NationStates Jolt Archive

It's quite a motly crew, isn't it? Which one is your favorite (even if you're a republican...just pick your favorite!) I couldn't fit everyone in there so...I'm grouping some people who aren't getting too many votes together.

John Edwards is running for president? What, will he get the dead to all vote for him?

How about Kucinich? You didn't even list him and he is more viable than Leiberman

I like kucinich a lot. But i dont think he will get the votes of the braindead public. He's too intelligent.

How about Kucinich? You didn't even list him and he is more viable than Leiberman

If by viable you mean most likely to insure another 4 years of Bush, right. (regardless of his chances in the primaries).

I like kucinich a lot. But i dont think he will get the votes of the braindead public. He's too intelligent.

Kinda like Gore huh? Kucinich seems much more in touch with the common man. His whole department of peace plan turns me off though. I['m going with Dean, but i do think Kucinich deserves to be on the list.

How about Kucinich? You didn't even list him and he is more viable than Leiberman

If by viable you mean most likely to insure another 4 years of Bush, right. (regardless of his chances in the primaries).

We are getting 4 more years of Bush irregardless. he owns all the voting machines.

How about Kucinich? You didn't even list him and he is more viable than Leiberman

If by viable you mean most likely to insure another 4 years of Bush, right. (regardless of his chances in the primaries).

We are getting 4 more years of Bush irregardless. he owns all the voting machines.

It's the only way he can be elected, that's for sure. Anyone who looks objectively at the country as a whole compared to 2000 has to come to the conclusion that we are worse off under George W Bush.

Dean in 2004!!!

I'm a Republican, but I think that Clark is the one that the Right and Middle would have the least problems with, and probably the best odds in the real election. Dean scares people! Yes, his firebrand talk stirs the left, but it alienates the middle. Either he turns it down, or the Center shifts to the Right... I mean... Go DEAN! :twisted:

Yeah...I forgot Kucinich...but he's really not polling very well at all. Still, if I included Rev. Al, I should have included Kucinich. There's still the other part though.

My personal view (and I'm a Republican) is that if Dean get's the nomination he's going to get beat down George McGovern style. Wesley Clark has the only chance of winning, but he's really just a Republican in Democrat clothing. So, if I were a Democrat I would definitly go with Dean.

I'm a Republican, but I think that Clark is the one that the Right and Middle would have the least problems with, and probably the best odds in the real election. Dean scares people! Yes, his firebrand talk stirs the left, but it alienates the middle. Either he turns it down, or the Center shifts to the Right... I mean... Go DEAN! :twisted:

The democrats can't win by shifting to the right. the Republicans have moved so far to the right that Nixon looks like a Liberal.

I'm a Republican, but I think that Clark is the one that the Right and Middle would have the least problems with, and probably the best odds in the real election. Dean scares people! Yes, his firebrand talk stirs the left, but it alienates the middle. Either he turns it down, or the Center shifts to the Right... I mean... Go DEAN! :twisted:

The democrats can't win by shifting to the right. the Republicans have moved so far to the right that Nixon looks like a Liberal.

Ain't it great?
Seriously: Dean will get smacked in the election unless he calms his rhetoric.

I'm a Republican, but I think that Clark is the one that the Right and Middle would have the least problems with, and probably the best odds in the real election. Dean scares people! Yes, his firebrand talk stirs the left, but it alienates the middle. Either he turns it down, or the Center shifts to the Right... I mean... Go DEAN! :twisted:

The democrats can't win by shifting to the right. the Republicans have moved so far to the right that Nixon looks like a Liberal.

Ha...well...that's actually fairly accurate, although I would say that Nixon was always fairly liberal, for a Republican (he kept most of the Great Society stuff).

Anyway, I think the problem is that the liberal agenda simply isn't supported by the majority of voters in the United States. Every single truely liberal presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson has lost. I would consider Bill Clinton to be fairly moderate actually. So, the idea that the Dems need to move to the center isn't something that they just thought up for fun, it's a political necessity.

