NationStates Jolt Archive

Pres. Bush was elected with 50% of the vote. A year and half later 20% of those people now say he's doing a bad job. He's not doing anything different than he did the first term. So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?

Pres. Bush was elected with 50% of the vote. A year and half later 20% of those people now say he's doing a bad job. He's not doing anything different than he did the first term. So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?

I guess you missed the wall to wall scandals of the last year and a half then?

So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?

None of them are here. Except maybe Eutrusca and he's on a forum ban right now. All you're going to get here are people like me who can say, "Told ya so."

As a matter of fact, if you do a little research, you'll find old posts of mine on other forums from 2000 where I was actually telling people George W. Bush would be doing as President exactly what he's doing now.

So many people say, "Who knew?!"

Liberal Texans who lived under his Governorship knew, that's who.

None of them are here. Except maybe Eutrusca and he's on a forum ban right now. All you're going to get here are people like me who can say, "Told ya so."

As a matter of fact, if you do a little research, you'll find old posts of mine on other forums from 2000 where I was actually telling people George W. Bush would be doing as President exactly what he's doing now.

So many people say, "Who knew?!"

Liberal Texans who lived under his Governorship knew, that's who.

I'm from Connecticut and I knew. Of course, I'm old enough to have voted against his daddy in 1992. :p

The primary difference is that he no longer has John Kerry making him look good.

Self-explanatory really.

I'm from Connecticut and I knew. Of course, I'm old enough to have voted against his daddy in 1992. :p

Awesome. So was I. :) 1992 was my first Presidential election and, yes, I proudly voted for Bill Clinton (though I voted for Al Gore in the primaries).

Oooh ... from the same State GWB was born in. Good thing you like mud. :D

I'm from Connecticut and I knew. Of course, I'm old enough to have voted against his daddy in 1992. :p
Huh, I thought you were Australian for some reason.

I voted for him in 2004.

My main reason for moving away from him is that he's far too concerned with social issues. There's too much focus on society and not enough on economy.

i'd bet that it has become apparent to the brightest of them that he isn't particularly good at implementing their shared terrible ideas

i'd bet that it has become apparent to the brightest of them that he isn't particularly good at implementing their shared terrible ideas

Damn skippy.

I was promised an end to all those silly federal programs. Instead he's presided over a huge expansion of government.

(OOC)

I'm no big fan of President Bush, however I really dislike it when everyone jumps on the bandwagon of Bush bashing.

I'm not goona say hes doing terriffic, I'm not going to say hes a great president. Here is what I will say.

Look at the alternative.

The American voters were put between a rock and a hard place between 2 poor candidates. I think we did the best we could. I do not want to know what would have happened had Kerry been elected. So do I think Bush is doing a good job? not really. Do I think hes doing better than Kerry would have? Oh most certainly so.

(OOC)

I'm no big fan of President Bush, however I really dislike it when everyone jumps on the bandwagon of Bush bashing.

I'm not goona say hes doing terriffic, I'm not going to say hes a great president. Here is what I will say.

Look at the alternative.

The American voters were put between a rock and a hard place between 2 poor candidates. I think we did the best we could. I do not want to know what would have happened had Kerry been elected. So do I think Bush is doing a good job? not really. Do I think hes doing better than Kerry would have? Oh most certainly so.

Remember, if you vote third party, then the terrorists win.

Look at the other alternative

Move to Canada!

The primary difference is that he no longer has John Kerry making him look good.

Self-explanatory really.
You mean he is running out of people to use as scapegoats or mud-slinging targets to distract people from the fact is a lame-duck.

You mean he is running out of people to use as scapegoats or mud-slinging targets to distract people from the fact is a lame-duck.

Oh come on, when you are compared to herman munster every other day, you can't help but look better than you actually are.

Huh, I thought you were Australian for some reason.

I think I might have been in a past life. I like Australia and yet I've never been there.

Pres. Bush was elected with 50% of the vote. A year and half later 20% of those people now say he's doing a bad job. He's not doing anything different than he did the first term. So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?
I was actually thinking about this the other day, and here's the only thing I can come up with. In 2004, Bush wasn't the story. The race was the story, so we only saw Bush contrasted with Kerry, and in that context, Bush looks better than he really is, at least to some people. But now that there's no race, people are only being asked to judge Bush, and without a contrast, he looks pretty shitty.

Remember, if you vote third party, then the terrorists win.
No, if you vote third party, nothing happens. Unfortunately for the United States, we don't have effective third parties to go to when the Republicans are being crazy and the Democrats are being inept. If we had a centrist party of some kind, with a large enough holding in the House/Senate to be worthwhile, they'd probably get my vote. As it is, we have one independant member of Congress. Which... is sad.

Here is what I will say.

Look at the alternative.

The American voters were put between a rock and a hard place between 2 poor candidates. I think we did the best we could. I do not want to know what would have happened had Kerry been elected. So do I think Bush is doing a good job? not really. Do I think hes doing better than Kerry would have? Oh most certainly so.

The "alternative" was a spineless coward, a worthless ruling class lackey who refused to seriously attack the criminal gang in power and who backed the aggression against Iraq.

But there is no way he could possibly have done worse than Bush.

The primary difference is that he no longer has John Kerry making him look good.

Self-explanatory really.

That's the summation of it. I never much liked George Bush, but somehow, the Dems keep managing to make him look good faster than he can make himself look bad.

It's a vicious cycle, really.

Bush and/or the Republicans in Congress FUBAR an issue.

The Democrats attack them on it, but end up shooting themselves in the foot in doing so.

Another issue comes along, Bush and/or the Republicans FUBAR it again, and the cycle repeats itself.

It's kinda pathetic, isn't it?

In any case. The 33% job approval rating is a strong message to Republicans at large: when you're setting up a a candidate for office in 2008, DON'T NOMINATE A CLUELESS PINHEAD!!! We can't rely on the Democrats to to hand us another election by nominating a bigger fuckwit than our candidate in '08. If they end up doing that anyway... well, I guess we deserve to lose the White House. A healthy dose of failure will re-invigorate the party out of the complacency it's wallowing in today.

The Democrats attack them on it, but end up shooting themselves in the foot in doing so.

No, they don't shoot themselves in the foot. They're so afraid of shooting themselves in the foot that they don't shoot at all, and then the Republicans shoot them.

I'm from Connecticut and I knew. Of course, I'm old enough to have voted against his daddy in 1992. :p


I'm old enough to have voted against his daddy in '88.

No, they don't shoot themselves in the foot. They're so afraid of shooting themselves in the foot that they don't shoot at all, and then the Republicans shoot them.

If that was how it went down, the Democrats would be in a -worse- position than they already are.

Awesome. So was I. :) 1992 was my first Presidential election and, yes, I proudly voted for Bill Clinton (though I voted for Al Gore in the primaries).

Oooh ... from the same State GWB was born in. Good thing you like mud. :D
I voted against Bush II, Bush I, AND Reagan. And yeah, I can't say GWB has done anything to change my mind, either. ;)

That's the summation of it. I never much liked George Bush, but somehow, the Dems keep managing to make him look good faster than he can make himself look bad.

It's a vicious cycle, really.

Bush and/or the Republicans in Congress FUBAR an issue.

The Democrats attack them on it, but end up shooting themselves in the foot in doing so.

Another issue comes along, Bush and/or the Republicans FUBAR it again, and the cycle repeats itself.

It's kinda pathetic, isn't it?

In any case. The 33% job approval rating is a strong message to Republicans at large: when you're setting up a a candidate for office in 2008, DON'T NOMINATE A CLUELESS PINHEAD!!! We can't rely on the Democrats to to hand us another election by nominating a bigger fuckwit than our candidate in '08. If they end up doing that anyway... well, I guess we deserve to lose the White House. A healthy dose of failure will re-invigorate the party out of the complacency it's wallowing in today.

Yah. It's like New York State. Nothing ever changes here. There are some nominal re-shuffles in name only, but really the same clowns make sure that they are always running the show.

I'm old enough to have voted against his daddy in '88.
Me too, but I was a JW at the time, so I wasn't voting. I liekd Dukakis, though.

I don't actually think that Bush is 'stupid' by any means. He may not be the classic intelligentsia, but he's certainly smart enough to, despite waging a war which almost every other developed country opposed, manage to get re-elected.

Much more, the Bush White House has suffered tremendous bad luck since 2001, starting with September 11th. Many errors made were predictable. A good few disasters were not. Just as much, sensible positons taken by the administration have been shouted down by an irate and generally short-sighted Congress seeking to secure party majority in the midterm.

