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?
From the BLS:
January 2004, Total Number of Employed Persons: 136,924,000
January 2001, Total Number of Employed Persons: 135,999,000
That shows 1,000,000....but either way, we have not lost "3,000,000" jobs. It's simply untrue.
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.
I don't see what you mean. You're making a distinction between the attitudes of John Kerry and George W. Bush. But demanding respect isn't just a necessary condition for John Kerry- it's a necessary condition for all Presidential candidates. Do you usually vote for someone who you disrespect? Bush's informal diction and cocksure attitude demands that voters respect him for sounding down-to-earth and resolute. He doesn't do it because people will think he's unintelligent, narrow-minded, and tunnel-visioned. Perhaps you meant something more specific? Again, all candidates want to be respected.
Kerry doesn´t look like he cares. Simply put he stands out as a technocrat. Running against that kind of candidate is the dream for Bush. Not because he will tear up Kerry in the debates but he will stand out as more "likeable" and "not lose" just like with Gore. The right guy could floor Bush anytime but Kerry isn´t that guy.
Kerry doesn´t look like he cares. Simply put he stands out as a technocrat. Running against that kind of candidate is the dream for Bush. Not because he will tear up Kerry in the debates but he will stand out as more "likeable" and "not lose" just like with Gore. The right guy could floor Bush anytime but Kerry isn´t that guy.
You know that isn't really what I asked, but I'll bite. What qualities does this mythical "right guy" possess? So far, according to you, a necessary condition for "flooring Bush" is to not be perceived as a technocrat. Now I don't see what's inherently self-defeating about being a technocrat.
I also think he would stand in stark contrast to President Bush --but in terms of expertise, eloquence, and an ability to substantively and effectively respond to debate questions. Remember two things: 1) John Kerry doesn't have a perceived "personality problem" like Gore did. 2) George W. Bush ran as a moderate in 2000 with nothing really to back it up. Kerry can get to the heart of Bush's record this time and cut through any bullshit. The guy is a forceful speaker who can certainly connect better than Gore. Plus, there is a lot of disenchantment with Bush. I know Kerry can tap that during the debates and over the course of the campaign. Bush isn't even a popular president-- his numbers match up with Kerry's at this stage of the campaign.
" Weighing in the background, the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment last week rose to 363,000 from a revised 357,000 the previous week, coming in above forecasts. "
It's a little early to start counting your Bush colored economic eggs.
Why do you think his popularity's sinking?
After what we've been through people don't trust him anymore. At this point that can easily sink an election.
Kerry doesn´t look like he cares. Simply put he stands out as a technocrat. Running against that kind of candidate is the dream for Bush. Not because he will tear up Kerry in the debates but he will stand out as more "likeable" and "not lose" just like with Gore. The right guy could floor Bush anytime but Kerry isn´t that guy.
Why Anders since when did you become so conservative ( a joke )?
All Kerry would have to do is ask the right questions based on Bush's record from the last 4 years. An advantage Gore didn't have back in 1999.
You see we know all about George W Bush now.
Plus something that people seem to forget. Bush won on a fluke last time. He didn't win the popular vote and won by electorial college due to record low voter turnout. After the last 4 years I don't think people are going to be so apathetic this time.
Also Kerry doesn't have to deal with the fallout from Clinton's little romp in the oval office. After that it was an easy call to say we were going to have a republican president next.
So a lot of different influences are in play this time.
You both have a point. One of Bush's main strengths is that he is generally likeable to the average joe. He speaks plainly and does have a certain charm. People who have met him say in person he is very disarming and warm. This works to his advantage.
Now, to Shawn's credit: Kerry isn't as bad as Gore personally. Gore did have a serious personality problem. Worse, he couldn't decide who he was as a person, much less a candidate. He also had a bad habit of fibbing about past events...which is something he has been called on many times. Now, as for Kerry, well I think he still has a personality problem. He's extremely stiff and it's obvious that he's trying very hard to sound Presidential. He tends to speak in a monotone and looks like a statue. This is going to hurt him, because he certainly does not come off as "warm" in any way.
Kerry does speak better than Bush. Bush does speeches better than he does interviews, and just the opposite is true for Kerry. I respect Kerry's intelligence and I do think he has better judgment than Gore or Clinton. However, Kerry has a danger of coming off as a boring know-it-all like Gore did. People don't want too much detail, and as sad as that is, it's the way elections are. Finally, Kerry has some possibly fatal flaws:
1) He has flopped on many, many issues. Ex: The death penalty for terrorists and his former support of gay marriage. Both of these are proven, with the former being documented on audio tape in a debate, and the latter being documented in a letter. As for Iraq, there are taped statements as recently as January 2003 (which I've heard) in which he says that our government believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's for years, and that me must act.
2) This scandal could at least cause him problems. We'll see.
3) He had an association with really radical folks after the Vietnam war. I'm not sure how much of an issue this will be, but it could be potentially bad for him.
4) His voting record borders on not just liberal but extreme. He has voted to cut the military, intelligence services, etc.