I'm a Republican, but I think that Clark is the one that the Right and Middle would have the least problems with, and probably the best odds in the real election. Dean scares people! Yes, his firebrand talk stirs the left, but it alienates the middle. Either he turns it down, or the Center shifts to the Right... I mean... Go DEAN! :twisted:

The democrats can't win by shifting to the right. the Republicans have moved so far to the right that Nixon looks like a Liberal.

Ha...well...that's actually fairly accurate, although I would say that Nixon was always fairly liberal, for a Republican (he kept most of the Great Society stuff).

Anyway, I think the problem is that the liberal agenda simply isn't supported by the majority of voters in the United States. Every single truely liberal presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson has lost. I would consider Bill Clinton to be fairly moderate actually. So, the idea that the Dems need to move to the center isn't something that they just thought up for fun, it's a political necessity.

And Dean is moderate--he's a fiscal conservative and in favor of gun rights and capital punishment. The only place he can be considered very liberal is in the matter of gay rights, and not only do I agree with his stance, I respect his decision to stand up for his decision no matter the political consequences, and so do a lot of moderates and conservatives who have joined his campaign. Don't believe the Republican rhetoric--Dean is Bush's worst nightmare and he knows it.

I like kucinich a lot. But i dont think he will get the votes of the braindead public. He's too intelligent.

Now that's funny.

Wesley's the only one i know. :?

I like kucinich a lot. But i dont think he will get the votes of the braindead public. He's too intelligent.

:idea: I dunno... Willie Nelson is endorsing Kucinich and Willie Nelson can deliver the stoner vote... oh, wait... we always "forget' to vote

Although being an Australian and not avidly following American politics, I have still heard a bit about Dean, nothing really on any of the others except Liebmann.

:wink: Just a trivial thing in Australia the Democrats are a minor party which get about 3-5% of the votes. :wink:

I like Lieberman. He's really the only guy in the Democratic race that I even respect (yes, I'm a Republican and yes I will be voting for Bush regardless--'cause I think he's done a great job--but Lieberman would have the best chance of getting my vote out of any of the Dems).

Ted Nugent for President! He'd at least bring some common sense to the oval office, (not to mention a stuffed boar's head).

I personally like Kerry the most--I know that makes me sound like a fool, but in all honesty, he has had the most informative answers to most questions in debates than anyone else running. However, there are times when Kerry can't seem to get away from linking the Vietnam War to any and every subject; he also tends to get mixed up about his stance on the Iraq War. Unfortunately, he probably won't be nominated because of these things...
But I think the race really is about how the voters feel about Congress. I think if people are tired of a Republican Congress, then they will vote for Clark. Understand, the American voter tends to elect the opposite party to control the Congress than the President's party. In this case, I think that people will recognize that Clark is the closest to being a Republican than any other nominee and that he has the best chance against an embattled Bush. On the other hand, if the people think that Bush is really the problem, and they think that a Democratic President should counter the Republican Congress, then the voters will most likely vote for Dean.

where is my fav... AL GORE?!? :evil:

jk jk 8)

umm.. i like lieberman :D

Ted Nugent for President! He'd at least bring some common sense to the oval office, (not to mention a stuffed boar's head).

:idea: The only thing worse than an ultra-liberal is a Chicken-Hawk... Ted Nugent is the worst of the worst...

Maxine Waters represents the average Demcrat pretty well. Hates everybody, has no good ideas, and has never met a tax she doesn't like. Nominate Maxine The Non Stealth Candidate! 8)

LOL at "makes Nixon look like a liberal". Nixon WAS a liberal, that's why he was elected president.

Of course Nixon was a liberal. He signed amongst other bills, the earned income tax credit, WIC, and started OHSA. Whilst the Dems take credit for that type of program, without the rapid expansion of these entitlements under Nixon, they would not be so prevalent now.

Sharpton for President!

Go Al Sharpton, show us what the Democrats are really about, Racism and Hatred of the White Man!

How about Kucinich? You didn't even list him and he is more viable than Leiberman

What drug are you smoking, because it must be damn good.

Of course Nixon was a liberal. He signed amongst other bills, the earned income tax credit, WIC, and started OHSA. Whilst the Dems take credit for that type of program, without the rapid expansion of these entitlements under Nixon, they would not be so prevalent now.

