Us 2004 Elections

[maplesyrup]

Less than one year to go now before Americans go to the polls to choose their next President (via their electoral college), 1/3 of the Senate members, and all members of the House of Representatives.

How are the candidates doing so far?

What are the issues that will make the American voters decide who they are going to vote for?

What about the Republicans?

Who is going to win the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination this time?

Will it be Dean, and if so, why?

Will it be Clark, and if so, why?

Would they run togher on the Democratic ticket, and if so, who who be the Presidential candidate, and who would be the Vice-Presidential candidate?

Last election many Democrats blamed Ralph Nader and the Greens for Al Gore's loss to George Bush.

Nader rufutes this giving two reasons:

1- If Gore had not lost Tennessee he would have won.

2 - The Democrats made a strategic error by not going for a state-wide recount in Florida.

Ralph Nader, is not running under the Green banner in 2004, and is exploring running as a Independent candidate for President He wants to appeal to a braoder cross-section of the American public than just the environmentalists.

Will Nader have an impact if he runs again?

What are the polls saying?

After the capture of Saddam, Bush's popularity has increased?

The economy seems to be cooking as well, another good signs for an incumbent president.

What about the Congress?

Will the Republicans take control of both bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives again?

What could cause things to change?

[maplesyrup]

4 more US Servicemen were killed today in Iraq.

If it continues, the body bag count overseas could impact negatively, on the Republican/Bush chances in the next election. Last month had the highest number of casualities since the war started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/internat...ND-IRAQ.html?hp

[Debo]

Nader is insignificant I think.

At least in the political arena.

The same goes for Clark by hisself. Coupled with Dean he would not be insignificant.

On the contrary he would be the blame for Dean losing.

But I do not see that happenning simply because Clark, I think, is a Clintonian.

Dean on the other hand is not.

Of course I will be surprised if Clinton does not pay him a visit some night when they have time for a "talk".

Cant diss the big man as Dean has.

And the dems made no mistake with the recount other than be desperate and pety.

The recount has been done in as much thorough a way as it could be several times now.

The dems want it recounted untill they win. Aint gonna happen. Ever. Get over it.

[maplesyrup]

Liberals finally get their own think tank according to this article in the October 23, 2003 edition of the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...ct22¬Found=true

It is called:

'Centre for American Progress'

and its website is:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=11034

And in today's issue of USA Today there is a story entitled

"Freewheeling 'bloggers' are rewriting rules of journalism"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-...ging-usat_x.htm

From the article:

Quote

Bloggers were in large part responsible for a change of leadership in the Senate last year. When Majority Leader Lott, a Mississippi Republican, remarked at a birthday party for retiring Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina that the nation might have been better off had Thurmond won his segregationist campaign for president in 1948, the major media largely ignored it.

But bloggers stirred up enough outrage on the Internet that the story eventually landed on newspaper front pages and Lott was forced to resign his post.

Members of the nation's political-media establishment are taking notice.

Unquote

I believe these are some additional areas that are going to impact on future elections, and politicians who ignore them, do so at their peril.

I'd be curious to know what other folks who post messages here think, particularly about the impact of bloggers, or other internet discussion groups such as Mapleleafweb, on future elections, or on other political events.

[maplesyrup]

'White-collar jobs leaving U.S.'

by Richard Gwyn

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...ist969907618300

'"George W. Bush, despite a booming economy, is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term in office.

A related, but quite different, phenomenon is causing the U.S. to experience what's called a "jobless recovery." '

No thanks folks, the Wal-Marting of society, is not the dream for most Americans, nor Canadians, for that matter.

Edited January 7, 2004 by maplesyrup

[maplesyrup]

' US deficit threatens world economy - IMF'

http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a...rollingnews.htm

'The US is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released today by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). '

-------------------------------

'I.M.F. Says U.S. Debts Threaten World Economy'

By ELIZABETH BECKER

and EDMUND L. ANDREWS

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/business/08FUND.html

'WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund.

Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration's tax cuts and warning that large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for the rest of the world.'

This doesn't look good.

Edited January 8, 2004 by maplesyrup

[maplesyrup]

Maybe Dean is not going to be the Democratic candidate after all (Maybe Slick Willie is up to his old tricks). Anyway with either one of these candidates, the Dems stand a good chance to take the presidency. I just think Dean would win by a higher margin than Clark.

'In Shift, Dean Starts Watching His Words'

By JODI WILGOREN and EDWARD WYATT

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/politics...gns/08DEAN.html

'.'BURLINGTON, Vt., Jan. 7 — With a wary eye on Gen. Wesley K. Clark's rise in national and New Hampshire polls, Howard Dean's campaign has begun to limit his availability to the press, and the candidate himself is watching his words after several recent statements unleashed a storm of criticism from opponents.'

[maplesyrup]

Former Bush Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill's exposure on the real White House's machinations about Iraq/WMD is one thing.

Now with the results of this latest poll finding below, published today, there appears to be trouble brewing on the horizon for Bush.

'Bush is trounced in poll of Jews'

AP

- from New York Daily News

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/s...3p-135627c.html

'U.S. Jews would overwhelmingly support any major Democratic candidate over President Bush if the election were held today, according to a survey by the powerful American Jewish Committee.'

It looks like the spokes are beginning to come off the wheels for the GOP.

I'm sure that this is having an impact in the races for Congress as well.

Edited January 13, 2004 by maplesyrup

[righturnonred]

Jews would overwhelmingly support any major Democratic candidate

There is absolutely nothing new about this revelation as Jews have for many years voted strongly Democratic. This trend seems to defy logic given that, as it concerns Isreal anyway, Christians and conservatives are the Jews biggest allies while liberals are typically pro-Palestinian and possess a greater tendancy towards anti-semitism.

Go figure.

[maplesyrup]

Quote

Christians and conservatives are the Jews biggest allies while liberals are typically pro-Palestinian and possess a greater tendancy towards anti-semitism.

Unquote

I have serious reservations about the accuracy of the above statement. It reminds me of a comment attributed to Mulroney "if you throw enough mud against the wall, some of it sticks". Perhaps Liberals just respect everyone's right to choose the religion of their choice, without taking sides.

Also there are a lot of Jewish people, both in and outside of Israel, that do not support the policies of the current Israeli government. I doubt they are considered anti-semitic.

---------------------------------------

Intersting to note that Tony Blair's people are very concerned about the Dean candidacy. Maybe they have a hunch he is going to be the next president.

'Dean's bid for White House alarms Blair allies

Alliance could be strained by anti-war stance'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...1121817,00.html

'Amid concerns that a Dean presidential campaign would be dominated by attacks on the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, one ally of the prime minister has suggested that he would prefer anyone but Mr Dean as president, although in public Mr Blair will be careful to ensure Labour and Downing Street are seen as neutral in the Democrat race.'

Edited January 13, 2004 by maplesyrup

[righturnonred]

I have serious reservations about the accuracy of the above statement.

That's how I see it, Take it or leave it.

Also there are a lot of Jewish people, both in and outside of Israel, that do not support the policies of the current Israeli government. I doubt they are considered anti-semitic.

I made no definitive connection between opposition to Isreali government policies and anti-semitism however the two, more often then not, tend to coincide.

Perhaps Liberals just respect everyone's right to choose the religion of their choice, without taking sides.

I think this is evidence of part of the problem. A person's right to chose the religion of their choice is not the issue. That fact is that not all religions are morally equivlant, some deserve more respect them others. While Christianity is certainly flawed in some repects, Islam for example, is clearly a repressive and morally bankrupt culture/faith and therefore does not deserve the same respect.

Islam is not the "religion of peace" as some try to claim. While there are undoubtably some decent Muslims who are opposed to violence against Christians and Jews, the majority are, at the very least, complacent towards it. How many Muslim clarics, Imams, and Ayatollahs have you heard renounce the September 11 attacks or the suicide bombings against Isreal? It's far more likely you'll find them praising such acts of terror.

Liberals by their very nature cringe at the thought of having to make determinations about good and evil, right and wrong. Liberals believe that it's appropriate for everyone to decide right and wrong according to their own individual interpretation. This flawed philosophy, which is often indicative of "multiculturalism" discourages cultural assimilation and promotes racial and cultural divisions. Long gone is the melting pot mentality that so charactarized America in it's infancy.

Intersting to note that Tony Blair's people are very concerned about the Dean candidacy. Maybe they have a hunch he is going to be the next president.

Blair, who is understandably uneasy at the prospect of a Dean presidency, is overly concerned than he should be. It may appear, particularly to an outsider, that Dean could threaten President Bush in this election, but anyone who realistically understands the American politcal climate knows that Dean's chances are very slim.

Dean has a great deal of support from the left wing of the Democratic party, socialists, angry anti-war types, but he it totally unelectable by the broader segment of American society. All the polls show that Bush would trounce Dean if the election were held today. It's a pretty common sentiment here in the US, even among Dems, that if Dean is the nominee, he will lose big against Bush.

But the election is still 9 months away and it's all speculation until the news organizations call the winner before the polls are closed.

[Morgan]

righturnonred said:

It's a pretty common sentiment here in the US, even among Dems, that if Dean is the nominee, he will lose big against Bush.

If a Democrat presidential candidate came out today and promoted a platform based on the following, I predict George Bush would LOSE big time in the upcoming election:

1. active enforcement of the existing immigration laws which would involve: illegals deported, employers of illegals heavily fined, federal funds with held from states that allow their cities and counties to dispense free welfare, medical, and higher education services to illegals, tripling of border patrol staff

2. no increase in taxes

3. the war on terror continued

I've been monitoring a solidly pro-Bush conservative site at Lucianne.com the last few days ( it's my understanding that Lucianne has some sort of wait list for outsiders/newbies to post there so monitoring is all you can do) and the outrage at Bush's "amnesty called guest worker" program is something fierce.

Many posters are saying that they will vote in a Republican Congress and a Democrat president and make Bush a one term President in 2004 election unless he pulls this proposal off the table. They say a Republican Congress and a Democrat WH is good because that's when Republicans work harder for their vote, and the Democrat President has to water down his left wing policies to get them through Congress. One poster said that a recent History Channel poll, albeit not a precise one, showed that 75% of Americans were against Bush's immigration proposal. This immigration proposal is a hornet's nest for Bush. It will interesting to see how this develops.

[Craig Read]

The midget party has little to offer thinking Americans. All of the midget's party candidates want to raise taxes, raise spend above current levels and nationalise health care, pull out of Iraq and bow on bended knee to france and the UNO [like Canada].

From the US National Taxpayer's Union the following was obtained and in sum the Midget Party wants to increase current spending by a further 22 % ! Sounds like Canada not the US:

New federal spending proposed by the Democratic candidates for president.

Annual Increase in billions

Sharpton  $1,327.01 

Kucinich  1,060.35 

Gephardt  368.76 

Kerry  265.11 

Dean  222.90 

Clark  220.66 

Edwards  199.48 

Lieberman  169.55 

Source: NTUF calculations from BillTally

and cost-accounting sources

Dean is just another liberal idiot, but on this list only an average one for the midget party. Sharpton wins hands down on the spending program.

When the Dems cry in the election about the 'economy' keep in mind that the US now has the highest growth rates in GDP and productivity in its history, and the Dems prescription for more jobs is higher taxes, higher spend and letting terrorists win the war.

Truly the party of the stupid people.

[maplesyrup]

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Rumsfeld - wrong!

Powell - wrong!

Cheney - wrong!

Bush - wrong!

Why don't these men do the honourable thing and resign?

[righturnonred]

If anyone was wrong it was George Tenet and he should be fired.

Actually Tenet, a hold over Clinton appointee, should have been fired long ago.

[FastNed]

Hello, Morgan, you state that a Democrat could win if:

1. active enforcement of the existing immigration laws which would involve: illegals deported, employers of illegals heavily fined, federal funds with held from states that allow their cities and counties to dispense free welfare, medical, and higher education services to illegals, tripling of border patrol staff

2. no increase in taxes

3. the war on terror continued

Under Point One, how do you expect anyone to find, capture and deport some 8 to 10 million people? At a minimum, you would have to suspend the entire Bill of Rights and resurrect the Gestapo and the KGB and even then, you would have to bring our Military home to 'man' this enforcement effort. I doubt we have sufficient cattle cars or rail connections to Mexico but perhaps we could build 'holding' Camps.

Perhaps we could call on our good Allies, the Germans for some advice on how to do this?

Contentious -you bettcha it is. President Bush very pragmatically has drawn America's attention to the very large elephant in our backyard which too many have ignored for too long! We can not continue to ignore it and he has placed it on the front burner and forced a debate on the matter. We can not have homeland security and this many illegals - what he has done is to force the American People to focus on the problem and decide upon the solution. His proposals are talking points for a National debate which must be held. I believe the outcome will reinforce his image as an American President willing to identify tough problems and act to resolve them.

[Rasputin]

Ned I agree with you on immigration. First as another post outlines immigration is a net benefit - both legal and illegal together - to the US. Second, criminalising people who are doing low wage jobs that US citizens WON'T do is nonsensical. Not to mention as you do, that the gestapo apparatus to deport 8 million people, 4 million of whom are Mexican, would make the Patriot Act look like a Sammy Davis candy man song.

On to Kerry and the Dems and can they win ??

Kerry has issues that the Dems need to understand:

1. He is two faced and has a problem with being consistent. Two obvious issues 1. he favored military spending cuts and 2. he voted for the war in Iraq. Now he tries to deny both by spinning that the spending cuts were to force more human intelligence and that the war has been handled incorrectly.

2. His personal life. Kerry is pretty adept at marrying beautiful rich heiresses and is certainly an East coast establishment figure. Neither one plays that well in various parts of the US. He left wife #1 and 2 kids i believe, for wife #2 after a long affair with #2, who happens to own the keys to the Heinz fortune. He is not your standard FAMILY man. I wonder how the media will report on this [if at all].

3. Economics. Kerry would raise spending even more than Bush, and raise taxes. Not smart. The US needs permanent tax cuts and decreased pork. Kerry's backroom is dominated by the usual Dem suspects - trial lawyers and unions. He can't afford to cut pork.

4. War. I doubt Kerry would pull out of Iraq but to mollify his left wing and cut off any potential 2008 challengers he just might. Hard to say what he would do on the War on terror. He has not made any plans obvious or concrete and this is a BIG question mark hanging over Kerry.

This election is Bush's to lose. His biggest problem is spending money like a drunken sailor. His budget must be rejected and hacked down to size.

[KrustyKidd]

Under Point One, how do you expect anyone to find, capture and deport some 8 to 10 million people?

It is impossible. That's why it is foolhardy to try and do it. It's like running on a platform of eliminating prostitution. You say you are against it and actively work making policies that will start bringing it unter some form of control.

[maplesyrup]

Bush is tanking in the polls. He has gone from 60% support to 49% support in one month.

Is it too late for the GOP to change their leader before the next election?

Why is this happening?

Is it the lack of jobs?

Is it the US soldiers continuing to die in Iraq?

Is is the manipulation of intelligence about WMD?

[maplesyrup]

Milestone of 1,000th U.S. Death in Iraq Looms for Bush

I remember what seems like a long time ago someone stating that it is the US body bag count which will determine the outcome of the next election. This cannot be a good omen for the GOP.

[Big Blue Machine]

There are jobs, there isn't constitent job-growth. You can't stop every soldier being killed. These things happen

[maplesyrup]

Bush's Big Blunder: Chalabi

Things just seem to be going from bad to worse for President Bush these days. How in the world will he extricate himself this time from what appears to be another huge mistake in judgement?

[KrustyKidd]

Things just seem to be going from bad to worse for President Bush these days. How in the world will he extricate himself this time from what appears to be another huge mistake in judgement?

First point, get some mainstream news for your quotes , otherwise I'll start giving you Limbaugh editorials to back mine up with. Both are crap and we know it.

Second, it's true. Normally they are out to lunch but this time they report the truth as it is.

Challabi is a rat and that is who the US, both Democrat and republican has used for their intelligence throughout these years. It has little to do with the Bush Administration other than it was their turn in power when he was spewing out his BS. Check to see what the Senate Intelligence Committee took in and diseminated from him to the Congress. A bipartisan group with the Vice Chair Rockerfeller (the rat) a Democrat agreeing with it. Now move on and you will see Bush worked with what he had. If voters think he was playing James Bond undercover in Iraq himself then he is screwed. If they know that he works with what he gets then he is not.

In all, this is meaningless to an informed voter. To an uninformed voter, it is Bush's fault,to another uninformed, he will vote for him because Bush gets his cousin across the border and into a dishwashing job.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear maplesyrup,

I'd be curious to know what other folks who post messages here think, particularly about the impact of bloggers, or other internet discussion groups such as Mapleleafweb, on future elections, or on other political events

An interesting question, whether we post here just to vent or to actually try to make a difference. Or whether an individual can make a difference. The internet is just another (albeit vastly more influential) mode of the communication of biases (read individual interaction). 'Blogger' has merely, idiomatically, usurped the label 'agitator'.

[I miss Reagan]

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Rumsfeld - wrong!

Powell - wrong!

Cheney - wrong!

Bush - wrong!

Why don't these men do the honourable thing and resign?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!