5) He voted for the war. He can say it was just an authorization for force, but he voted for it and it may hurt him.
Well, for one, I would say the Dems need a "new Democrat" again. Clinton ran as this and won, though he didn't govern that way. Kerry cannot run as a moderate, in part because I think Dean pulled him to the Left initially. The dems need a fiscally conservative, strong on national security, reformist candidate. Kerry hasn't really proposed anything, other than beating Bush and repealing some of the tax cuts. I'm not saying some of his criticisms aren't valid or smart to make politcally, but he hasn't really told us what he'll do yet. Has he? This is one of the reasons I think Bush will win. Bush is going to come out and lay out an agenda. What is Kerry's agenda? "working with global village?" "Not alienating our allies?" "standing up to special interests?". I just don't see it. Do you, honestly?
Now, jimmac:
I agree with you about Clinton's "romp" hurting Gore. Though, I still think Gore should have asked for Clinton's help more. It was one of his many miscalculations that continue to this day (endorsing Dean? giving a speech about global warming on the coldest day of the decade WTF?).
As far as Bush winning on a fluke: I'm not sure that's fair. Bush won a very close election. That's kind of how I see it. We could point to any election and say it was a fluke. I could easily say the same about Bush 41 and Clinton, where unique set of factors combined to lead to Bush's defeat (the economy, a lousy campaign, a broken tax pledge, Ross Perot). Bush won VERY narrowly, but I'm not sure it wasa fluke. As for the popular vote, it's true he did lose it. But, as I've said many times, what would that vote have been if the state of Florida hadn't been called early? There are documented cases of Bush supporters and even campaign workers who got out of line by the hundreds (even thousands) once they heard the state was called. Some estiamtes say that calling the state early may have cost Bush 10,000 votes in Florida panhandle (where the polls closed later)....and an area that is heavily Republican. When extrapolated nation-wide to the polling areas that were still open, the number becomes 2,000,000 lost votes for Bush. Surely you can admit that the media's screw up cost Bush votes? Either way, "fluke" is not the right word.
As for the economy, your first link is totally out of date. The second is about a one-day snapshot of the markets.
The overall economy is very strong. Growth is strong, and growth begets jobs eventually. Unemployment is now steadily dropping. No reasonable person can look at the overall economic picture and say it's not good. As for Bush's popularity, it is sinking for a lot of reasons, one of them being John Kerry's media saturation. He also has really yet to begin his campaign. He's endured an assault lately that has hurt him....whether some of the criticisms are valid or not.
Oh, and one more thing: Bush 41 was down 17 points to Dukakis as of July 1988. That's polling for you.
Well, for one, I would say the Dems need a "new Democrat" again. Clinton ran as this and won, though he didn't govern that way. Kerry cannot run as a moderate, in part because I think Dean pulled him to the Left initially. The dems need a fiscally conservative, strong on national security, reformist candidate. Kerry hasn't really proposed anything, other than beating Bush and repealing some of the tax cuts. I'm not saying some of his criticisms aren't valid or smart to make politcally, but he hasn't really told us what he'll do yet. Has he? This is one of the reasons I think Bush will win. Bush is going to come out and lay out an agenda. What is Kerry's agenda? "working with global village?" "Not alienating our allies?" "standing up to special interests?". I just don't see it. Do you, honestly?
Now, jimmac:
I agree with you about Clinton's "romp" hurting Gore. Though, I still think Gore should have asked for Clinton's help more. It was one of his many miscalculations that continue to this day (endorsing Dean? giving a speech about global warming on the coldest day of the decade WTF?).
As far as Bush winning on a fluke: I'm not sure that's fair. Bush won a very close election. That's kind of how I see it. We could point to any election and say it was a fluke. I could easily say the same about Bush 41 and Clinton, where unique set of factors combined to lead to Bush's defeat (the economy, a lousy campaign, a broken tax pledge, Ross Perot). Bush won VERY narrowly, but I'm not sure it wasa fluke. As for the popular vote, it's true he did lose it. But, as I've said many times, what would that vote have been if the state of Florida hadn't been called early? There are documented cases of Bush supporters and even campaign workers who got out of line by the hundreds (even thousands) once they heard the state was called. Some estiamtes say that calling the state early may have cost Bush 10,000 votes in Florida panhandle (where the polls closed later)....and an area that is heavily Republican. When extrapolated nation-wide to the polling areas that were still open, the number becomes 2,000,000 lost votes for Bush. Surely you can admit that the media's screw up cost Bush votes? Either way, "fluke" is not the right word.
As for the economy, your first link is totally out of date. The second is about a one-day snapshot of the markets.
The overall economy is very strong. Growth is strong, and growth begets jobs eventually. Unemployment is now steadily dropping. No reasonable person can look at the overall economic picture and say it's not good. As for Bush's popularity, it is sinking for a lot of reasons, one of them being John Kerry's media saturation. He also has really yet to begin his campaign. He's endured an assault lately that has hurt him....whether some of the criticisms are valid or not.