And don't blame his re-election on the stupidity of the American people. While they may not speak sixteen languages, find Djibouti on a map and construe Ovid, they can still form reasonable, often well thought out opinions on a variety of issues. Sure, we have our rednecks and our degenerate fools, but what country doesn't? Surely, not every German, Briton or Venezuelan is the sharpest tool in the shed. America tends to suffer from intense international scrutiny, which is probably the price of being the superpower and general globocop nation.

I very much doubt that I'm making sense right now. Sleep deprivation is a terrible thing, really.
[/rant]

Me too, but I was a JW at the time, so I wasn't voting. I liekd Dukakis, though.

Rock us, Dukakis! :D

None of them are here. Except maybe Eutrusca and he's on a forum ban right now. All you're going to get here are people like me who can say, "Told ya so."

As a matter of fact, if you do a little research, you'll find old posts of mine on other forums from 2000 where I was actually telling people George W. Bush would be doing as President exactly what he's doing now.

So many people say, "Who knew?!"

Liberal Texans who lived under his Governorship knew, that's who.


Why is he on a forum ban? just curious

Rock us, Dukakis! :D
You mentioned voting for Gore in the primaries. What would you think if he gave it another shot in '08? I'd vote for him (or Feingold-that would be a tough one).

I'd be thrilled if Russ Feingold or Al Gore got on the ticket in 2008. All we have to do is put John McCain on our ballot and the White House is ours.

So, yes, to all my liberal friends, please vote for either of those two dudes. You'd totally be doing your party a favor. ^_^

It just seems strange that Bush voters complained about Kerry "flip-flops"---then a year and half later 40% of Bush voters have flip-flopped themselves. And they did it with a known quantity. If it would have been someone they didn't know (like a first termer) it would make more sense.

You mentioned voting for Gore in the primaries. What would you think if he gave it another shot in '08? I'd vote for him (or Feingold-that would be a tough one).

I'd vote for a Gore, feingold democrat ticket

I'll bet it's hillary in 2008.

I'd be thrilled if Russ Feingold or Al Gore got on the ticket in 2008. All we have to do is put John McCain on our ballot and the White House is ours.

So, yes, to all my liberal friends, please vote for either of those two dudes. You'd totally be doing your party a favor. ^_^


Right, because McCain is so popular with the far right wing, which really rules that party.

I'll bet it's hillary in 2008.
Nah. I look at Hillary as Lieberman in 2002. She's got the name and the money and no one who votes in the primaries really likes her. She's got nowhere to go but down.

Oh, God. If '08 is something like Hillary vs. someone like Frist or Santorum, I really am leaving the country.

I'll bet it's hillary in 2008.


i'd be so goddamn pissed...I'd leave the country..I can't stand her..Seriously..i might go to canada...speaking of which..i had no come back for you in the flame thread :P

If that was how it went down, the Democrats would be in a -worse- position than they already are.

The Democrats haven't fallen apart because the Republicans are falling apart even faster. They are horrendous at capitalizing on Republican losses, but the Republicans have been systematically annihilating themselves, and those voters have to go somewhere.

Nah. I look at Hillary as Lieberman in 2002. She's got the name and the money and no one who votes in the primaries really likes her. She's got nowhere to go but down.

That's what everyone here said when my current junior senator first felt out the idea of running here.

But a week's a long time in politics. So I could see it happening.

Be honest, did you stand square behind kerry in early 2002?

She's a crap senator like. If the NY republicans weren't so pathetic, she would probably face a tough battle later this year. She's broken just about every campaign promise she made upstate.

Nada, they did not poll me, LOL, Viva President George W Bush and all the Bushes, President Jeb Bush 2008.

(OOC)

Feingold... you must be kidding me...

I live in his district, that pinhead is the biggest screwup in congress. I very much despised Bill Clinton but I'd sooner see him back in office than that moron. I'm fairly sure he has no idea what hes doing... Feingold... bah.

If I see a Feingold / Clinton ticket ever win I'm leaving the country, were all screwed then. I'd get goin while the gettin is good.

Despite the (R) after his name, I have a certain amount of enduring respect for John McCain. He seems everything that I like in Republicans (takes stands, gets things done, etc) without most of the nasty edges. That, and he and I agree on a few key issues, such as Iraq.

I voted against Bush II, Bush I, AND Reagan. And yeah, I can't say GWB has done anything to change my mind, either. ;)

Why would you vote against Reagan? He's the man.

Despite the (R) after his name, I have a certain amount of enduring respect for John McCain. He seems everything that I like in Republicans (takes stands, gets things done, etc) without most of the nasty edges. That, and he and I agree on a few key issues, such as Iraq.


I hear that from a lot of people, personally though, I don't trust the man. Don't know why...just don't.

I hear that from a lot of people, personally though, I don't trust the man. Don't know why...just don't.

Probably because he exempted himself from his own campaign finance reform.

That's what everyone here said when my current junior senator first felt out the idea of running here.

But a week's a long time in politics. So I could see it happening.

Be honest, did you stand square behind kerry in early 2002?

She's a crap senator like. If the NY republicans weren't so pathetic, she would probably face a tough battle later this year. She's broken just about every campaign promise she made upstate.


i actually predicted That Kerry would be the one that got the ticket...That was when Dean was big...ha ha..

Why would you vote against Reagan? He's the man.
He was a man. That's as good as you'll get from me on the subject of that preposterous ass with his piddle-down economics that "city on a hill" bullshit.

Be honest, did you stand square behind kerry in early 2002?

Oh hell no. I didn't like Kerry when I voted for him in 2004--I just hated Bush more and for good reason). I was a Dean man all the way, and voted for him in the Cali primary even when he'd suspended his campaign.

i actually predicted That Kerry would be the one that got the ticket...That was when Dean was big...ha ha..

The media did a hatchet job on dean. Probably at kerry's behest.

The democrats should pick someone who can win republican states. (Better yet, someone who has won in red states).

Personally, I think that Mike Bloomberg should be president.

Why would you vote against Reagan? He's the man.


Why would you NOT vote against Reagan?

The media did a hatchet job on dean. Probably at kerry's behest.

The democrats should pick someone who can win republican states. (Better yet, someone who has won in red states).

Personally, I think that Mike Bloomberg should be president.
Don't cry too much for Dean. I lived in Vermont while he was still governor. There's a reason it's one of the poorest states in the country. But I still would have voted for him rather than Bush.

Oh hell no. I didn't like Kerry when I voted for him in 2004--I just hated Bush more and for good reason). I was a Dean man all the way, and voted for him in the Cali primary even when he'd suspended his campaign.

Well there you are.

I'm sure in 2008, once again we'll all be served two unpalatable choices, and resort to screaming at each other about someone we don't really believe in anyway.

The party system is broken. And the sooner we face facts, the sooner we can fix it.

The media did a hatchet job on dean. Probably at kerry's behest.

The democrats should pick someone who can win republican states. (Better yet, someone who has won in red states).

Personally, I think that Mike Bloomberg should be president.


Bloomberg? Why?

Well there you are.

I'm sure in 2008, once again we'll all be served two unpalatable choices, and resort to screaming at each other about someone we don't really believe in anyway.

The party system is broken. And the sooner we face facts, the sooner we can fix it.


Thats why we need an Imperial system.. Someone can be the emperor, but only as long as I am Darth Vader.

Don't cry too much for Dean. I lived in Vermont while he was still governor. There's a reason it's one of the poorest states in the country. But I still would have voted for him rather than Bush.

Yah, because Arkansas under clinton was the land of milk and honey.

That's not the point. He probably would have stood a better chance of winning than kerry. Despite what the intelligencia claim.

Kerry was never electable. He has is seat in the senate because, frankly, a corpse running on the democrat ticket could win in Mass.

It's like claiming you are a campaigning genius because you won a seat as a democrat on the NYC council.

His low polls numbers are tied to the high gas prices. Ironic, because its because of liberal environmentalists not letting us drill for domestic oil, high taxes on gasoline enacted by Congress (the gov. makes more money per gallon of gas sold than gas companies), and economically unsound regulations on gasoline, such as the mandatory inclusion of ethanol, as well as just general increased demand of the product around the globe that have driven the price up. It's funny because people get mad about the price of gas going up 50 cents, but a lot of them can't even tell you how much they paid in taxes this year. If they knew what percentage of their income they paid, and how every single thing you do or consume is taxed, anyone running on a platform of lower taxes would take the office of anyone not doing the same. Which is why we have a Republican president and a Republican majority Congress. Foolishly, some Republicans have moved toward the middle out of fear. If they simply stayed true to the Reagan policy of lower taxes and a strong defense they'd never lose.