Don't forget he was the most envirtomentally friendly president with the possible exception of Clinton, tried to create socialized medicine in the US and was the president who got the US out of Viet Nam.

Funny how many consider Nixon as a liberal while Clinton could be considered a republican president.
He even started the trend with bombing countries to draw away people attention from domestic affairs. :P

Of course Nixon was a liberal. He signed amongst other bills, the earned income tax credit, WIC, and started OHSA. Whilst the Dems take credit for that type of program, without the rapid expansion of these entitlements under Nixon, they would not be so prevalent now.

Don't forget he was the most envirtomentally friendly president with the possible exception of Clinton, tried to create socialized medicine in the US and was the president who got the US out of Viet Nam.

Clinton talked a good game on the environment. He did nothing. His best quality is that he just did nothing other than talk. Very predictable.

They all kinda sound the same to me:

"Repeal the tax cut...
The war in Iraq is wrong...
Bush sucks..."

They spend so much time bashing the President, that there's little
time left to say what they would do if they were elected, other
than take more of MY money away from me!

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Hey, what's cloning for?


*Remembers that you don't get the exact same person when you clone*

GODDAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!!


But anyhows, I like Kucinich. I'm not really sure how much the mainstream citizen would like him. I was watching the democratic candidates debate one day and I like what he says. My next choice would have to be Dean. Too bad i'm under voting age!!!! (I'll have to elect Kucinich for his second term. :D )

I like Sharpton as a spectacle and he doesn't sound like any of the others. The one of the lot I would most like to see win is Liberman although he proably won't get the nomination (maybe the VP slot again, always a VP never a Pres, *sniffle*).

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Whoa! If you guys could reanimate and run Truman, you'd win by landslide. (Hell, I'd vote for him, and I'm a diehard Republican!) But I thought you guys didn't like him cause he dropped the atom bomb?

Dean wants to Raise taxes AND create jobs. I can't wait to see how he does that....

Someone needs to reanimate Barry Goldwater. He'd lose again, but I wouldn't feel dirty voting for him.

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Whoa! If you guys could reanimate and run Truman, you'd win by landslide. (Hell, I'd vote for him, and I'm a diehard Republican!) But I thought you guys didn't like him cause he dropped the atom bomb?

Well, I really don't want to hijack this thread by starting a debate over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let it suffice to say that not all of us feel that dropping the bomb during WWII was unjustified.

I'm just gad to see that someone besides me appreciates Truman. I think he's the most underestimated president of the 20th century.

(And I'd love to see the erroneous headline "Bush defeats Truman"!) :twisted:

how come john kerry was in that group of "people who wont be getting a lot of votes". in recent NATIONAL polls, he was secondd only to that Dean guy.

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Harry Truman would be a Republican if he was alive today.

how come john kerry was in that group of "people who wont be getting a lot of votes". in recent NATIONAL polls, he was secondd only to that Dean guy.

I can't speak for the maker of the poll, but if you want a true sense of who's leading in the race, you can't look at the national polls for two simple reasons--most people aren't paying attention yet and most candidates aren't doing much campaigning outside the first few caucus and primary states.

For instance in Iowa, which has the first caucus, the latest poll has Gephardt at 22% with a one point lead over Dean, and then a 12 point drop to Kerry, 2 more to Edwards and Clark and 2 more to Lieberman.

In New Hampshire, Dean is at 40% with Undecided at 19, Kerry at 17, Clark and Edwards at 6, Gephardt 4, Lieberman 3 and Sharpton 1.

I don't have the figures out of South Carolina, but last I heard, John Edwards has a double digit lead there.

What does any of this mean? That Gephardt and Dean have been spending time and money in Iowa, that Dean and Kerry have been spending time and money in New Hampshire, that Edwards has been spending the same in South Carolina, and that unless Lieberman starts making some noise, he might want to get out of the race. All national poll numbers mean is that people recognize their names--that's why Lieberman was over 50% about 6 months ago, but is lagging badly in the polls now.

Kerry. I think he has some really good policies.

For instance in Iowa, which has the first caucus, the latest poll has Gephardt at 22% with a one point lead over Dean, .....
In New Hampshire, Dean is at 40% ....
links?....any1...

