0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 07:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Big blue announed they were adding 15,000 new jobs this year, but they cut 400 jobs in the US in January. hmmm....... General Motors lost money last year. Think they'll be adding more jobs? They also lost market share by over 15 percent. hmmm.......


GM will continue to lose money because of their tremendous retirement debt. They will also continue to lose market share to the Japanese makes, it doesn't matter who's in office.

IBM's employnent will continue to fluctuate, these are all facts of life.

The unemployment rate percantage is not historically bad, considering extremely high productivity, I really don't know what kind of miracles you expect, ci.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2004 08:10 pm
Brand X, Not looking for miracles at all. Just the 2 million jobs the conservatives keep assuring us will be created this year in the US. That might be a "miracle" after all. I'm really not interested in why General Motors is showing such a huge deficit. All I'm stating are facts; that GM reflects a huge deficit and is not about to create more jobs when they lost 15 percent of market share last year. I think you conservatives are expecting a miracle by insisting that there will be 2 million more jobs this year. Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 02:02 pm
Today's report from Reuters. "Bonds rise on weak payrolls report Treasury prices move higher after U.S. labor report comes in weaker than expected; dollar falls."
February 6, 2004: 9:31 AM EST

To summarize, January added 112,000 non-farm jobs, but that's well below the 170,000 expected. To create that 2 million jobs this year, we would need to add 172,000 jobs every month for the rest of this year. That number will increase for every month of underperform new jobs.

Funny we haven't heard from those conservatives.....
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 02:10 pm
In a world in which a dubiously selected president can take America to war on false pretenses, destroy the good faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury, obstruct an official inquiry into the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history, and give aid and comfort to aides who out undercover CIA operatives to obsequious lickspittles in the media, I figure what Bush did or did not do on his 1972 summer vacation is mostly a secondary issue.

Of course, the administration and party reaction to Dubya's 18 months' worth of lost weekends is to me the real story.

Not to mention how it reflects on the man's character.

All of this confusion, of course, could be resolved fairly quickly if the White House did the reasonable thing and authorized the release of all -- as opposed to an a la carte selection -- of Bush's military records. Not a torn SPE with a 'W' on it, but his Guard pay stubs...everything.

But there must be something to hide, since they won't.

Which may be why the vipers in the Republican snake pit are rattling their rattles and baring those long, curved fangs:

Ed Gillespie:

Quote:
This is a demonstrably false and malicious charge that would be slanderous under any ordinary circumstance ... Terry McAuliffe has become the John Wilkes Booth of character assassination.


Scott McClellan:

Quote:
It is really shameful that this was brought up four years ago, and it's shameful that some are trying to bring it up again. I think it is sad to see some stoop to this level, especially so early in an election year.


It's easy to recognize the reaction. It's a defensive display -- a way for insiders to bluff reporters into retreating from a story by making themselves appear threatening, even aggressive.

Which is exactly what rattlesnakes do when they're cornered, or surprised. They coil up, cock their heads back and shake their tails.

"Don't tread on me!"

But, of course, when a snake does that, it's actually showing you how vulnerable it feels.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 02:17 pm
PD, that is the main reason the Bush Administration is defenseless against Kerry. All the planned photo ops of a "wanna" hero next to a "true blue" hero speaks a thousand words - then people think "What did happen?" And the lapses will be filled in ...... even if the Bushites don't provide facts!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 06:42 pm
Here's another Reuter's report.
"CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. health insurer Cigna Corp. (NYSE:CI - news) on Friday said it would cut about 9 percent of its work force, or 3,000 jobs, after its membership ranks fell sharply in the fourth quarter, sending its shares tumbling."

Not only are Americans losing their health insurance, but this health insurer is also cutting 3,000 jobs. It seems to me that there are more Americans unhappy with Bush's performance on the economy and their health insurance. There's also an interesting article in this month's AARP news bulletin that speaks to Bush's initiative on cutting overtime pay for workers. That'll make more "happy" American workers about Bush. I wonder who they're going to vote for come November?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 10:41 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/opinion/07KRIS.html

Quote:



Yes siree.............dishonesty is another good reason to get rid of GW.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 10:57 pm
I must say, I've finally gained the confidence that this administration will not gain a second term. Bush's polls are worsening daily. The media is no longer playing handmaid. Lots of folks in lots of places are unhappy because of no work, poor jobs, or insecurity in their jobs. Iraq is more likely to get worse than better. The deceits and half-truths regarding why the war was waged are becoming much more broadly understood. The deficit is causing alarm and vocal division among many in Bush's own party.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 11:03 pm
blatham, Are you saying that some people are actually beginning to wake up from their slumber? That's a shock!
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 12:15 am
But all it would take is one more terrorist attack to put them all back to sleep. And I don't think it would even have to be on American soil, knowing how good this administration is at scaring people.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 12:07 pm
kicky, I think you are right on that score; Americans will turn on a dime if there's another terrorist attack. Fear is the driving force of politics in this country.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 12:58 pm
Here's another article on our economy.
********************************
Sluggish Job Growth May Threaten Recovery
2 hours, 10 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Andrea Hopkins

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Another month of disappointing job growth in America has sown a seed of worry among analysts that the fragile economic rebound may not be strong enough to last.

For months now, economists have been forecasting an improvement in employment. Each month, they've been disappointed, and the news from January was no different.


While 112,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.6 percent -- the lowest in two years -- forecasters, traders and economists had been expecting much better. Most had hoped to see payrolls jump by 150,000, with the more optimistic estimating gains of 300,000.

My note: The reduction in the unemployment rate was caused by people dropping out of the job market, and not actual drop in the unemployment numbers.

"It's just flat-out disappointing. We're just not creating many jobs," said Steven Wood, chief economist at Insight Economics in California.


He worries the sluggish employment growth could eat into consumer confidence just as the economic recovery begins to gather steam -- undermining the shopping strength that helped pull America out of the recession.


"Unless there is more job creation and faster wage growth, it is difficult to see how real consumer spending, (which makes up) 70 percent of the economy, can continue to sustain strong economic growth," Wood said.


Healthy 4 percent GDP (news - web sites) growth in the final quarter of 2003 and sizzling 8.2 percent growth the previous quarter had spurred hopes that real hiring was just around the corner.

My note: As I have noted elsewhere, those GDP growth did not translate into more pay or benefits for the employees.


President Bush (news - web sites) promised summer tax cuts would ease unemployment, which looms as a key issue in the November elections. Democrats blame Bush's economic policies for the loss of 2.2 million jobs since he took office.

My note: Conservatives keep telling us that job growth lags tax cuts by six months. Well, it's been over six months, and we're still waiting.


BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE A JOB?


For five months in a row, the economy has eked out employment gains -- but the pace is well below the 150,000 new jobs economists believe are needed each month just to keep up with population growth, and jobless Americans are desperate.


"I'd be prepared to work in a warehouse, I'd be prepared to do assembly work," said Donald Thomas, a 46-year-old unemployed marketing and client relations consultant who has been looking for work since being laid off in July 2002.


"I'm at the point now where quite frankly I might consider just managing a Walgreen's store after midnight. I need to get back in the work force," the Chuluota, Florida, resident said.


But Thomas knows just getting his foot in the door of a new industry is daunting -- especially since his most recent retail experience was when he was 19. Employers also have a hard time believing he's willing to take a low-paying job after earning $100,000 a year as an independent contractor.


"I'm considered well-overqualified for positions I'd be willing to take, and don't have enough credentials in other positions," he said.


Even those who still count themselves among the employed in America are struggling to make ends meet.


Self-employed computer programmer Thomas Mooney -- who bills himself as the "president/janitor" of his Minneapolis company, TeleProc -- said he cannot last much longer with so little work in an industry that was once booming.


"I'm barely employed -- no income yet this year," Mooney said. "I have $7,000 in future prospect business and that is all I know about for the rest of the year."

Mooney, a 52-year-old father of two teenage boys, is convinced the job market is even bleaker than official figures suggest, since he and other idled independent contractors do not collect unemployment benefits and thus are never counted among the unemployed.

"If I had to put a label on myself, it would be 'severely underemployed,"' he said. "And the market is still getting worse rather than better, as far as I can see."


My note: Here's another Bush voter.


Sarcasm is all that's left.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 02:47 pm
Another Bush voter sees the light:

Quote:
I think he's run the country into the ground economically, and he comes out with these crazy ideas like going to Mars and going to the moon," said Richard Bidlack, a 78-year-old retiree from Boonton, N.J., who says he voted for Bush in 2000. "I'm so upset at Bush, I'll vote for a chimpanzee before I vote for him.


Of course, some of us would argue Mr. Bidlack already has voted for a chimp... :wink:

BTW: Did anyone see Shrub on Meet the Press today? I decided to sleep in and missed it. I did go looking for the transcript (and thanks to BBB found it pretty easily) and I have to say I'm going to be verrry curious to see what the public reaction is.

Words are only a part -- and not necessarily the most important part -- of an interview, of course. And I'm guessing the transcript was cleaned up to make Bush sound a bit less inarticulate. Having said that, I'd be surprised if the reaction is positive.

If, as the polls suggest, people (particularly independents) are already having doubts about Bush's decisions -- especially on Iraq -- then I don't see how this kind of dialogue is going to help him:

Quote:
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what you based your decision to go to war on.

BUSH: Sure, sure.

RUSSERT: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

BUSH: Right.

RUSSERT: That, apparently, is not the case.

BUSH: Correct.


I mean, Dubya can filibuster all he wants -- "mad man," "gathering threat," "gassed his own people," blahblahblah -- but it seems to me he kinda gave the game away. He admitted he was wrong -- that he made a bad call. And I think that any dispassionate viewer grasped that point, despite the best efforts of the president to hide behind the skirts of...


-- David Kay:

Quote:
"But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in a dangerous part of the world."


-- The United Nations

Quote:
"The U.N. Security Council said 'we're unanimous, and you're danger.'(Is this really what he said, or is the word 'in' missing from the transcript?--PD) So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed. And, of course, he defied the world once again."


-- Congress:

Quote:
"I went to Congress with the same intelligence -- the Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at. And they made an informed judgment, based upon the information that I had."


-- and, naturally, Bill Clinton (although Bush didn't have the stones to actually use the Big Dog's name):

Quote:
"...the same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed."


All of us?

To quote my favorite Native American sidekick: Whaddya mean us, Kemosabe?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 02:59 pm
RUSSERT: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

BUSH: Right.[/quote]

That could be the one that gets him. How can he possible weasel his way out of that one?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 03:18 pm
He's gonna weasel out of this one like he has all the others. I'm waiting for the American People to wake up, but there's still some doubt that'll ever happen.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 03:29 pm
This is the quote that the democrats should put on all their campaign posters, all their ads, everything they can. It's the best way to stop Bush from confusing the issue with his "I still believe that the world is a safer place without Saddam . . . " BS.

But even with that, I'm not sure the people will see through the lies.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 03:35 pm
That's the funny thing about politics. People will sink or swim with their chosen leader no matter how many lies and changes in their reasons used to justify their actions. It's one of those nebulous things like trying to tie down people's vision of their god(s).
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 03:58 pm
His publicity meisters are already spinning it.Bush denies he lied
Quote:
Bush Defends War in Rare TV Interview
By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush denied he marched America into war under false pretenses and said the U.S.-led invasion was necessary because Saddam Hussein could have developed a nuclear weapon.

``I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best,'' the president said. Bush suggested Saddam may have destroyed or spirited out of the country the banned weapons the Bush administration cited as a main rationale for the war.

``I expected to find the weapons,'' Bush said in an Oval Office interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

``Sitting behind this desk, making a very difficult decision of war and peace, I based my decision on the best intelligence possible,'' the president said. The interview was taped Saturday.

Bush also was asked about the fugitive Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks whom the president had pledged to get ``dead or alive.''

``I have no idea whether we will capture or bring him to justice,'' Bush said.

The interview, his first on a Sunday talk show since taking office, came as the president's approval rating has dipped to 47 percent, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in early February; that compares with 56 percent just a month ago.

The appearance followed weeks of criticism from Democrats over the failure so far to find Iraq's cache of weapons.

``They could have been destroyed during the war,'' Bush said, speculating about reasons the reports might have been wrong. ``Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out.''

The president said he retained confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. Bush shook his head from side to side when asked if Tenet's job was in jeopardy. ``No, not at all, not at all,'' Bush said.

Bush pledged to cooperate with a commission he set up last week to examine prewar intelligence lapses and defended its March 2005 reporting date, which is four months after the White House election.

``There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess ... whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power,'' Bush said.

Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail said Sunday they wanted to see the findings before the election, if possible.

``What we've got here is a president who simply doesn't want to be held accountable,'' presidential hopeful Wesley Clark told CNN's ``Late Edition.''

Bush did not directly respond to election-year allegations that his administration exaggerated intelligence, but made clear that the United States considered the Iraqi president a dictator who brutalized and killed his own people.

``I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have emboldened Saddam Hussein,'' Bush said. ``He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time - I'm not saying immediately, but over time.

We would have been in a position of blackmail. In other words, you can't rely upon a madman.''

Also on the foreign policy front, Bush said ``diplomacy is just beginning'' with North Korea. The United States and its allies are seeking to persuade the communist nation to abandon its nuclear weapons programs. ``We are making good progress,'' Bush said.

On domestic issues, Bush said his tax cuts were responsible for an economic rebound.

He dismissed news reports that there is no evidence he reported for National Guard duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972, during the Vietnam War. ``There may be no evidence but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged.''

Bush expressed indifference about polls that showed him trailing the Democratic front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. ``I'm not going to lose,'' Bush said. ``I don't plan on losing.''


Look at the phrasing used in the article. For those who did not see the interview, or read the transcript, which probably includes most of the US, he comes across as confident and concerned for the "security" of the nation. Most Americans, epecially Bush's supporters, probably can't be bothered to watch such things. My brother in law made a comment that I consider typical of the far right, "I don't watch those things. They will just edit it to make him look bad. I believe our president has our best interests at heart, and it is our duty to trust in his decisions." (note: No, he isn't Britney Spears fan, this is his own opinion). There is a large segment of the population that is wiling to forgive Bush all his domestic screw ups because he led the US into a war,and wars="Pride in America (yee-haw)." In addition, Bush's stand on issues like the death penalty, gay rights, and affirmative action resonate with these (dare I use the word?) people. Bush can do no wrong to them.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 04:28 pm
Okay, so I guess the whole rationale for going to war with Iraq is going to be a non-issue in the coming election, based on the fact that they won't conclude the investigation until after it's over. And with the short attention span of the people, I would think that to get rid of Bush, there has to be one big issue that he is vulnerable on. So where is the soft underbelly? What's the issue that can be used to oust the bastard?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 04:35 pm
If he can't be easily ousted for all the reasons already delineated, it's gonna be one hellava problem. Osama (still alive), Iraq (over 20,000 dead and/or wounded), economy (where's the promised jobs?), national debt (the highest in the history of this country), lies and more lies, and this guys still standing on his feet~!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/02/2024 at 03:27:28