Reply
Fri 5 Sep, 2003 07:52 pm
Richard Reeves counts the ways:
Quote:It could be argued now that President George W. Bush cannot be re-elected -- not after screwing up most everything he touches.
If you doubt that, look at the record. The poor guy is a disaster. I'll just list the first 10 reasons GWB looks like a lame duck -- or a dead duck:
1. GWB misunderstood the limits of the super power he inherited and over-reached around the world. He learned a bit about far places -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea -- and then personally declared war on them, war on the cheap.
A classified report being prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned," obtained by Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times, discusses the search for weapons of mass destruction and concludes: "WMD elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process ... Insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission."
2. In the process of going to war, GWB began mocking and pushing around old allies like a schoolyard bully. Then he was surprised when they -- beginning with France, Germany and Russia -- began pushing back.
3. Rushing in as fools are said to do, GWB has tied down the greatest military in the history of the world. Ours. Half our combat-ready army is looking for snipers and bombers in unruly countries that look as tribal as they were a century ago when the British failed as imperialists in the same sand and mountains.
4. GWB dissed the United Nations (and again, our allies) and now is coming back to ask everyone else to help clean up the mess he made.
5. "He" -- we always overstate presidential power over the domestic economy -- has "lost" 2 million jobs here at home as the stock market went south.
6. GWB is presiding over the economic decline of millions of American families -- and not only the poor ones left behind long ago. Take a look at the new book "The Two-Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi (published by Basic Books). Comparing the early 70's with the early 2000s, the authors report that a typical family with only the husband working earned $38,700 30 years ago, and after fixed expenses like shelter, food, transportation and taxes, had $17,834 to spend for tuitions and other incidentals. Now, with both husband and wife working (if they're lucky) and earning $67,800, the fixed expenses total $50,755 and $17,045 is left to pay for everything else. (That's all in constant dollars.)
7. GWB is a "big government" big spender, compared to, say, his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The Center for Public Service at The Brookings Institution, directed by Paul Light, has just issued a report indicating that the number of federal employees and contractors is increasing for the first time since the 1980s, led by a 43 percent increase in employees of defense contractors feeding on federal contracts.
8. GWB is running a "borrow as you go" government, exploding the national debt by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars compared to Clinton-era surpluses. Given the choice of "tax and spend" or "borrow and spend," he has chosen to pass the bill on to new generations.
9. GWB's environmental record is comic, confirmed when Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" showed him walking through a national park filled with "future two-by-fours."
10. GWB lies a lot.
Why Bush Can't Win
Numbers six and seven are only tangentially the responsiblity of Bush. The economic decline of Americans is due more to structural shifts in the economy, technology, and globalization, all which were under way long before Bush came (stole) into office. Of more significance is his continued dismantling of the regulatory structure, put into place over the past 50 years to protect American financially during periods of transition such as this and a return to the unrestrained capitalism of the late 19th century. Bush represents, and is descendent from a class that sees it's self as badly treated by Roosevelt and the New Deal. They lost money and power that they saw as rightfully theirs and he and his father have been attempting to reverse that history.
I don't care. All the psychological dissections and excuses and alibis in the world don't make up for the fact that he has royally screwed this country.
Can't keep blaming ancestry or mother drinking. There comes a time when one has to take responsibility. The present-day fact is that we got saddled with a thick-headed (and proud of it) would-be macho man, who, despite the hype, is easily manipulated. And the fact is, he could be re-elected. And if he is, the ones who voted for him will deserve what they get.
But - I think he can be beaten. And one thing we have to do is stop talking about how ineffective the dems are, and start sounding like a cheering squad. The old principle of "act as if..." If we don't sound united and thinking we've got the best team, and they do have some plans - then the repubs win. Part of the game is to keep us down and depressed - disunited and glum. We do have better people - there were eight of them in New Mexico. Who've the repubs got?
Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Sept. 3-4, 2003. N=883 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3.
"If George W. Bush runs for reelection in 2004, would you say you will definitely vote for him, might vote for or against him, or will you definitely vote against him?"