Yah, because Arkansas under clinton was the land of milk and honey.

That's not the point. He probably would have stood a better chance of winning than kerry. Despite what the intelligencia claim.

Kerry was never electable. He has is seat in the senate because, frankly, a corpse running on the democrat ticket could win in Mass.

It's like claiming you are a campaigning genius because you won a seat as a democrat on the NYC council.


Or like claimg to be a campaign genius becuase you are the mayor of Chicago and your name is Daley ;)

His low polls numbers are tied to the high gas prices. Ironic, because its because of liberal environmentalists not letting us drill for domestic oil, high taxes on gasoline enacted by Congress (the gov. makes more money per gallon of gas sold than gas companies), and economically unsound regulations on gasoline, such as the mandatory inclusion of ethanol, as well as just general increased demand of the product around the globe that have driven the price up. It's funny because people get mad about the price of gas going up 50 cents, but a lot of them can't even tell you how much they paid in taxes this year. If they knew what percentage of their income they paid, and how every single thing you do or consume is taxed, anyone running on a platform of lower taxes would take the office of anyone not doing the same. Which is why we have a Republican president and a Republican majority Congress. Foolishly, some Republicans have moved toward the middle out of fear. If they simply stayed true to the Reagan policy of lower taxes and a strong defense they'd never lose.

which we saw how well reagan's policy was in the early 90s, when we felt recession hit us after he and GB I were in office.. Truth is, reagan's policies never were good. The only good thing they did was played on the fears of people and got him votes..

Just to try and supply some view from across the pond (Plymouth, England to be exact)...
Over here, we REEEEEALLY feel the effects of a popular culture very much biased towards seeing all of Bush's negatives - frankly, if that man has ever done anything good for America, the news hasn't reached Britain ;) Not saying I'm jumping on this anti-Bush bandwagon, just a rant against the British media I guess.
And to whoever it was that said this (I forget), no, whatever the stereotypes may be, there are some people over here that don't assume stupidity of all Americans. Same as I dont assume rudeness of the French, terrorism of, well, anyone from the Middle East or even poshness of the limeys themselves. Stereotypes are wrong, whoever they are stereotyping.
And I'd love Hilary to have a run - any system that's never allowed a black or female President needs that kind of shake-up.

His low polls numbers are tied to the high gas prices. Ironic, because its because of liberal environmentalists not letting us drill for domestic oil, high taxes on gasoline enacted by Congress (the gov. makes more money per gallon of gas sold than gas companies), and economically unsound regulations on gasoline, such as the mandatory inclusion of ethanol, as well as just general increased demand of the product around the globe that have driven the price up. It's funny because people get mad about the price of gas going up 50 cents, but a lot of them can't even tell you how much they paid in taxes this year. If they knew what percentage of their income they paid, and how every single thing you do or consume is taxed, anyone running on a platform of lower taxes would take the office of anyone not doing the same. Which is why we have a Republican president and a Republican majority Congress. Foolishly, some Republicans have moved toward the middle out of fear. If they simply stayed true to the Reagan policy of lower taxes and a strong defense they'd never lose.

Yay! Finally something that makes sense.

Bloomberg? Why?

I <3 my mayor.

Actually, I've got several beefs with him. But he's probably the most popular mayor in recent history.

In many ways, this is the golden age of New York City. Poverty is down, down, down. Crime is at historic lows. Welfare rolls are a fraction of what they were. Things, in general, work. (He's improved a lot of city services).

He's actually a lot better at the job than guiliani. Though you wouldn't know that because he doesn't spend every waking hour chasing the press self promoting.

He's also nice and moderate on most issues. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage &c. But doesn't get in a tizzy about stupid shit that doesn't effect him.

Apparently even the school system is doing better. (He's building new schools too).

Not everything is perfect, of course, but it never is. I've lived here on and off since Dinkins, and let me tell you, he's about the best politician I've ever had to live under.

It's a moot point however, as I'm fairly sure that he only ran so he could ban smoking in bars and keep property taxes on his mansion down. (Did I mention he balances budgets and keeps taxes down too? He even takes the subway to work! Finally a mayor that actually spends time on the public transit system).

He's actually a democrat, so I'm sure you guys could borrow him if you want.

And I'd love Hilary to have a run - any system that's never allowed a black or female President needs that kind of shake-up.

You advocate a shake up of the Labour party then?

I <3 my mayor.

Actually, I've got several beefs with him. But he's probably the most popular mayor in recent history.

In many ways, this is the golden age of New York City. Poverty is down, down, down. Crime is at historic lows. Welfare rolls are a fraction of what they were. Things, in general, work. (He's improved a lot of city services).

He's actually a lot better at the job than guiliani. Though you wouldn't know that because he doesn't spend every waking hour chasing the press self promoting.

He's also nice and moderate on most issues. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage &c. But doesn't get in a tizzy about stupid shit that doesn't effect him.

Apparently even the school system is doing better. (He's building new schools too).

Not everything is perfect, of course, but it never is. I've lived here on and off since Dinkins, and let me tell you, he's about the best politician I've ever had to live under.

It's a moot point however, as I'm fairly sure that he only ran so he could ban smoking in bars and keep property taxes on his mansion down. (Did I mention he balances budgets and keeps taxes down too? He even takes the subway to work! Finally a mayor that actually spends time on the public transit system).

He's actually a democrat, so I'm sure you guys could borrow him if you want.


That's cool. seems like a good guy. I never have heard much out of him. Everytime i hear about a NYC mayor its about how "great" guiliani was...(911 crap)...meh...

His low polls numbers are tied to the high gas prices. Ironic, because its because of liberal environmentalists not letting us drill for domestic oil, high taxes on gasoline enacted by Congress (the gov. makes more money per gallon of gas sold than gas companies), and economically unsound regulations on gasoline, such as the mandatory inclusion of ethanol, as well as just general increased demand of the product around the globe that have driven the price up. It's funny because people get mad about the price of gas going up 50 cents, but a lot of them can't even tell you how much they paid in taxes this year. If they knew what percentage of their income they paid, and how every single thing you do or consume is taxed, anyone running on a platform of lower taxes would take the office of anyone not doing the same. Which is why we have a Republican president and a Republican majority Congress. Foolishly, some Republicans have moved toward the middle out of fear. If they simply stayed true to the Reagan policy of lower taxes and a strong defense they'd never lose.

You can also get a lot of votes by promising free silver.

Why would you vote against Reagan? He's the man.

We should rename everything named after Reagan after Sandino instead. The irony would be amusing, and at last a measure of justice would have been exacted on that particular butcher.

If they knew what percentage of their income they paid, and how every single thing you do or consume is taxed, anyone running on a platform of lower taxes would take the office of anyone not doing the same. Which is why we have a Republican president and a Republican majority Congress. Foolishly, some Republicans have moved toward the middle out of fear. If they simply stayed true to the Reagan policy of lower taxes and a strong defense they'd never lose.

So what, exactly, would they cut from spending in order to pay for the lower taxes?

That's cool. seems like a good guy. I never have heard much out of him. Everytime i hear about a NYC mayor its about how "great" guiliani was...(911 crap)...meh...

Yes, that's the greatest thing about him.

You can live here, and go months without hearing anything about him.

It's really odd when politicians actually do their job, instead of running around holding press conferences slagging people off.

Also, he never shirks. When the city screws up, he admits the city has screwed up, and goes about trying to fix it. He's a bit like a smaller, more restful, jewish, theodore roosevelt.

You can also get a lot of votes by promising free silver.
Nah, Bryan got whoped.

You can also get a lot of votes by promising free silver.

I'll bet you can't.

You can get a lot of votes by persauding enough people that you'll take silver off others and give it to them; but no-one falls for the free silver gag anymore.

So what, exactly, would they cut from spending in order to pay for the lower taxes?
They wouldn't cut anything--that's the beauty. To quote Darth Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

Yes, that's the greatest thing about him.

You can live here, and go months without hearing anything about him.

It's really odd when politicians actually do their job, instead of running around holding press conferences slagging people off.

Also, he never shirks. When the city screws up, he admits the city has screwed up, and goes about trying to fix it. He's a bit like a smaller, more restful, jewish, theodore roosevelt.


I wish I had politicians here in Illinois like that:( . thats the type of person I want to model myself after when i get into politics.

Yes, that's the greatest thing about him.

You can live here, and go months without hearing anything about him.

It's really odd when politicians actually do their job, instead of running around holding press conferences slagging people off.

