Bush's job rating below 50%

[GrantDawg]

Zogby's (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732) newest has him at below 50% for the first time in a while. He is looking more and more vulnerable as we get closer to 2004. Of course, none of the Democrats look like they could beat him, but you never know.

[sabotai]

"Of course, none of the Democrats look like they could beat him"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what they said in 1991, and the papa Bush had a very high approval rating. Like you said, you never know.

[Dutch]

Well, if the Democrats oligarchy becomes a popular form of government and everyone gets to pretend that their "special interest" candidate is actually in charge, then yes, anything is possible.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Of course, none of the Democrats look like they could beat him"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what they said in 1991, and the papa Bush had a very high approval rating. Like you said, you never know.

That was why I said you never know, but in truth Clinton (until the sex scandals de-railed him a bit) was a very attractive canidate to take on Bush Sr. even before his approval ratings started slipping. I'm saying none of these guys have the charisma nor the ability to run to the center as Clinton had.

But like I said, you never know. Howard Dean may shock me, but (reading his propaganda) he is way to far left to win a general election. John Kerry would be the only other option in the field that might have a shot. Liberman might have a shot in the national election, but will not win the nomination.

[ice4277]

Howard Dean winning the Presidency would be about as bad as Pat Buchanan winning the Presidency; I think he is MUCH too liberal for most and will tail off as we move closer to the primaries. But I'm not sure who will be there to pick up the slack, as GD says Kerry would probably be the most likely, but he has had trouble picking up steam as well.

[JPhillips]

Clinton at this stage in 1991 was a nobody. He didn't catch on until later in the process, but of course the whole primary season was later.

The big surprise with Dean is his money. He's expected to come in with 10 mil for the third quarter. I'm just stunned to see the money roll into his coffers. He really has developed a new donation base.

This election is going to come down to a handful of states, like 2000. The Dem needs to hold the Gore states and pick up one. Bush has to hold. I don't see where Dean can pick up a state. He's starting to work the south hard, but I just don't see him gaining there. Its a long way off, but I don't see him beating Bush, although I do see him as the candidate who wounds Bush the most. Those debates would be vicious.

This is why I still see Clark as the best general election candidate. He stands the best shot at a pick up, probably blue collar West Virginia or last time's prize Florida. Three or four other states would be possible, although much more difficult. Clark is the guy who can win if he gets the nomination.

That being said, he isn't running yet and time is slipping away. The primaries are front loaded like never before and he has to have a strong showing on the South Carolina and others primary day. After that it will be a two or three man race, and that will be likely decided within a couple of weeks.

Clark may also not win the primary. Dean has a very strong base and is growing his support. Labor has generally backed Gephardt, and if Clark could get that after Gephardt inevitably falls, he'll be strong.

All in all this will again be an interesting campaign. This certainly won't be Reagan/Mondale. Bush is slipping both internationally and domestically. The Zinni speech last week to Navy and Marine officers has to really hurt Bush. If he loses the officer corps his defense credentials will be hard to maintain. Rove, though, is a brilliant campaigner and plays as dirty as he has too.

Don't be surprised if 2004 goes down to the wire, but lets hope that we know for sure a little earlier than 2000.

[clintl]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Clinton at this stage in 1991 was a nobody. He didn't catch on until later in the process, but of course the whole primary season was later.



That is somewhat true, although everybody else in that field was considered a nobody as well, since all of the most prominent Democrats at that time declined to run, thinking that Bush was unbeatable.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by clintl
That is somewhat true, although everybody else in that field was considered a nobody as well, since all of the most prominent Democrats at that time declined to run, thinking that Bush was unbeatable.

At this point, yes, but by December/January before the election he was on every cover. The reson he was dangerous was because he played to the center well, and yet energized the democrat base (until the affair issue, then all heck broke lose. Of course, he got it all back).

[bosshogg23]

That is somewhat true, although everybody else in that field was considered a nobody as well, since all of the most prominent Democrats at that time declined to run, thinking that Bush was unbeatable.

Kerrey of Nebraska(I believe) was hardly a nobody. He was just killed in speeches with Clinton. Tsongas didnt have a great chance, liberal from Mass. after Dukakis, a liberal from Mass. lost in 88.

[clintl]

Yes, he was pretty well established as the frontrunner by January.

[kcchief19]

Why do you think we're getting a national address tonight? Gotta get those poll numbers up somehow.

The numbers have been trending this way for a while. Bush's popularity has always been very soft. His numbers were in the dumper in summer '01 before rally-around-the-flag syndrom drove them through the roof. They were falling again before the Iraq war drove them up. But that is artificial upward movement -- that type of support never lasts long.

The '04 election will be completely about the economy. If the economy is stronger, Bush will win. But if unemployment is not at least a half-point lower and the markets are not up from their present levels, he's in trouble. The only caveat is if some loser manages to get the Democratic nomination.

After checking out some of the debate from New Mexico, I'm no closer to determining my horse, but I think I would have to say Dean has got a shot at this. He wasn't spectacular, but he shares a lot of similarities with Bush. You put him with a candidate like Edwards who can help steal a state or two out of the south and you might have something.

Kerry seems to be the most polished of the candidates. He has a certain dismarming charm, even though he seems a little dark. It's not something I can a finger on, but I don't think Lieberman has any mass appeal. Gephardt has some strengths, but he's too far behind the 8-ball. I don't think Edwards has the polish to head the national ticket yet.

An interesting note, Kerry, Libermand and Gephardt do better than Dean in polling of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, but Dean soars ahead in polls of likely voters. Combine that with his strength in New Hampshire and his full-court press in Iowa, and I think he could land a knock-out punch early. Edwards can establish himself with a win in South Carolina, which could close out everybody else.

With the penchant this country has for electing governors (GHW Bush is the only non-former governor elected since 1964, I believe), I think Dean is going to be the guy. And don't worry about his northeast liberalism -- Vermont liberalism is completely different from Massachusetts liberalism. He's also running hard and strong to the middle.

Comparing Dean to Buchannan is not an apt comparison. Buchannan would be more comparable to someone like Kucinich, who is way out there as far as I'm concerned. That guy is a nut.

And in regard to Clinton, nobody was really the top-dog early, but Paul Tsongas and Tom Harkin were getting the early buzz. Clinton was there, but he was getting derailed with the "bimbo erruptions." He appeared to be out of it until he and Hillary did their interview on 60 Minutes following the Super Bowl. That helped him finish second to Tsongas in New Hampshire and that got him back in the race.

[clintl]

Originally posted by bosshogg23
Kerrey of Nebraska(I believe) was hardly a nobody. He was just killed in speeches with Clinton. Tsongas didnt have a great chance, liberal from Mass. after Dukakis, a liberal from Mass. lost in 88.

Kerrey was viewed much like Clinton at the time, a young, promising, up-and-coming politician in his first national campaign. He did run a bad campaign, though. His real prominence came later.

Tsongas was a moderate, not a liberal. His campaign platform centered on reducing the budget deficit, much like Ross Perot's campaign did in the general election. He just didn't have the money, and the questions about his health (cancer) were too big to overcome.

[kcchief19]

Dola -- WOW. I went to go check out the Zogby poll even further and found some more interesting stuff:

"Do you think President Bush deserves to be reelected or do you think it is time for someone new?" (likely voters)
Deserves reelection: 40%
Some new: 52%
Unsure: 8%

Perhaps even more surprising, the latest Time/CNN poll:
“If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, would you say you will definitely vote for him, might vote for or against him, or will you definitely vote against him?” (registered voters)
Definitely for: 29%
Definitely against: 42%
Might vote for/against: 25 %
Unsure: 5%

Individual candidate races:
Bush 50%
Kerry 45%

Bush 50%
Lieberman 44%

Bush 52%
Dean 42%

Bush 53%
Gephardt 42%

And the real shocker ...

Bush 50%
H. Clinton 47%

I'm telling you, I think she's going to run.

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by clintl
Kerrey was viewed much like Clinton at the time, a young, promising, up-and-coming politician in his first national campaign. He did run a bad campaign, though. His real prominence came later.

Tsongas was a moderate, not a liberal. His campaign platform centered on reducing the budget deficit, much like Ross Perot's campaign did in the general election. He just didn't have the money, and the questions about his health (cancer) were too big to overcome.
Agree on all points. The cancer put him behind the 8-ball, and then when people started calling him Paul Tax-on-gas, a takeoff on both his name and his plan to raise federal gas taxes, he was in trouble. He won several key primaries and was still in it until Clinton sealed everything with a win in California.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by clintl
Kerrey was viewed much like Clinton at the time, a young, promising, up-and-coming politician in his first national campaign. He did run a bad campaign, though. His real prominence came later.

Tsongas was a moderate, not a liberal. His campaign platform centered on reducing the budget deficit, much like Ross Perot's campaign did in the general election. He just didn't have the money, and the questions about his health (cancer) were too big to overcome.

And the lisp. The same thing that holds back Lieberman. Let's be honest, in the days of television it is going to be very hard for a person with little personality and a speech impediment to win a national election.

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
And the lisp. The same thing that holds back Lieberman. Let's be honest, in the days of television it is going to be very hard for a person with little personality and a speech impediment to win a national election.
I keep trying not say this, but I know it's true from an anyalsis standpoint, but Lieberman is "too Jewish." I think that's a sad commentary on our country, but unfortunately it is true.

[bosshogg23]

Tsongas was a moderate, not a liberal. His campaign platform centered on reducing the budget deficit, much like Ross Perot's campaign did in the general election. He just didn't have the money, and the questions about his health (cancer) were too big to overcome.

How does everyone get their quotes to have the persons name on them and the quote in bold?

Anyways here is an old interview with Tsongas. He calls himself a liberal twice. He differed greatly on the economy with liberals but that is about it. Link (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/1997/tsong_1-20.html)

I would love to see Clark in the race. He was highly engaging on Bill Maher's show. I thought Maher might propose to him he was so engrossed.

[Primal]

Charleston Heston is my president.

You've got to love that NRA bumper sticker.

[JPhillips]

I sure wish Heston and those other Hollywood loonies would keep their mouths shut!

[Primal]

Originally posted by JPhillips
I sure wish Heston and those other Hollywood loonies would keep their mouths shut!

For the most part I completely agree, no one is worse them Michael Moore.

[CamEdwards]

While Zogby's latest has Bush's approval at 48%, Gallup's latest poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030905.asp) has Bush at 59%.

Just goes to show you, you can't govern by what the polls are telling you.

[NoMyths]

I just remember what happened to the last Bush following a war in Iraq.

[Buccaneer]

As an Independent, I can see not voting for Bush for re-election. But the reason is the opposite of what is polled, he is caving into Democrats-centric issues. But there is no way in hell that I would want a real Democrat as president, it is shameful for the 42% or so that do.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
While Zogby's latest has Bush's approval at 48%, Gallup's latest poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030905.asp) has Bush at 59%.

Just goes to show you, you can't govern by what the polls are telling you.
Just goes to show you that you need to look for current polls:). The Gallup poll you link to is a week and half older than the Zogby poll.

[sabotai]

2 things.

1) Everyone keeps saying that the election will come down to the economy.

2) From the gallup poll that Cam linked to, 45% approve of Bush's handling of the economy while 52% disapprove.

Something to keep an eye on. As time goes forward, if the people who say #1 are right, his approval ratings will start turning into the numbers in that (the economy) part of the poll.

And a 3rd thing, Bucc saying he's not a republican is almost as funny as when SkyDog said he wasn't a republican (or the time he said he wasn't religious). Funny stuff.

[Buccaneer]

sabotai: More Libertarian than anything else and anti-progessive liberialism. That cannot make one be labeled as a Republican unless you are one of the people that think if you are not X than you are Y.

[CamEdwards]

yes, I'm sure the week and a half difference is the reason the polls differ by 14%.

[albionmoonlight]

Bush has too much money to lose the general election. "[He] will be re-elected unless they catch [him] in bed with a live boy or a dead girl."*


* Actual quote that former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards said when asked about his control of the Louisiana political machine.


Joking aside, I don't even think that this election will be close. It is sick--and a credit to his fundraising abilities--how much money Bush has been able to raise. Also, the Republicans have done a good job of painting themselves as the patriotic party--a decision that will pay major dividends for them in the next couple of years. I'm predicting Regan/Mondale levels here.

[QuikSand]

I think the discussion about Howard Dean being "too far left" is pretty misguided. One thing we know about presidential elections is that they are rarely really about left and right. They are much, much more about personality, trustworthiness, and voter instinct.

Yes, there are people who rank hot-button issues like abortion or gay rights or the like as their #1 priority. But the overwhelming share of those people have already made up their minds -- they aren't in the 10-25% of "swing" voters who decide presidential elections. The voters who are up for grabs, who come into an election open to being persuaded by either side, are the targets once you get past the conventions. And those people vote based on single, unpredictable issues and overall "feel" for the candidates.

So, what of Howard Dean? The right loves him, because they think he's too far left to be a threat. Really? Yes, Dean can get attacked on, say, the "gay rights" issue - and there will be plenty of people who will go bonkers and decide to vote against him on those grounds. But how many of those people were going to vote for a Democrat anyway, really? Dean's anti-war stance might end up being a liability - but with the political climate being what it is, that could turn out to be an asset next year -- especially if a smart candidate turns it into a "no rush to judgment" platform, rather than a pure dove-like stance. Who knows?

The thing about Dean is that he's not the "hot" candidate because of his policy stances-- there's very little there to separate him from the other faceless Dems. The reason he's crushing them is because he is successfully selling sincerity and candor. I suspect that plenty of people who sent internet contributions to him don't even know what he'd do on 7 out of 10 major political issues. They "like" him, for whatever reason -- and that's far more important than whether they agree with his forestry policy.

The best recent parallel, in my mind, is John McCain. McCain had no business rivaling W for the GOP nomination, but he gained a lot of ground by his general appeal, which made things very rough for a well-financed and fully-greased campaign from the Bush people. McCain didn't gain ground be taking positions - be gained ground by appealing to people personally, calling them "my friends," and mugging for the cameras along the way. Polls at this time last cycle would have told you there were plenty of Democrats who would have loved to vote for McCain... that's simply not a left/right thing, it's a "personal appeal" thing, and that's what moves an awful lot of people in presidential elections.

I don't claim to know where Howard Dean is going with all this. While there have been limited successes by non-traditional politicians in recent years (even toss Ross Perot into the mix, perhaps), we have yet to see a rank outsider pull off the "big" upset. But from the way things look, Dean could easily have a strong showing in Iowa and then a monster win in New Hampshire... and he'll have the opportunity to sell himself to a lot of people at that point. And you can be certain that he won't be selling an assembled group of policy positions... he'll be selling himself as smart, articulate, trustworthy, and a leader.

We probably should also take note that Dean doesn't face anything like the intra-party resistance that McCain did four years ago. The Democratic party is utterly devoid of a vision and real internal leadership... there simply isn't enough of a "machine" to keep things on track, the way that the GOP successfuly did last go-round.

Do I think Howard Dean will be the next president? Probably not. But if he fails, I really don't think it will be because he was "too liberal." I think that has fairly little to do with it -- and that most pundits are just missing the point when they continue to resort to traditional left/right thinking in presidential politics.

[CamEdwards]

I think probably 5% of America won't vote for Howard Dean because his first name is Howard.

Of course, if he does get elected, think of all the great Howard the Duck references we can make.

Hmmm...

Just realized there are no great Howard the Duck references.

[Bee]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I think probably 5% of America won't vote for Howard Dean because his first name is Howard.

Of course, if he does get elected, think of all the great Howard the Duck references we can make.

Hmmm...

Just realized there are no great Howard the Duck references.

I won't vote for him because I hate his morning radio show.

:p

[Dutch]

Originally posted by kcchief19
Why do you think we're getting a national address tonight? Gotta get those poll numbers up somehow.

As long as you realize that the Democrats are all calling George W Bush an "utter failure" in there debates is just "trying to get their numbers up"...then I would agree. At least Bush can talk about things that are relevant vs. the Democrats crying about how scared they are of terrorist groups that hate America.

Perhaps even more surprising, the latest Time/CNN poll:
“If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, would you say you will definitely vote for him, might vote for or against him, or will you definitely vote against him?” (registered voters)
Definitely for: 29%
Definitely against: 42%
Might vote for/against: 25 %
Unsure: 5%

Individual candidate races:
Bush 50%
Kerry 45%

Bush 50%
Lieberman 44%

Bush 52%
Dean 42%

Bush 53%
Gephardt 42%

And the real shocker ...

Bush 50%
H. Clinton 47%


Again, until the Democrats form the Oligarchy as the first poll suggests (Bush vs. all Democrats) they will not win.

And Hillary Clinton gets the closest. Why is that? What platform is she using that is so different from everybody else? Or is it "The only name in the bunch" syndrome that I have already pegged? If it is, she will be in big trouble. Let's face it, unless Bush actually does something wrong, he walks away with a victory. It's not about fundraising...it's about being good at your job.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Dutch
Let's face it, unless Bush actually does something wrong, he walks away with a victory. It's not about fundraising...it's about being good at your job.

I'm sorry. He will probably win as the "best option available." He is far from what I would call good at his job, and I'm a die-hard Republican.

[Dutch]

Do I think Howard Dean will be the next president? Probably not. But if he fails, I really don't think it will be because he was "too liberal." I think that has fairly little to do with it -- and that most pundits are just missing the point when they continue to resort to traditional left/right thinking in presidential politics.

I agree with very much of what you said. I liked Clinton because he just seemed Presidential. I could care less that he was a Democrat...at least at first. I always enjoyed listening to his speeches.

Howard Dean may be the same way to some people, but he doesn't really strike any chords with me like Clinton did.

I agree somewhat with your point that it's not a left or right issue, especially for the swing voters. But I think the most important thing that happened in 2000 was voter awareness. People were really slapped awake with the notion that every vote really does count.

It is my belief, however misguided, that due to the very attraction that politics became to the average voter, many "swing" voters have already made their opinion on this years race and there won't be many votes left over for the likes of Howard Dean to pick up.

Just my .02 cents.

[Dutch]

I'm sorry. He will probably win as the "best option available." He is from what I would call good at his job, and I'm a die-hard Republican.

Well, he's got some strong points in his favor.

1. The War on Terrorism has been an outstanding success with the fall of Al Qaeda's only public safe haven in Afghanistan's Taliban regime and the removal of the dictator that basically created Al Qaeda in the Iraqi Baath Party regime.

2. The economy is tipping back towards the Bullish side of things by removing excess government spending and giving it back to the people to spend on things that make a stronger economy.

And I've argued this before with no luck. But if #1 is not the best way to handle the job of removing terrorism, what were the other options, particularly for a Democrat to use, that were better? So far, through many debates here at the FOFC, I've never been challenged on an alternate gameplan.

And as for #2, money in the hands of the people will boost an economy faster than any other remedy.

[Dutch]

CNN just reported that for President Bush to maintain the War on Terror, he must ask Congress for 87Billion dollars (or....297 dollars per person).

"I don't know if the American people are willing to pay for that" notes the CNN reporter.

So I ask you, are you willing to pay 300 dollars to do your part to fight terrorism?

[Butter]

Originally posted by Dutch
So I ask you, are you willing to pay 300 dollars to do your part to fight terrorism?

Don't you mean "are our children willing to pay"? Because there's no way in hell this won't be deficit spending. I would ask my kids, but they're too busy playing with their action figures right now.

[CamEdwards]

I'll gladly put in 900 bucks so my kids don't have to dip into their own pockets to pay for their defense.

[Swaggs]

A few thoughts...

On Howard Dean being "too liberal," I think that has been a media moniker stuck on him before people knew what he was all about. He is from New England, so everyone automatically thinks he is "too liberal" to be electable. One hot issue that cost Gore in states like West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky is that he was over-the-top for gun control (which suits me just fine, but does not sit well with a lot of the moderate swing vote). I lived in WVa in 2000 and I got several recorded messages from interest groups telling me that "Al Gore wants to take my guns!" Howard Dean is not for active gun control--an stance that separates him from the pack, but pushes him more to the moderate side. I think if he gets enough time and in an arena to get his message out, the 2004 election will be close.

As for the war on terrorism being an outstanding success, if that is true, that is not the impression that is being parlayed in the news. Bin Laden has not been captured and, in my opinion, he is the "face of terrorism." Whether or not he is still the active leader of Al Quada, may people will not consider the Afghanistan theatre a success until he is found. And, in Iraq, people are concerned that we do not appear to have a plan in place to turn power back over to the people. So again, if we are successful, the media and the administration is not doing a good job of communicating that to the people here, in my opinion.

As for the $300 for terrorism, I am fine with it. But, since taxes have been dramatically lowered and it seems unlikely that any president wants to be the one to sign a bill raising taxes, where does that money come from? We are already running on a horrendous budget deficit

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Dutch
1. The War on Terrorism has been an outstanding success...

You're joking, right?


Originally posted by Dutch
2. The economy is tipping back towards the Bullish side of things...

You're joking again, aren't you?


I don't want to bash Bush, but the jury is still out on both of these points.

[Butter]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I'll gladly put in 900 bucks so my kids don't have to dip into their own pockets to pay for their defense.

Well, my kids are going to have to earn that $300! Mop that floor! Shine those shoes! Wash those dishes!

"Why, daddy?"

"You're paying for your own defense. Hyah!" *crack*

[Dutch]

As for the war on terrorism being an outstanding success, if that is true, that is not the impression that is being parlayed in the news. Bin Laden has not been captured and, in my opinion, he is the "face of terrorism." Whether or not he is still the active leader of Al Quada, may people will not consider the Afghanistan theatre a success until he is found. And, in Iraq, people are concerned that we do not appear to have a plan in place to turn power back over to the people. So again, if we are successful, the media and the administration is not doing a good job of communicating that to the people here, in my opinion.

Fair enough, the media has not been real supportive, I agree. But that's another issue. :)

Let's turn the tables then. Who are the enemy? Well, the terrorists of course. Who are the terrorists? Al Qaeda. Why do the Al Qaeda hate America? Because we have our troops protecting the 2 holy cities in Saudi Arabia, not the Jihad movement of Al Qaeda (which was refused in favor of American troops by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia). Why don't we leave Saudi Arabia? Because they are the only real foothold that allows us to run Operation Southern Watch which cannot be removed until Saddam Hussein complies with the 1991 cease-fire agreements and the 17 UN Resolutions.

Those were questions people were asking on the 12th of September.

Now, just 2 years later, Saddam Hussein is gone, the Taliban are gone, the Baath party is gone, the UN Resolutions are gone, the cease-fire agreement of 1991 is being adhered too, Usama Bin Laden is gone....they are all gone.

And to reverse it even further against the media. If these things aren't gone, where are they? They certainly aren't being pro-active, the bad guys may actually be reacting to what we are doing.

Like Jon Gruden says, "You are either feeling pressure, or you are applying it."

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Dutch
CNN just reported that for President Bush to maintain the War on Terror, he must ask Congress for 87Billion dollars (or....297 dollars per person).

"I don't know if the American people are willing to pay for that" notes the CNN reporter.

So I ask you, are you willing to pay 300 dollars to do your part to fight terrorism? Isn't that the same $300 'tax rebate' that he got elected on?

Funny, funny...by the time the government finally figured out that giving out money wasn't the best way to solve the economic crisis and wanted their money back, it was too late. It's a little unsatisfying to keep saying "we told you so," but I would hope that people would be opening their eyes a little more by now.

[NoMyths]

dola...

I should make clear that by "too late" I mean too late to laugh Bush out of running for President, not too late for the government to use more of our money however they wish. Just wanted to be clear.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Well, my kids are going to have to earn that $300! Mop that floor! Shine those shoes! Wash those dishes!

"Why, daddy?"

"You're paying for your own defense. Hyah!" *crack*

You know, this is why I read the political threads these days. As we all know, we can script these out these arguments from the start but stuff like this you just can't predict :D

SI

[QuikSand]

Here's the thing on all this, though. Bush isn't asking us to pay for a damned thing, is he? He says he wants Congres to spend the money - but last night's speech didn't say that we (the people) are going to have to give back any of our tax cuts, or going to have to suffer some kind of increased tax of any kind. No, indeed - we're just trying to spend the money, not raise it.

So, while I agree with the sentiment to a point:

The economy is tipping back towards the Bullish side of things by removing excess government spending and giving it back to the people to spend on things that make a stronger economy.

There's no evidence that we're doing the portionof this statement I've bolded above. Indeed - what we are doing is classic, Keynesian, Roosvelt-era fiscal policy... we're cutting taxes, increasing spending in all areas, and borrowing against the future. There is plenty of reason to believe that this will have a stimulative effect on the national economy-- even more so than if we were really cutting back on federal spending.

Of course, piling up that debt isn't a really good policy if it gets out of hand, and that can have deletarious effects in other ways (in addition to simply requiring that a larger share of future budgets goes directly to debt service, rather than actual programs). But for now, the current administration is basically following the most aggressive spend-and-don't-tax regime since FDR.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Dutch
It is my belief, however misguided, that due to the very attraction that politics became to the average voter, many "swing" voters have already made their opinion on this years race and there won't be many votes left over for the likes of Howard Dean to pick up.



I completely disagree with that. Most people are not even paying attention yet, and the polls right now don't mean anything at all.

[Dutch]

The economy is tipping back towards the Bullish side of things by removing excess government spending and giving it back to the people to spend on things that make a stronger economy.