Oh, and one more thing: Bush 41 was down 17 points to Dukakis as of July 1988. That's polling for you.
I can see you haven't been following our conversation. My first link was in reference to the past on purpose.
I said :
" And jobs? Well since we've had record unemployment for quite awhile now gaining two million isn't so good. "
And you said :
" 2. We HAVE NOT HAD RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT IN ANY SENSE OF THAT TERM. Jesus Christ! You can't be serious! "
In the two years since terrorists attacked the US, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia and Iran without firing a shot, and captured a mass murderer who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack on the US.
By comparison, let's clear up some points about this unilaterist President:
Bush didn't start the war on terror. It was started by terrorists on 9/11, and before. 600 soldiers died since, or an average of 300 a year.
FDR led the US into World War II. Germany didn't attack the US: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 US lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked the US. From 1950-1953, 55,000 US lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked the US.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 US lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked the US.
4) His [Kerry's] voting record borders on not just liberal but extreme. He has voted to cut the military, intelligence services, etc.
[...]
What constitutes "extreme" in the U.S.?
I am not sure what Kerry's actual vote was for, but I would have thought that questioning whether the current level of spending on the military is necessary for security is a reasonable position within normal political discourse, not an extremist one. Can it not at least be argued that a healthy proportion of current military spending is just "feeding the machine" and is not actually necessary?
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.
1) Mostly in timber plantations, dense, mono species grids that no sane person would consider a "forest".
2) An oft repeated timber industry lie. The US Forest services figures show steady decline throughout the last two centuries. There has been modest regrowth in the East, as the focus of logging has shifted to the pacific northwest.
3) Sure it would. After Maxim corp acquired Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buy-out, they moved to "liquidate the assets" they had acquired to pay for the deal. Their haste to clear cut forests that had once seen local stewardship, including old growth redwood, was largely responsible for the heated battles of the 80's and 90's over the fate of Northern California forests.
4) Just like "over-regulation" of the fishing industry put fisherman out of work-- oh wait, after fighting regulation tooth and nail they watched the collapse of their fisheries due to massive over fishing.
Um... I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that as a 25 year veteran of the timber industry your father might be a tad biased?
1) Mostly in timber plantations, dense, mono species grids that no sane person would consider a "forest".
2) An oft repeated timber industry lie. The US Forest services figures show steady decline throughout the last two centuries. There has been modest regrowth in the East, as the focus of logging has shifted to the pacific northwest.
3) Sure it would. After Maxim corp acquired Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buy-out, they moved to "liquidate the assets" they had acquired to pay for the deal. Their haste to clear cut forests that had once seen local stewardship, including old growth redwood, was largely responsible for the heated battles of the 80's and 90's over the fate of Northern California forests.
4) Just like "over-regulation" of the fishing industry put fisherman out of work-- oh wait, after fighting regulation tooth and nail they watched the collapse of their fisheries due to massive over fishing.
Um... I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that as a 25 year veteran of the timber industry your father might be a tad biased?
1) Mostly in timber plantations, dense, mono species grids that no sane person would consider a "forest".
2) An oft repeated timber industry lie. The US Forest services figures show steady decline throughout the last two centuries. There has been modest regrowth in the East, as the focus of logging has shifted to the pacific northwest.
3) Sure it would. After Maxim corp acquired Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buy-out, they moved to "liquidate the assets" they had acquired to pay for the deal. Their haste to clear cut forests that had once seen local stewardship, including old growth redwood, was largely responsible for the heated battles of the 80's and 90's over the fate of Northern California forests.
4) Just like "over-regulation" of the fishing industry put fisherman out of work-- oh wait, after fighting regulation tooth and nail they watched the collapse of their fisheries due to massive over fishing.
Um... I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that as a 25 year veteran of the timber industry your father might be a tad biased?
Well, that post saved me a lot of typing.
Also, the assertion that forest policy during the Clinton years is responsible for an increase in forest fires is pure Bull! It is nearly a century of fire suppression that has lead to huge loads of unburned fuel that is the main cause of large fires.
Changes in forest management during the Clinton years were implemented to change that, but these days little money is being provided for the forest thinning that is needed to bring back a balance. The thinning that Bush says he supports is nothing more than logging companies coming in and taking the big profitable trees and leaving scrub behind!
Another reason you are going to see some huge fires in the coming years around where I am living now in New Mexico is that years of drought have weakened trees so much that they are dyeing from attack from disease and bark beetles. Whole hillsides have gone from green to orange with up to 80% of the trees dead. Coming from still green Seattle I hadn't realized how bad things have gotten down here. Of course Bush doesn't believe in Global Warming so nothing to be done about it from his point of view.
Unless you have the numbers, I can't agree. As for my father, he's never been in a large corporation. He's a small independent business, and is certainly no "timber industry tool".
The real myth is that the timber industry is slashing and burning our precious natural resources. In fact, much of their activity does prevent fires, because in the process of logging, a lot of the dead material/wood is removed as well. Some of the large fires in Arizona are in areas where federal forest regulations forced the closing of many sawmills. Was this a coincidence?
Oh, and on the "timber farms" point: I'm aware of what you're talking about, but what is the problem? They have a very sophisticated harvesting system that ensures continued availability of a renewable resource.
Thats right SDW2001 when you remove the fuel for fire (including the trees) you pretty much end the possibility of trees burning.
There are ways for the timber industry to be environmentally sound. Its not a black and white situation, it is just that most timber companies (all?) practice methods that do in fact damage the environment.
In the two years since terrorists attacked the US, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia and Iran without firing a shot, and captured a mass murderer who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack on the US.
By comparison, let's clear up some points about this unilaterist President:
Bush didn't start the war on terror. It was started by terrorists on 9/11, and before. 600 soldiers died since, or an average of 300 a year.
FDR led the US into World War II. Germany didn't attack the US: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 US lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked the US. From 1950-1953, 55,000 US lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked the US.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 US lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked the US.
Actually the conflict in Vietnam had been going for about 200 years before JFK. The north and south had been at it for some time. It was then stirred up by the french and carried on by the americans. Also it's been said that JFK wanted to pull his advisors out of Vietnam before the conflict grew larger but he never got the chance of course.
As for Bush since he's been in office he's started a conflict on a false premise. Lied to the american people about it ( I don't buy the bad intel data defense but even if that were true it would mean he and his staff are incompetent ).
Also he's made a mess out of the economy and raised the deficit to new stellar hights. Beating Ronald Raygun's record ( the spelling is on purpose, an old joke from the period ). Not to mention he's Robin Hood in reverse ( he takes from the poor to give to the rich ).
Now he's desperately trying to cover his tracks before election time. Yeah a real piece of work that guy!
Out of your list I"ve never had any love for Johnson or Bush. Truman or FDR were before my time but seem to be painted by history as honorable men.
Of course you've left out the war in Vietnam didn't become really bad until Nixon took over. During his time it accelerated and started to expand beyond it boarders into Cambodia. Johnson left office in 68' so are you reading this from a book or what?
Of course Reagan attacked Grenada who never attacked us.............
Of course I really don't expect you would fill in the blanks on these things.
In your world, Kennedy would have withdrawn had he not been shot. There's no proof of this of course, but that's your world for you.
In your world, Bush lied even though there is absolutely no evidence to support your conclusion.
In your world, the False Dilemma reigns supreme. "Either they lied or were incompetent" is your favorite line re: Iraq. When the nation's intel services provide intelligence that's utterly wrong, that doesn't make anyone incompetent, except for the intel services themselves. Would you have known the difference between "good" intel and "bad" intel? By the way, the "bad" intel is the intel that our government believed through Clinton's term, and it's the same intel Clinton used to justify bombing in 1998. Imagine that.
In your world, Bush brought down the economy. This doesn't hold a drop of water however, because the first signs of economic slowdown were detected in March of 2000 with the fall of the Nasdaq. By December 2000, companies such as Apple (for example) were issuing warnings based on a "global economic slowdown". There is nothing Bush, (nor anyone else) could have done to affect ANY aspect of the economy in the three months it took for us to go into "recession" after he took office. What Bush DID do was cut taxes, which which undoubtedly helped the economy. And now, after 9/11, recession, corporate scandals (which I'm sure you blame Bush for as well) and a war, the economy is growing at 4-5%, unemployment is down and falling, and the markets are at 2 1/2 year highs. Ummm...what did Bush do to the economy again?
Also in your world, Nixon caused the quagmire in Vietnam. Never mind that when Nixon took office, the war began to go BETTER. Nixon, despite being corrupt, was brilliant with foreign policy and the running of a war.
And most laughably, in your world Reaganomics didn't work, even though it most likely saved this nation from not just recession, but full scale depression. Ronald Reagan is going to go down in history with FDR and Lincoln, for pete's sake. Reagan understood that the United States had to negotiate from a position of strength, which yes, cost money. This brings me to the deficit: The deficit is NOT at record highs as a percentage of GDP. And I must ask....if we had someone else in office, do you really believe we wouldn't have a deficit? Of course we would, because when the economy slows, revenue drops.
Thats right SDW2001 when you remove the fuel for fire (including the trees) you pretty much end the possibility of trees burning.
There are ways for the timber industry to be environmentally sound. Its not a black and white situation, it is just that most timber companies (all?) practice methods that do in fact damage the environment.
Comments
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?
From the BLS:
January 2004, Total Number of Employed Persons: 136,924,000
January 2001, Total Number of Employed Persons: 135,999,000
That shows 1,000,000....but either way, we have not lost "3,000,000" jobs. It's simply untrue.
Originally posted by Anders
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.
I don't see what you mean. You're making a distinction between the attitudes of John Kerry and George W. Bush. But demanding respect isn't just a necessary condition for John Kerry- it's a necessary condition for all Presidential candidates. Do you usually vote for someone who you disrespect? Bush's informal diction and cocksure attitude demands that voters respect him for sounding down-to-earth and resolute. He doesn't do it because people will think he's unintelligent, narrow-minded, and tunnel-visioned. Perhaps you meant something more specific? Again, all candidates want to be respected.
Originally posted by Anders
Kerry doesn´t look like he cares. Simply put he stands out as a technocrat. Running against that kind of candidate is the dream for Bush. Not because he will tear up Kerry in the debates but he will stand out as more "likeable" and "not lose" just like with Gore. The right guy could floor Bush anytime but Kerry isn´t that guy.
You know that isn't really what I asked, but I'll bite. What qualities does this mythical "right guy" possess? So far, according to you, a necessary condition for "flooring Bush" is to not be perceived as a technocrat. Now I don't see what's inherently self-defeating about being a technocrat.
I also think he would stand in stark contrast to President Bush --but in terms of expertise, eloquence, and an ability to substantively and effectively respond to debate questions. Remember two things: 1) John Kerry doesn't have a perceived "personality problem" like Gore did. 2) George W. Bush ran as a moderate in 2000 with nothing really to back it up. Kerry can get to the heart of Bush's record this time and cut through any bullshit. The guy is a forceful speaker who can certainly connect better than Gore. Plus, there is a lot of disenchantment with Bush. I know Kerry can tap that during the debates and over the course of the campaign. Bush isn't even a popular president-- his numbers match up with Kerry's at this stage of the campaign.
Originally posted by SDW2001
From the BLS:
January 2004, Total Number of Employed Persons: 136,924,000
January 2001, Total Number of Employed Persons: 135,999,000
That shows 1,000,000....but either way, we have not lost "3,000,000" jobs. It's simply untrue.
SDW,
Read this article from not even a year ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/01/pf/s...ffrx/index.htm
From the begining of the article :
" NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - With the labor market in its worst slump since World War II, "
Now what do you think they were saying there?
While things are starting to look up they aren't really there yet.
Here's a little something from today.......
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/12/mark...index.htm#econ
Here's a sample :
" Weighing in the background, the number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment last week rose to 363,000 from a revised 357,000 the previous week, coming in above forecasts. "
It's a little early to start counting your Bush colored economic eggs.
Why do you think his popularity's sinking?
After what we've been through people don't trust him anymore. At this point that can easily sink an election.
Originally posted by Anders
Kerry doesn´t look like he cares. Simply put he stands out as a technocrat. Running against that kind of candidate is the dream for Bush. Not because he will tear up Kerry in the debates but he will stand out as more "likeable" and "not lose" just like with Gore. The right guy could floor Bush anytime but Kerry isn´t that guy.
Why Anders since when did you become so conservative ( a joke )?
All Kerry would have to do is ask the right questions based on Bush's record from the last 4 years. An advantage Gore didn't have back in 1999.
You see we know all about George W Bush now.
Plus something that people seem to forget. Bush won on a fluke last time. He didn't win the popular vote and won by electorial college due to record low voter turnout. After the last 4 years I don't think people are going to be so apathetic this time.
Also Kerry doesn't have to deal with the fallout from Clinton's little romp in the oval office. After that it was an easy call to say we were going to have a republican president next.
So a lot of different influences are in play this time.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 10-11, 2004. Registered voters nationwide (from a total sample of 1,003 adults). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.
"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush, the Republican, or for John Kerry, the Democrat?"
George W. Bush 43%
John Kerry 52%
Other/Neither (vol.) 3%
Wouldn't Vote (vol.) 1%
No Opinion 1%
Yes yes... I know we're 9 months away... but the margin as widen a little.
You both have a point. One of Bush's main strengths is that he is generally likeable to the average joe. He speaks plainly and does have a certain charm. People who have met him say in person he is very disarming and warm. This works to his advantage.
Now, to Shawn's credit: Kerry isn't as bad as Gore personally. Gore did have a serious personality problem. Worse, he couldn't decide who he was as a person, much less a candidate. He also had a bad habit of fibbing about past events...which is something he has been called on many times. Now, as for Kerry, well I think he still has a personality problem. He's extremely stiff and it's obvious that he's trying very hard to sound Presidential. He tends to speak in a monotone and looks like a statue. This is going to hurt him, because he certainly does not come off as "warm" in any way.
Kerry does speak better than Bush. Bush does speeches better than he does interviews, and just the opposite is true for Kerry. I respect Kerry's intelligence and I do think he has better judgment than Gore or Clinton. However, Kerry has a danger of coming off as a boring know-it-all like Gore did. People don't want too much detail, and as sad as that is, it's the way elections are. Finally, Kerry has some possibly fatal flaws:
1) He has flopped on many, many issues. Ex: The death penalty for terrorists and his former support of gay marriage. Both of these are proven, with the former being documented on audio tape in a debate, and the latter being documented in a letter. As for Iraq, there are taped statements as recently as January 2003 (which I've heard) in which he says that our government believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's for years, and that me must act.
2) This scandal could at least cause him problems. We'll see.
3) He had an association with really radical folks after the Vietnam war. I'm not sure how much of an issue this will be, but it could be potentially bad for him.
4) His voting record borders on not just liberal but extreme. He has voted to cut the military, intelligence services, etc.
5) He voted for the war. He can say it was just an authorization for force, but he voted for it and it may hurt him.
Shawn, you asked who the right guy would be?
Well, for one, I would say the Dems need a "new Democrat" again. Clinton ran as this and won, though he didn't govern that way. Kerry cannot run as a moderate, in part because I think Dean pulled him to the Left initially. The dems need a fiscally conservative, strong on national security, reformist candidate. Kerry hasn't really proposed anything, other than beating Bush and repealing some of the tax cuts. I'm not saying some of his criticisms aren't valid or smart to make politcally, but he hasn't really told us what he'll do yet. Has he? This is one of the reasons I think Bush will win. Bush is going to come out and lay out an agenda. What is Kerry's agenda? "working with global village?" "Not alienating our allies?" "standing up to special interests?". I just don't see it. Do you, honestly?
Now, jimmac:
I agree with you about Clinton's "romp" hurting Gore. Though, I still think Gore should have asked for Clinton's help more. It was one of his many miscalculations that continue to this day (endorsing Dean? giving a speech about global warming on the coldest day of the decade WTF?).
As far as Bush winning on a fluke: I'm not sure that's fair. Bush won a very close election. That's kind of how I see it. We could point to any election and say it was a fluke. I could easily say the same about Bush 41 and Clinton, where unique set of factors combined to lead to Bush's defeat (the economy, a lousy campaign, a broken tax pledge, Ross Perot). Bush won VERY narrowly, but I'm not sure it wasa fluke. As for the popular vote, it's true he did lose it. But, as I've said many times, what would that vote have been if the state of Florida hadn't been called early? There are documented cases of Bush supporters and even campaign workers who got out of line by the hundreds (even thousands) once they heard the state was called. Some estiamtes say that calling the state early may have cost Bush 10,000 votes in Florida panhandle (where the polls closed later)....and an area that is heavily Republican. When extrapolated nation-wide to the polling areas that were still open, the number becomes 2,000,000 lost votes for Bush. Surely you can admit that the media's screw up cost Bush votes? Either way, "fluke" is not the right word.
As for the economy, your first link is totally out of date. The second is about a one-day snapshot of the markets.
The overall economy is very strong. Growth is strong, and growth begets jobs eventually. Unemployment is now steadily dropping. No reasonable person can look at the overall economic picture and say it's not good. As for Bush's popularity, it is sinking for a lot of reasons, one of them being John Kerry's media saturation. He also has really yet to begin his campaign. He's endured an assault lately that has hurt him....whether some of the criticisms are valid or not.
Oh, and one more thing: Bush 41 was down 17 points to Dukakis as of July 1988. That's polling for you.
Originally posted by SDW2001
To follow up:
Shawn, you asked who the right guy would be?
Well, for one, I would say the Dems need a "new Democrat" again. Clinton ran as this and won, though he didn't govern that way. Kerry cannot run as a moderate, in part because I think Dean pulled him to the Left initially. The dems need a fiscally conservative, strong on national security, reformist candidate. Kerry hasn't really proposed anything, other than beating Bush and repealing some of the tax cuts. I'm not saying some of his criticisms aren't valid or smart to make politcally, but he hasn't really told us what he'll do yet. Has he? This is one of the reasons I think Bush will win. Bush is going to come out and lay out an agenda. What is Kerry's agenda? "working with global village?" "Not alienating our allies?" "standing up to special interests?". I just don't see it. Do you, honestly?
Now, jimmac:
I agree with you about Clinton's "romp" hurting Gore. Though, I still think Gore should have asked for Clinton's help more. It was one of his many miscalculations that continue to this day (endorsing Dean? giving a speech about global warming on the coldest day of the decade WTF?).
As far as Bush winning on a fluke: I'm not sure that's fair. Bush won a very close election. That's kind of how I see it. We could point to any election and say it was a fluke. I could easily say the same about Bush 41 and Clinton, where unique set of factors combined to lead to Bush's defeat (the economy, a lousy campaign, a broken tax pledge, Ross Perot). Bush won VERY narrowly, but I'm not sure it wasa fluke. As for the popular vote, it's true he did lose it. But, as I've said many times, what would that vote have been if the state of Florida hadn't been called early? There are documented cases of Bush supporters and even campaign workers who got out of line by the hundreds (even thousands) once they heard the state was called. Some estiamtes say that calling the state early may have cost Bush 10,000 votes in Florida panhandle (where the polls closed later)....and an area that is heavily Republican. When extrapolated nation-wide to the polling areas that were still open, the number becomes 2,000,000 lost votes for Bush. Surely you can admit that the media's screw up cost Bush votes? Either way, "fluke" is not the right word.
As for the economy, your first link is totally out of date. The second is about a one-day snapshot of the markets.