Also, he never shirks. When the city screws up, he admits the city has screwed up, and goes about trying to fix it. He's a bit like a smaller, more restful, jewish, theodore roosevelt.
He's got my vote. Run him. :)

So what, exactly, would they cut from spending in order to pay for the lower taxes?


Health care, education..the normal..However, somehow military goes up...and some how payraises for the politicians go up too..

Right, because McCain is so popular with the far right wing, which really rules that party.

1. I hate the far right wing. Our current men in power bend over backwards for them, leaving the bulk of us out in the cold. Now, if the Democrats weren't doing the same thing for the far left, we'd be in deep shit.

2. McCain has been courting them a lot recently, which more or less is a glaring sign that he's going to run. McCain can easily win a national election, but he needs to get the 'Pat Robertson' types not to denounce him as a candidate. They don't have to vote for him; just not vote against him. That sort of thing. Guy's got a lot of charisma, I think he can do it. Win over the far right at the expense of a few center/center-left votes of those who hate televangelists. Seems like a fair trade to me.

3. McCain is pretty damn popular in the polls right now. I disagree with some of his stuff, but he's still a relatively good guy. More importantly, he's anti-gun control, which is my most important issue. After the horror show that was 2004, cooler minds will run the most electable candidate, and that's McCain.

Effectively, 2008 will be won by whichever party pulls its head out of its ass the soonest. The Dems could run Lieberman and win, the Reps could run McCain and win. We'll see who starts thinking with the brains as we get closer to election day.

Kerry was never electable. He has is seat in the senate because, frankly, a corpse running on the democrat ticket could win in Mass.
--------------------

and so can a dead democrat running in Missouri against John Ashcroft

;)

1. I hate the far right wing. Our current men in power bend over backwards for them, leaving the bulk of us out in the cold. Now, if the Democrats weren't doing the same thing for the far left, we'd be in deep shit.

2. McCain has been courting them a lot recently, which more or less is a glaring sign that he's going to run. McCain can easily win a national election, but he needs to get the 'Pat Robertson' types not to denounce him as a candidate. They don't have to vote for him; just not vote against him. That sort of thing. Guy's got a lot of charisma, I think he can do it. Win over the far right at the expense of a few center/center-left votes of those who hate televangelists. Seems like a fair trade to me.

3. McCain is pretty damn popular in the polls right now. I disagree with some of his stuff, but he's still a relatively good guy. More importantly, he's anti-gun control, which is my most important issue. After the horror show that was 2004, cooler minds will run the most electable candidate, and that's McCain.

Effectively, 2008 will be won by whichever party pulls its head out of its ass the soonest. The Dems could run Lieberman and win, the Reps could run McCain and win. We'll see who starts thinking with the brains as we get closer to election day.
In other words he should bend over for the far right to win:rolleyes:

I'll bet you can't.

You can get a lot of votes by persauding enough people that you'll take silver off others and give it to them; but no-one falls for the free silver gag anymore.

That's true. You have to call the gag something different. Like "Reaganomics" or "deficits don't matter"

Feingold...
I live in his district

the state of wisconsin?

1. I hate the far right wing. Our current men in power bend over backwards for them, leaving the bulk of us out in the cold. Now, if the Democrats weren't doing the same thing for the far left, we'd be in deep shit.

Since when do the Democrats "bend over backwards" to the far left?

1. I hate the far right wing. Our current men in power bend over backwards for them, leaving the bulk of us out in the cold. Now, if the Democrats weren't doing the same thing for the far left, we'd be in deep shit.

2. McCain has been courting them a lot recently, which more or less is a glaring sign that he's going to run. McCain can easily win a national election, but he needs to get the 'Pat Robertson' types not to denounce him as a candidate. They don't have to vote for him; just not vote against him. That sort of thing. Guy's got a lot of charisma, I think he can do it. Win over the far right at the expense of a few center/center-left votes of those who hate televangelists. Seems like a fair trade to me.

3. McCain is pretty damn popular in the polls right now. I disagree with some of his stuff, but he's still a relatively good guy. More importantly, he's anti-gun control, which is my most important issue. After the horror show that was 2004, cooler minds will run the most electable candidate, and that's McCain.

Effectively, 2008 will be won by whichever party pulls its head out of its ass the soonest. The Dems could run Lieberman and win, the Reps could run McCain and win. We'll see who starts thinking with the brains as we get closer to election day.

The only reason MOST people like lieberman is becuase he was a vet...and he gets alot of press...but really why else would he be popular. I don't see him doing that much good.

I don't agree that the Dems will run lieberman. it would be suicidal. The muslim extremists see that we have a jew as our leader and all hell breaks loose. I see the Reps runnin Colin Powell and maybe stealing an upset if the Dems don't start campaigning right now

He's got my vote. Run him. :)

Draft him. He was a democrat until 1999, when he changed parties owing to the complexities of local politics.

He's actually dead smart too - not just on paper. I doubt the usual dirty tricks would work that well on him. (Plus he'd carry wall street with him).

Since when do the Democrats "bend over backwards" to the far left?
Exactly. If anything, the Democrats bend the far left over and say "vote for us or you get shitheads like Bush." Hell of a choice, usually.

In other words he should bend over for the far right to win:rolleyes:

McCain's a sly bastard. He'll make speeches and show up at colleges doing religious functions, but if you think he'll give the televangelists two cents about "prayer time in schools" bills, you've got another thing coming.

The guy's a relative master of realpolitik. He knows how to grease the gears that make votes come his way. George Bush had name recognition in 2000; McCain did not. Now that we know name recongnition ain't worth shit, we start listening to friendly old fellows with nice speaking voices, like Mr. McCain, who tell us what we want to hear, even if they can't, or don't want, to deliver.

Politics is about getting away with lying as much as possible, and Bushie is a failure at it. Next.

Since when do the Democrats "bend over backwards" to the far left?

since always - you just need to update your english to republican newspeak dictionary.

Draft him. He was a democrat until 1999, when he changed parties owing to the complexities of local politics.

He's actually dead smart too - not just on paper. I doubt the usual dirty tricks would work that well on him. (Plus he'd carry wall street with him).
I don't know. I'm an ex-pat New Yorker. I might want to keep him in the city. They say Mayor of New York is the second most powerful job in the world. I sometimes quibble with that second place ranking.

(You know, us New Yorkers, when we get a good thing, we don't like to share it with the yokels.)

Exactly. If anything, the Democrats bend the far left over and say "vote for us or you get shitheads like Bush." Hell of a choice, usually.

Are you kidding me? Take a gander at how well they buddy up with the race organizations, for example. Rep. McKinney slugged a cap. policeman in the face, and the NAACP and Je$$e Jack$on were there in all of five minutes.

It's depressing, really... America could use a centerline party. -_-*

That's true. You have to call the gag something different. Like "Reaganomics" or "deficits don't matter"

They really don't, as long as you keep them under 3% GDP. (Or balance across the economic cycle).

All things being equal, the economy is not that bad at the moment.

Give it twelve months though.

You advocate a shake up of the Labour party then?

Oh, HEEEEEEELL yes! I do think King Tony (as my dad calls him!) is doing a damn good job with this country, although 'could do better' as always, but yeah, shake up any system that's been the same for so damn long. So that means British Parliament (and Monarchy!!!), American government, and in 30 years time the UN will be due, followed by the EU. Without a good hard look at itself, any system of government will collapse, slowly and subtly, till it doesnt work anymore.
Jeesus, I never rant this much. Maybe it's because I've been up all night doing an assignment, and am drunk.

They really don't, as long as you keep them under 3% GDP. (Or balance across the economic cycle).

All things being equal, the economy is not that bad at the moment.

Give it twelve months though.
By which time it will have fallen completely to pieces?

McCain's a sly bastard. He'll make speeches and show up at colleges doing religious functions, but if you think he'll give the televangelists two cents about "prayer time in schools" bills, you've got another thing coming.

The guy's a relative master of realpolitik. He knows how to grease the gears that make votes come his way. George Bush had name recognition in 2000; McCain did not. Now that we know name recongnition ain't worth shit, we start listening to friendly old fellows with nice speaking voices, like Mr. McCain, who tell us what we want to hear, even if they can't, or don't want, to deliver.

Politics is about getting away with lying as much as possible, and Bushie is a failure at it. Next.

Man...i love the bull shit that just flows out of your mouth. He had no name recognition? I heard more about him in the primaries than i ever did about GWB! And name recognition DOES matter. Example GB1 elected in 91 because he was VP with Reagan.. eisenhower was elected in the 50s because he was a general..same with U.S. Grant...:headbang:

They really don't, as long as you keep them under 3% GDP. (Or balance across the economic cycle).