For instance in Iowa, which has the first caucus, the latest poll has Gephardt at 22% with a one point lead over Dean, .....
In New Hampshire, Dean is at 40% ....
links?....any1...

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com

The Goobergunch, producer of the Goobergunch Political Report (http://www.freewebs.com/goobergunch/gpr.html) and member of the C-SPAN Watchers Club

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/dean2.gifhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/kucinich2.gifhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/anyone.gif

C-SPAN 1 (http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS)C-SPAN 2 (http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2) <--Click to watch live

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com
Gracias.

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Whoa! If you guys could reanimate and run Truman, you'd win by landslide. (Hell, I'd vote for him, and I'm a diehard Republican!) But I thought you guys didn't like him cause he dropped the atom bomb?

Well, it sort of paid off since we wouldn't have to invade after all. And more people would have been killed in the invasion of japan than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The intention of Robert Oppehimer was to detonate the Atomic Bomb in front of the Japanese army to demonstrate the power that the US had, not to use on the people themselves. But it did start the arms race. And there's no telling what would have happened in a conventional war between the west and the soviets.

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Harry Truman would be a Republican if he was alive today.

In your dreams--Truman was a Progressive. The Marshall Plan, the integration of the military--he was anything but a conservative then and would be a forward thinking man if he were alive today. And that means he'd be a Democrat--if not a Green.

nat a single damn one. They are all idiots. :P

nat a single damn one. They are all idiots. :P

Go play in traffic child.

hmm, why wasn't a whiney, sniveling, insecure, lying, deceptive, cheating, idiotic, moronic, wishy washy, and ignorant candidate on here?

oh yea, he was defeated last election by Bush

hmm, why wasn't a whiney, sniveling, insecure, lying, deceptive, cheating, idiotic, moronic, wishy washy, and ignorant candidate on here?

oh yea, he was defeated last election by Bush

Don't you mean he was defeated by Gore and installed by the Supreme Court?

hmm, why wasn't a whiney, sniveling, insecure, lying, deceptive, cheating, idiotic, moronic, wishy washy, and ignorant candidate on here?

oh yea, he was defeated last election by Bush

Don't you mean he was defeated by Gore and installed by the Supreme Court?

:lol: LOL Incertonia.

If Kucinich became president, I would wear red white and blue every day. I would have a star spangled hat and volunteer to give extra on my income tax forms. I would probably give out cupcakes in my neighborhood with a patriotic theme every Saturday morning. I'd be one happy camper. (How come all you right wingers aren't as happy with Bush as I would be with Kucinich?? Hmmm?? Happiness is the name of the game ain't it?) However, I'm gambling on Dean.

Someone else. Definitely someone else. Where's Harry Truman when we need him? :evil:

Harry Truman would be a Republican if he was alive today.

In your dreams--Truman was a Progressive. The Marshall Plan, the integration of the military--he was anything but a conservative then and would be a forward thinking man if he were alive today. And that means he'd be a Democrat--if not a Green.

Wait...how is the Marshall Plan something that the Dems of today would support but the republicans wouldn't? Truman was super conservative economicaly. Plus, would any of todays Dems have the balls to drop a nuke or two on Japon to end the war?

Wait...how is the Marshall Plan something that the Dems of today would support but the republicans wouldn't? Truman was super conservative economicaly. Plus, would any of todays Dems have the balls to drop a nuke or two on Japon to end the war?

The Marshall Plan was the first huge sized foreign aid package, and it was done in such a way that, as Truman himself put it, the US would not be seen as profiting from the war. As we see from the current situation in Iraq, the Republican party has no problem with the foreign aid part of it--as long as US companies, especially large Republican donors, benefit from the contracts. And as Howard Dean has been so quick to point out, the only president to balance the budget in the last 34 years was a Democrat--they're the party of fiscal responsibility now, glad to say.

And I think your last question is a little intellectually dishonest--no politician is going to have the balls to drop a nuke today, Republican or Democrat, because we know exactly what is involved in nuclear war and the devastation it brings. Truman may have had an idea, but he couldn't have really known the extent of the devastation.

Wait...how is the Marshall Plan something that the Dems of today would support but the republicans wouldn't? Truman was super conservative economicaly. Plus, would any of todays Dems have the balls to drop a nuke or two on Japon to end the war?

