Me, for starters. I've vacillated, mostly thinking that Bush would win again, but ... you know what? I reckon SDW will be eating crow come November, despite the passion and the laughies when you suggest that:
Kerry will win the nomination. And he'll win.
You make that prediction but don't back it up. I hate to tell you this, but Kerry has very little going for him right now other than media frenzy.
1. Bush will be much better funded.
2. Bush will be seen as a strong wartime President who ousted the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
3. Bush has a much stronger organization.
4. He has cut taxes and will campaign on maing his cuts permanent. Kerry will campaign on rasing taxes on the "rich".
5. Kerry's voting record is far to liberal for much of the electorate. His voting record is weak on intelligence, the military and national security.
6. Despite his military service, there are a lot of skeletons in Kerry's closet, including testimony that he witnessed and did not report (and perhaps participated in) war crimes.
7. Kerry has a personality problem...he may come off as mean and haughty while trying to look Presidential...just as Gore did.
8. Kerry has a lack of issues to run on. He can milk the 'no WMD" thing for awhile...except that he voted for the resolution based on the same intelligence Bush saw. He can run on the jobs number....but that may be different by election time and the overall economy is quite strong. Bush has taken medicare from the Dems...and basically education too (yes, yes, I know..."unfunded mandate".....except that doesn't hold water when you look at the increases in education sending that have actually happened). Bush will run on Social Security reform too, which takes that one away. People don't give a damn about the environment on election day...nor do they give a damn about the deficit.
I hate the Bush regime, but I'm not a big fan of any of the Democrats running either. Of course, I can't really think of any dems I like. At least the republican party has a few interesting individuals.
Bush will win. Hopefully this will lead to a crappy dem winning the next election, and then. . . Ahnold 2012. Yeah, it would require an ammendment, but it was fun watching Meet the Press today. . .
Anyway, ditch as much as you can of the desire to keep government tied to religion and 50's pseudo-communist culture but keep as much capitalism as you can and you've got my vote.
Sadly I think Bush has a good chance of winning, and to quote you twice, all I say is look at your sig and that explains it all.
Sad world when deficit and environment are not card about \ Also I don't know I'd agree that the economy are strong.
Well, don't assume Kerry would be any better on the environment. As for the deficit...well, spending is an issue I fault Bush on. I don't think the public will do the same though.
Well, don't assume Kerry would be any better on the environment. As for the deficit...well, spending is an issue I fault Bush on. I don't think the public will do the same though.
Well although I was implying Bush isn't careful about the environment I didn't mean to imply Kerry was super about it either. I just find it a problem that people don't care much about it when unlike the economy it's not something that can recover in 10 years.
Bush will win. Even if he doesn't pick up a single blue state, he'll win by a bigger margin. Even if he loses New Hampshire, Bush will still win. The blue states lost elctoral votes. The red states gained.
Sorry, no. Spending as a percent of GDP has gone up. Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. And I fault him for that.
Yes, spending has gone up. But is spending more of a problem than the tax cuts? Here's the New Republic's take:
Quote:
The big picture, then, is this: Overall spending has crept up a bit, now taking up 1.6 percent more of the economy than it did when Bush took office, but it remains modest by modern standards. The really spectacular change is in tax revenue, which has fallen from 20.9 percent to 15.8 percent of GDP since Bush took office. The collapse in revenue, in other words, has been more than three times the growth in spending. This year, revenue will account for a smaller share of the economy than in any year since 1950. Now, it's true that much of that revenue loss stems from broader economic factors, not just tax cuts. But, even if you look only at deficit increases caused directly by legislative action, the cost of the tax cuts is still nearly five times the size of all the non-security spending increases and accounts for more than all new spending (defense, homeland security, and domestic) put together._
Why, then, do conservatives fixate on the role of spending in producing the deficit? For one thing, doing so allows them to pressure the Bush administration and Congress to squeeze spending, which is what they want to do anyway. More important, it allows them to avoid acknowledging that they were (and continue to be) spectacularly wrong about the fiscal impact of the Bush tax cuts.
Chris Holmes will win in 2004. A president who is a real republican, not a democrat who tries to win Republican votes by championing a moronic amendment.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
OK, who's ready for official predictions?
