Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

True, true -- to Cic and Wolf.

I posted on the Dean Diary thread this morning a nice piece written by a Republican about Dean. Jorge (author of the thread) also had a great story... Seems like there's some party-switching goin' on...

Might want to start asking people:

Do you want to vote for a fiscal conservative? Or for Bush?

Do you want to vote for smaller, more effective government? Or for Bush?

There was something in the RMN this morning (it wasn't in the online edition, unfortunately)about how the American Muslim community is hosting voter registration drives. This is sort of ironic, since they endorsed Bushy-Poo II in 2000. It would seem that they have learned their lesson!

Do you want to vote for someone who favours the American way of life (i.e; democracy, due process,etc..), or Bush?

Elaine Chao, Sec'y Labor, is wife of repbub senator Mitch McConnell. Her appointment was a payoff to him, since her qualifications are almost nil. He, of the pursed little mouth and nasty ways, has been an ardent backer of Bush.

Here's from an article in today's New York Times:



Weekly earnings for all private-sector workers, after accounting for inflation, have slid for the last seven months, down two-tenths of one percent so far this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported. A new study by the Economic Policy Institute, a research group financed by foundations and labor unions, found that hourly after-inflation wages had slipped across the board for most workers.

But Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao predicted that job creation would soon improve, and along with it, worker optimism.

"We're on the road to recovery, but obviously the president and this administration are deeply committed to accelerating the recovery so that everyone who wants to work can find a job," Ms. Chao said Friday in an interview.
.....................
"What's unique about the economy today is that even though the recession started in March 2001 and ended apparently in November 2001, here we are in August-September of 2003, and we have far fewer jobs than when we started this whole process," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. "That has never happened since the Great Depression."

A survey of 1,015 adults conducted by the Heldrich Center at Rutgers in June found that 18 percent of all American workers reported being laid off in the last three years.

Like other administration officials, Ms. Chao said Mr. Bush had inherited the recession and weak job growth.

She added that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other corporations weakened the economy further.

Ms. Chao said the president's tax cuts had stopped the slump from growing worse and would soon fuel growth and job creation. As evidence of growth, she pointed to the report Friday that the economy expanded by 3.1 percent in the second quarter.

"We're still in the middle of this presidential term, and as we see the economy grow and this recovery gain momentum, we expect more job creation will occur," she said.



Ms Chao offers nothing but platitudes. Where will these jobs come from? According to most reports, manufacturing is in a bad slump. But productivity is up, because we have fewer workers producing more results (hardly a job-creating situation). And, of course, it's all Clinton's fault. This is a weak argument growing weaker, because nowhere does she (or the others) say anything about the budget surplus they inherited. Reasonably, how does a recession produce a surplus? And then, of course, the other fall-back - Enron, WorldCom - all buddies of, supporters of, and supported by Bush.

No wonder Labor is making moves now - more people are beginning to realize what moving jobs out of the country really means for them.

Mamaj -- Did you see PDiddie's Palast post one page back?

One reason it takes me so long on these threads is that I quite often go back and read what went before - both to jog the memory and give a perspective. So, yes indeed, I did read PD's Post (I usually read PD's posts anyway), and I've been reading Greg Palast a long time. I used to receive a regular newsletter - but somewhere along the line that stopped.

I've been reading some interesting stuff lately. There seems to be a growing opinion that all those expensive TV political ads are almost thrown away. And so much money is raised for them. And that both parties are going back to wooing core groups. Not that they won't pay attention to the swing voter, but the core represents a real vote, and the big job is to get them out. So the tone and delivery of messages is going to change.

I heard, too, Kerry refer to the American "anger." Now, since so many dems had for so long talked about the necessity of staying centrist (with many different meanings for that word), and making nice - it seems to be occurring to some that perhaps there really is a well of anger among some democrats, and they want someone who will tap into that and make it useful...a LEADER! Kerry is most definitely changing his message.

And the amount of money raised, I think, will be of lessening importance. It might even be that those obscene amounts might even turn off some of those soon-to-be-employed if you vote repub voters. At any rate, the traditional roles that raising campaign money has played are changing. Dean's skillful use of the internet has shown another path.

I think the republicans are beginning to get a little shook about all this, and it's reflected in some of the growingly more obvious things they are doing. Like saying, it doesn't matter who or where, let's do it and win. But the Texas affair has shown them - and DeLay, in a not very favorable light. Tis counts when it comes time to vote.

copied from above: "But Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao predicted that job creation would soon improve, and along with it, worker optimism." This is the same line GWBush has been telling the American People for the past three years. According to the latest reports on US unemployment, the number is in excess of 7 million without jobs. To even suggest "job creation," when they've done absolutely the opposite is an insult to the American People. How do they expect to create jobs in the US when this administration is wasting money in Iraq at the rate of one billion every month? They just don't get it, and they never will. For Ms Chao to parrot what the president says, only makes her look foolish and stupid.

CI - that is what she is, and I rather think those were the qualifications set forth and brought to the job.

Bush - and the rest - for three years now have been saying things about plans - but it's always generalized, never specific.

Anybody who could think McConnell is "cute," (she said this) can't be bright.

Speaking of the Texas thing, I had a quite touching letter the other day from Gonzalo Barrientos who represents the area where I lived (in Austin), who's a good guy to whom I still send a pittance during campaigns, and who is now in Albuquerque. This wasn't a plea for money or anything close. It was simply a letter to his supporters from over the years explaining, gently, what he believed had gone wrong, how he believed he was doing the right thing and why. Just straight stuff, totally lacking in glitz.

I agree with you about money. The unbelievable amounts raised by Bush may -- just may -- turn out to be an albatross, not a route to the White House. He's very vulnerable on the money/greed issue. I heard a conservative talk show host spinnin' desperately this morning: how Bush is an unusually brave man, how his record as governor and before is impeccable (seriously!), how this humble man of the people comes from an elitist background but has never profitted from it (I swear!), etc. etc. The blue jeans kid from nowheresville who worked his way to the top. That they would have to say such things means they've got something bothering them, I figger.

I don't even reside in Texas, and I know that GWBush as governor screwed up so many things, that the subsequent legislators had to back-track and clean up the mess. It's also my understanding that the execution rates of convicts have gone down since he left Texas. That's gotta be a good thing, even for a "compassionate conservative." Is it also true that the schools in Texas were almost in ruin by his "leave no child behind" legislations?

PDiddie should update us on the situation in the Houston schools where our Secretary of Education once held sway. But what we have in office now is a pretty boy Bushsucker who has become a puppet of his lieutenant governor and DeLay. I wouldn't say the situation is better. Texas needs a Dem revolution, and it may get one, albeit a slow moving and undramatic one (unless we get lucky -- Dean is doing well here and may have coattails).

AS I new contributor to this panel, I was DELIGHTED to read the guidelines. Whoever wrote those guidelines knew exactly what was needed.

Now, to the topic for discussion:

A. It is a truism that the two P's are essential for the re-election of any president. The two P's, of course, are Peace and Prosperity.

B. If the public does not perceive that there is Peace( this does not, in my opinion, necessarily mean that we have no troops in any part of the world), Bush may have a difficult time being re-elected.

C. Prosperity? Where will the Dow-Jones be on Sept. 2004? What will the Unemployment Statistics be?

If the Dow Jones is over 10,000 and the Unemployment Level under 5.5%, Bush will have no problem on that score.

It is my opinion that if a candidate, which is viewed to be far to the left, such as John Dean, is nominated by the Democrats, Bush may even be re-elected if the two P's don't hold up.

It is interesting to note that today's news indicates that two thirds of voters including two thirds of Democrats were unable to name ANY of the Democratic candidates for President according to a CBS news poll released Sunday.

What does this say about "outrage" or lack of it among the American voting populace??

Italgato, You've just confirmed for me what I've known all along; the American public doesn't have a clue about politics at home or around the world. Since I live in California, the golden state, I see Ahnold as the winner of our recall election, because people are incapable of looking at what is important, and most vote by name recognition. It's a sad state of affairs for all of us.

Name recognition? Wes Clark! If standing, he could probably gain enough electoral support to defeat Bush and his gang.

His problem: if he looked like beating Bush, in spite of a massive smear campaign against him, his personal safety would be in the greatest danger, with Arab terrorists as the already-chosen culprits and proof of guilt ready and waiting to be produced.

Shades of 9/11?

Cicerone Imposter- The poll which reveals that two thirds of the American Public do not know the names of ANY of the Democratic hopefuls in 2004 would tend to lead one to the conclusion, I believe, that the candidate with the greatest amount of ad saturation in 2004 will gather the greatest amount of votes. Inasmuch as George W. Bush will not be engaged in any internecine struggles such as those in which Kerry and Gephardt will spend many dollars, it would seem that the 200 or so million dollars that Bush will gather will go a long way,

But, of course, the two thirds of the American Populace who have not heard of any of the Democratic hopefuls do not have the critical insights of most of the contributors on this board.

That's too bad but, again, the two P's will be critical.

Peace and Prosperity as viewed by the mass of the American People( that includes, of course, the two thirds who do not know the names of any of the Democratic hopefuls running).

I do believe that most of us( myself included) have a strong tendency to conclude that everyone must think the way they do. We all seem to feel--"It's so clear--can't they( the voters) see that"?

You may be right, cicerone imposter, Arnold may very well be elected governor of California.

I do not wish to contradict a fellow poster but I must inform Mamajuana that Eliane Chao is one of the most brilliant women I have ever had the privilege to meet. Of course, I have not had the pleasure of meeting a large number of supremely intelligent women but Elaine Chao's qualifications and University record is off the charts. Mamajuana should really check it out before she denigrates one of her sex. It would appear that Mamajuana places political partisanship before the success of a fellow female.

Italgato, If ms Chao is so brilliant, I can't see why she would make the statement that job growth is coming soon. By all indications, the unemployment numbers now exceed 9 million. Government does not create jobs, individuals do by personal investments, creativity, and risk taking. Governments, to some degree, can influence how our economy performs by their monetary, taxation, and trade policies.

Intelligence in a specific field may not qualify someone to make brash predictions about something as unpredictable as job growth. It does not protect someone from "foot in mouth" disease.

Hey, Paul Wolfowitz is brilliant. That doesn't make him right.