Is Bush going to keep war going to ensure re-election?

[Dreadsox]

We may find out how strung out on coke and alcohol our esteemed Dubyah actually was.

Guess what? I would put money on the fact that most people do not care how strung out he was. Do I think he was at some point in his life, yes. Do I care, no.

What I care about is that he is not doing it now, and I am willing to bet that a majority of Americans would agree with me on this.

Let's not celebrate the fact that he has, according to everyone close to him, not had a drink since 1986. Let's look to drudge up the dirt from almost 20 years ago.

Now, if he is snorting in the OVal Office, that is another issue entirely. I would want him removed as I wanted CLinton removed for his misconduct, lying under oath.

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

Bush Sr. lost the 1992 election because of the economy primarily but also because of Ross Perot took more votes from him than he took from Clinton. But Ross would not have been a candidate if the economy was not in bad shape.

IF Bush cannot make a dent in the economy by early 2004, then he is probably not going to win re-election no matter what he does, barring a new international crises. Chances are though, the economy which has been muddled since October of 2000 will improve and Bush will be re-elected.

So if you don't want to see Bush win in 2004, you better hope more people lose their jobs or fail to find new ones.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

IF Bush cannot make a dent in the economy by early 2004, then he is probably not going to win re-election no matter what he does, barring a new international crises. Chances are though, the economy which has been muddled since October of 2000 will improve and Bush will be re-elected.

So if you don't want to see Bush win in 2004, you better hope more people lose their jobs or fail to find new ones.

I don't want Bush to win in 2004 (that's hardly a suprise, lol) but I don't think that means I hope people will lose their jobs. I'm quite sceptical about whether Bush's huge tax cuts are going to help improve the economy, so I'll just wait and see.

IMO international issues are likely to have quite a significant influence on the 2004 election, simply because most Americans are more aware of international affairs and foreign policy than they were prior to September 11th, and they feel that the actions of their government in foriegn policy can have a significant impact on their lives.

 

[diamond]

International Affairs and National Security are the GOP's strong points.

Still, hugging a tree is more important to others..
Go figure

db3

 

[verte76]

There was something crude and nativist about the '92 election. It played on people's fears about the economy, but there was this theme of "Bush is doing too much outside the U.S. and we don't like it". After 9/11 things may be different. But Americans have shown they can think unilaterally, because, ironically, Bush does. So the same nativism could rear its ugly head again. I support Democrats but I don't always agree with what they're doing, that's for damn sure. I am not sure how much tree hugging and other publicity stunts will have to do with the election. Personally I've never hugged a tree, and had never even heard of tree hugging before I heard conservatives complaining about it.

 

[sharky]

Let's see. A guy named Osama bin Laden tried to kill me. And I'm sure he's trying to kill more New Yorkers [including me]. And yet I am relieved that we have a government in place right now that didn't sit back after America was attacked. They went after the men responsible, and although they have not gotten bin Laden himself just yet, they have left his organization in shambles, and continue to hunt down terrorists around the world BEFORE they have a chance to attack us, rather than after they do. So who do I trust with keeping my nation, my city, and myself safe? Right now, without a shadow of a doubt, George W. Bush.

Then why isn't he helping us now? We're cutting the jobs of cops and firefighters. There are soldiers and cops still on my streets, still in my subway. And attacks have occured AFTER Sept. 11 in Bali. Everyday I get on the subway worried that I won't get off. He has not made me feel safer, and invading a country is only poking at a rattlesnake. They have the power to come back after us and we're giving them an excuse. when is that rattlesnake going to strike?

You can blame Perot for Bush Sr. loss, you can blame Nader for Gore's loss. But if those men also couldn't have won if that was really what people wanted. Bush Sr. lost because people didn't have jobs. And if Dubya doesn't start paying attention to what's going on at home instead of getting turned on by Sexy Saddam, he's gonna be booted before he even sees the high heel shoe Lady Liberty hits him in the head with.

 

[Rono]

Let's see. A guy named Osama bin Laden tried to kill me. And I'm sure he's trying to kill more New Yorkers [including me]. And yet I am relieved that we have a government in place right now that didn't sit back after America was attacked. They went after the men responsible, and although they have not gotten bin Laden himself just yet, they have left his organization in shambles, and continue to hunt down terrorists around the world BEFORE they have a chance to attack us, rather than after they do. So who do I trust with keeping my nation, my city, and myself safe? Right now, without a shadow of a doubt, George W. Bush.

Sounds to me the Osama won the war against terror. Bush use the fear of common people to do the things he do. Bombing and execute people in other countries in the name of anti terror. Just ban box cutters,....