The Marshall Plan was the first huge sized foreign aid package, and it was done in such a way that, as Truman himself put it, the US would not be seen as profiting from the war. As we see from the current situation in Iraq, the Republican party has no problem with the foreign aid part of it--as long as US companies, especially large Republican donors, benefit from the contracts. And as Howard Dean has been so quick to point out, the only president to balance the budget in the last 34 years was a Democrat--they're the party of fiscal responsibility now, glad to say.

And I think your last question is a little intellectually dishonest--no politician is going to have the balls to drop a nuke today, Republican or Democrat, because we know exactly what is involved in nuclear war and the devastation it brings. Truman may have had an idea, but he couldn't have really known the extent of the devastation.

I think its amazing how Democrats are now trying to paint themselves as the party of responsible economic management. Of course, its not historically supported (read: Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, FDR's inability to stop or even slow the depression, etc). Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity.

Actually, you may notice that each of the Dem candidates have stopped mentioning the bad economy in their speaches...you know why? The economic has improved. We had one of shallowest recessions in our history. I'd like to credit that to Bush.

As it is, it's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to make Iraq pay us back for their reconstruction. Wait a minute...isn't that benefitting the US? That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

I'm going to stand by what I said about Truman...he would so be a Republican today.

Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity. Not so. The longest period of domestic prosperity was under the Clinton administration.

hmm, why wasn't a whiney, sniveling, insecure, lying, deceptive, cheating, idiotic, moronic, wishy washy, and ignorant candidate on here?

oh yea, he was defeated last election by Bush

Don't you mean he was defeated by Gore and installed by the Supreme Court?

:lol: LOL Incertonia.

If Kucinich became president, I would wear red white and blue every day. I would have a star spangled hat and volunteer to give extra on my income tax forms. I would probably give out cupcakes in my neighborhood with a patriotic theme every Saturday morning. I'd be one happy camper. (How come all you right wingers aren't as happy with Bush as I would be with Kucinich?? Hmmm?? Happiness is the name of the game ain't it?) However, I'm gambling on Dean.

Yeah, if Kucinich won..maybe I'd actually feel a bit of pride for my country.

Too bad it won't happen.

*grumbles* I need to make my own country.

Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity. Not so. The longest period of domestic prosperity was under the Clinton administration.

Uh no...the Reagen prosperity lasted into the first few years of Bush Sr's presidency. Clinton's era ended before he got out of office. (Note: the recession began before Bush took office.)

I think its amazing how Democrats are now trying to paint themselves as the party of responsible economic management. Of course, its not historically supported (read: Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, FDR's inability to stop or even slow the depression, etc). Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity.

Actually, you may notice that each of the Dem candidates have stopped mentioning the bad economy in their speaches...you know why? The economic has improved. We had one of shallowest recessions in our history. I'd like to credit that to Bush.

As it is, it's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to make Iraq pay us back for their reconstruction. Wait a minute...isn't that benefitting the US? That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

I'm going to stand by what I said about Truman...he would so be a Republican today.

I did say that the parties had changed, didn't I? Democrats were (as in past tense and formerly) fiscally irresponsible but have seen the wisdom of fiscal responsibility in the last 10 years, while Republicans have become the credit-card party. Maybe, just maybe, all that rhetoric about "tax and spend Democrats" was just that--rhetoric.

And I don't know what Democratic nominees you've been listening to, but in the debate last night, there were two recurring themes: Bush's economy sucks ass, and Bush's Iraq policy sucks ass. You might try actually watching the candidates if you;re going to put words in their mouths. And by the way, if this is a shallow recession, then I'd hate to see a deep one--oh yeah, I did. 1986-1992, right about the time I was trying to break into the job market. Reagan grew the economy alright, but by sinking us into greater debt and deficit than we had ever seen. A Democratic president grew the economy and got us back into surplus, enabling us to start reducing the national debt.

I think its amazing how Democrats are now trying to paint themselves as the party of responsible economic management. Of course, its not historically supported (read: Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, FDR's inability to stop or even slow the depression, etc). Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity.

