I trust him.
re #7, 9: (point being, Enron's existence meant that people were
employed, earning money, and paying income taxes. ditto Arthur
Andersen, WorldCom, and any other high-profile collapsed big
business. now that these former employees are likely not earning
as much income, they're not paying as much income tax, and the
surplusses are going away.)
(that's not to say that tax cuts aren't also having any effect
on government revenue; rather, it's to agree with mvpel that some
of the surplusses of the Clinton years were ill-gotten and to
explain why.)
Re 19. You beat me to it!
Steve, I bet the point you're looking for is Dean's stance on capital punishment. He's being candid and honest but it will hurt him.
This response has been erased.
I like the fact that Howard Dean is a medical doctor, a physician who used to share a practice with his wife. Health Care IMO is THE big issue not national security. With the huge record numbers of people in this country who are going to become senior citizens in the next decade and beyond, and medical expenses skyrocketing, there is going to be a real crisis with health care. At least symbolically, electing a physician president is a way of demonstrating a mandate for health care reform being made the highest of priorities in years to come. That said, the most electable candidate is probably Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Dean is a relatively unknown former governor of a small state who hasn't yet been worked over by the national media. You take a risk not knowing for sure how he'll respond. Of course that didn't hurt Jimmy Carter when he ran in 1976 and was even less known than Dean. Kerry is a veteran politician who is a highly decorated vietnam war hero (doesn't hurt having that on the resume) Kerry was known for participating in vietnam war demonstrations when he was younger, including one where he threw his medals away (threw them over the white house fence in a symbolic gesture to show his disgust with the war) Kerry however voted in support of the war with Iraq. Lieberman is too conservative to get the Democratic nomination. Edwards of North Carolina is too green, he needs more seasoning and experience and the Democrats would probably lose his seat in the Senate if he got elected. Gephardt has too much baggage and represents (in my view) too much of the old guard establishment and the Democratic leadership in Congress. I suspect the nominee is likely to be Kerry, or Dean if continues to run as well as he has been, becomes the alternative candidate, and takes out Kerry in New Hampshire. It should be an interesting primary season.
Senator JFK from Massachusetts? Should be interesting.
Kerry has The Hair(tm). He will win.
Is that why clinton won against whoever lost in 92?
I think "President Dean" sounds silly. Two titles in search of a name. I suppose he could be "Doctor President Dean". "Mister President Doctor Dean?" Let's just nominate Kerry and avoid all that.
Re #28 George Bush Sr. was "Whoever lost in 92."
RE:#10 "A lot of Clinton's fiscal/business policy was essentially Republican, though" That is the only reason he had any economic success. RE:15 That was then....and this is now. klg corrected you on the other issue.
Kerry also has a very rich wife which never hurts, particularly if the campaign gets expensive. kerry's wife is an heir to the Heinz Ketchup empire and is worth hundreds of millions. If Kerry wins the nomination and is going into the fall at a distinct fundraising advantage to Bush, he could avoid being outspent by refusing matching funds and spending a few tens of millions of his wife's money.
This response has been erased.
RE#32 Wrong. Her fortune was inherited. This means it is excluded from thier combined estate. She is limited to a 2000$ donation lookee here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/drudged/060404635.html
re: "#17 (mary): And I haven't been as enthusiastic about a Presidental candidate since McGovern. Go Howard Dean!" According to today's NYT article on Dean as governor of VT he sounds like a Republican to me: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/campaigns/30DEAN.html?th "Over 11 years, he . . ., cut taxes, forced many on welfare to go to work, abandoned a sweeping approach to health-care reform in favor of more incremental measures, antagonized environmentalists, won the top rating from the National Rifle Association and consistently embraced business interests. . . He remains a fiscal conservative, he believes gun control should be left to the states and he favors the death penalty for some crimes."
Well, I'm a fiscal conservative and would support gun control wherever I can get it. I disagree with Dean on the death penalty, even though he hardly thinks it's a great law enforcement tool. He's pro-choice and would like to see all our citizens be given access to basic health care needs. He thinks our war with Iraq is wrong and he never supported it. So if that's what your standard republican is all about then, yes, I could be republican. Sign me up.
This response has been erased.
Here is Dean on health coverage: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_hea lth
This response has been erased.
It benefits them by lowering attacks upon those MCSEs by the ciminality caused by our present drug policies. The benefit probably exceeds the cost - most preventative medicine does.
This response has been erased.
("MCSE": acronym of "middle class straight edge."
It looks like "criminality" are those people defined as criminals because of
our current drug policies.)
This response has been erased.
What's wrong with narcotics?1
This response has been erased.
And opioids have nothing to do with health care?
Holy shit! A true ironic remark that is actually funny and posted by polytarp! I never thought I'd see the day...
It was an accident, it will never happen again.
Dean is on the cover of Time and Newsweek this week. he seems to be hot at the moment...
Re #43: It seems like we have two choices when it comes to "hard" drug offenders: Either we give them treatment to overcome their addictions, or we put them back on the street still addicted and watch them commit more crimes until finally they get locked up for life. In that case, we end up paying for their health care for the rest of their lives, so paying for treatment sounds like the cheaper option.
Or, we could just put them to sleep.
Re #51: Great idea. Rather than putting up with burglary and such from drug addicts, they'll then be motivated to kill to avoid being arrested and accused because the penalty for murder is no worse. I'd like to introduce you to this old politician. His name's Draco...
Well, it would do wonders for the population problem . . .
so would genocide, nuclear warfare, and re-electing Bush.
Youhave to think of the greater good though. Genocide might kill a lot of people, but think of all the good it would do to all those who are left? Surely you wouldn't mind dying for the greater good, yes?
harhar
Dammit, people criticise me for lack of ironic sense and when i finally use it, no one gets it. maybe I should stick to being direct?
Sometimes you have to tag your sarcasm for the humor-impaired.
Suppose you suffer for humour impairment myself though?
I was just going to say whag resp 57 said. Russ needs to tweak his sarcasm meter :P
[O]ne of the problems with our party is people will say anything to get to be president of the United States..." HOWARD DEAN MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," 8/12/03
I'd say that's the problem with politicians in general. Examples from both parties abound.
Mr. gull, Do you mean that Mr. Dean is lying when he says that politicians will lie? That makes sense, we suppose.
How could you extract that from what David said? We think David was saying that what Mr. Dean said is applicable to either party not just the one of Mr. Dean's. I also find that to be true, and a problem as well.
David?! Wahjat david?!
O< BROAD BUCK.
I like it just the way Dean said it. It's a stronger statement.
I agree with Mary Remmers.
You have several choices: