If the Dems are going to beat Bush, they're going to have to not only have a stronger leader than they've got so far, but they're going to have to not be afraid to go after the pres and friends' antics and scary ideas -- and do it Whitewater and Llewinsky style. Sofia had a good idea of publishing the documents that prove their plans of imperialism. I wonder, though, judging by how many Americans blindly supported this war and who don't seem to be upset about the possibility of going after Syria or Iran or North Korea, if it would end up working to Bush's advantage. People do seem to get off on that "ass-kicking, nobody can beat us" attitude and showing off that is Bush & Co.
Yep...he's in.
wall street has little to do with working people, jobs, social security, health. education.
And actually Wall Street is not so terribly happy with Bush. No attention was paid to Greenspan's statement about the fact that the deficits incurred are harmful, and Bush's tax plan is not helpful. I suppose because that is not the way the administration wants it to be seen.
That's very interesting, Sofia. One of the things we've talked about has been the seeming lack of heart among the democrats. Well, of course. with a war, and a president who says you're either with us or against us,it's a little difficult.
But there are indicators of fight and life. The fact that they were able to block the Owens nomination, are still in filibuster about Estrada shows a cohesion and strength that wasn't there. The fact that there are major republican dissenters about the Bush tax cut, while the democrats have remained as a group, indicates a growing awareness of the economic situation.
I don't think he's a slam dunk; I think it's a wait and see. The Iraqi war was carefully staged to win him an election. But there have been no cheering crowds, no loud publications of a victory. Mostly, this is being treated as just another thing. The administration is doing all the hype, but the public isn't. And more and more (for instance, on the PBS Lehrer show Thursday night) there are very informed individuals who are beginning to lessen the importance of the Iraq invasion. As Lucien Truscott and others pointed out, it isn't difficult when you put a first rate military power against a third rate army who fight a sixth rate war. And then the enemy present a face that not only isn't beaten, but is beginning to show all the signs of driving out the occupying forces. Another factor with this war is that it is known as Rumsfeld's war, and now the references to him are not that great. When that happens, where is the triumphant liberator? Looks like Karl Rove has more work to do.
And the dems? Early times. Still a shakedown cruise. But what I see is more cohesiveness, more determination, and the beginnings of personalities emerging.
That's very interesting, Sofia. One of the things we've talked about has been the seeming lack of heart among the democrats. Well, of course. with a war, and a president who says you're either with us or against us,it's a little difficult.
-------------------------------
I like to pretend I'm the advisor for both parties in election cycles or scandals. The GOP and public supporters do seem to have set the rules, and the Dems seem to be dutifully towing the line.
Criticising a Pres during wartime is a losing proposition, but war is over. If they choose their issues well, and enunciate their view on the problems facing America CONJOINED with good solutions, they are in a great position.
They should look at his weaknesses, form solutions and GO FOR IT! Ad hominems are unnecessary-- (and may backfire) They should stick to issues ---policy. The thing is-- most Americans believe war was necessary. If I didn't, as a Dem candidate, I'd consider it a passed issue and move on to the future. Dean will be hurt here. He appeals deeply to the extreme minority view, who were against the war, but these numbers not only won't get him elected next fall-- he won't have the numbers to win the nomination.
Interesting how Dean is being painted into a one-note candidacy. If I were him, I'd start talking about other differences with Bush, and be quiet about the war. I do think this will be his undoing...
I wonder why Graham is being so quiet. For my money, he is the one to beat.
I am very curious how the Dems are going to handle the Big Issues.
1) Can the Patriot Act et al be made into a successful campaign issue? To me the threat to civil liberties is the biggest mark against Bush. But, I am not sure that middle America sees this as a threat.
2) Current international events will have a great impact on America's place in the world. This *should* be a campaign issue. Foreign affairs rarely have a role in national elections. I am not sure if this makes for good politics.
I hope that the Democrats can make a strong argument on these issues. I am afraid that this election will be a discussion on tax cuts. It the Dems allow this to happen, I don't know what I will do.
Maybe what I am really afraid of is Bush's third term...
ebrown_p
Are you throwing in the towel and conceding the next election to Bush. I hope not where there is life there is hope. Unfortunately in this case at the present time there seems to be very little.
Commentary > Dante Chinni
from the May 05, 2003 edition
The Democrats debated, and Bush won
By Dante Chinni
WASHINGTON – You may not have noticed, what with the new X-Men movie and all, but last week the 2004 presidential campaign unofficially kicked off with two very different events. On Thursday, President Bush nabbed a premium prime-time slot to stage a half-hour photo opportunity aboard an aircraft carrier, where he stood before throngs of servicemen and -women to announce what everyone already knew. The large-scale battle is over in Iraq. The US had done well. And the majority of American troops will be headed home. It was nice television - even before the speech.