All things being equal, the economy is not that bad at the moment.

Give it twelve months though.

Another voice of reason. Righteous.

Home ownership is at an all time high, and we've got less unemployment than under Clinton. If the goddamn gasoline didn't cost so much, people would have a much better outlook on things.

Ah well. Good news isn't news, as they say.

I don't know. I'm an ex-pat New Yorker. I might want to keep him in the city. They say Mayor of New York is the second most powerful job in the world. I sometimes quibble with that second place ranking.

(You know, us New Yorkers, when we get a good thing, we don't like to share it with the yokels.)

He's in his second term though. So he's out of a job in 2009. You might as well have him if we're not using him.

I surprised you left NYC though. It's usually the other way.

Are you kidding me? Take a gander at how well they buddy up with the race organizations, for example. Rep. McKinney slugged a cap. policeman in the face, and the NAACP and Je$$e Jack$on were there in all of five minutes.

The "race organizations" are far left?

The Democrats talk the talk. Then they get into office and do nothing. They are a crowd of cowards and opportunists, obstructors and not facilators of an even mildly progressive political agenda.

It's a shame we have this ridiculous winner-take-all system.

Man...i love the bull shit that just flows out of your mouth. He had no name recognition? I heard more about him in the primaries than i ever did about GWB! And name recognition DOES matter. Example GB1 elected in 91 because he was VP with Reagan.. eisenhower was elected in the 50s because he was a general..same with U.S. Grant...:headbang:

You're cute, you know that?

Here's what we've learned since 2000. It can be summed up in one sentence.

"Just because your dad was president doesn't mean you can be president too."

George Bush is the worst thing that's happened to the GOP in a long, long time, and if the powers that be start thinking with their brains instead of their asses, they'll more closely examine who they put on stage to make a dash for the oval office.

Home ownership is at an all time high,


Yah.. about that.....

As high oil prices begin to filter into the CPI, people are about to discover why: a) speculating in property is not a good idea, and b) never spend more that 35% of your net income on housing.

The "race organizations" are far left?

The Democrats talk the talk. Then they get into office and do nothing. They are a crowd of cowards and opportunists, obstructors and not facilators of an even mildly progressive political agenda.

It's a shame we have this ridiculous winner-take-all system.

Sure they are. Lemme see if I can't find that picture that was published by Farrakhan's little happy group about "this is how Republicans stop you from voting" showing some poor blacks getting hosed down during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

"Segregation then, segregation now, and segregation forever!" - George Wallace.

Yah.. about that.....

As high oil prices begin to filter into the CPI, people are about to discover why: a) speculating in property is not a good idea, and b) never spend more that 35% of your net income on housing.

*nod* That may well end up being true. We'll know before long.

You're cute, you know that?
Yes thats what your mother tells me ;)

Here's what we've learned since 2000. It can be summed up in one sentence.

"Just because your dad was president doesn't mean you can be president too."
Why not? It has happened twice. I am sure it will happen again

George Bush is the worst thing that's happened to the GOP in a long, long time, and if the powers that be start thinking with their brains instead of their asses, they'll more closely examine who they put on stage to make a dash for the oval office.

I agree. Worst thing for the GOP, because now america knows what the "Gassy Old Pervert" party really is composed of, a pile of shit, not that the Dems are any better.

Sure they are. Lemme see if I can't find that picture that was published by Farrakhan's little happy group about "this is how Republicans stop you from voting" showing some poor blacks getting hosed down during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.

Farrakhan is not the NAACP, and Farrakhan is not "far left," either.

Edit: Name some left-wing policies Clinton supported during his term in office. Not "liberal," left-wing. I can think of exactly one, health care reform, and that has a great deal of popular support and hardly amounts to being "far left."

I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but actually 40% of Bush voters turned against him.

If 100 people voted, and 50 like Bush, but then 20 recanted, that means that 20/50 changed their mind, or 40%.

...just saying.

He's in his second term though. So he's out of a job in 2009. You might as well have him if we're not using him.

I surprised you left NYC though. It's usually the other way.
What -- the city leaves the people?

I had to leave NYC. I couldn't go there because I was born there and had never left it before (so I couldn't come back). Dinkins and the 1987 crash drove me out -- and hundreds of thousands like me. I was out of work for several years and flat broke. The last thing I did in NYC was vote for Guiliani and wish the stragglers good luck with him. I haven't come back because the city hasn't forgiven me yet. Every time I did visit, the city tried to kill me. But I do intend to die there -- just not yet.

Correct. Farrakhan is Nation of Islam, right? I want to make sure I have my organizations in order.

Anyway, the guy's far left for the purpose of how much he goes after Bushie, and how he typically has buddies on either side of him in various anti-right establishments.

Speaking of Farrakhan, his most recent Million Man March is one of the scrawniest yet... what's up with that?

Correct. Farrakhan is Nation of Islam, right? I want to make sure I have my organizations in order.

Anyway, the guy's far left for the purpose of how much he goes after Bushie, and how he typically has buddies on either side of him in various anti-right establishments.

Speaking of Farrakhan, his most recent Million Man March is one of the scrawniest yet... what's up with that?


people are tired of loudmouth muslims?(no offense to anyone)

Correct. Farrakhan is Nation of Islam, right? I want to make sure I have my organizations in order.

Nation of Islam, yes.

Anyway, the guy's far left for the purpose of how much he goes after Bushie,

Being anti-Bush does not make someone far left.

and how he typically has buddies on either side of him in various anti-right establishments.

The enemy of my enemy....

which we saw how well reagan's policy was in the early 90s, when we felt recession hit us after he and GB I were in office.. Truth is, reagan's policies never were good. The only good thing they did was played on the fears of people and got him votes..

I see you mentioned George Bush Sr. Why was he so unpopular? Because he went back on his promise of no new taxes and, in fact, raised them. I wouldn't dismiss Reagan's policies as no good. He was able to win the Cold War with them.

You'll also notice that toward the end of Clinton's presidency we began to go enter a recession. Why? Taxes for greater social program funding.

I see you mentioned George Bush Sr. Why was he so unpopular? Because he went back on his promise of no new taxes and, in fact, raised them. I wouldn't dismiss Reagan's policies as no good. He was able to win the Cold War with them.
Win the Cold War? There's no challenge in winning a war against a guy that has nothing to fight with. The USSR was already collapsing on itself -- Reagan just noticed the implosion and, quick like a bunny, took credit for it.

I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but actually 40% of Bush voters turned against him.

If 100 people voted, and 50 like Bush, but then 20 recanted, that means that 20/50 changed their mind, or 40%.

...just saying.

*smacks you with a mathbook* You can't turn against him if you were never for him. 20% out of all Bush Voters turned against him.

I see you mentioned George Bush Sr. Why was he so unpopular? Because he went back on his promise of no new taxes and, in fact, raised them. I wouldn't dismiss Reagan's policies as no good. He was able to win the Cold War with them.

You'll also notice that toward the end of Clinton's presidency we began to go enter a recession. Why? Taxes for greater social program funding.


Or perhaps he DIDN'T win the cold war, but rather the great economic collapse of USSR and the revolutions in E. Europs won the cold war. reagan wasn't there tearing down the wall was he? nope. He had nothing to do with it.

Win the Cold War? There's no challenge in winning a war against a guy that has nothing to fight with. The USSR was already collapsing on itself -- Reagan just noticed the implosion and, quick like a bunny, took credit for it.


beat me to it...:fluffle:

Win the Cold War? There's no challenge in winning a war against a guy that has nothing to fight with. The USSR was already collapsing on itself -- Reagan just noticed the implosion and, quick like a bunny, took credit for it.

Maybe he didn't deserve credit for it, or at least not to the degree we give it to him. But you see, he's a shrewd politician. He could take advantage of that kind of thing, spin it to his advantage, and boom. One of the most highly-rated presidents at the end of his administration in recent times.

George Bush has had many opportunities to do this, and the idiot just keeps pissing them away. Get a brain, dammit!

I had to leave NYC. I couldn't go there because I was born there and had never left it before (so I couldn't come back). Dinkins and the 1987 crash drove me out -- and hundreds of thousands like me. I was out of work for several years and flat broke. The last thing I did in NYC was vote for Guiliani and wish the stragglers good luck with him. I haven't come back because the city hasn't forgiven me yet. Every time I did visit, the city tried to kill me. But I do intend to die there -- just not yet.

Wow, a lost voice from the great diaspora.