Definitely For 29%
Might Vote For Or Against 25%
Definitely Against 41%
Not Sure 5%
PollingReport.com
IMO the Bush presidency has been one of, if not the greatest disasters visited upon this nation in history. However, it would appear that inexplicably he has a greater than even chance to be reelected. What with all his faults and failures makes him the preference of so many? Anyone have a clue?
The "Definitely Against" stat is encouraging.
I just worry a lot about when it stops being theoretical -- that when it comes down to Bush vs. Dean, say, as opposed to Bush vs. Anyone Else, people will have a hard time voting for the Dem nominee. Especially that 25% that could swing either way.
au, never underestimate the ignorance of the American people.
70% continue to believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
Quote:Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
Washington Post
Now, that jaw-dropping factoid aside, what will be the nail in the coffin of George Bush's short-but-happy political career?
It's gonna be the
economy again, stoopid. :wink:
IMO if it's Dean Vs Bush, The bumbler will win. Dean will be perceived as being too far left for Joe Six pack. Kerry has a much greater chance of unseating the incumbent.
Falling back on revenge for 9/11, the administration would find themselves falling on their own sword. The DNC is going to begin to influence what candidate we're going to see in the forefront despite the money being spent to accumulate the support of the voters. I think it could end up being Kerry/Clark.
PDiddie
Quote:It's gonna be the economy again, stoopid
.
That may just be wishful thinking on your part unless of course you have a crystal ball that reads the pulse of the fickle American electorate.
au1929 wrote:That may just be wishful thinking on your part unless of course you have a crystal ball that reads the pulse of the fickle American electorate.
No crystal ball, just hunchified prognostication.
Job loss, and subsequent loss of spendable money, can be very effective. The business section of the NY Times points out to day that without job growth, this economy will not get better. The figures about productivity, while true, are misleading. Every company that makes something needs the customer to buy its product.
CI pointed out something in some other thread, in response to a statment. He said, replacing 3 million jobs doesn't do it - you have to add jobs after that to have a growing economy.
I heard Tom Ridge thee other night talking about adding air marshalls. Well, it turned out they aren't adding anybody. What they're doing is some additional training so that a person already employed could step in if needed. Another playing around with words. I agree. In the end, no matter what, it's the economy. And the Iraqi mss is a big part of that - how will it be paid for? It'll be our blood.
The most recent Gallup Poll- August 25-26 reveals:
Job Approval rating for George W. Bush- 59%
Handling of Terrorism- 66% approval
In a race between George W. Bush and a generic Democrat-
George W. Bush 51%
Generic Democrat- 39%
Other( Nader?) 4%
No Opinion- 6%
It is a political truism that Money is the mother's milk of Politics.
At this time, the Republican Convention in New York has already been paid for.
Political pundits estimate that President Bush will raise 250 Million for his campaign.
We shall see.
There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the Economy. I do not think that the American public will be able to understand the nature of "globalization".
Acquiunk touched on some of the important points concerning the economy.
The most cogent fact that has emerged in the past two weeks is the statement that productivity has increased by a startling 6.8%.
Those who did not fall asleep in Economics 101 are aware that such an increase in productivity allows businesses( large and small) to produce more at a lower cost without hiring additional workers.
This may be deleterious to George W. Bush's campaign for re-election but it cannot be said to be damaging to our economy.
Those interested in exploring the effects of productivity in our modern world are referred to the important book- "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Friedman.
Friedman quotes Schumpeter repeatedly with regard to Schumpeter's concept of "creative destruction'
Destruction of obsolete jobs and creation of new ones.
I am very much afraid that P. Diddie's comment about George W. Bush screwing up- everything he touches may even expand to Texas( Although he would deny it).
The possibility that the Texas re-districting( which, it is said, may allow the Republicans to capture five or six more seats in the Federal House of Representatives) may take place after all since one of the "renegade" Texas Democrats has returned to Texas. This, I understand, allows a quorum to be formed.
It is indeed possible that we may see a heavily Republican House; a heavily Republican Senate and a Democratic President.
That may be the best scenario of all.
Stalemate.
After all, the best government is the one that governs the least.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace