Can Bush Be Beaten

[Alliance Fanatic]

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/buchanan.htm

Read the article then respond

[Lost in Manitoba]

Really good article AF. I've been wondering the same thing actually. The democrats have no great faces right now. Where did Gore get himself to? He really dropped off the radar, considering half(or more) the voters were on his side last go round. I doubt the big Clinton will take the reigns this time. Where's Ross Perot these days? Would he still be able to split votes? He was a neat little dude, seemed strange but had a lot of good ideas. I guess we'll have to wait and see how things unfold.

Oh yeah,

ACLU is American Civil Liberties Union, not the (Anti-Christian Liberties Union") as the article said.

[FastNed]

Hi Lost & AF - First, in reading this you must consider the source. Buchanan is so far to the right of the Republican Party that he fell off the edge and is no longer considered a Republican. Main Street republicans have disowned him and he's considered to be the 'religious right'. I regret to say the Catholic religious right - that's part of the cute business with the ACLU, he is being sarcastic! Understanding his bias, the article is quite informative and Pat is a highly intelligent and informed man so there is a good bit of info there. He remains very well connected because he's a great guy BUT don't get him started on religion because he's over the edge - like that good friend you can't mention sports to or he'll never shut up with the statistics!

Couple of things - Willie Wanker Clinton can not run for President again (never!), our Constitution imposes a limit of two terms XXII (that's the F.D.R. Amendment, for you historians) so the only way he can move back in is if Hillary can be elected. I believe she will end up being a candidate in 2004, if not she is toast. Perot and his party have come and gone and are an historical footnote.

Money drives politics in America (if not everywhere) these days so to understand what is happening, you have to follow the money. President Bush has a Re-election Fund reportedly of 27 Million and while it's counter-intuitive, the majority of it is in $25.00 - $200.00 contributions. The Democrats, in contrast, can't tap into the big Union funds in any significant way until they have a candidate so they are all chasing the liberal donations for the primaries - the liberal people with a "cause" who kick in million dollar donations like you or I pay for a tank of gas! This is the left wing "elite" of the Democratic Party and to get that funding, they are running like lemmings off the left edge of the political spectrum in America. They are all attempting to run to the left (for funding) for the Primaries and believe the survivors can swing back to the center for the main event. This is quite comfortable for them for the truth is, they are part of the post-modern elite. America's PoMo Elite lives on the left of the Democratic Party.

Asking if Americans are patriotic is like asking if the Pope is a Catholic - everybody knows that answer and it is what is driving the Democrats to desperation. Their base in Middle-America and among people of color is highly patriotic, this trumps all other issues which drives the elite crazy! This is why there is a constant campaign to convince people there was deception on why we went into Iraq and why the media keeps calling it a quagmire - well, it worked in Vietnam. Unless the public can be re-focused away from the war on Islamic terrorism, the Democrats are dead.

[Lost in Manitoba]

'the media keeps calling it a quagmire'

Are you saying your media has a leftist slant?

[FastNed]

Lost, they did a poll in the media before the last Presidential Election and 97 % of the votes were cast for Al Gore. Draw your own conclusions.

You had asked about Gore - last year he stated he was out of politics, a decision I believe was forced upon him. A good many Democratic Party activists believe the last election was his to win and he blew it. Doubtful if he can come back into the political scene on a national level.

One of the reasons the "elite" have been pushing for U.S. involvement in Liberia is the hope of a misstep or major error or, that they will be some sort of occurrence which can be made into a political issue. Patriotism is alive and well among people of color, it trumps racial politics and the democrats fear that unless the focus is back upon racial matters, they will loose this group in which case they are toast.

Democratic strategy is high risk, very high risk. They have gone far left for funding and support from Party activists whose votes are critical in Primaries. They believe they can shift back to the center for the main campaign - which has worked in the past on domestic issues but there is a great deal of doubt they can pull this off with national security issues. The more they attack Bush on national security, the more they remind people of this issue. I think they are following the left wing off a cliff.

[Craig Read]

Ned, would not worry too much. The only thing that can derail Bush is a disaster in Iraq - which will not happen, things are going quite well there overall - and a sharp economic contraction - the Dumbo's need both. The economy is searingly hot in the States right now - all indicators are up, profits, liquidity, investments, and the tax cuts are doing their job.

The Dumbocruds - all the candidates - want to raise taxes and spend and REPEAL Bush's tax cuts.

Good plan ladies - as if middle class Americans don't own stock or make investments. Duh.

On foreign policy only Lieberman has credibility. The others are a menace and studiously avoid reality.

No Bush cannot be beaten. And as you said Ned, George has the cash.

I look forward to 2 more Rep. victories, 2004/2008. I just hope Hilarious 'Gollum' Clinton is part of the destruction.

Let's leave the White House in the hands of adults and men with some backbone shall we.

[FCP]

Ned, would not worry too much. The only thing that can derail Bush is a disaster in Iraq - which will not happen,

You mean like getting bogged down for years trying to root out Saddam loyalists and trying to restore a modicum of decorum to Iraq all the while sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into maintaining one's presence in the aforesaid country? Or perhaps "the sons and daughters of America" being killed on virtually a daily basis all the while with no visible signs of moving towards, or even having, an exit strategy?

The Dumbocruds - all the candidates - want to raise taxes and spend and REPEAL Bush's tax cuts.

Who needs taxes when your running the largest defecits in US history? Defecit, defecit, defecit spending. Is it Bush or Reagan? Perhaps the Republodumbs can learn something from the Dumbocruds, it's called responsible spending and balanced budgets.

[djpark121]

Bush MUST win. The economy would crumble if it were otherwise. The 2004 Dumbocrud candidates seem to know nothing about economics. The fool Gephardt's health care plan will cost the government 2.5 trillion dollars over 10 years and Dean's absurd plan would cost 932 billion. And the liberals accuse Bush of a tax deficit, in their callow ignorance. Bunch of stubborn and ignorant hypocrites. Sure, let's give 31 million Americans a great health plan and see how much more we can plunge the nation into a debt! Take that for a deficit.

[Neal.F.]

Great article.... For someone who loathes the Dumbocruds as much as I do, it is reassuring.

The best thing about a Bush win in 2004, is that he will then be free to run a conservative government with no fear of what Liberal pundits will have to say, since he will not be eligible to run again in 2008.

Now if the economy is picking up now, it should still be running with a full head of steam in 2008, which will weaken the Dumbocruds' chances even then. We can already see some of the republican contenders emerging.

I say watch for Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, and others. What do the Dumbocruds have? They have already virtually nominated Hil-liary Clinton. Condi Rice would tear her apart.

The only thing that could stop Bush is an insurgent right wing independent challenge of some substance, and none appears on the horizon at the moment.

Meanwhile the Dumbocruds, if the nominate Dean, are dead. If they don't nominate him, they run the risk of Dean running as an independent antoi Bush radical from the left.

The only thing that could prevent that , is if The Clinton woman offers herself up as a sacrificial lamb.

She could run a strong campaign against Bush, but she is such a polarizing candidate that she would not even come clsoe to the electoral college votes she'd need. I figure she could take California, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois, DC, Delaware, maryland, and maybe a handful of others. TWo years ago, I'd have added NY to the list , but 9/11 changed all that.

Dean, on the other hand would fare as badly as McGovern or Mondale.

[Black Dog]

U.S. "conservatives" *heart* defecits.

Everyone knew that U.S. President George W. Bush was running up a big deficit in an effort to ensure his re-election next year. But few guessed exactly how enormous that deficit could get, until the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its semi-annual budget forecast last week.

The CBO expects the federal deficit to equal an all-time record of $480-billion (U.S.) next year. Strip out the surplus in the public pension system (most countries, including Canada, exclude these funds from the government's official budget), and the actual deficit is much bigger: a crushing $644-billion.

Worse yet, Mr. Bush's desperate effort to pump-prime the economy in time for the election has cast the fiscal die for a decade to come. The CBO predicts accumulated red ink of almost $4-trillion over the next seven years. The Bush borrowing spree will produce a lasting fiscal hangover for the U.S. economy, enforcing years of restraint and greatly complicating the efforts of Mr. Bush (or his successor) to address issues like health care or the electricity grid.

[FastNed]

There are liars, and then there are statistics!

The first "Red Flag" here is that CBO Forecasts are issued for ten year periods - when you see only seven years quoted, you should ask yourself why! The usual reason is that the omitted years do not support the view being advanced by whomever is doing the quoting.

You must also remember that these are static

projections which do not consider any changes in tax or economic policy. Thus these projections ignore all tax cuts and their effects upon the economy. From JFK onward, CBO projections have been absolute failures in the real world as changes in tax policy, i.e., lowering of tax rates have illustrated the fallacy of static projections of the American economy.

In brief, they are of little value where tax cuts have been implimented.

[Craig Read]

Bush and his sensible economic plans will win.

Period.

The Dumbos are unfit to govern.

Every clear thinking citizen knows this.

[Nuclear]

'the media keeps calling it a quagmire'

Are you saying your media has a leftist slant?

The media, spare a select few, are brainwashed drones of the left.

[Democracy of Steve]

This Wesley Clark guy seems like he could win (if he decides to run, that is). He is a former NATO supreme commander and I hear he is more of a centerist, unlike Kerry or Dean. His military background could help him win a few Republican votes.

EDIT: Most likely will run.

[FastNed]

Steve, welcome to the Forum.

Take I hear on the General is that he was one of the "Politicals" - a politician rather than a fighter. Fact that he fit well with Slick Willie would give some weight to these contentions.

[daniel]

Bush and his sensible economic plans are costing Americans $1 billion each week in Iraq alone.

[Mr Farrius]

Not to mention the deaths of American soldiers everyday.

[FastNed]

daniel, you have stated a fact - I suspect the true figure, fully allocated, to be closer to two billion but what's a billion or two mean these days.

But what is your point?

The subject is: "Can Bush be beaten" - how do you relate your statement to the subject of this thread?

[daniel]

Bush has turned at $230 billion surplus into a $525 billion deficit. Iraq is costing the Americans $1billion per week and he's asking for another $87 billion for rebuilding. and is looking to implement more tax cuts. Unemployment is up.

And you don't get my point? My how the the right wing is fiscally responsible.

[nova_satori]

List Of Bush's "Atrocities"

Yes, they are all proven. It's pretty funny.

[Bushmustgo]

He's proven to be beaten before by a Pretzel and a Segway Scooter.

On a serious note, his father enjoyed a victorious win in the Gulf War with International support and 90% financed by the Kuwaitis......................he STILL LOST!!!

Put a fork in Bush, he's DONE!!!

[Nuclear]

We'll tell the tale in 13 months, won't we.....The Dems will elect Kerry and then a third party will come in.

I think Bush will be reelected by a landslide and just like last November, the Dems will panic and randomly put out attacks as opposed to new ideas.

[Whistler]

Can Bush be beaten? Of course he can. Anything number of things can happen from now until the election. God forbid if we are hit again on his watch on our soil, for example. (Aren’t you glad Hillary is not running now?)

It’s when you think your invincible you’re at your most vulnerable. ‘That’s why they play the game.”

[Bushmustgo]

Republicans worried about Bush's Poll Numbers

And then, how could anyone think that Bush has the election to himself???

We're still a year away and it doesn't look like the Iraqi situation and budget will be any better. Jobs are still being lost in the thousands daily...........

Bush doesn't stand a chance!

[FastNed]

daniel, I think a more appropriate view would be that the terrorist attack of 9.11 has turned a currect account surplus into a deficit. A billion or two or five per week is chump change when considered in terms of a trillion dollar economy.

Also, note the CBO latest has us returning to a surplus in seven years at current expenditure levels. And this is the usual static projection which does not consider an improving economy or any effect of the tax cuts. Candidly, I think all of the politicians are blowing smoke when they claim political acts have significant economic effects. The only acts measured to have effected the economy these last fifty years are taxes. The amount of money taken by the government, up or down, is the only action by the government which shows economic results.

Bushmust go - political slogans are not discourse, can't you do better than that?

Hello, Whistler, I question your conclusion. If we are hit again prior to the election, I have no doubt the media and the ten dwarves will insist that it is Bush's fault but for nine of the ten, this is a loosing argument.

They have gambled there will be no attack and have run on an anti-war platform - if there is an attack, they are history.

Clark is the one possible exception but he has started badly by being cute - attempting to fudge his statements to appeal to the Dean crowd is a loosing proposition, he can't take votes away from the Far Left Poster Boy Dean. I expect his handlers to slap him into shape as a "centrist", a serious Vice Presidential candidate and as "God's Gift" to Hillary. Expect a Hillary/Clark ticket and this changes the equation to a significant degree.

A Hillary/Clark ticket is a very serious alternative to Bush and with almost complete media support assured in advance, the only possible salvation for the Democrats. This would make it a very serious contest which could go either way depending upon outside events.