The overall economy is very strong. Growth is strong, and growth begets jobs eventually. Unemployment is now steadily dropping. No reasonable person can look at the overall economic picture and say it's not good. As for Bush's popularity, it is sinking for a lot of reasons, one of them being John Kerry's media saturation. He also has really yet to begin his campaign. He's endured an assault lately that has hurt him....whether some of the criticisms are valid or not.
Oh, and one more thing: Bush 41 was down 17 points to Dukakis as of July 1988. That's polling for you.
I can see you haven't been following our conversation. My first link was in reference to the past on purpose.
I said :
" And jobs? Well since we've had record unemployment for quite awhile now gaining two million isn't so good. "
And you said :
" 2. We HAVE NOT HAD RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT IN ANY SENSE OF THAT TERM. Jesus Christ! You can't be serious! "
That's why it was an old link!
Get it?
" Growth is strong " http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/13/mark...york/index.htm
All Kerry has to do is raise some rather obvious questions about how things have been while Bush has been in office.
Face it if Bush wins again he'd have to be extremely lucky.
I love how you compare this poll with something from 15 years ago with a totally different set of circumstances.
You really sound like you're in denial ( A speech about global warming on a cold day? ).
Face it! Bush is going down!
By comparison, let's clear up some points about this unilaterist President:
Bush didn't start the war on terror. It was started by terrorists on 9/11, and before. 600 soldiers died since, or an average of 300 a year.
FDR led the US into World War II. Germany didn't attack the US: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 US lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked the US. From 1950-1953, 55,000 US lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked the US.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 US lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked the US.
Originally posted by SDW2001
[..]
4) His [Kerry's] voting record borders on not just liberal but extreme. He has voted to cut the military, intelligence services, etc.
[...]
What constitutes "extreme" in the U.S.?
I am not sure what Kerry's actual vote was for, but I would have thought that questioning whether the current level of spending on the military is necessary for security is a reasonable position within normal political discourse, not an extremist one. Can it not at least be argued that a healthy proportion of current military spending is just "feeding the machine" and is not actually necessary?
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
1) Mostly in timber plantations, dense, mono species grids that no sane person would consider a "forest".
2) An oft repeated timber industry lie. The US Forest services figures show steady decline throughout the last two centuries. There has been modest regrowth in the East, as the focus of logging has shifted to the pacific northwest.
3) Sure it would. After Maxim corp acquired Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buy-out, they moved to "liquidate the assets" they had acquired to pay for the deal. Their haste to clear cut forests that had once seen local stewardship, including old growth redwood, was largely responsible for the heated battles of the 80's and 90's over the fate of Northern California forests.
4) Just like "over-regulation" of the fishing industry put fisherman out of work-- oh wait, after fighting regulation tooth and nail they watched the collapse of their fisheries due to massive over fishing.
Um... I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that as a 25 year veteran of the timber industry your father might be a tad biased?
Originally posted by addabox
1) Mostly in timber plantations, dense, mono species grids that no sane person would consider a "forest".
2) An oft repeated timber industry lie. The US Forest services figures show steady decline throughout the last two centuries. There has been modest regrowth in the East, as the focus of logging has shifted to the pacific northwest.
3) Sure it would. After Maxim corp acquired Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buy-out, they moved to "liquidate the assets" they had acquired to pay for the deal. Their haste to clear cut forests that had once seen local stewardship, including old growth redwood, was largely responsible for the heated battles of the 80's and 90's over the fate of Northern California forests.
4) Just like "over-regulation" of the fishing industry put fisherman out of work-- oh wait, after fighting regulation tooth and nail they watched the collapse of their fisheries due to massive over fishing.
Um... I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that as a 25 year veteran of the timber industry your father might be a tad biased?
Good post
1) Mostly in timber plantations, dense, mono species grids that no sane person would consider a "forest".
2) An oft repeated timber industry lie. The US Forest services figures show steady decline throughout the last two centuries. There has been modest regrowth in the East, as the focus of logging has shifted to the pacific northwest.
3) Sure it would. After Maxim corp acquired Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buy-out, they moved to "liquidate the assets" they had acquired to pay for the deal. Their haste to clear cut forests that had once seen local stewardship, including old growth redwood, was largely responsible for the heated battles of the 80's and 90's over the fate of Northern California forests.
4) Just like "over-regulation" of the fishing industry put fisherman out of work-- oh wait, after fighting regulation tooth and nail they watched the collapse of their fisheries due to massive over fishing.
Um... I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that as a 25 year veteran of the timber industry your father might be a tad biased?
Well, that post saved me a lot of typing.
Also, the assertion that forest policy during the Clinton years is responsible for an increase in forest fires is pure Bull! It is nearly a century of fire suppression that has lead to huge loads of unburned fuel that is the main cause of large fires.
Changes in forest management during the Clinton years were implemented to change that, but these days little money is being provided for the forest thinning that is needed to bring back a balance. The thinning that Bush says he supports is nothing more than logging companies coming in and taking the big profitable trees and leaving scrub behind!
