Talk Elections

1.  The economy is growing rapidly
2.  After catching Saddam, the war seems to be going considerably better.
3.  Gay marriage seems like it will be the big social issue of 2004 which plays right into the republicans' hands.
4.  Republican voter ID has overtaken dem ID in numerous key swing states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Washington.
5.  Bush will have an astronomical amount of money.
6.  Dean will be the nominee.  Karl Rove will easily be able to paint Dean as an ultra-liberal who's out of step with mainstream America (They'll attack Dean on civil unions, the war, the tax-cuts, and draft-dodging among other things).
7.  Bush, acting very Clinton-esque, signed the Prescription Drug bill thus taking an issue away from the democrats.

Dean's opposition to the tax-cuts is going to kill him in the midwest and the southwest.  There's no point in Dean even campaigning in Missouri, Montana, Nevada, or Arizona.

Dean's opposition to the war is going to hurt him in New Jersey, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New York (although he'll win it anyway), and West Virginia.

The fact that he signed a civil unions bill is going to kill him everywhere else.  Once again, democrats won't win a single Southern state.  There going to do a lot worse in the midwest than they did in 2000.  Look for Bush to make some inroads on the West Coast (Oregon and maybe California or Washington) and in the Northeast (Maine perhaps).

We know, we know *sigh*.

Plus as I have been sayiing Bush signed the farm bill and next year will sign the Energy bill which will play extremely well to Midwestern farm communities with its ethanol subsidies.

If Bush can battle the Dems on their Gore states in the Midwest he will break the Dems back.  

Bush didn't even compete there in 2000 and only went Dem int he last week, and in 2002 GOP swept everything.

Why Bush will win,

Because your new God said so! Vote Bush! :) :)  cool 501 to be a God

I wanna be a God too! :'(  I've been a member of the forum for nearly 2 months..and I'm just a Senior Member. :(

YOU AND YOUR DAMN POSTS!!!

QUIET! are you challenging GOD, lol.

All in fun, on a few different boards so I can switch back and forth and get ideas all over the place , plus I do read a lot of online stuff, newspapers and such from different states.

I agree it is highly likely Bush will win, in part for the 7 reasons given.  But also Bush has done exactly what he said he would do in the 2000 campaign, no waffling, no changing with the wind, and I think people respect that.

But there are bigger reasons that Bush is likely to win.  America has always been an optimistic country and responds to a leader with a positive vision for the future.  Bush will run on three broad, positive  themes

1) Accomplishment (his record),
2) Responding to 9-11,
3) A better future: such as The Ownership Society, improvements to Social Security and Medicare

The Democratic Nominee will try to convince everyone the country is worse off and getting worse, in the end they’ll get desperate and resort to class warfare, not a positive message and one doomed to electoral failure.

The more I hear, see, read, the more I am convinced of G.W. at the helm for another 4 years. Unless, and only unless, there is a more significant terrorist attack that would rival or beat 9-11 as the worst on U.S. soil. If that happens, Heaven Help Us All !

Bush dodged the draft, too. His daddy got him in the Air National Guard and then he went AWOL for a year. If Clarkk is the nominee, count on that to come out.

Bush will win because he was in a war, and the economy is doing decently.

I'm forming a 'Liberal League' around my school, and the #2 reason why people say no is because Bush was in a war.  I asked one of them what would happen if he hadn't gotten into the war, and she said she wouldn't like Bush.

And, of course, the #1 reason is that either I'm stupid, or the organization is stupid.

*sigh* The perils of being a young overenthusiastic liberal.

Since the South is still fighting the Civil War, they shouldn't be allowed to pull the rest of the country down with them.

Yeah a new liberal springs up in MN after such huge defeats in MN in 2002?  Odd.

Gov Pawlenty , Sen Cleman, increased majority int eh state House and picked up seats in the state Senate to pull within a couple.  Now when Bush actually puts some money into MN unlike 2000, you might as well come on over to the GOP side, not near as gloomy over here!

Bush is really stupid. Also, Bush is an evil genius with a master plan to take over the world! Wait, that's Cheney and his cabal of big oil, Christian conservative Zionist neocons with links to Enron and Dick Grasso!

That platform's a sure winner. Independents'll come running.

New?  Hardly.  I've been liberal since I was... say... 9.

And me?  Gloomy?  Dean (hem, sorry, the Democratic candidate) may get a whole 40% of the popular vote in the nation!  *gasp*

And you know what's really sad? I've read some polls that suggest Dean may carry our nation's capital.

And you are a Republican? You should be ashamed and go to politcal confession.

Bush is a Man of Faith & He Belives in God I Think that its Time that Amercan goes back to God in 2004

You got that one correct, John. America severed ties with its roots/heritage. It is a great SIN against GOD that the United States was founded on Christian [guiding] principles, and then after a period of only 228 years, revolt against HIM and Denounce HIM so viciously.