Actually, you may notice that each of the Dem candidates have stopped mentioning the bad economy in their speaches...you know why? The economic has improved. We had one of shallowest recessions in our history. I'd like to credit that to Bush.

As it is, it's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to make Iraq pay us back for their reconstruction. Wait a minute...isn't that benefitting the US? That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

I'm going to stand by what I said about Truman...he would so be a Republican today.

I did say that the parties had changed, didn't I? Democrats were (as in past tense and formerly) fiscally irresponsible but have seen the wisdom of fiscal responsibility in the last 10 years, while Republicans have become the credit-card party. Maybe, just maybe, all that rhetoric about "tax and spend Democrats" was just that--rhetoric.

And I don't know what Democratic nominees you've been listening to, but in the debate last night, there were two recurring themes: Bush's economy sucks ass, and Bush's Iraq policy sucks ass. You might try actually watching the candidates if you;re going to put words in their mouths. And by the way, if this is a shallow recession, then I'd hate to see a deep one--oh yeah, I did. 1986-1992, right about the time I was trying to break into the job market. Reagan grew the economy alright, but by sinking us into greater debt and deficit than we had ever seen. A Democratic president grew the economy and got us back into surplus, enabling us to start reducing the national debt.

I really don't think that the economic prosperity during the Clinton years was due to his economics. I think the more likely explanation is that the boom in the internet and computer companies was responsible for a synergistic relationship with much of US industry.

I have yet to see anyone explain how tax cuts would not help the economy. Besides, will a defecit is certainly not a good thing, it really isn't that bad for business. High taxes are far worse.

I love it how Reagan apologists claim that his policies did wonders for the economy--an economy that was so far down it had nowhere to go but up by the way--and yet pooh-pooh the economy built by Clinton, an economy jump-started by the way, by a tax package passed without a single Republican vote in 1993.

Part of the reason for the tech boom was that with the reduction in the deficit, banks needed another customer to loan money to, and that customer wound up being the dot-com startups. It could have just as easily been another sector, but the internet wasready for an infusion of cash, and venture capitalists had tons of it since the government wasn't sucking all the capital out of the economy anymore. That's not the entire reason for the boom, of course, but it was certainly a part of it.

I think its amazing how Democrats are now trying to paint themselves as the party of responsible economic management. Of course, its not historically supported (read: Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, FDR's inability to stop or even slow the depression, etc). Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity.

Actually, you may notice that each of the Dem candidates have stopped mentioning the bad economy in their speaches...you know why? The economic has improved. We had one of shallowest recessions in our history. I'd like to credit that to Bush.

As it is, it's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to make Iraq pay us back for their reconstruction. Wait a minute...isn't that benefitting the US? That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

I'm going to stand by what I said about Truman...he would so be a Republican today.

I did say that the parties had changed, didn't I? Democrats were (as in past tense and formerly) fiscally irresponsible but have seen the wisdom of fiscal responsibility in the last 10 years, while Republicans have become the credit-card party. Maybe, just maybe, all that rhetoric about "tax and spend Democrats" was just that--rhetoric.

And I don't know what Democratic nominees you've been listening to, but in the debate last night, there were two recurring themes: Bush's economy sucks ass, and Bush's Iraq policy sucks ass. You might try actually watching the candidates if you;re going to put words in their mouths. And by the way, if this is a shallow recession, then I'd hate to see a deep one--oh yeah, I did. 1986-1992, right about the time I was trying to break into the job market. Reagan grew the economy alright, but by sinking us into greater debt and deficit than we had ever seen. A Democratic president grew the economy and got us back into surplus, enabling us to start reducing the national debt.

I really don't think that the economic prosperity during the Clinton years was due to his economics. I think the more likely explanation is that the boom in the internet and computer companies was responsible for a synergistic relationship with much of US industry.

I have yet to see anyone explain how tax cuts would not help the economy. Besides, will a defecit is certainly not a good thing, it really isn't that bad for business. High taxes are far worse.

Bush has been in power for close to 3 years now. If his economic policies were so good as you claim we wouldn't have the high unemployment and bad economy that we have now. Democrats favor tax cuts, just not the Republican version of them. Clinton balanced the budget without a single Republican vote.