Another reason you are going to see some huge fires in the coming years around where I am living now in New Mexico is that years of drought have weakened trees so much that they are dyeing from attack from disease and bark beetles. Whole hillsides have gone from green to orange with up to 80% of the trees dead. Coming from still green Seattle I hadn't realized how bad things have gotten down here. Of course Bush doesn't believe in Global Warming so nothing to be done about it from his point of view.
Unless you have the numbers, I can't agree. As for my father, he's never been in a large corporation. He's a small independent business, and is certainly no "timber industry tool".
The real myth is that the timber industry is slashing and burning our precious natural resources. In fact, much of their activity does prevent fires, because in the process of logging, a lot of the dead material/wood is removed as well. Some of the large fires in Arizona are in areas where federal forest regulations forced the closing of many sawmills. Was this a coincidence?
Oh, and on the "timber farms" point: I'm aware of what you're talking about, but what is the problem? They have a very sophisticated harvesting system that ensures continued availability of a renewable resource.
There are ways for the timber industry to be environmentally sound. Its not a black and white situation, it is just that most timber companies (all?) practice methods that do in fact damage the environment.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
In the two years since terrorists attacked the US, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia and Iran without firing a shot, and captured a mass murderer who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack on the US.
By comparison, let's clear up some points about this unilaterist President:
Bush didn't start the war on terror. It was started by terrorists on 9/11, and before. 600 soldiers died since, or an average of 300 a year.
FDR led the US into World War II. Germany didn't attack the US: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 US lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked the US. From 1950-1953, 55,000 US lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked the US.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 US lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked the US.
Actually the conflict in Vietnam had been going for about 200 years before JFK. The north and south had been at it for some time. It was then stirred up by the french and carried on by the americans. Also it's been said that JFK wanted to pull his advisors out of Vietnam before the conflict grew larger but he never got the chance of course.
As for Bush since he's been in office he's started a conflict on a false premise. Lied to the american people about it ( I don't buy the bad intel data defense but even if that were true it would mean he and his staff are incompetent ).
Also he's made a mess out of the economy and raised the deficit to new stellar hights. Beating Ronald Raygun's record ( the spelling is on purpose, an old joke from the period ). Not to mention he's Robin Hood in reverse ( he takes from the poor to give to the rich ).
Now he's desperately trying to cover his tracks before election time. Yeah a real piece of work that guy!
Out of your list I"ve never had any love for Johnson or Bush. Truman or FDR were before my time but seem to be painted by history as honorable men.
Of course you've left out the war in Vietnam didn't become really bad until Nixon took over. During his time it accelerated and started to expand beyond it boarders into Cambodia. Johnson left office in 68' so are you reading this from a book or what?
Of course Reagan attacked Grenada who never attacked us.............
Of course I really don't expect you would fill in the blanks on these things.
In your world, Kennedy would have withdrawn had he not been shot. There's no proof of this of course, but that's your world for you.
In your world, Bush lied even though there is absolutely no evidence to support your conclusion.
In your world, the False Dilemma reigns supreme. "Either they lied or were incompetent" is your favorite line re: Iraq. When the nation's intel services provide intelligence that's utterly wrong, that doesn't make anyone incompetent, except for the intel services themselves. Would you have known the difference between "good" intel and "bad" intel? By the way, the "bad" intel is the intel that our government believed through Clinton's term, and it's the same intel Clinton used to justify bombing in 1998. Imagine that.
In your world, Bush brought down the economy. This doesn't hold a drop of water however, because the first signs of economic slowdown were detected in March of 2000 with the fall of the Nasdaq. By December 2000, companies such as Apple (for example) were issuing warnings based on a "global economic slowdown". There is nothing Bush, (nor anyone else) could have done to affect ANY aspect of the economy in the three months it took for us to go into "recession" after he took office. What Bush DID do was cut taxes, which which undoubtedly helped the economy. And now, after 9/11, recession, corporate scandals (which I'm sure you blame Bush for as well) and a war, the economy is growing at 4-5%, unemployment is down and falling, and the markets are at 2 1/2 year highs. Ummm...what did Bush do to the economy again?
Also in your world, Nixon caused the quagmire in Vietnam. Never mind that when Nixon took office, the war began to go BETTER. Nixon, despite being corrupt, was brilliant with foreign policy and the running of a war.
And most laughably, in your world Reaganomics didn't work, even though it most likely saved this nation from not just recession, but full scale depression. Ronald Reagan is going to go down in history with FDR and Lincoln, for pete's sake. Reagan understood that the United States had to negotiate from a position of strength, which yes, cost money. This brings me to the deficit: The deficit is NOT at record highs as a percentage of GDP. And I must ask....if we had someone else in office, do you really believe we wouldn't have a deficit? Of course we would, because when the economy slows, revenue drops.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Thats right SDW2001 when you remove the fuel for fire (including the trees) you pretty much end the possibility of trees burning.
There are ways for the timber industry to be environmentally sound. Its not a black and white situation, it is just that most timber companies (all?) practice methods that do in fact damage the environment.
Such as? What ways?