Chris, were you being sarcastic?  I hope so.

No I wasn't being sarcastic.

Works for me. The man said his peace, let him be.

The man is an idiot.  He has 55 posts already....he has posted in all of our buried threads.  I think it is fair to ask justification from him.

I wish Dave would make a few of us trusted members, moderators at the forums. (If the forums will allow him to, that is.) That way we can lay down the law with an IRON FIST, and stop all these fools and their stupid posts, and bring an end to trolls. As President Bush said about terrorist, I say about trolls.

We will hunt them down, and take em down. We'll smoke em out. These guys can't stay hidden forever. They will experience the justice they never gave to others.

But, if he did that, everyone would be crying for a moderator job.  If he did give some people moderator jobs, I don't think either one of us deserves it.  I have only been a member since May, and you weren't at the old board.  Somebody who has been here a long time deserves the job.

Agreed. I know that I don't really deserve it, since I'm realtively new the the forum, and plus I know I would abuse my power as moderator. lol

But someone else should be moderator, so they can end all of this nonesense. Someone strong.....someone smart....someone wise....

Nym90 maybe.  He registed at the old board in March '01.

Yes! Nym! I nominate Nym as well!!

Is there a link to the old forum, so I can read old posts and see how long certain members have been members of the forum?

I wish I would have paid more attention to the forums on this webpage. I've visited this webpage since late 2000, but never paid attention to the forums. :(

Here is the link to the old board:

https://uselectionatlas.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/leip/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi

There is nothing saying Nym would accept the job though, we might have to talk him into it.

Maybe whoever got the most posts should be moderator (Hmm, it's gonna be hard cathing up with Realpolitik's 700+ posts, though!)

Well, you might have somebody like jrvansbo who has 570 posts and has been a member for a month, so I think Nym's tenure as a emeber here is impressive and earns him the job.

Well, I wasn't being that serious anyway. It would be tough picking moderators in any case, they would get a dangerous amount of power...

I think most of us would not abuse the power, but I am sure some would.

Someone might delete bible quotes or someone else might delete anything irreverent. Or what do you think? :)

Haha...
I'll tell you what I'd like to do with the bible quotes....

I can imagine...

mr_prez are you on drugs??

Back away fromt he liberal PROPOGANDA for 2 minutes and listen.

Bush gave across the board tax cuts.  So naturally if you PAY MORE YOU GET MORE BACK.  Plus Bush gave tax cuts to the middle class and eliminated some harmful taxes such as the death tax, marriage penalty and gave more to child tax credit.  Dems want to raise taxes, Deana nd Gephardt even want to raise taxes on the middle class.

Next foreign policy.  9/11 suspects.  well we have captured a number of terrorists, including the bomber of the USS Cole.  OBL is hidding in a very mountanous area and it is not easy to get him.  The terrain and the locals are all against us.  Contrary to the Democrats rhetoric we have continually had forces there searching for OBL the entire time we have been in Iraq.

Iraq- 12 UN resolutions were violated.  Clinton did not act to enforce the agreements that Iraq agreed to to end the first Gulf war.  Next in 1998 Clinton asked the Congress for a resolution to use force against Iraq for violating the UN mandates and it was approved and he shot a few missles in there.  There are many Clinton and Dem quotes from this time.  Saddam continued to violate them and HARBOR TERRORISTS, so we went to war.  Recently links have been proven that Muhammed Ata ( the lead 9/11 bomber) was in Baghdad 3 months before 9/11 meeting with Iraqi military and gov't officials.  Plus there were terrorist training camps and they were continuing to try and build their WMD program.

Since Bush has went on the offensive instead of following the Clinton appeasement policy, we have knocked out the Taliban in Afghanistan, taken down the Iraqi regime ( mass killings have stopped) and the Libyas now with the show of force in Iraq have given up their WMDs.  Col Quadafi of Libya said "I'll do whatever the Americans want me to do, because I saw what happened in Iraq"  He saw that Bush was willing to use force to eliminate terrorists and the nation states that harbor them.  

Clinton was offered OBL by the Sudan in the 90s and REFUSED to go and get him.  HELLO!!!

Dean is stronger on National defense?  What do you base that on?  He has been the governor of a small state with no foreign policy or military experience.  Will Libya or other rouge nations be scared of the threat of force from an anti-war candidate such as dean?  NOPE.  They weren't scared of Clinton and continued their attacks and Clinton is light years ahead of Dean.
We definately are safer than before 9/11 and for Dean to say otherwise is crazy.  I mentioned the 3 states above, the collection of terrorists caught and killed around the world and the collection of massive amounts of weapons out of th hands of terrorists.  Plus Saddam is no longer financially supporting the suicide bombers in Palestine.

your turn.

as for moderator remarks.

