response 323 of 536:

Nov 10 20:25 UTC 2003

resp:319 - Thanks. That is good information to have. 

Honestly, I think people generally think that presidents have much more 
control over the economy than they actually do have. While there are 
things that they can do which can have an effect on the economy (either 
in the short term or the long term), the truth is that presidents can 
only control certain aspects of things. 

I am not convinced that Bush is responsible for either the recent 
recession or the recovery. 

The war debt and tax cuts for the rich probably wont really have an 
effect until Bush is long gone. I am sure some other president will get 
blamed for economy when those things really start to have an effect. 

response 325 of 536:

Nov 10 20:36 UTC 2003

Please be mindful that (1) the recession began before Mr. Bush was 
inaugurated (that other guy was still president as the recesson 
started) and (2) every person paying U.S. income taxes received a tax 
reduction (particularly the lower and middle classes).  

response 327 of 536:

Nov 11 02:27 UTC 2003

Republican tax cut: Here's $300.00 of your tax money back.  Oh, by the way,
your out-of-pocket expenses for all those program we cut to give you your $300
and that cool Iraq war thing ar gonna be about $3000.  Enjoy the tax break.
Aren't we great?!

response 329 of 536:

Nov 11 03:34 UTC 2003

From The Wall Street Journal - Review & Outlook, November 10, 2003

Howard Dean's weekend decision to forgo public campaign financing is 
playing as a big deal, but all this did was kick dirt on an already 
dying system.  The men really on the cutting edge of political fund 
raising these days are George Soros and Harold Ickes.

Mr. Soros is the billionaire hedge-fund operator  Mr. Ickes  was at the 
center of the Clinton fund-raising scandals of 1996.  Thanks to 
campaign-finance reform, these two men are fast becoming the Democratic 
Party's most important power brokers.

Mr. Soros has long supported campaign finance reform.  By helping to 
limit those gifts to the two parties, the billionaire has cleared a path 
to make himself the biggest bankroller in Democratic politics.  He's 
already pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT), a new 
outfit dedicated to spending an unprecedented $75 million to defeat 
President Bush next year.  He has also reportedly chipped in $20 million 
to the Center for American Progress. . .

Ickes is attempting to raise $50 million for TV ads to attack Mr. Bush 
next year. . .

While never charged with a crime, Mr. Ickes was called the "Svengali" of 
the Clinton fund-raising operation 

And now thanks to campaign-finance reform, Mr. Ickes is back in 
business.  His donors can give as much cash as they desire. . .

Dean has described his decision to give up federal matching funds as a 
"declaration of independence from special interests."  But if he wins 
the nomination, he'll be the main beneficiary of the Soros-Ickes soft 
money spending barrage. . . Dean would owe far more chits to Mr. Soros 
than Cheney has ever owed to Halliburton.

Dean can gather all of the small-dollar Internet donations he wants, but 
in the end he's still going to be relying on the Soros-Ickes machine to 
get him to the White House.

response 331 of 536:

Nov 11 06:12 UTC 2003

Another absurdity is klg drigging up this dirt while Bush sits on a
reelection chest of 200,000,000 of his political buddies contributions.

response 333 of 536:

Nov 11 19:48 UTC 2003

yeah its highly hypocritical for klg to not care how Bush raises his
money, but then get judgemental about how Dean is.  And for the record,
the article is incorrect.  Dean isn't taking large donations, he has
raised enormous sums over the internet of $250 or less.  

response 335 of 536:

Nov 11 22:53 UTC 2003

That's a ridiculous statement - the Dem candidate has to compete with
BUSH. What do you want Dean to do, if nominated - lose? The slime,
incidentally, started from Bush, who set the lowest possible standard,
and "bad money drives out good". 

response 337 of 536:

Nov 12 01:36 UTC 2003

  Last time I checked the election went to the man with the most votes,
  not the most dollars.  (Hmm..  2000 presidential elections excepted..
  You know what I meant.)

  Money is a powerful tool in presidential elections but at some
  point the additional utility of each dollar diminishes.
  Dean (or whoever gets the nomination ultimately) should be able
  to compete against Bush without having to have as much money.

response 339 of 536:

Nov 12 17:09 UTC 2003

"To start on a level playing field in August the Democrats really need 
to" first find a credible candidate.  Where, we don't know. Apparently, 
they have no idea, either.

response 341 of 536:

Nov 12 17:20 UTC 2003

Just as we indicated.  Apparently nobody has any idea of any credible 
Democratic candidate.

response 343 of 536:

Nov 12 18:31 UTC 2003

So, you would prefer that Dean "kill" it for himself, instead? And, why
can't Clark join in the new game as well as Dean? 

response 345 of 536:

Nov 12 19:17 UTC 2003

I thought Dean was raising his funds through internet sites. Clark could
do the same thing. They don't have to sink as low as Bush is willing to.