And here we are again. You may not visit "pundits.com", but they tend to judge the winners and losers of debates and spout those views to the public. There are also many post-debate polls that measure opinion. Bush never lost by more than a few points, and in fact won narrowly in the third.
What we have here is a classic case of underestimating Bush, which amazingly, is what the Dems have done since 2000. Time and time again, Bush gets his way: Tax cuts, the war vote, taking back the Senate, the Medicare bill, etc. True, he doesn't speak well and often gives obvious answers. But no matter how many times his opposition gets burned, they continue to believe that he's a bumbling moron.
I don't think it's a matter of underestimating Bush, I think it's a matter of Bush enjoying artificial latitude due to 9/11.
Without the "I'm the only one who can save you from the terrorists" stuff, what do you have? A secretive, crony-capitalism celebrating white house that delivered tax-cuts for the wealthy and deficits for everybody else (and no, I don't think it would have played out very differently sans 9/11).
What else? Cheney's secret meetings with energy company brass, Enron and Ken Lay, enviromental protection roll backs, overt pandering to moneyed and powerful, job loss, unfunded education mandate, and the usual cultural wedge issues to fire up the base.
I don't think it's a matter of underestimating Bush, I think it's a matter of Bush enjoying artificial latitude due to 9/11.
Without the "I'm the only one who can save you from the terrorists" stuff, what do you have? A secretive, crony-capitalism celebrating white house that delivered tax-cuts for the wealthy and deficits for everybody else (and no, I don't think it would have played out very differently sans 9/11).
What else? Cheney's secret meetings with energy company brass, Enron and Ken Lay, enviromental protection roll backs, overt pandering to moneyed and powerful, job loss, unfunded education mandate, and the usual cultural wedge issues to fire up the base.
The guy would be toast w/o the WOT.
addabox you nailed it. This is why I do not support Bush
I said he COULD be... if there's more performances like the MTP interview or the SOTU... maybe his Convention speech will be a big flop too.
But yes... right now the race will be as close as the last one was... and with no Nader and a real commitment by democrats to boot Bush... it very well could be in Kerry's favor.
I was one of those who felt ? much to my sorrow - that Bush likely could not be beaten in 2004, but who now feels that it may be possible.
While some of my thinking on this has shifted slowly over the past few months, the MTP interview was, for me, a real turning-point. Bush looked shallow, ill-prepared and vulnerable ? and, based on what I have read, I am far from the only person who thinks this. The interview really backfired for him.
I only wish the Dems had a stronger candidate to face him. I don?t get ?presidential? vibes from Kerry (but I hope that I am wrong on this).
Everytime he speaks to a national audience his favorables take a dive...
He's having quite the credibility problem.
Remember how Bush 1 had the same ratings in February of 91?
He seemed out of touch and indifferent too,
1. That is completely, factually inaccurate.
2. Wait until you see Kerry's past positions conflict with almost EVERY one he now holds, from the death penalty to Saddam Huessein to any number of domestic issues.
3. Bush 41 was not the same man. Why will you not learn that? I know it feels good to think the same could happen to the current Bush, but really...give it a rest. And really..."indifferent"? Please. That's not a word for this man.
I don't think it's a matter of underestimating Bush, I think it's a matter of Bush enjoying artificial latitude due to 9/11.
Without the "I'm the only one who can save you from the terrorists" stuff, what do you have? A secretive, crony-capitalism celebrating white house that delivered tax-cuts for the wealthy and deficits for everybody else (and no, I don't think it would have played out very differently sans 9/11).
What else? Cheney's secret meetings with energy company brass, Enron and Ken Lay, enviromental protection roll backs, overt pandering to moneyed and powerful, job loss, unfunded education mandate, and the usual cultural wedge issues to fire up the base.
The guy would be toast w/o the WOT.
Hypothetical and academic argument. We ARE IN the WOT, and who would you like to lead it? John "I opposed very new weapons system" Kerry?
As for your other accusations:
1) Bush is no more secretive than any other President. What a baseless, bullshit laden charge.
2). Oh God! Captialism! The horror!
3) Tax cuts for the rich: Well that's funny, because my marginal rate has gone from 28% to 25% since Bush took office. I make $40,000 a year.
4) Enron: Perhaps you have hears anything from the Dems on this because BOTH PARTIES were tied to Enron. Hmmmm.
5) Environment: Bush didn't "roll back" anything. Clinton signed some last minute executive orders which Bush suspended for REVIEW. Bush also has common sense to know that if you don't allow things like logging, we get these things called...FOREST FIRES.
6) We have not lost jobs. We;ve gained TWO MILLION since January 01. End of discussion.
7) Unfunded education mandate: While there are problems with the Act, you are completely wrong about it being unfunded. I know...I work in education. In fact, Bush's budgets have called for HUGE increases in Title 1 and Reading programs. How big is huge? Some categories had 70% increases requested in Bush's first budget.
John Kerry is every bit as secretive and tied to Big Money as is Bush. In fact, he may be worse. He also has changed almost every one of his positions for this election. He's got one of the most liberal and radical voting records in the Senate.
Bush also has common sense to know that if you don't allow things like logging, we get these things called...FOREST FIRES.
Oh please. Do you really think that was a sensible solution? Destroying a precious natural resource that prevents erosion and provides oxygen, simply because a bumbling jackass forgets to extinguish his campfire? (I'm not specifically referring to last fall's California blaze, but forest fires in general). Yeah, that makes sense. Trees don't cause forest fires, like you and Bush seem to believe, just like guns don't kill. Perhaps we should get to the real root of the problem instead of taking the easy (and most destructive) way out. Oops, I forgot! That's all Bush seems to know how to do!
Hypothetical and academic argument. We ARE IN the WOT, and who would you like to lead it? John "I opposed very new weapons system" Kerry?
As for your other accusations:
1) Bush is no more secretive than any other President. What a baseless, bullshit laden charge.
2). Oh God! Captialism! The horror!
3) Tax cuts for the rich: Well that's funny, because my marginal rate has gone from 28% to 25% since Bush took office. I make $40,000 a year.
4) Enron: Perhaps you have hears anything from the Dems on this because BOTH PARTIES were tied to Enron. Hmmmm.
5) Environment: Bush didn't "roll back" anything. Clinton signed some last minute executive orders which Bush suspended for REVIEW. Bush also has common sense to know that if you don't allow things like logging, we get these things called...FOREST FIRES.
6) We have not lost jobs. We;ve gained TWO MILLION since January 01. End of discussion.
7) Unfunded education mandate: While there are problems with the Act, you are completely wrong about it being unfunded. I know...I work in education. In fact, Bush's budgets have called for HUGE increases in Title 1 and Reading programs. How big is huge? Some categories had 70% increases requested in Bush's first budget.
John Kerry is every bit as secretive and tied to Big Money as is Bush. In fact, he may be worse. He also has changed almost every one of his positions for this election. He's got one of the most liberal and radical voting records in the Senate.
Tell me...how is Kerry better?
Ha, ha, ha, where's the WOMD?
Hows the deficit?
And jobs? Well since we've had record unemployment for quite awhile now gaining two million isn't so good.
Bush's goose is cooked and I know that on election night you'll be nowhere to found.
God I hope there's a debate between him and Kerry. Bush will be cut into 57 little pieces.
In a separate report, the Labor Department said initial claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week by 6,000 to 363,000, confounding analysts, who had predicted an improving job market and expected a dip to 345,000 new claims.
lemme know where you got the 2 million new jobs number?
In a separate report, the Labor Department said initial claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week by 6,000 to 363,000, confounding analysts, who had predicted an improving job market and expected a dip to 345,000 new claims.
lemme know where you got the 2 million new jobs number?
It's the 'new math'. Get rid of 2.5 million old jobs and create 2 million new ones.
You know, I think it's funny how convinced both sides are that they're going to beat the other guy THIS far away from November. Most of America knows who George Bush is now....they don't really know Mr. Kerry, he's got 9 short months to convince them of who he is (assuming he's got it all tied up, despite AP-Grrrl-gate).
Bush is easily beaten in debates IF you strip him from the "compassionate" argument. Kerry risk ending up looking like Gore in the debates, with all the right answers but presented in a form that doesn´t open up for the perception filters with the voters. I fear Kerry would end up being LESS electable than some of the other candidates because his whole attitude demands respect which isn´t somethign people want to give a guy they don´t know.
Oh please. Do you really think that was a sensible solution? Destroying a precious natural resource that prevents erosion and provides oxygen, simply because a bumbling jackass forgets to extinguish his campfire? (I'm not specifically referring to last fall's California blaze, but forest fires in general). Yeah, that makes sense. Trees don't cause forest fires, like you and Bush seem to believe, just like guns don't kill. Perhaps we should get to the real root of the problem instead of taking the easy (and most destructive) way out. Oops, I forgot! That's all Bush seems to know how to do!
I don't think you realize who you're speaking to, with all due respect. My father has been in the lumber industry for 25 years. Some of the worst fires have taken place exactly where logging has been stopped due to forest protections enacted under Clinton.
Some quick facts:
1) The lumber industry plants more trees than they cut down each year.
2) There are more trees in the US today than during the revolutionary war.
3) It would make no sense for an industry to put itself out of business by destroying it's future product.
4) Entire towns have been put out of work due to over regualtion of the industry. THOUSANDS of people have lost their jobs.
Above and beyond this is the fact that not many trust Bush anymore.
The fire's hot. The kettle's on. All we have to do now is wait for it to come to a boil.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
1. The deficit is a problem, but not one that people will vote on.
2. We HAVE NOT HAD RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT IN ANY SENSE OF THAT TERM. Jesus Christ! You can't be serious!
"Kerry is not Bush" <---that pretty much sums up why he'll lose. Instead of voting for anyone but Bush, perhaps you should consider who would be the best man for the job. Oh wait...that's not what Dems do.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Alot of people on both sides of the proverbial fence think he's very vulnerable.
And if he keeps looking like he did on MTP... he'll get slaughtered.
can't wait for the debates! I suspect that Bush will want no more than two.... and he'll have to prepare for weeks in order to even compete.
You're hilarious. "He'll get slaughtered". hahahahaha.
He's having quite the credibility problem.
Remember how Bush 1 had the same ratings in February of 91?
He seemed out of touch and indifferent too,
Originally posted by SDW2001
And here we are again. You may not visit "pundits.com", but they tend to judge the winners and losers of debates and spout those views to the public. There are also many post-debate polls that measure opinion. Bush never lost by more than a few points, and in fact won narrowly in the third.
What we have here is a classic case of underestimating Bush, which amazingly, is what the Dems have done since 2000. Time and time again, Bush gets his way: Tax cuts, the war vote, taking back the Senate, the Medicare bill, etc. True, he doesn't speak well and often gives obvious answers. But no matter how many times his opposition gets burned, they continue to believe that he's a bumbling moron.
I don't think it's a matter of underestimating Bush, I think it's a matter of Bush enjoying artificial latitude due to 9/11.
Without the "I'm the only one who can save you from the terrorists" stuff, what do you have? A secretive, crony-capitalism celebrating white house that delivered tax-cuts for the wealthy and deficits for everybody else (and no, I don't think it would have played out very differently sans 9/11).
What else? Cheney's secret meetings with energy company brass, Enron and Ken Lay, enviromental protection roll backs, overt pandering to moneyed and powerful, job loss, unfunded education mandate, and the usual cultural wedge issues to fire up the base.
The guy would be toast w/o the WOT.
Originally posted by addabox
I don't think it's a matter of underestimating Bush, I think it's a matter of Bush enjoying artificial latitude due to 9/11.
Without the "I'm the only one who can save you from the terrorists" stuff, what do you have? A secretive, crony-capitalism celebrating white house that delivered tax-cuts for the wealthy and deficits for everybody else (and no, I don't think it would have played out very differently sans 9/11).
What else? Cheney's secret meetings with energy company brass, Enron and Ken Lay, enviromental protection roll backs, overt pandering to moneyed and powerful, job loss, unfunded education mandate, and the usual cultural wedge issues to fire up the base.
The guy would be toast w/o the WOT.
addabox you nailed it. This is why I do not support Bush
Fellows
I said he COULD be... if there's more performances like the MTP interview or the SOTU... maybe his Convention speech will be a big flop too.
But yes... right now the race will be as close as the last one was... and with no Nader and a real commitment by democrats to boot Bush... it very well could be in Kerry's favor.
While some of my thinking on this has shifted slowly over the past few months, the MTP interview was, for me, a real turning-point. Bush looked shallow, ill-prepared and vulnerable ? and, based on what I have read, I am far from the only person who thinks this. The interview really backfired for him.
I only wish the Dems had a stronger candidate to face him. I don?t get ?presidential? vibes from Kerry (but I hope that I am wrong on this).
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Everytime he speaks to a national audience his favorables take a dive...
He's having quite the credibility problem.
Remember how Bush 1 had the same ratings in February of 91?
He seemed out of touch and indifferent too,
1. That is completely, factually inaccurate.
2. Wait until you see Kerry's past positions conflict with almost EVERY one he now holds, from the death penalty to Saddam Huessein to any number of domestic issues.
3. Bush 41 was not the same man. Why will you not learn that? I know it feels good to think the same could happen to the current Bush, but really...give it a rest. And really..."indifferent"? Please. That's not a word for this man.
Originally posted by addabox
I don't think it's a matter of underestimating Bush, I think it's a matter of Bush enjoying artificial latitude due to 9/11.
Without the "I'm the only one who can save you from the terrorists" stuff, what do you have? A secretive, crony-capitalism celebrating white house that delivered tax-cuts for the wealthy and deficits for everybody else (and no, I don't think it would have played out very differently sans 9/11).
What else? Cheney's secret meetings with energy company brass, Enron and Ken Lay, enviromental protection roll backs, overt pandering to moneyed and powerful, job loss, unfunded education mandate, and the usual cultural wedge issues to fire up the base.
The guy would be toast w/o the WOT.
Hypothetical and academic argument. We ARE IN the WOT, and who would you like to lead it? John "I opposed very new weapons system" Kerry?
As for your other accusations:
1) Bush is no more secretive than any other President. What a baseless, bullshit laden charge.
2). Oh God! Captialism! The horror!
3) Tax cuts for the rich: Well that's funny, because my marginal rate has gone from 28% to 25% since Bush took office. I make $40,000 a year.
4) Enron: Perhaps you have hears anything from the Dems on this because BOTH PARTIES were tied to Enron. Hmmmm.
5) Environment: Bush didn't "roll back" anything. Clinton signed some last minute executive orders which Bush suspended for REVIEW. Bush also has common sense to know that if you don't allow things like logging, we get these things called...FOREST FIRES.
6) We have not lost jobs. We;ve gained TWO MILLION since January 01. End of discussion.
7) Unfunded education mandate: While there are problems with the Act, you are completely wrong about it being unfunded. I know...I work in education. In fact, Bush's budgets have called for HUGE increases in Title 1 and Reading programs. How big is huge? Some categories had 70% increases requested in Bush's first budget.
John Kerry is every bit as secretive and tied to Big Money as is Bush. In fact, he may be worse. He also has changed almost every one of his positions for this election. He's got one of the most liberal and radical voting records in the Senate.
Tell me...how is Kerry better?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush also has common sense to know that if you don't allow things like logging, we get these things called...FOREST FIRES.
Oh please. Do you really think that was a sensible solution? Destroying a precious natural resource that prevents erosion and provides oxygen, simply because a bumbling jackass forgets to extinguish his campfire? (I'm not specifically referring to last fall's California blaze, but forest fires in general). Yeah, that makes sense.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hypothetical and academic argument. We ARE IN the WOT, and who would you like to lead it? John "I opposed very new weapons system" Kerry?
As for your other accusations:
1) Bush is no more secretive than any other President. What a baseless, bullshit laden charge.
2). Oh God! Captialism! The horror!
3) Tax cuts for the rich: Well that's funny, because my marginal rate has gone from 28% to 25% since Bush took office. I make $40,000 a year.
4) Enron: Perhaps you have hears anything from the Dems on this because BOTH PARTIES were tied to Enron. Hmmmm.
5) Environment: Bush didn't "roll back" anything. Clinton signed some last minute executive orders which Bush suspended for REVIEW. Bush also has common sense to know that if you don't allow things like logging, we get these things called...FOREST FIRES.
6) We have not lost jobs. We;ve gained TWO MILLION since January 01. End of discussion.
7) Unfunded education mandate: While there are problems with the Act, you are completely wrong about it being unfunded. I know...I work in education. In fact, Bush's budgets have called for HUGE increases in Title 1 and Reading programs. How big is huge? Some categories had 70% increases requested in Bush's first budget.
John Kerry is every bit as secretive and tied to Big Money as is Bush. In fact, he may be worse. He also has changed almost every one of his positions for this election. He's got one of the most liberal and radical voting records in the Senate.
Tell me...how is Kerry better?
Ha, ha, ha, where's the WOMD?
Hows the deficit?
And jobs? Well since we've had record unemployment for quite awhile now gaining two million isn't so good.
Bush's goose is cooked and I know that on election night you'll be nowhere to found.
God I hope there's a debate between him and Kerry. Bush will be cut into 57 little pieces.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Tell me...how is Kerry better? "
-----------------------------------------------------------
He's not Bush.
Above and beyond this is the fact that not many trust Bush anymore.
The fire's hot. The kettle's on. All we have to do now is wait for it to come to a boil.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
In a separate report, the Labor Department said initial claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week by 6,000 to 363,000, confounding analysts, who had predicted an improving job market and expected a dip to 345,000 new claims.
lemme know where you got the 2 million new jobs number?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040212/economy_8.html
In a separate report, the Labor Department said initial claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week by 6,000 to 363,000, confounding analysts, who had predicted an improving job market and expected a dip to 345,000 new claims.
lemme know where you got the 2 million new jobs number?
It's the 'new math'. Get rid of 2.5 million old jobs and create 2 million new ones.
Penn and Teller.
ba-doom smash!!
The hand is quicker than the eye.
It's entertaining to watch people in a snit.
Originally posted by jimmac
He's not Bush.
Is that really all you can come up with?
Bush is easily beaten in debates IF you strip him from the "compassionate" argument. Kerry risk ending up looking like Gore in the debates, with all the right answers but presented in a form that doesn´t open up for the perception filters with the voters. I fear Kerry would end up being LESS electable than some of the other candidates because his whole attitude demands respect which isn´t somethign people want to give a guy they don´t know.
Originally posted by cooop
Oh please. Do you really think that was a sensible solution? Destroying a precious natural resource that prevents erosion and provides oxygen, simply because a bumbling jackass forgets to extinguish his campfire? (I'm not specifically referring to last fall's California blaze, but forest fires in general). Yeah, that makes sense.
I don't think you realize who you're speaking to, with all due respect. My father has been in the lumber industry for 25 years. Some of the worst fires have taken place exactly where logging has been stopped due to forest protections enacted under Clinton.
Some quick facts:
1) The lumber industry plants more trees than they cut down each year.
2) There are more trees in the US today than during the revolutionary war.
3) It would make no sense for an industry to put itself out of business by destroying it's future product.
4) Entire towns have been put out of work due to over regualtion of the industry. THOUSANDS of people have lost their jobs.
Originally posted by jimmac
Ha, ha, ha, where's the WOMD?
Hows the deficit?
And jobs? Well since we've had record unemployment for quite awhile now gaining two million isn't so good.
Bush's goose is cooked and I know that on election night you'll be nowhere to found.
God I hope there's a debate between him and Kerry. Bush will be cut into 57 little pieces.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Tell me...how is Kerry better? "
-----------------------------------------------------------
He's not Bush.
Above and beyond this is the fact that not many trust Bush anymore.
The fire's hot. The kettle's on. All we have to do now is wait for it to come to a boil.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
1. The deficit is a problem, but not one that people will vote on.
2. We HAVE NOT HAD RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT IN ANY SENSE OF THAT TERM. Jesus Christ! You can't be serious!
"Kerry is not Bush" <---that pretty much sums up why he'll lose. Instead of voting for anyone but Bush, perhaps you should consider who would be the best man for the job. Oh wait...that's not what Dems do.
Originally posted by SDW2001
2) There are more trees in the US today than during the revolutionary war.
Proof, please.
I asked for it when you posted this in another thread last year, too ...
Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm having a hard time finding any proof of this.
I did, however, find this web page which states the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America still has 70 percent of the forest land it had in pre-Colonial days?about 737 million acres today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trees in planters along Rodeo Drive don't count. I'll give you tree farms, with some reservation.