I think its amazing how Democrats are now trying to paint themselves as the party of responsible economic management. Of course, its not historically supported (read: Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, FDR's inability to stop or even slow the depression, etc). Under Ronald Reagen we had the longest period of domestic prosperity.

Actually, you may notice that each of the Dem candidates have stopped mentioning the bad economy in their speaches...you know why? The economic has improved. We had one of shallowest recessions in our history. I'd like to credit that to Bush.

As it is, it's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to make Iraq pay us back for their reconstruction. Wait a minute...isn't that benefitting the US? That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

I'm going to stand by what I said about Truman...he would so be a Republican today.

I did say that the parties had changed, didn't I? Democrats were (as in past tense and formerly) fiscally irresponsible but have seen the wisdom of fiscal responsibility in the last 10 years, while Republicans have become the credit-card party. Maybe, just maybe, all that rhetoric about "tax and spend Democrats" was just that--rhetoric.

And I don't know what Democratic nominees you've been listening to, but in the debate last night, there were two recurring themes: Bush's economy sucks ass, and Bush's Iraq policy sucks ass. You might try actually watching the candidates if you;re going to put words in their mouths. And by the way, if this is a shallow recession, then I'd hate to see a deep one--oh yeah, I did. 1986-1992, right about the time I was trying to break into the job market. Reagan grew the economy alright, but by sinking us into greater debt and deficit than we had ever seen. A Democratic president grew the economy and got us back into surplus, enabling us to start reducing the national debt.

I really don't think that the economic prosperity during the Clinton years was due to his economics. I think the more likely explanation is that the boom in the internet and computer companies was responsible for a synergistic relationship with much of US industry.

I have yet to see anyone explain how tax cuts would not help the economy. Besides, will a defecit is certainly not a good thing, it really isn't that bad for business. High taxes are far worse.

Bush has been in power for close to 3 years now. If his economic policies were so good as you claim we wouldn't have the high unemployment and bad economy that we have now. Democrats favor tax cuts, just not the Republican version of them. Clinton balanced the budget without a single Republican vote.

The economy is better now than when Bush took office.

"..."

The economy is better now than when Bush took office.
On what planet? Certainly not this one, not even if you look at the numbers most favorable to the current administration.

The economy is better now than when Bush took office.
On what planet? Certainly not this one, not even if you look at the numbers most favorable to the current administration.

Hate to say this, but I agree. Strictly from the Unemployment numbers.

Jan 01, 4.1%
Oct 03, 6.2%

However, it is getting better since August when it was highest at 6.4%

It's too bad that those numbers don't take into account the people who have simply run out of unemployment benefits or have stopped looking for work or the under-employed--in other words, people like me. The economy needs to create about 300,000 jobs a month in order to stay even, about 400,000 to drop the unemployment rate by a tenth of a percentage point. Bush's economy added about 200,000 jobs in August, and that's the first time in his administration that jobs have been added rather than lost.

The economy is better now than when Bush took office.
On what planet? Certainly not this one, not even if you look at the numbers most favorable to the current administration.

Hate to say this, but I agree. Strictly from the Unemployment numbers.

Jan 01, 4.1%
Oct 03, 6.2%

However, it is getting better since August when it was highest at 6.4%

employment is a lagging economic indicator. that last thing employers do during a recovery is add help. the first thing they do is whack help. it is the largest variable cost in most businesses.

the economy is better from any rational point of view. it may not be better for our friend, Incertonia, but that is hardly statistical evidence no matter how unpleasant.

I like Sharpton the best. Followed up by Kucinich. Followed up by anyone but Bush. Dean I guess. I don't know to much about the candidates other then dean, liebermann, kucinich, and sharpton.

The economy is better now than when Bush took office.
On what planet? Certainly not this one, not even if you look at the numbers most favorable to the current administration.

Hate to say this, but I agree. Strictly from the Unemployment numbers.

Jan 01, 4.1%
Oct 03, 6.2%

However, it is getting better since August when it was highest at 6.4%

employment is a lagging economic indicator. that last thing employers do during a recovery is add help. the first thing they do is whack help. it is the largest variable cost in most businesses.

the economy is better from any rational point of view. it may not be better for our friend, Incertonia, but that is hardly statistical evidence no matter how unpleasant.

Sorry, but a jobless recovery is an ephemeral one simply because unless people have jobs, they will eventually stop spending money, and if that happens, we'll really see the economy crash. And considering that personal debt is at its highest point in history, we'd better start adding some serious jobs very soon, or it'll get even uglier. You want to really know the state of the economy? Ask a repo-man. If they're doing well, the economy is in the tank. And they are living fat right now.

There was some test someone posted in some topic sometimes on this forum; I kept the results:

1. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (100%) Click here for info
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (88%) Click here for info
3. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (79%) Click here for info
4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (78%) Click here for info
5. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (68%) Click here for info
6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (67%) Click here for info
7. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (67%) Click here for info
8. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (63%) Click here for info
9. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (55%) Click here for info
10. Libertarian Candidate (24%) Click here for info
11. Bush, George W. - US President (20%) Click here for info
12. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (4%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%) Click here for info

Sorry, but a jobless recovery is an ephemeral one simply because unless people have jobs, they will eventually stop spending money,

So... ah... why is the recently released Consumer Confidence figures much, much higher than anybody expected?

Dow Jones is up to 9748.30, rising 140.2 points in one day.
NASD is up 49.35
S&P is up 15.66

Value of the dollar is up, gold dropped $4.80

These are not signs for an "abyssmal" economy. These are the signs of a recovering economy. Also, no matter how much you wish it was the other way, the jobless rate is the last thing to improve. However, considering the fact that all other economic indicators are going up, that jobless rate will be dropping even more soon.

When that happens, the only hope the Dems will have is a massive catastrophy in Iraq. Helluva thing to pin your hopes on, isn't? "The only way we can win is for the country to be going to Hell in a handbasket." Yeah, I'm sure they've got my interests at heart.

They all suck.

Sorry to all you naysayers, but....

The American economy is a huge machine, that no president can, or should, control. It doesn't turn around in a month. The President cannot hold a gun to business's heads and force them to hire. The only person who effects the economy in any way is Greenspan, and President Bush can't be blamed for him. I think Greenspan was put in place during Warren Harding's administration. :)

The stock market is starting to pour money into business again.
Interest rates will continue to stay low. Both of these factors will encourage business's to spend money, and EVENTUALLY hire people.

The biggest sign that the economy is improving is that the dem's are whining about it near as much anymore. That's because they know that so many Americans know that the economy is at the beginning of a rebound!

One more note:
Kucinich's policies drove Cleveland to the brink of bankruptcy. I'm sure he'd do a wonderful job with a budget as large as that of the US Government.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

"YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Howard Dean-"I Have A Scream" :wink:

I thought I would gravedig a thread just to remind us how dumb we were before. All the people in the US were focused on Howard Dean, then he blew up. And look at John Kerry, he is down their in the other selection for the poll!It's called "Buyer's Remorse." A grand example of the old adage "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." The Dims wanted to get their nominee early, and that's what they got...too bad they didn't quite examine the merchandise before they picked.

Even though I'd only vote for Kerry, my favorite is Doctor! Doctor! Dean (hehe, a little Blood Brothers humor for you) :lol:

Wow, how old is this thread? The only people still left running are Kerry and Kucinich, and Kerry already has more than enough primaries that Kucinich can't beat him, sadly.

Speaking of whom, I got to shake hands with him at Earth Day! I hope he runs in 2008... and then I'll be able to vote for him too! *squeals*

*realizes how sad this must look and grabs a picture of Keanu Reeves to justify the preppy squeal*

It's called "Buyer's Remorse."last year, the right wingers were convinced that Hillary Clinton was running for president, even though she never showed any sign of wanting to run for president. When she said she wouldn't run for president, Bush fans used that as evidence that Hillary would run and were so looking forward to seeing Bush beat her. Now that it's even more obvious that Hillary isn't running for president, the right wingers have moved on to another conspiracy theory. Now the story is that the Democrats wish they hadn't chosen John Kerry. The fact that Democrats aren't saying they wish another candidate had been chosen is the proof of this theory. However, it's interesting that Panhandlia et al haven't decided who the Democrats secretly wish had been chosen instead. Hillary Clinton, perhaps?