Me, for starters. I've vacillated, mostly thinking that Bush would win again, but ... you know what? I reckon SDW will be eating crow come November, despite the passion and the laughies when you suggest that:
Kerry will win the nomination. And he'll win.
You make that prediction but don't back it up. I hate to tell you this, but Kerry has very little going for him right now other than media frenzy.
1. Bush will be much better funded.
2. Bush will be seen as a strong wartime President who ousted the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
3. Bush has a much stronger organization.
4. He has cut taxes and will campaign on maing his cuts permanent. Kerry will campaign on rasing taxes on the "rich".
5. Kerry's voting record is far to liberal for much of the electorate. His voting record is weak on intelligence, the military and national security.
6. Despite his military service, there are a lot of skeletons in Kerry's closet, including testimony that he witnessed and did not report (and perhaps participated in) war crimes.
7. Kerry has a personality problem...he may come off as mean and haughty while trying to look Presidential...just as Gore did.
8. Kerry has a lack of issues to run on. He can milk the 'no WMD" thing for awhile...except that he voted for the resolution based on the same intelligence Bush saw. He can run on the jobs number....but that may be different by election time and the overall economy is quite strong. Bush has taken medicare from the Dems...and basically education too (yes, yes, I know..."unfunded mandate".....except that doesn't hold water when you look at the increases in education sending that have actually happened). Bush will run on Social Security reform too, which takes that one away. People don't give a damn about the environment on election day...nor do they give a damn about the deficit.
Originally posted by SDW2001
People don't give a damn about the environment on election day...nor do they give a damn about the deficit.
Sadly I think Bush has a good chance of winning, and to quote you twice, all I say is look at your sig and that explains it all.
Sad world when deficit and environment are not card about
Bush will win. Hopefully this will lead to a crappy dem winning the next election, and then. . . Ahnold 2012.
Anyway, ditch as much as you can of the desire to keep government tied to religion and 50's pseudo-communist culture but keep as much capitalism as you can and you've got my vote.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Sadly I think Bush has a good chance of winning, and to quote you twice, all I say is look at your sig and that explains it all.
Sad world when deficit and environment are not card about
Well, don't assume Kerry would be any better on the environment. As for the deficit...well, spending is an issue I fault Bush on. I don't think the public will do the same though.
You can't be serious... we've had one bad actor from Kaleeforneyuh as President already... that's plenty.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, don't assume Kerry would be any better on the environment. As for the deficit...well, spending is an issue I fault Bush on. I don't think the public will do the same though.
Well although I was implying Bush isn't careful about the environment I didn't mean to imply Kerry was super about it either. I just find it a problem that people don't care much about it when unlike the economy it's not something that can recover in 10 years.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for the deficit...well, spending is an issue I fault Bush on. I don't think the public will do the same though.
Spending has hardly caused a dent in the deficit. It's the tax cuts that are the problem.
Originally posted by BRussell
Spending has hardly caused a dent in the deficit...
Sorry, no. Spending as a percent of GDP has gone up. Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. And I fault him for that.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Sorry, no. Spending as a percent of GDP has gone up. Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. And I fault him for that.
Yes, spending has gone up. But is spending more of a problem than the tax cuts? Here's the New Republic's take:
The big picture, then, is this: Overall spending has crept up a bit, now taking up 1.6 percent more of the economy than it did when Bush took office, but it remains modest by modern standards. The really spectacular change is in tax revenue, which has fallen from 20.9 percent to 15.8 percent of GDP since Bush took office. The collapse in revenue, in other words, has been more than three times the growth in spending. This year, revenue will account for a smaller share of the economy than in any year since 1950. Now, it's true that much of that revenue loss stems from broader economic factors, not just tax cuts. But, even if you look only at deficit increases caused directly by legislative action, the cost of the tax cuts is still nearly five times the size of all the non-security spending increases and accounts for more than all new spending (defense, homeland security, and domestic) put together._
Why, then, do conservatives fixate on the role of spending in producing the deficit? For one thing, doing so allows them to pressure the Bush administration and Congress to squeeze spending, which is what they want to do anyway. More important, it allows them to avoid acknowledging that they were (and continue to be) spectacularly wrong about the fiscal impact of the Bush tax cuts.