By bolding "removing excess government spending" I think you caught me typing the wrong suggestion. I agree with you that we do have aggressive government spending.

While we did get money back that the government needed 2 years later, who's pocket is that money better to sit in? With the money sitting in government coffers, it is not allowed to collect interest. It must be spent or given back. That is the law. What to spend it on? We could have spent it 2 years ago to make the tax-happy folks...er...happy, but then we still have to fight the new War on Terror thing to boot.

I say we still win by only paying once. What would we have spent the money on 2 years ago? That would be the great debate today I suspect if we would have raised government spending even more 2 years ago and then requested Americans pay even **more** today.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Dutch
Now, just 2 years later, Saddam Hussein is gone, the Taliban are gone, the Baath party is gone, the UN Resolutions are gone, the cease-fire agreement of 1991 is being adhered too, Usama Bin Laden is gone....they are all gone.

And to reverse it even further against the media. If these things aren't gone, where are they? They certainly aren't being pro-active, the bad guys may actually be reacting to what we are doing.

Well, this isn't entirely true. There have been a number of terrorist attacks that have been pinned on Al-Qaida. True, they haven't attempted any attacks (that we know of) on the United States proper, but then, they hadn't before 9/11, either. Just because we don't see them definitely doesn't mean they aren't there; thinking like that was part of the problem in the first place. I agree that taking care of problems in Iraq was something that we needed to do at some point or another, but I still have trouble seeing the direct connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida, and I don't think taking care of the one will take care of the other.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by ice4277
Well, this isn't entirely true. There have been a number of terrorist attacks that have been pinned on Al-Qaida. True, they haven't attempted any attacks (that we know of) on the United States proper, but then, they hadn't before 9/11, either. Just because we don't see them definitely doesn't mean they aren't there; thinking like that was part of the problem in the first place. I agree that taking care of problems in Iraq was something that we needed to do at some point or another, but I still have trouble seeing the direct connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida, and I don't think taking care of the one will take care of the other.

You forgot the WTC bombing of '93. We also haven't seen any additional embassy bombings or attacks on military targets like the USS Cole.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You forgot the WTC bombing of '93. We also haven't seen any additional embassy bombings or attacks on military targets like the USS Cole.

You're right, I did forget about the original Trade Center bombing; however this also goes to show that two years is not long enough to assume we have put them out of business enough to keep them from doing something like this again.

I suppose I should clarify my position on this; in general, I agree with the decisions Bush has made, and I think that, in regards to the war on terrorism, there is not much a Democrat or other Republican would have done differently. I also agree with going into Iraq, but not necessarily for the same reasons as the current administration gives, and I strongly believe the link between the old Iraqi regime and Al-Qaida terrorism is very tenuous at best.

[sabotai]

"sabotai: More Libertarian than anything else and anti-progessive liberialism. That cannot make one be labeled as a Republican unless you are one of the people that think if you are not X than you are Y."

Ok, fair enough. Based on what you have said and you ever-apologetic nature towards Bush, I just assumed you were a republican. So I apologize for insulting you by calling you a republican. ;)

[Dutch]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You forgot the WTC bombing of '93. We also haven't seen any additional embassy bombings or attacks on military targets like the USS Cole.

Or the Dhahran Barracks bombing in 1994 or the US Army Liaison building that was blown to smithereens in Riyahd in 1995 during a "call to prayer" when all Muslims left the building to pray and the Army officers were brutally murdered.

And no ancient historical momuments being smited by the self-appointed prophets of the Taliban in Afghanistan....

And yes there are scattered incidents of terrorims, that's relatively normal, as much as I hate to say it. But destroying a network is hard business. But the network (as it continues to crumble) doesn't have to work too hard to walk down the street and put a couple fo suicide guys with AK-47's into combat with Americans.

But as long as they are weak and weakening, Muslims are less likely to throw good money after bad....and once the Al Qaeda are left to blowing up buildings in Iraq, nobody is going to give them much money to pull of the big attacks.

[Killebrew]

Minor update:
Originally posted by CamEdwards
yes, I'm sure the week and a half difference is the reason the polls differ by 14%.
First, the % difference was not 14% but 11% (59-48=11), and that does not seem impossible at all when you consider the latest from your polling organization of choice - the most recent Gallop poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030912.asp) . Long <s>L</s> Dive Dubya:(