Another strange thing, i must agree to give my personal data to your free country when i travel to the USA,.where i go, where i will stay, if i have a crimerecord and this will be linked to my data about my religion, my membership of politic party`s and Unions ect.

Maybe Bush won`t use the war in Iraq to get re-elected but he will use the war ( fear ) on terror for shure.,...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Another strange thing, i must agree to give my personal data to your free country when i travel to the USA,.where i go, where i will stay, if i have a crimerecord and this will be linked to my data about my religion, my membership of politic party`s and Unions ect.

Why is this (as in what legislation means you have to do this)? And is it something which has been introduced since September 11th?

When I visited America (the week before 9/11 - so I had to get on a plane a few days afterwards - v.scary!) I didn't have to give all of that information. I did, however, have to swear that I'd never been a member of the Nazi government of 1933-45, and didn't intend to break any laws whilst in the United States!

 

[Rono]

Why is this (as in what legislation means you have to do this)? And is it something which has been introduced since September 11th?

When I visited America (the week before 9/11 - so I had to get on a plane a few days afterwards - v.scary!) I didn't have to give all of that information. I did, however, have to swear that I'd never been a member of the Nazi government of 1933-45, and didn't intend to break any laws whilst in the United States!

The European airlines must provide this kind of information to the Americans since March this year. I will try to find some info in English.

( It was on Dutch tv a couple days ago, maybe some Dutch people can confirm my story )

Hmmm,it did sound more dramatic on that tv program but here is some info,..


http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/intro/pnrmem03_53.htm

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Thanks Rono, I'll do a search on the bbc website and some other news websites and try to find something out.

 

[verte76]

Then why isn't he helping us now? We're cutting the jobs of cops and firefighters. There are soldiers and cops still on my streets, still in my subway. And attacks have occured AFTER Sept. 11 in Bali. Everyday I get on the subway worried that I won't get off. He has not made me feel safer, and invading a country is only poking at a rattlesnake. They have the power to come back after us and we're giving them an excuse. when is that rattlesnake going to strike?

You can blame Perot for Bush Sr. loss, you can blame Nader for Gore's loss. But if those men also couldn't have won if that was really what people wanted. Bush Sr. lost because people didn't have jobs. And if Dubya doesn't start paying attention to what's going on at home instead of getting turned on by Sexy Saddam, he's gonna be booted before he even sees the high heel shoe Lady Liberty hits him in the head with.

That's what my two sisters in Brooklyn are saying. They aren't feeling any safer with Dubya running the show. I'm not feeling safer. I just don't agree with this Administration's priorities worth a damn. And if they don't want to get smacked because people are losing jobs they need to do something about lost jobs, because there's always going to be the "pocketbook" effect with the electorate, war won or not.
I wish I could go to sleep now but I have Holy Saturday Mass. They can't start before sunset.

 

[diamond]

After 9/11 things may be different.


. I support Democrats but I don't always agree with what they're doing, that's for damn sure.


I am not sure how much tree hugging and other publicity stunts will have to do with the election. ..

verte-
the tree hugging comment was not to be taking literally.
i love nature.
i, like yourself do not get fanatical about it.

Youre right -9-11 has changed everything.
We're now in a new age.
National Security and World Safety will take priority over all over issues.

Most Democrats support GW Bush right now and give him a favorable job approval rating..

71% combined job approval rating between both parties.


DB9

 

[Ormus]

My oh my, diamond. You could have picked a more objective site than whitehouse.gov for that last picture.

Ormus

 

[verte76]

Alot of people are supporting Bush, diamond, I'm aware of that. The U.S. electorate is a fickle bunch, however. George Bush Sr's numbers were even more impressive after Desert Storm (he had a 91% job approval rating) and as we all know he *lost* less than two years later. I'm not saying that will happen again. But two years is a long time in politics. I don't think 9/11 has changed that, and I don't think it's nuked the "pocketbook effect" in presidential politics, either. I mean, they say that the Iranian thing finished Carter. That didn't help but neither did 20% inflation. Are you kidding? That was murder on a Democratic Administration. I'd at least argue that unemployment isn't going to help a Republican.

 

[diamond]

i agree w you verte, partially.
Dad Bush lost cuz he wasnt in touch w the electorate.
Clinton came out as more "in touch" while old man Bush had no sizzle at all.
Carter lost cuz he was weak foriegn policy wise.::
Carter also had no sizzle.:
Reagan had sizzle.
The Iranian Crisis was embarrasing to us, the economy was an important issue but secondary to Iranian Crisis and our national dignity.


9-11 has drawfted every other issue and it is now less than 575 days until GW is re-elected.
It is also a commonly known fact that our President, Presdient GW Bush not only has sizzle but swagger as well.

Thank you-
diamond

 

[verte76]

Well, the voters will speak. That's the only predictable. None of us are betting the rent, are we? I know I'm not.

 

[diamond]

i live in a cardboard box thats paid for

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You mean someone was mean enough to charge you for a cardboard box?

And I agree with verte - nobody can predict this election. Not least because it's over a year away and who knows what can happen in a year.

 

[diamond]

i like GW's chances

 

[STING2]

Just like to say that Current Unemployment in the USA is still lower than Bill Clintons first two years in office (1993-1994). At 5.8% its lower than most European countries and our neighbor to the north. Its lower than the European Union average which is 8-9%. We have about 18 months until election. How the economy does over the next 9 months will probably determine the election, realizing that economic shocks or spurts take a while to trickle through to everyone.

 

[sharky]

you're right sting. But remember that Clinton was inheriting a negative economy from Bush. And while we do have a lower unemployment rate than most European countries, people without jobs or without raises don't care about that. They only care about their own pocketbook, not the pocketbook of some German or some Italian.

diamond, please watch actual speeches from Bush, not just the sound bites. The guy has NO sizzle. And unlike Clinton, most Americans can't relate to silver spoon Bush. Just like they couldn't relate to his dad for the same reason.

 

[melon]

Just like to say that Current Unemployment in the USA is still lower than Bill Clintons first two years in office (1993-1994). At 5.8% its lower than most European countries and our neighbor to the north. Its lower than the European Union average which is 8-9%. We have about 18 months until election. How the economy does over the next 9 months will probably determine the election, realizing that economic shocks or spurts take a while to trickle through to everyone.

Misleading statistic. 5.8% is the number of jobless claims, not the actual unemployed. We stopped keeping statistics on the actual unemployed in the 1980s, because the number was too high. By measuring jobless claims, people whose unemployment benefits expire are thus assumed to be "employed," when we do not know if that is the case or not. Simultaneously, it does not measure the quality of jobs. Going from a $60,000 a year job to a $20,000 a year job counts as "employed," but clearly sub-standard. I wouldn't doubt that our unemployment is actually much higher.

But if there was anything Reagan was good at, it was creating misleading statistics that made his reign look better than what it actually was.

Melon

 

[diamond]

you

diamond, please watch actual speeches from Bush, not just the sound bites. The guy has NO sizzle. And unlike Clinton, most Americans can't relate to silver spoon Bush. Just like they couldn't relate to his dad for the same reason.

sharky-
GW has sizzle.
GW has extreme sizzle.
Extreme whitehot sizzle.

Family wealth has nothing to do with sizzle.
Either you have it or you dont.

diamond


ps-
And i do watch his speeches.

 

[melon]

If you don't stop these absolutely ridiculous Bush photos, I'm going to start bringing out the press-friendly Clinton photos.

Lest you ever forget...

Melon

 

[pax]

I am now declaring this a picture-free thread. Any posts with pictures of ANYONE or ANYTHING, including but not limited to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bono, Baghdad Bob, mayonnaise jars, or puppies, will be moved to PLEBA with no chance of appeal.

The word "sizzle" is also hereby banned from this thread.










(In other words, back to the issues, okay?)

 

[diamond]

If you don't stop these absolutely ridiculous Bush photos, I'm going to start bringing out the press-friendly Clinton photos.

Lest you ever forget...

Melon

First off who popped Bubba in the mouth?
or is that a Herpes sore?

Melon you now forced me to launch a
"diamond
smart
bomb"

kapow!

DB3

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Oh no, please don't inflict this thread on the innocent people of PLEBA.

 

[verte76]

Oh no, please don't inflict this thread on the innocent people of PLEBA.

Really. As a PLEBAn I can say we'd be pretty horrified if politics got into PLEBA. Damn good pix of Bono..........you asked for it, I'm going to act like a PLEBAn.

 

[verte76]

I'd better do a decent FYM post to not get in trouble for that post. I don't know what you mean by "sizzle" but some people do like Bush's sense of humor, which, I'll admit, isn't exactly bad. But that doesn't make the guy particularly charismatic. We might end up with a Democrat who has all the charisma of stale beer. We might end up with a Democratic nominee who does have charisma. I've read where Bush himself thinks he's going to have a tough race. Even if he wins it won't be easy. Just my purple tuppence's worth.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

In all honesty, regardless of whether a person liked Clinton or not, I think most people acknowledge that he was a pretty charismatic politician and he knew how to use that to his advantage. I'm sure Bush has other good qualities, but I doubt even his biggest fans really think he's anywhere near as charismatic as Clinton.