I moved here from the UK near the begining of the Dinkins era. I remember it well, everyone said the city was dying. I kind of liked though - being younger - it had a real post apocalypse sci-fi feel.

Back in the early nineties (91 I think), a friend of mine lived in a one bedroom on eighth avenue in the 40s. His landlord kept begging him to buy it for $30K. He thought it would be a stupid investment. LOL.

*smacks you with a mathbook* You can't turn against him if you were never for him. 20% out of all Bush Voters turned against him.

To be fair, you have to include people like me, who generally disapprove of people they vote for anyway.

To be fair, you have to include people like me, who generally disapprove of people they vote for anyway.

Well, of course! That is our duty as citizens, to vote for someone then spend their entire term complaining about them. ;)

Well, of course! That is our duty as citizens, to vote for someone then spend their entire term complaining about them. ;)

When no one viable speaks for you, that's what you have to do.

When no one viable speaks for you, that's what you have to do.


Or vote for me...and everyone gets free dessert

Soheran, you take it all too seriously.

And Zilam, you have my vote!!!

When no one viable speaks for you, that's what you have to do.

Bah. You should complain about politicians on priniciple. Otherwise they get away with bloody murder. 99% of them are always bitching and moaning about how 'hard' it is, and what a 'thankless task' they have. Meanwhile, they seem to do very little except go on junkets and bitch and moan about shit that has nothing to do with them.

If it's such a shit job, how comes they'll practically cut throats to get it then?

They're worse than the royal family.

Or vote for me...and everyone gets free dessert

I can stand behind that policy.

It's prudent.

Bah. You should complain about politicians on priniciple.

Definitely. The very nature of a politician precludes that politician from speaking for me.

We should be ruling ourselves, not electing ambitious incompetents to rule over us.

Soheran, you take it all too seriously.

Sometimes. Usually, I take life with a grain of salt and a great deal of amusement.

I can stand behind that policy.

It's prudent.


:D

We should be ruling ourselves, not electing ambitious incompetents to rule over us.

It's a good idea. I just don't think anyone has figured out how to do that yet.

Maybe one day when we have big computers and robots to do all the drudge work.....

It's a good idea. I just don't think anyone has figured out how to do that yet.

Maybe one day when we have big computers and robots to do all the drudge work.....


I still say someone be the emperor..and me darth vader...geesh

I still say someone be the emperor..and me darth vader...geesh

See, the thing is, everyone wants to be darth vader. And you've already called it, so no-one wants to play.

It's a good idea. I just don't think anyone has figured out how to do that yet.

Yes, well, we seem to have no clue as to how to do representative democracy, either.

Yes, well, we seem to have no clue as to how to do representative democracy, either.

Fass reckons sweden has it cracked.

But yeah, that's a good point.

See, the thing is, everyone wants to be darth vader. And you've already called it, so no-one wants to play.


little cry babies...Isn't chewbacca kewl too? why not be him...or the ewoks? :p

people finally came to their friggin senses

We should be ruling ourselves, not electing ambitious incompetents to rule over us.

The problem being, of course, once we're placed in charge of ourselves, what's to stop us just forming new power-grabbing corporations? Power corrupts. Any power, given to anyone, anytime. There's only one truly uncorruptible source of power... but of course, it's not cool to believe in Him anymore.

I wanna be Han! Dibs on Han!!!

The problem being, of course, once we're placed in charge of ourselves, what's to stop us just forming new power-grabbing corporations?

So when people are finally free, they will just stand by and watch as others attempt to exploit them? Capitalism will be abolished with politicians. That's the idea, anyway.

Power corrupts. Any power, given to anyone, anytime.

That's why you give it to everybody. If everyone is corrupted, everyone balances everybody else out.

There's only one truly uncorruptible source of power... but of course, it's not cool to believe in Him anymore.

God's authority is arbitrary. I don't want Him ruling over me either, corrupt or not. He has no right to do so.

Except maybe Eutrusca and he's on a forum ban right now.
How uncouth is it to ask what the felling blow was? *nudge*

No, they don't shoot themselves in the foot. They're so afraid of shooting themselves in the foot that they don't shoot at all, and then the Republicans shoot them.
I think ya got something there. *nods*

I don't actually think that Bush is 'stupid' by any means. He may not be the classic intelligentsia, but he's certainly smart enough to, despite waging a war which almost every other developed country opposed, manage to get re-elected.
Actually it's obviously NOT Bush. It's his posse.

Much more, the Bush White House has suffered tremendous bad luck since 2001, starting with September 11th. Many errors made were predictable. A good few disasters were not.
Many errors were also deliberate. A lot of the so-called "luck" isn't such a thing whatsoever. He's earned a lot of the sh*t he's parading through.

Why would you vote against Reagan? He's the man.
He's the second fiddle to the chimp. Curiously ironic that Shrubya invoked him so much.

Yay! Finally something that makes sense.
Oh really? How much sense do you think will be contributed by ANWR drilling? Perhaps you know why republicans also don't agree enough to let it happen?
How much of a percentage do you think ANWR is going to contribute?
With your answer of something "making sense", i'd wager you don't know.

They wouldn't cut anything--that's the beauty. To quote Darth Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg

Perhaps people were voting not for Bush but against Kerry?
That makes sense.

Perhaps people were voting not for Bush but against Kerry?
That makes sense.
I've gotten that inference from people QUITE often. *nods*

How uncouth is it to ask what the felling blow was? *nudge*

There was a slight contretemps when he reported someone for flaming. Turns out that he'd been 'indulging' too.

There was a slight contretemps when he reported someone for flaming. Turns out that he'd been 'indulging' too.
Is that still in Moderation? I noted a post or two from him in there a few days back. That was probably it.
Thanks for answering, btw. *bows*

Is that still in Moderation? I noted a post or two from him in there a few days back. That was probably it.
Thanks for answering, btw. *bows*

Yah. That's the one.

He flamed the person he reported for flaming him.

This is why I never post in moderation.

I've gotten that inference from people QUITE often. *nods*
It is just lie the NZ elections i heard people say they voted for Aunty Helen and the Soul Breakers just because they didn't like Don 'Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh' Brash just because they didn't like him even if they agreed with him.

Why would you vote against Reagan? He's the man.

Perhaps because he was a populist moron, who viewed even the most complex issues in ultrasimplistic black-and-white terms, but was just smart enough to pander to people's base fears and prejudices?

Other than that, no reason at all...

Perhaps because he was a populist moron, who viewed even the most complex issues in ultrasimplistic black-and-white terms, but was just smart enough to pander to people's base fears and prejudices?


Like Al Gore and his social security 'lock box'?

They all do that, so it's not a good reason.

Bush should have shut the door on Iraq straight away but he didn't...

So when people are finally free, they will just stand by and watch as others attempt to exploit them? Capitalism will be abolished with politicians. That's the idea, anyway.


That's why you give [power] to everybody. If everyone is corrupted, everyone balances everybody else out.


Hey, some damn good points there, I really can't disagree with you on principle... It comes down to what your basic belief in human nature is. Me, I think of Soviet Russia, and the good intentions of equality there... it just left them open to be exploited by the truly ruthless among them. It just left me believing that you'll always have those willing to exploit all those around them, however equal your system is in theory.

Pres. Bush was elected with 50% of the vote. A year and half later 20% of those people now say he's doing a bad job. He's not doing anything different than he did the first term. So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?

Borders!

Pres. Bush was elected with 50% of the vote. A year and half later 20% of those people now say he's doing a bad job. He's not doing anything different than he did the first term. So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?
Actually, rejection would be saying they would have voted for the other guy. A different matter entirely. I seriously doubt most of the 20% would entertain the idea of voting for Kerry for longer than 10 seconds.

Pres. Bush was elected with 50% of the vote. A year and half later 20% of those people now say he's doing a bad job. He's not doing anything different than he did the first term. So, I would like to ask someone from that 20% why they have changed their mind. What is different now than a year and a half ago?


I was so-so on Bush at the start. From late 2001 until until late 2003, I was in his corner. But by then, it was clear that his plans in Iraq had seriously gone awry. The corruption scandals, treasonous cover ups, general incompetence, and so forth since is what has put me in opposition to him.

My feelings on the whole US political scene can best be summed up by the Economist:
Two years ago, this newspaper narrowly favoured Mr Kerry's incoherence over Mr Bush's incompetence. Since then, Republican incompetence has exceeded even our worst fears. How depressing to report that Democratic incoherence has soared too. America deserves better.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6826160

Perhaps people were voting not for Bush but against Kerry?
That makes sense.
If it were the first term I could see the logic in this. But, when you know you have a total loser in office why would you vote for him again. Any change would bring the possibility of improvement. If kerry was no good, vote against him in 4 years. At least you would have a possibility of improvement, With what we had (and still have) there was no possibility of improvement.

When you're on a boat that is obviously sinking, I would jump on any raft passing by.

If it were the first term I could see the logic in this. But, when you know you have a total loser in office why would you vote for him again. Any change would bring the possibility of improvement. If kerry was no good, vote against him in 4 years. At least you would have a possibility of improvement, With what we had (and still have) there was no possibility of improvement.

When you're on a boat that is obviously sinking, I would jump on any raft passing by.
Sadly, that seems to have been the Kerry campaign's strategy.

There are some fierce Kerry supporters who hang around over at Daily Kos--not many, but they are fierce. When they yell "Kerry got the most votes of any challenger in history," I reply with "Gore actually beat Bush in the popular vote, and that was before we knew just how bad he sucked."

Fass reckons sweden has it cracked.

I do?

*smacks you with a mathbook* You can't turn against him if you were never for him. 20% out of all Bush Voters turned against him.

*throws a calculator at your head*

Half the country voted for him (supposedly.) right? That's 50% approval. Now only 30% like him. Yes, it's an overall decline of 20%, but those 20% were all Bush voters.

You want full numbers?

Kerry had 59,028,109 people vote for him. Bush had 62,040,606. That's basically a 51% Approval Rating for Bush. Now it's 32% - Meaning only 38,741,988 of people like him. That means 23,298,618 people TURNED AGAINST HIM. 23,298,618 is 38% of 62,040,606, which means 38% of people who voted for Bush no longer support him.

(OOC)

I'm no big fan of President Bush, however I really dislike it when everyone jumps on the bandwagon of Bush bashing.

I'm not goona say hes doing terriffic, I'm not going to say hes a great president. Here is what I will say.

Look at the alternative.

The American voters were put between a rock and a hard place between 2 poor candidates. I think we did the best we could. I do not want to know what would have happened had Kerry been elected. So do I think Bush is doing a good job? not really. Do I think hes doing better than Kerry would have? Oh most certainly so.
I can't imagine that anyone, Kerry included, could do a worse job than this complete imbecile and the idiots he has working for him. We would have been much better off with Gore, Kerry or Elmer Fudd.

I can't imagine that anyone, Kerry included, could do a worse job than this complete imbecile and the idiots he has working for him. We would have been much better off with Gore, Kerry or Elmer Fudd.

vote ficus!

I honestly don't know what to think about Bush. I don't like him, and that's for sure. I voted for him after not much deliberation, but the way things are going now, with all of the immigration issues, the numerous wars we have going on...I hope we get in a better president who will restore our allies.:( :sniper:

Do you guys have preferential voting? Frustrated with the lack of weight my solitary voice of reason carries, I have devised an approach to elections. I vote for the most horribly left parties possible, communists, socialists, greens... Now, ofcourse they guys don't win (thank god), but when the conservative government (it doesn't matter whether librour or laboural win, seriously) wins and they have a look at the polls, my vote send them a message to move left on the social agenda (it does simultaneously send the unintentional message to lefticise the economy, but hopefully they wouldn't do that).

I do not want to know what would have happened had Kerry been elected.

There's no reason to believe he would have done any worse than W did in his first term. Certainly no reason to believe that he'd have done as bad as W has done in his second term.

Bush is spectacularly bad. He's done more to increase spending, decrease civil liberties, ruin the environment and remove the scourge of peace, than any president in my lifetime. W has done more to harm the US and the world than Reagan or Nixon.

Not that any of this was a surprise to anyone who was paying attention in 2000. Anybody who took even a cursory glance at the shambles he had made of Texas while he was governor there would have known he would be an awful president.

Kerry was, to quote Douglas Adams,
"Mostly Harmless."

I was a proud Bush supporter in 2000. (Well, after he won the nomination, I was actually a Steve Forbes fan during the primaries.)

I was a reluctant Bush supporter in 2004. I figured he was a better choice than flip-flopper John Kerry.

Now, a year and a half later, I'm still glad that I voted for Bush, but I'm not happy with what he's done in his second term.

I didn't like the Harriet Miers nomination. I think Bush owed it to his supporters to select somebody who was a known conservative, and not some unknown personal fan of his.

I didn't like the Dubai ports deal. I think it really showed a lack of judgement on his (and his handlers) part. Even if there was a secondary political gain to it, I think it was a PR nightmare.

I didn't like his handling of the Hurricane aftermath. He showed weakness and not leadership. He also allocated way too much money too quickly. Instead of taking all the blame, he should have pointed out where the Mayor, Governor, and Senators of LA failed.

I don't like his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens. While I agree that shipping 11million+ illegals back to their countries of origin is probably difficult, I do think an effort should be made to penalize ILLEGAL workers and the people who hire them. Remove the allure of coming here (by denying jobs, benefits, welfare, education, etc) and people will stop flocking over the boarders. At the same time, make legal immigration easier and faster. Any type of "amnesty" program isn't going to solve the problem.

I think Bush is a good man. I think he's probably at least as honorable as anybody else who has held the position. I think he tries too hard to make alliances with people who want to see him fail (ie. Democrats, Vicente Fox, etc.) I wish he was more of a fighter for conservative principles. I support his War on Terror, and I'll support his use of military force on Iran, if it comes to that. But he's had a series of missteps since winning in 2004, that make me place him in the "unapproval" category.

I was a reluctant Bush supporter in 2004. I figured he was a better choice than flip-flopper John Kerry.


Kerry didn't "flip-flop". He "voted for the bill before he voted against it" (I agree that that was a really stupid way for him to phrase it) because of the riders that the Republicans attached to that bill. Would Kerry have been a good President? I doubt it. Better than Bush, but my dead golden retriever would be a better president than Bush. But there is not, IMHO, anyone who would be a good president. We have pretty much always been faced with trying to choose which candidate we think will do the least damamge.

Kerry didn't "flip-flop". He "voted for the bill before he voted against it" (I agree that that was a really stupid way for him to phrase it) because of the riders that the Republicans attached to that bill.

In other words, "I did agree, in good faith, to paint your house, but then you added a line to the contract that said you could have sex with my wife. Then I flip-flopped."
:rolleyes:

In other words, "I did agree, in good faith, to paint your house, but then you added a line to the contract that said you could have sex with my wife. Then I flip-flopped."
:rolleyes:

No. In other words, "I did agree with you, then you added a bunch of other shit that totally changed the meaning of the original topic and would have screwed people over." And I'd suggest you grow up and knock off the eye rolling crap. Disagree, fine. Mock me? Not acceptable.

I think he tries too hard to make alliances with people who want to see him fail (ie. Democrats...

take things like this and multiply them a bit and you've got an explanation for the remaining 30%

take things like this and multiply them a bit and you've got an explanation for the remaining 30%
Yes. They're delusional because they actually believe that.

Me too, but I was a JW at the time, so I wasn't voting. I liekd Dukakis, though.

You never cease to amaze me.
That isn't intended as an insult BTW. I really am amazed.

Wow, a lost voice from the great diaspora.
Crying in the wilderness for a halfway decent pastrami sandwich. :D

I moved here from the UK near the begining of the Dinkins era. I remember it well, everyone said the city was dying. I kind of liked though - being younger - it had a real post apocalypse sci-fi feel.

Back in the early nineties (91 I think), a friend of mine lived in a one bedroom on eighth avenue in the 40s. His landlord kept begging him to buy it for $30K. He thought it would be a stupid investment. LOL.
Yeah, well, I grew up in that Mad Max shit -- and I knew what caused it, and I had to commute through it -- so it kind of lacked the romance for me. The thing about those hard times is that it's just part of the city's life cycle. NYC does that every now and then -- collapse into a seething, rotten hellscape of violence and despair -- and then it comes out of it again and becomes the coolest place in the world. And when it comes to its senses, the diaspora returns. This has been happening, more or less, since it was New Amsterdam. Maybe it's the feng shui of the islands or something.

No. In other words, "I did agree with you, then you added a bunch of other shit that totally changed the meaning of the original topic and would have screwed people over." And I'd suggest you grow up and knock off the eye rolling crap. Disagree, fine. Mock me? Not acceptable.

Real nice. :mad: Re-read my post. I agreed with you.

Borders!
You may be onto something there, friend.

Jobs and gas -- the new version of bread and circuses.

Sixth year slumps are quite typical of the American political system no? Truman lost twenty eight Democratic House members in his sixth year. Eisenhower lost forty eight Republican House members. Nixon/Ford lost the same number. Reagan lost five House members (and control of the Senate). These losses have been consistent across parties and across presidential popularity. Eisenhower was extremely popular in 1958. Reagan was also very well liked in 1986. Truman and Nixon/Ford were not liked as much. 1998 stands as an exception. The Democrats actually gained five seats in the House that year even as Bill Clinton was having a very difficult 6th year.

A loss of seats (or control) in the House and Senate for the Republicans may well have been inevitable even if Bush's popularity were at 99.9%.

You may be onto something there, friend.

Jobs and gas -- the new version of bread and circuses.


The thing is, the unemployment rate sits at 4.7%. Most economists agree that 5% is "full employment". In most sections of the nation the economy is humming along quite nicely...

Although there are pockets (the rust belt for instance) where things are pretty crappy.

And gas prices. Mark my words -- they'll go down by November. And Mark my words -- the Dems will think it's being manipulated by the Repubs. They'll forget that gas prices almost ALWAYS go down in the fall months.

Sixth year slumps are quite typical of the American political system no? Truman lost twenty eight Democratic House members in his sixth year. Eisenhower lost forty eight Republican House members. Nixon/Ford lost the same number. Reagan lost five House members (and control of the Senate). These losses have been consistent across parties and across presidential popularity. Eisenhower was extremely popular in 1958. Reagan was also very well liked in 1986. Truman and Nixon/Ford were not liked as much. 1998 stands as an exception. The Democrats actually gained five seats in the House that year even as Bill Clinton was having a very difficult 6th year.

A loss of seats (or control) in the House and Senate for the Republicans may well have been inevitable even if Bush's popularity were at 99.9%.


Good points. There's only one thing worse than Bush's approval numbers -- Congress' approval numbers.

And what's really, really sad is that as bad as the Repub's numbers are, the Dems are even worse. (I think Gallup, a few weeks ago, had the Repub's approval numbers at 38%, and the Dem's numbers at 35%)

I am a conservative who voted for Bush and have always thought that he was doing a bad job because he compromises his beliefs too much and doen't veto anything and cares too much about what the media will say about him. I voted for him so the democrats wouldn't win.

Ill tell you whats wrong. Liberals have no idea what is going on. The economy is booming, Saddam is out of power, and we are still the greatest nation in the world. The real problem is that we have moderate, liberal Republicans in congress who make President Bush look bad when in reality he is not. If the Republican party in congress went back to Reaganism and Reagans ideas then there would be no problem and Liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi would be voted out of office because they dont deserve to have a seat in Congress.

Good points. There's only one thing worse than Bush's approval numbers -- Congress' approval numbers.

And what's really, really sad is that as bad as the Repub's numbers are, the Dems are even worse. (I think Gallup, a few weeks ago, had the Repub's approval numbers at 38%, and the Dem's numbers at 35%)
The most recent poll, the LA Times/Bloomberg poll available at pollingreport.com, has Democrats at 41% favorable and Republicans at 37%. It wasn't a head-to-head either--just straight approval vs. disapproval. In the last year, I have yet to see a poll outside an admittedly partisan outfit that puts Republicans ahead of Democrats in approval. Neither side has a majority, but the Dems have always been slightly ahead. I'm sure I could have missed one, and I'd like to see it if I have.

Not that national polls mean a lot in this kind of race. Congressional races are always more local than national.

Here's the poll I was looking for (http://pollingreport.com/2006a.htm).

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). April 21-24, 2006. N=1,005 adults nationwide. Results below are among registered voters.

"What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?"
Controlled By Republicans Controlled ByDemocrats Unsure

4/21-24/06 39% 45% 16%



CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. April 21-23, 2006. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Results below are among registered voters.

"Thinking for a moment about the elections for Congress next year, if the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your congressional district: the Democratic Party's candidate or the Republican Party's candidate?" If unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward the Democratic Party's candidate or the Republican Party's candidate?" Options rotated

Republican Democrat Other (vol.) Unsure

4/21-23/06 40 50 3 6



The Harris Poll. April 7-10, 2006. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"If the election for Congress were being held today, would you be voting for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate?"

Republican Democrat Other (vol.) Unsure

4/7-10/06 37 41 15 6The Harris poll is the closest of the three. The Pew poll is interesting--not shown--because it makes my point from above, that while Dems lead their generic poll 51-41, incumbents, regardless of party, lead 57-28.

The Pew poll is interesting--not shown--because it makes my point from above, that while Dems lead their generic poll 51-41, incumbents, regardless of party, lead 57-28.

It's always "somebody elses'" congress critter that's the problem.

My congress critter -- Rep. Wally Herger - R from Chico, Ca. Is a pretty upstanding man, as far as I can tell. He's been a local boy for decades, first as an Assemblyman to the Calif. legislature, and then as a Representative. I went to school with one of his daughters -- had quite a crush on her, as a matter of fact. Good decent people who do their best to look out for the farming community North of Sacramento. I think he won re-election in 2004 with 60+% of the vote, and his major Dem. challenger this year is a left leaning psychiatrist whose only major statment so far has been, "Bush is bad."

For most people, voting for the challenger is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It'd be interesting if everybody had some type of say in other than their own local elections. It wouldn't work, and perhaps should never be tried, but it'd be nice to disrupt the incumbancy.

(OOC)

The American voters were put between a rock and a hard place between 2 poor candidates. I think we did the best we could. I do not want to know what would have happened had Kerry been elected. So do I think Bush is doing a good job? not really. Do I think hes doing better than Kerry would have? Oh most certainly so.


That makes no sense. First, there is no way of knowing how poorly or well Gore or Kerry would have done in the White House because they did not win. I am quite convinced that if the Democrats had control of the White House, we would not be where we are today. Bush had his mind made up to go to war from the moment he was elected, this has been clearly established time and time again.

And what about Bush-Bashing???? He deserves it. Speaking out against our leaders is the RIGHT THING TO DO if they are doing a poor job of representing and serving Americans. Ther eis nothing un-American or unpatriotic about speaking out against a criminal government. :mad:

Real nice. :mad: Re-read my post. I agreed with you.
Shit. Sorry. Sarcasm and stuff like that doesn't transleate to the written word very well.

Ill tell you whats wrong. Liberals have no idea what is going on. The economy is booming, Saddam is out of power, and we are still the greatest nation in the world. The real problem is that we have moderate, liberal Republicans in congress who make President Bush look bad when in reality he is not. If the Republican party in congress went back to Reaganism and Reagans ideas then there would be no problem and Liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi would be voted out of office because they dont deserve to have a seat in Congress.


Thanks. This thread needed some comic relief.

Shit. Sorry. Sarcasm and stuff like that doesn't transleate to the written word very well.

No problem, dude. Just so you know, when I mock people, I tend to do it with words. Other than that middle finger one I just use smilies for the silly factor. I like to be silly as much as possible. If I wasn't silly, discussions of W would make my blood pressure go through the roof.

Peace and smiles.:):):)

The thing is, the unemployment rate sits at 4.7%. Most economists agree that 5% is "full employment". In most sections of the nation the economy is humming along quite nicely...

Although there are pockets (the rust belt for instance) where things are pretty crappy.

And gas prices. Mark my words -- they'll go down by November. And Mark my words -- the Dems will think it's being manipulated by the Repubs. They'll forget that gas prices almost ALWAYS go down in the fall months.
A) I disagree with you, but I'm not going to pursue that because--

B) It doesn't matter. Perception is reality in politics. There are certain things that no American wants to hear regardless of the context. Regarding the borders -- by which I mean the Mexican border, of course -- the rhetoric is pissing people off. Whether any of it is true, or reasonable, or even sincere doesn't matter at all. Whether the people most pissed off about it are even directly affected by it doesn't matter at all. For several different reasons, Americans do not feel that they are doing as well as they were, say, 10-15 years ago. Plus, anxiety levels have remained high -- and been kept high -- since 9/11. Now they are being told that millions of swarthy foreigners in the country illegally should be allowed to stay (cue xenophobia), and that the economy is dependent on low wage workers (cue poverty fears and general sense of job insecurity), and then we hear that crap about "willing workers" and "jobs Americans won't do" (throw gas on fire of job insecurity fears), and pretty soon every word the administration says is felt as some kind of personal insult.

Likewise with gas prices. Maybe its because of illegal price gouging. Maybe its because of Iraq. Maybe its because of international market pressures. All Americans know is that they don't feel as rich as they think they should feel, and they don't like the numbers they see at the gas station. And they are looking for someone to blame. If it happens to be the right guy, that'll just be a bonus.