Joe DeFuria said:
Dean's still running?
The strategy of division
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
Dean's still running?
Joe DeFuria said:Natoma said:Clinton didn't lose 2.2 Million jobs on his watch. But anyway that's all water under the bridge.
No, he just set the stage is all.
Hmm.. 23 Million jobs created in 8 years and the longest expansion in US History during Clinton. Yep, he set the stage for the last 4 years quite well indeed.
Joe DeFuria said:
Jobs: 2.2 Million lost (His fault or no, Bush will be hammered over this)
National Security: No WMD. 500+ Dead. Thousands wounded. Significantly reduced Veterans benefits. No Osama (Unless you count a conspiracy theory hail mary "surprise" in the fall). No funding for our ports or border patrols.
That'll be easy. But of course they're gunna kill John Kerry as a flip flopper. So mebbe it'll be a push.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Make that Kerry.
Joe DeFuria said:Make that Kerry.
Figured as much. 8)
Kerry's campaign could be properly described as "Whoring for votes". Reach out, feel that current electorate mood, adjust stance accordingly.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
And bush will defend himself over whatever the job number is, the impact of 9-11, how quickly we've come out of it...cite record economic growth and more jobs being added every quarter. Oh, and you have more money in your own pocket due to tax cuts.
A free Iraq, we captured Sadam, 2/3 of Taliban leadership captured, everyone else "on the run." Haven't heard a peep from Osama...he may be dead for all we know.
Natoma, I'm not saying there are not arguments (fundamentally sound or not) "against" Bush. All I'm saying is that Bush is not going to shy away from those issues as you and others have been saying (with so-called distractions.) He will actually argue the positive aspects of them.
Bush will meet the criticism head-on, and explain his position.
That'll be easy. But of course they're gunna kill John Kerry as a flip flopper. So mebbe it'll be a push.
It will be fun to watch.
Joe DeFuria said:
* Natoma does best John "My Name is Herman Munster" Kerry Boring Drone.....
"2.2 Million lost. 2.2 Million lost. 2.2 Million lost. 2.2 Million lost. We have three words for the president. We know he knows them well. Bring... It... On...."
Fair or not, that number is very easily digested by a "dumb" public than "We're growing the economy. The economy has grown the fastest in 40 years over a number of quarters. Jobs will come soon.." What it will come down to for people is not whether the economy has grown, but whether they have felt that economic growth. Same thing that happened to Bush I frankly. The economy was recovering pretty well at the end of his term, but no one felt it.
Joe DeFuria said:Oh, and you have more money in your own pocket due to tax cuts.
Yeah if you're one of Bush's fat cat friends in Halliburton. Or was that Enron? Kenny Boy, he's doing well isn't he?
Joe DeFuria said:
Oh he won't shy away from them. Just that he's going to get hammered on them for the simple fact that the "hammer" is easier to explain than the "explanation" in these cases. As Bush knows well, simplicity of message matters. Unfortunately the american public as a whole seems incapable of digesting complex ideas.
Joe DeFuria said:
I hope it's better than his Meet the Press performance.
Or maybe not too much better.
I like how this thread started with accusing the republicans of fooling the public, but in reality its the dems who are doing all the fooling.
1st:Only one thing has been the reason for the 2+million job loss NAFTA/WTO. And who signed the bill: CLINTON.
2nd:How quick we forget the tech/internet bubble. We are smoking something if we thought we could keep that going forever. Remember Pets.com
3rd:Jobs are coming, as long as we can consistently add jobs every month leading to the election, the Pres, will have no probs.
4th:Clinton didnt go after osama when he had the chance. The 9/11 report _might_ mention this and it will really hurt the dems.
5th:Are we safer now then before bush took over. Answer: yes, as long as no new terrorist attack.
Its going to be a good election year. There are only 16 states in play. And in the off chance that California comes into play. Both parties will sink millions of dollars for that state alone.
later,
epic
ps you may now continue with your disinformation campaigns
1st:Only one thing has been the reason for the 2+million job loss NAFTA/WTO. And who signed the bill: CLINTON.
2nd:How quick we forget the tech/internet bubble. We are smoking something if we thought we could keep that going forever. Remember Pets.com
3rd:Jobs are coming, as long as we can consistently add jobs every month leading to the election, the Pres, will have no probs.
4th:Clinton didnt go after osama when he had the chance. The 9/11 report _might_ mention this and it will really hurt the dems.
5th:Are we safer now then before bush took over. Answer: yes, as long as no new terrorist attack.
Its going to be a good election year. There are only 16 states in play. And in the off chance that California comes into play. Both parties will sink millions of dollars for that state alone.
later,
epic
ps you may now continue with your disinformation campaigns
Joe DeFuria said:Sazar said:year on year there will be a growth but if you want to compare whats happened since bush came to office take a look @ the big picture...
You mean, look at the time starting with the recession that was left to us starting with Clinton's last term?
fyi.. the last recession began in 2001... look @ any economic reports..
pre 9/11... 2001... thats when the last recession began... per the same reports that recession ended in november of the same year...
Look it up, ok.... google.com keywords: recession began bushSazar said:Joe DeFuria said:Sazar said:year on year there will be a growth but if you want to compare whats happened since bush came to office take a look @ the big picture...
You mean, look at the time starting with the recession that was left to us starting with Clinton's last term?
fyi.. the last recession began in 2001... look @ any economic reports..
pre 9/11... 2001... thats when the last recession began... per the same reports that recession ended in november of the same year...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer
Here is a great quote:
But somehow Im sure you democratic zealots will blame bush for just about anything.
later,
epic
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm
so the suggestion now is to maybe move the recession date back now?
gets curioser and curioser...
btw I agree with your 2nd quote epic and I am not blaming bush for the recession... just pointing out to Joe that if he wants to bash clinton over the recession he should look @ the economic data first...
so the suggestion now is to maybe move the recession date back now?
gets curioser and curioser...
btw I agree with your 2nd quote epic
and I am not blaming bush for the recession... just pointing out to Joe that if he wants to bash clinton over the recession he should look @ the economic data first...Ive looked over what Joe has posted. He isnt bashing clinton for the recession. NOTHING could have stopped the recession from happening. We were going through a bubble. Remember in 96 Greenspan warne of "irrational exuberance". He was warning that the bubble was going to burst. IT just so happens that it burst right around the election.Sazar said:
Blaming Bush for the recession is idiotic. I wish people would give less credit/blame to the president on the economy. They have very little to do with it.
later,
epic
Its universally accepted the recession was coming during the end of Clintons term.. That a business cycle was ending, a bubble bursting, blah blah blah.
Bush had nothing to do with that, if the dems run on that, it will be just totally pathetic Then of course there was the 9/11 catastrophe. I don't remember people in arms about Bush's economic policies at that time either.
Bush's policies really start taking place, year 3 in his tenure, and probably more like ~5, 6 years after his tenure began. So check back in two or three years for the full effects of Bush's economic policies.
Instead, what I see, is a turn around from a recession to a boom. That, I attribute to Bush, and most people will agree with that.
So afaics, Bush has a great front domestically, what with the recent growth. He has a pretty solid front on international issues, in so far as Iraq and Afghanistan has turned out ok, and most Americans feel much more secure after those actions.
The only thing left for the dems to run on, is the trust issue for WMD, the environment, gay rights and the patriot act. Not very convincing
Bush had nothing to do with that, if the dems run on that, it will be just totally pathetic
Then of course there was the 9/11 catastrophe. I don't remember people in arms about Bush's economic policies at that time either.Bush's policies really start taking place, year 3 in his tenure, and probably more like ~5, 6 years after his tenure began. So check back in two or three years for the full effects of Bush's economic policies.
Instead, what I see, is a turn around from a recession to a boom. That, I attribute to Bush, and most people will agree with that.
So afaics, Bush has a great front domestically, what with the recent growth. He has a pretty solid front on international issues, in so far as Iraq and Afghanistan has turned out ok, and most Americans feel much more secure after those actions.
The only thing left for the dems to run on, is the trust issue for WMD, the environment, gay rights and the patriot act. Not very convincing
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Sazar said:
Where did I bash Clinton for the recession? Oh wait.... I didn't....
I said the recession had started during Clinton's last term...ergo...only an idiot would believe that "Bush Caused It". (Not that Clinton Caused it.)
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Sazar said:
His job. (That, and providing pay stubs for his military service.
)Joe DeFuria
Legend
Just a related side note for anyone wondering "how each side is going to compaign."
Look at the official Republican National Committee site:
www.gop.com
And look at the official Democratic National committee site:
www.democrats.org
Now. y'all tell me. Which one of those sites is actually:
1) Spelling out their agenda, and plans for the future
or
2) Doing little more than "bashing the other guy"
I mean, seriously....which side is being "divisive" here?
Look at the official Republican National Committee site:
www.gop.com
And look at the official Democratic National committee site:
www.democrats.org
Now. y'all tell me. Which one of those sites is actually:
1) Spelling out their agenda, and plans for the future
or
2) Doing little more than "bashing the other guy"
I mean, seriously....which side is being "divisive" here?
Joe DeFuria said:
officially the recession is placed as having begun in march 2001 however... what the NBER is able to influence is a whole other thing... normally when they put forth a report.. people listen and epic pointed out their POV...
if the dems run with the claim that bush caused the recession it is going to be dodgy... otoh the job losses et all is a different thing...
Similar threads