Earlier in the afternoon, the president had landed on the carrier, emerging from the cockpit of his aircraft with his helmet under his arm and his flight suit well-tailored. He had smiled and met the sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln - and you can bet the cameras of the Bush reelection committee were snapping shots we'll see ad nauseum come 2004.
Two days later the nine Democrats who desperately want to defeat the president met in Columbia, S.C. for the earliest-ever presidential debate, a full 19 months before the election. The event took place at 9 p.m. Saturday, though it wasn't broadcast until 11:30 - if it was aired at all (for example, in Washington, a city obsessed with politics, the ABC affiliate decided it was a better bet to air a rerun of "The Practice" after the late news.)
And in the end, the word debate should be used lightly as a descriptor. Dressed in suits and lined up across the stage sitting behind a long table, the eight men and one woman presented a scene that looked less like a debate than a K Street community theater production of "A Chorus Line." In 90 minutes, each of the nine had to try to give a brief history of his or her life and then dance around questions. A couple of early trends became clear in the discussion, however.
Al Sharpton may not win the nomination, but his campaign is probably going to be the most fun to cover - he got all the good laugh lines. Howard Dean and John Kerry simply don't like one another very much - after an early joust between the two that lasted about 10 minutes, every time Mr. Kerry spoke, Mr. Dean had a forced half-smile on his face that looked as if it could easily develop into a nervous twitch. And Joe Lieberman campaign's raison d'être is that he can win.
Of course, with the president at 70 percent or so in approval, all the candidates have rationales for how they will win, but only Mr. Lieberman quickly outlined why people will vote for him with a nifty little syllogism. Americans want someone strong on defense. He's strong on defense. He can win because he will "make the American people feel safe."
Maybe, but then again maybe not.
There are, in essence, two issues that define the Bush presidency right now. One, the big one that overshadows all else, is the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, and the consequent military campaigns that followed it. The second is the tax cuts the president pushed for (and continues to push for) and the economy.
Thursday night made the president's strategy clear. In short: Appear in flight suits whenever possible. Over the next few months Bush may talk about tax cuts or the economy, but you can bet there will be military hardware nearby. Right now, the administration is probably planning a series of campaign stops at army/navy surplus stores. This is why the Republicans chose New York City for their convention in 2004 along with a September date. As long as the campaign focuses on "the continuing war on terror" the president's people are happy.
Taxes and the economy are not winners for Bush. Unemployment is up, and people are edgy. It's still possible for the economy to turn around for 2004, but time is short.
Oddly however, the Democrats' discussion on taxes and economy was a muddled mess. Some said they wanted to junk all of the president's tax cuts. Some wanted to junk a few of them. But there were few specifics. The only one with a real, specific plan was Dick Gephardt, whose proposal for universal healthcare does little to solve the deficit problem and is politically DOA even in the discussion phase.
The "debate's" most interesting talk was saved for Iraq, where all candidates seemed to have a thoughtful position that they were happy to discuss. All of which means the real winner from Saturday's debate was ... the president.
It's early of course, very early. But President Bush has to be happy right now. In one week he got to pretend to be Top Gun, became must-see TV, and won the Democratic debate. And the best news - there are still seven carriers available to visit. That's a lot of flight suits.
Warren Buffett:ATTACKS TAX PLAN
Asked about President Bush's plan to eliminate the tax on companies' dividends, Buffett said it would unfairly benefit rich people like himself, at the expense of ordinary workers.
"He (Bush) is not changing the amount the American public sends the government," Buffett said, "just changing who does it." The only way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, Buffett added.
Buffett and several other very rich have been against the tax cuts all along. However, it doesn't seem the voting public despite the fact that they benefit little from the tax cuts understands or cares as long as they are thrown a bone. And that is exactly what the Bush tax agenda does. Throws the general public a bone.
I don't know who said it first but I've heard it several times recently...
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Layoffs Jumped in April Despite War's End
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Job cuts announced at U.S. employers jumped in April to their highest monthly tally since November, a report showed on Monday, confirming the end of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) did not stop companies from firing more workers.
Layoffs at U.S. firms surged 71 percent to 146,399 in April from 85,396 job cuts planned in March, job placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said. That brought the year's total job cut announcements to a hefty 502,194 even as U.S. troops made rapid progress in the battle for Baghdad.
"The sharp increase in job cuts last month should serve as a warning that it is premature to conclude that the quick end to the war in Iraq will bring a quick turnaround in the economy and job market," Challenger Chief Executive John Challenger said in a statement.