I would be tough in enforcing the standards but fair to all, across the spectrum no matter their political opinion.

I would vote for Chris.

lol, ok, nevermind that question.

TOUGH TIMES FOR TERRORISTS

By RALPH PETERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Email  Archives
 Print  Reprint
 
 
 
December 31, 2003 -- EVEN if terrorists attack our homeland before the stroke of midnight, 2003 will still have been a year of remarkable progress on every front in the global War on Terror - and the greatest year for freedom since the Soviet Union's collapse.
A decisive government in Washington, backed by the courage and common sense of the American people, worked with allies around the world to carry the fight to the terrorists' home ground. We continued to seize the strategic initiative from the most implacable enemies America has ever faced.

Unless we choose to defeat ourselves, there is no chance of a final terrorist victory.

In 2003, a new generation of enemies learned that America not only fights ferociously, but follows through with tremendous residual power. In one of history's great paradoxes, the provocation of 9/11 - intended to humble us - unleashed our dormant might and rejuvenated the historical trend toward liberty. The Twin Towers fell, but two years later America towers over the world as never before.

The autumn of 2001 saw our initial counterattacks, while 2002 broadened the international struggle and improved our domestic preparedness. But 2003 was our breakthrough year - 12 months of successes that changed the course of history.

Consider just a few of our achievements:

* We deposed and captured one of the world's worst tyrants, liberating 25 million people and demonstrating the inherent weakness of dictatorships.

 

In doing so, we destroyed a regime that had terrorized its own people and the region. We drew an unmistakable line between America's reinvigorated support for the liberation of the oppressed and "old Europe's" cynical defense of the status quo.

* The stunning campaign that took our troops to Baghdad in just three weeks made it clear to the world that no other state or combination of powers can oppose us militarily and left us with the most experienced, combat-proven forces of our time.

* Our president's courageous decision to target Saddam himself while sparing innocent Iraqis upset the traditional rules of warfare, according to which the draftees die while the ruler survives by signing a peace treaty.

Even though our attempted "decapitation strikes" failed, the message sent to the world's dictators and sponsors of terror had far more force than Western pundits yet realize. And our ultimate, humiliating capture of Saddam left every remaining tyrant worried that he might topple next.

* As a result, Libya has opened its nuclear facilities for inspection, while Iran hastened to strike a no-nukes deal with European governments anxious to save face after their support of Saddam backfired disastrously. North Korea has grown remarkably subdued. Syria treads cautiously. No tyrant wants G.I. Joe as his houseguest.

* Even Saudi Arabia, the great incubator of terror, has become newly cooperative, both because the terrorists - predictably - bit the many hands that fed them and because Riyadh's relative importance has declined precipitously with G.I. Jane in Baghdad.

* We've continued to kill and capture terrorists by the thousands, dismantling their networks, seizing their assets and destroying their bases. Terrorism won't disappear in our lifetimes, but its reach and capabilities have been powerfully reduced.

* Our president had the sound instincts to realize that you can't treat the deep cancer of terrorism with a topical salve. Apprehending terrorists isn't enough. Meaningful treatment of this long-untended disease requires radical surgery and great risk.

Those naive or disingenuous voices insisting that our liberation of Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror refuse to accept that the problem isn't a few deadly fanatics but a suffocating civilization.

The administration's resolve to force change in the Middle East was as crucial as it was courageous. We can't force Iraqis - or anyone else - to succeed, but we've done what no others have dared: We've given tens of millions of long-oppressed human beings a chance to live in freedom.

Much of this century will be shaped by what they make of that great chance.

* Most vitally for Americans, our government kept our country remarkably safe. Terrorists yearned to strike us massively, to punish us for our successes, while proving that they remain a potent force. Instead, our federal, state and local authorities achieved new, if still imperfect, levels of cooperation and blocked each terrorist attempt to wound us.

Politically motivated critics charge that the War on Terror has been a failure, despite the obvious proof to the contrary: Our enemies have been unable to harm our homeland. And while we will be struck again eventually - no defense is perfect - every day of safety is a victory.

Two Thousand Three was a year that changed the world. For the better. The reverberations will echo for decades.

Not every result will please us. We will not turn broken states into little Americas overnight. Each culture has its own strengths and weaknesses. But we're making a noble effort to help the wretched of the earth make their societies better.

Perfection belongs to God. Progress is the best that humans can do.

Whether facing down Taliban remnants in Afghanistan or shaming the rest of the world into providing more assistance to Africa's struggle against AIDS, we've made an epochal break with the tradition of wealthy states embracing easy short-term solutions instead of engaging long-term problems. Future historians will regard 2003 as one of the dates when history made a great turn, as a global 1776.

Yet 2004 is going to be a year of decision in the War on Terror. As our presidential election approaches, the terrorists remaining at large will sacrifice their last reserves in an effort to dislodge President Bush, freedom's great crusader, from the White House.

The terrorists will seek to convince American voters that the War on Terror is failing, paving the way for the electoral victory of a weakling and allowing them to surge back into vacuums created by an American retreat.

Their last, desperate hope will be to hit us so hard that we elect a coward in place of a hero.

I'm betting on American guts. And glory.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad."

A Strategy of Partnerships
Colin L. Powell
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004

   
   
 

Summary: Pundits claim that U.S. foreign policy is too focused on unilateral preemption. But George W. Bush's vision -- enshrined in his 2002 National Security Strategy -- is far broader and deeper than that. The president has promoted bold and effective policies to combat terrorism, intervened decisively to prevent regional conflicts, and embraced other major powers such as Russia, China, and India. Above all, he has committed the United States to a strategy of partnerships, which affirms the vital role of international alliances while advancing American interests and principles.

Colin L. Powell is the U.S. Secretary of State.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83104/colin-l-powell/a-strategy-of-partnerships.html

Thanks for the endorsement MiamiU! Although I generally tend to favor free speech and wouldn't do too much moderating probably.

No problem...
Hey I'm flying to Miami tomorrow...change of plans....

National Gaurd isn't dodging the draft.  Get your facts streight

Dave is the moderator.  That's good enough.

I BOW BEFORE YOU SUPREME LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Getting out because of a bad back and then going skiing is dodging it.

Yes, he is, but he can't be here all that much of the time (he has a life, unlike me), and he can't moderate all that much.  A second moderator would be helpful.

Begging for the job arn't ya?

No, I nominated Nym90.

Well IF dave needs some help we should do it like a democracy.

Take nominations by a certain date, give a little campaigning time and then take a vote.

Names from a hat.

What if people started to get external friends to sign up and vote? Or what if the 100+ "silent members" came around and turned out to be trolls, or something? Or the majority here comes from one party and nominates a hard-liner who is unfair? No, Dave is our strong leader and should make the calls! :)Promoting democratic take-overs of private property isn't very conservative, is it? :)

And, btw, the only who has indicated himself as a good choice is jvravnsbo, I think. :)

Voter fraud.

Whatever the result, we will demand a recount!

I'll take it to court.

See you there, then.

What the heck is this all about? Being Moderator on your site Miami U, or on ATLAS? Well, you already offered me the position. So, that's more fair I would think!

I like the idea!  But Nym90 doesn't look like he will accept the nomination, so I go to my second choice, Realpolitik.

This is about ATLAS, I think. At least that is what mos tof us has been discussing. Are you getting a moderator position on Dave's board, or what?

Yes, this is about the atlas.  Once (or if) I get more members on my site, I will appoint moderators, with the first one being Chris michael.

Well, Thank You, I appreciate that. I am Honored.

No problem buddy.

But were you being sarcastic?

Why would I have been sarcastic? Really MiamiU, have you ever read anything by me that was sarcastic or even had a hint of controversy? I do accept.

U.S. Team to Visit North Korean Nuclear Facility
 
Friday, January 02, 2004
 
SEOUL, South Korea  — In a startling diplomatic breakthrough, a U.S. delegation will visit North Korea's main nuclear facility at Yongbyon next week, a South Korean official said Friday.

 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107218,00.html


--sounds good.

why do you say that it sounds good?  North Korea won't drop their nkes unless we pay them to.

Because if they let us in to look at least we will have more knowledge as to what they actually have.  

Plus we must be making some progress int he talks if they are willing to let us in.


Yes i know paying them off the Clinton approach, didn't like it then or now.

It may be the only way to do this in the end.  we can't start another war, you know that as well as anybody.

No but you could continue to isolate them and tellt eh Chinese we will arm Japan and the South fully if they don't head off North Korea.  China doesn't want that either.

As kramer would say, "this is a prickly one."

I am not sure how much influence China can excercise over NK. Asian communists are really scary, I'm not convinced they can be negotiated with. NK in particular.

Way too risky. We may alienate China in the long run, and force a chasm between Japan/South Korea & China/North Korea which could escalate.

Plus - what powers does China have to stop NK? And to what an extent is China involved in NK's nuclear arms program? And do Japan and SK really want to be fully armed?

That said, I think China will work with the US in the long run. They want better relations with the West. It's just that threatening them with arming Japan and SK probably isn't the wisest move, at least not right now.


China can be negotiated with, I have no doubt about that. It's no longer a psychotic dictatorship, especially now that Hu Jintao is in charge (he's much more of a moderate than his predecessors). However, threatening China as JR suggested more or less constitutes blackmail, and that is too risky given the still-frail relationship we have with China (a relationship which I have no doubt will improve with time).

NK does scare me though.

China could simply tell them straight up.  Get rid of your nukes or you go it alone.  We will not support you if the US attacks as we did in the first Korean war.

Without China , N Korea militarily is toast.

Yeah, but do they know that? How deluded are they?

Why Bush will win... Especially if Dean is the nominee, because of the "repeal of Bushes' tax cuts. Nice wording for a tax increase. I'm not in total agreement with how Bush cut taxes but the lowest income people saw there tax burden decreased by 33% while the richest people saw there tax burden decreased by 9% So who is getting the shaft by Deans' economic policy's? I don't think the wealthy in this country were in need of having their taxes reduced but Dean is proposing having the poorest people in this country have there taxes raised the most. Now I hear about Dean considering a tax cut for the middle and lower class. Does that mean that they will have their taxes reduced further or is it Dean speak for a smaller increase than 33%?

It drives me insane hearing people talk about "tax cuts for the rich".  It's just one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.  People like Howard Dean don't understand that it is not only bad economics, but it is unconstitutional that we make "the rich" pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than "the poor".

One of the main problems with government sponsored income redistribution is the fact that there are no static classes in America.  Most of the people who are "poor" in this country are either young people who have yet to reach their highest earning potential or are retired people who have surpassed their highest earning potential.  If you look at the people who are "poor" now, only a handful of them are the same who were "poor" fifteen years ago, and only a handful of them will still be "poor" fifteen years from now.  

Some people try to say that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that simply is not true.  Everybody in this country is enjoying the unparalleled economic growth that this country experiences on an almost constant basis despite the periodic economic downturn.  In fact, the only reason statistics occasionally show the increased division between rich and poor is because of the constant influx of immigrants into this country.  They tend to be poorer than the national average thus depressing the average income of "the poor".  But even the immigrants enjoy economic prosperity once they are established in the country.

There simply is no rationale for a graduated income tax.  The poor are, for the most part, not the destitute, miserable starving hordes that most people associate with the word.  In fact, most of them will be "rich" in a few decades.

The final flaw in a graduated tax system is that tax rates are placed on certain income levels that are considered "rich" at the time, but in a matter of years become middle-class.  The government will still be taxing incomes of $100,000 at the highest tax rate even after inflation and wage increases have rendered such an income something less than extraordinary.

It would be so much simpler to tax people at two rates:  zero, and a rate to be decided by congress (I like the thriteen percent rate that Russia and Ukrania have adopted).  Once tax reforms have been made, foolish politicians need to stop the class warfar tactics that are so ridiculously uninformed.

Another problem with graduated tax rates is that a certain level of income has a vastly different puchasing power in different parts of the country.

A person making $100,000 per year will be very well off in Alabama, and barely middle class in California or New York.

Those that the Democrats call the "rich" are often just middle-to-upper middle class people within the context of the expensive areas that they live.

Personally, my definition of rich is that your money works for you, and not the other way around.

I think that the Democrats are demagoguing the whole tax issue, implying that only the "rich" should be paying anything at all.  This is a major threat to the stability of a democracy, because democracy is finished when the majority of people are able to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for.

Are you blind?  Republicans supporting a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and all legal recognition of same-sex couples is FAR from going to help them.

The country's split in half on civil unions, so I don't see honestly how that could be used against the Dems.  And Bush is the one who's out-of-step with mainstream America, most Americans aren't fundamental Christians as he is.

I really don't think you put much thought into your post.

The poor saw their taxes cut by 33% and the rich only by 9%? Ah, but you forget about payroll taxes, the taxes for Social Security and Medicare that come out of your paycheck before you even see it. Most Americans pay a majority of their taxes in payroll taxes, and payroll taxes only apply to the first $60,000 of income! And Bush has not cut payroll taxes at all, of course. These are a much bigger burden on the poor than on the rich.
On the one hand, you say tax cuts for the wealthy are a good thing, then on the other, you say that's not really what Bush is doing! Which is it?

Actually, a lot of people are poor and their families remain poor for many generations, and likewise, many people are rich and their familes remain rich for many generations. But you are right that there is a great deal of economic movement among classes for people in this country.

But, I fail to see your point. If people frequently move from one class to another, wouldn't that be a big argument in favor of the progressive tax structure? It's benefiting different people at different times, it's not just a giveaway to a certain group of people at the expense of others. And, also, maybe the progressive tax structure is what is helping those poor people to move up the economic ladder. Since poor and middle class people receive much more benefit from government than they pay in, this helps them to have a better quality of life and move up the economic ladder.

Our society does have a vested interest in helping the poor and middle class with government programs, even if it comes at some expense to the wealthy. Almost all problems in society can be linked in some way or another to poverty (well, that and poor parenting, but that's another thread). The elmination of poverty and the lifting up of the bottom classes helps everybody, even the rich! Republicans are the ones playing class warfare, not Democrats. Democratic economic policies would benefit everybody, although they do benefit the poor and middle class a lot more than the wealthy, but overall the wealthy will still see benefit. Republican economic policies help the wealthy at the great expense of the poor and middle class. Even if the poor and the middle class get a tax cut, the cuts in government spending that will inevitably result from the tax cuts for the wealthy will mean that the poor and middle class will overall be hurt much more than they will be helped by tax cuts.

I fail to see what you mean by saying that the only reason for a divide between rich and poor is because of immigrants, even if it were true. For one thing, if the divide is increasing, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, it's still true; also, you state that immigrants eventually get pulled up by our economic prosperity, but, since the divide between rich and poor is widening, obviously they and others are not being pulled up fast enough to make up for the rate of immigration. People will see benefits in a few decades, you say...well, 30-40 years is a long time for people to have to wait for economic prosperity to pull them up.

Also, you fail to understand the irony in your staunch defense of our economic system and how it helps everbody, but then your proposal for a drastic change in that very same system. A 13% flat tax would result in the devastation and elmination of almost all government programs other than defense. I realize you probably have no problem with this; however, that would devastate the economy and also the societal well-being of 95% of Americans. The progressive tax structure is what is responsible for making America such an economic power.

Steve... if you think that everyone is doing well at the moment then I encourage you to visit old industrial towns(eg; Flint), the Mississippi Delta and High Appalachia.

Excellent post

Our progressive tax code isn't something that helps people climb the economic ladder: it's what keeps people pinned down.  The truly rich (those who don't think about income tax but instead corporate and capital gains) don't need to worry about taxes from wages or a yearly salary.  The system actually hurts those attempting to climb the ladder out of the impoverished lower classes.  That is, our tax code makes it easy to stay rich, but not easy to get there.
Providing benefits to the lower classes seems extremely compassionate, and yes we need to ensure that poor children recieve education, have food to eat, and access to basic medical care.  But handouts can be counterproductive.  After all, if the government is rewarding you for staying poor, and you would actually have less resources if you were employed, it's stupid to even look for a job.
The bracketed tax code that punishes success is wrong, and the benefits to the lower class are only a stopgap, which can be negative in the long run.

And what about luxury taxes, estate taxes, capital gains? how about taxes on the interest in bank accounts?
my argument against Dean does not include the tax structure. But the wealthy pay the highest percentage no matter how you look at it, actually I'm happy about that. If Dean is elected President a vast majority of people will see their taxes raised by a higher percentage than those who are in the highest tax bracket who will be recieving the lowest percentage tax hike. In the end the economy is only going to do good if the lower and middle income is better off. Wealthy people are going to spend money and make money regardless of the economic situation. raising taxes on the midle class would likely balance the budget twice as fast as only increasing taxes for the wealthy because there are so few perecentage wise who fall into this wealthiest catagory. Does anyonee really think that raising taxes only on the wealthy helps. That is why taxes have always been raised on the middle class the hardest percentagewise.  regardless of who is president , you want to raise taxes fine, I want to see something for my increased sacrifice, not the politicians have more money to throw around come election time.

Well, as for the taxes that the rich mostly pay, Bush has or is trying to cut all of them, unlike payroll taxes which disproportionately affect the poor. That was my point.

Dean will not raise taxes on the poor or middle class more than he will the rich. If you believe this, then you are simply uninformed about his positions. I absolutely agree that the economy will only do better if the poor and middle class do better; however, Republican economic philosophy dictates that only amount of money held by the rich really matters, as they'll be generous and charitable enough to give their money back to the poor and middle class and thus government doesn't have to do it for them. Yes, wealthy people will spend money and make money no matter what, which is why for the rich, a bad economy can actually be a GOOD thing since higher unemployment gives them more choices of whom to hire for job openings and thus also more power over employees who have more fear of losing their jobs and not being able to move to a different company if they don't like their current one. When the economy is bad, companies can treat their employees badly and they have no choice but to take it. Yes, their are far fewer wealthy people than there are poor and middle class, but overall the amount of tax money that they pay is greater and thus raising taxes on the rich helps raise far more money than raising taxes on the poor and middle class. You are completely wrong iin stating that taxes have always been raised on the middle class the hardest percentage wise; Clinton raised taxes only on the rich, and not the middle class. And, oh, by the way, the economy boomed in the 1990's under this policy, and we went from record deficits to record surpluses. Now, Bush has cut taxes for the wealthy, and we are back to record deficits again, far larger even than we had before Clinton came into office. So the size of the deficits and surpluses under different administrations should clearly put to shame any argument that raising or cutting taxes for the wealthy has little effect on government revenues.

Rather, I think Republicans deliberatly want to cut off the source of revenue for government programs, thus creating a massive deficit, which then will force spending to be cut. Now that we have a deficit, spending cuts can be justified, the Republicans can say "Gee, we really don't want to cut spending, but we just have to due to the deficit, we have to be fiscally responsible" completely ignoring the fact that the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts are what caused the mess in the first place! Rather than being honest about their agenda and supporting spending cuts even when they aren't absolutely necessary, the GOP would rather promote the more popular part of their agenda first, and then, once they have created a fiscal crisis, use the unpopular part of their agenda as an excuse to "fix" it.

I wouldn't say it was true that Clinton raised taxes only on the rich, not the middle class.  The income levels that he raised taxes on could be considered rich in certain parts of the country, but not others.  In places like the New York metropolitan area, a family of four with an income of $150,000 is middle class, not rich.  Housing costs are so high in some areas that a person with an income of $150,000 can barely afford a starter home, so I wouldn't consider that person rich.

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton raised taxes as the economy was growing and the recession had already ended, while Bush lowered taxes in order to provide stimulus to an economy that was sinking.

Don't forget that Clinton signed onto a big tax cut in 1997 on the "rich" and this had a lot to do with the late 1990s boom.  Clinton agreed to slash capital gains taxes in 1997, and by definition only those with assets benefit from this type of tax cut.

My problem with the Democratic position on taxes is that there seems to be no limit to their soak the "rich" philosophy.  I don't believe Democracy can survive if the majority of people are able to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for, so I oppose large scale redistribution of wealth, which is effectively what the Democrats are proposing when they say they want to eliminate taxes on the middle and lower classes, and significantly increase them on high income people.  It's not only about where to get the most money; it's also about the principle that everybody must pay some share for the cost of government if they are going to have a say in determining what is spent.

My taxes went up and I'm not wealthy. But you are correct when you say that Clinton raised taxes mostly on the wealthy. He did still raise taxes on middle income people. I have never given presidential administrations alot of the credit for economic situations good or bad. There are too many outside influences out of the control of the administrations. The federal reserve has the most influence as far as government goes. We had an economic recovery during the Reagan administration and taxes went down for everyone and the federal deficit grew. We had a recession under GHW Bush when he raised taxes and was not as supply sided as his predecessor. Along came Clinton who raised taxes considerably and we had the largest economic expansion in U.S. history. Clinton and Reagan benefited under conditions with low fuel prices and lowering of the interest rates. Neither had anything or atleast much to do with these influences.
Now along comes Dean who was calling for the "repeal" of the Bush tax cuts. =tax hikes. It has been proved and we are currently in an economic upturn with low taxes combined with low interest rates and atleast for the time stable fuel prices. Yes there is a deficit which must be addressed but it was also proven that the deficit was turned into a surplus not by Clintons tax hikes (it did help some) but primarily by the good economy which brought in enormus revenue for the gov't.
The problem with people like Dean is they care more about the imediate gov't budget and how much money they can spend right now.
NO, there is not as much fiscal responisbility with the Bush administration as there should be and Taxes need not be lowered for people in the wealthiest percentile but raising taxes on the middle and lower income people simply for the benefit of Lowering the federal deficit when it has been proven that
A. You can have good economic times with one
B. the federal deficit goes down predominently from good revenue which only can be achieved under economic upturns is not a policy that is best for the people.

This is really off topic, but would it be allright for those of you who are independents to have a signature that tells us what kind of independents you are? There are two independents from NY, and I keep mixing you up! It's easier to understand the points if I can distiguish between green independents and libertarian ones. You don't have to, if you don't want to, of course, but I would appreciate it, anyway. :)

Dazzleman, I can perfectly understand having a moral objection to redistrubution of wealth. That's at least a consistent position, and I commend you for that, even though I disagree with it. As I've said all along, the economic debate is basically a struggle between two competing moral principles, and different people have different ideas about which is more important. Do the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give back some of their wealth for others' benefit, or does society have a moral obligation to the wealthy to let them keep their money? Most of us would agree that both are true to at least a certain extent, but then which is more important?

With respect to redistribution of wealth, I think it's a matter of degree.  A certain degree of it is necessary and even desirable, but if it goes beyond a certain point, democracy is endangered because self-government is predicated upon the notion that the vast majority of people are self-supporting.  If that is not the case, and people are able to vote themselves benefits that they don't have to pay for, self-government is in grave danger.

The trick is to balance between the two competing notions.  It's not really about the rich keeping their money; for the real rich, even the tax rates proposed by the Democrats won't make any difference in their lifestyle.  I believe in constructive help for people who need a hand up, but handouts should be strictly limited to those who are legitimately unable to help themselves.   The GI Bill was a perfect example of a hand-up that greatly benefited society economically and socially, and every dime spent on it was worth it.  But AFDC welfare is a perfect example of a bad handout that hurt society immeasurably.

So please understand that the issue is not greed for the rich, as many Democrats try to paint it, but the overall best interests of society, which are not necessarily served by taking from those who have more just because they have more.

The stages of grief. The sooner you get to acceptance the better.  Cheer up. I lived through a second Clinton term!

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you saying that these kids at your school like Bush because he was a president that put the country in a war?  OIF or OEF or both?  Are they just saying that they like that he is fighting against the terrorists? What?

And no matter your beliefs, I'm glad you're engaged and involved. Competition keeps our side on our toes. If you start your club and it thrives, maybe some conservatives will get off their asses at your school and form a competing organization.

9?? How in the world did you develop an informed worldview at 9?  

Bush will win because Pat Robertson said God said so.  The real God-- not the YaBB variety.  

Maybe he just got cut off. The World needs a Dean Presidency... like we need a baseball bat to our heads.

Quoting Bush? Trolls must really get to you!

Democrats are starting to talk about the Bush Deficit Tax and the Bush State Tax.  They say that the high deficits will cause higher tax burdens on future generations and that therefore the tax reductions are ephemeral. Same with the State Tax argument. Less money to bail states out, so they raise state tax rates by the same amounts as federal income taxes fall.  I think it's about the best argument the Dems could come up with, and I don't think voters will think much of it.

Since when is liberalism an informed worldview? :)

I've been conservative since I was 9 or 10 - a lot of which was influenced by listening to talk radio.

Even if the "rich" have a moral obligation to society to give back some of their money, is it the moral obligation of the government to force them to give?  Is it the governments duty to decide who deserves to have tax revenues "redistributed" to them?

Democrats are starting to talk about the Bush Deficit Tax and the Bush State Tax.  They say that the high deficits will cause higher tax burdens on future generations and that therefore the tax reductions are ephemeral. Same with the State Tax argument. Less money to bail states out, so they raise state tax rates by the same amounts as federal income taxes fall.  I think it's about the best argument the Dems could come up with, and I don't think voters will think much of it.

Democrats cannot logically condemn both tax cuts and deficit spending.  If, as many of the democrats currently running for president have openly stated, the economy can be revived by government "pump priming" and public works programs, then the only real problem with the Bush teams deficits is that they are not big enough.  If they truly believe that a balanced budget has some kind of inherent value, they must not subscribe to the Keynesian view of economics.  If they do not subscribe to Keynesian economics, why aren't they in favor of tax cuts as a means of stimulating economic growth?

No, Democrats can logically oppose both tax cuts and deficit spending. The tax cuts are what is causing the deficit, so the Democrats say get rid of the tax cuts to balance the budget, which will help the economy in the long run. Massive amounts of debt will eventually have to be repaid back with interest, so in the long run this will hurt both the economy and the availability of government programs. Of course, as I've stated before, I think that's exactly what the GOP is hoping for. The Republicans think that when forced to choose, people would rather have lower taxes than more spending, so they are deliberately trying to force the issue with a game of political chicken in the hopes that the Dems will blink first and agree to cut spending in order to balance the budget.

You used a fairly circular logic in your argument. The Democrats aren't supporting Keynesian economics, true, but you fail to see that Keynesianism and supply-side aren't the only economic alternatives. Democrats instead believe in increasing government spending on social programs to boost the economy and the standard of living of the poor and middle class, and raising taxes on the wealthy in order to balance the budget and pay for the social programs. Yes, Bush is practicing pseudo-Keynesian economics by cutting taxes and increasing spending (although I think his real intent is to starve the government of money in an attempt to try to force spending cuts which otherwise would not be politically feasible), but one must remember that the main focus of Keynesianism was on the demand side of the ecomomic equation; increasing spending to get the economy going, decreasing it if the economy grows too fast so as to curb inflation. This makes more sense than supply-side because demand tends to create supply in a capitalistic economy much more than supply will create demand.

Also, while the arguments that state taxes will have to be raised to make up for federal revenue shortfalls and that future tax rates will have to be higher due to massive deficits may indeed be too esoteric for the general populace to grasp, it doesn't make them any less true.

Yes, one can argue whether or not government should attempt to force morality on rich people in the form of taking some of their money away, just as one can argue any other attempt by government to enforce morality. However, in this case there is a vested societal interest in redistributing a certain degree of income from the wealthy while still leaving them with a lot of money left over, and most rich people won't voluntarily donate large sums of money to charity or other worthy causes if they are allowed to keep the money from lower tax rates.

It's simply ridiculous to suggest that Democrats have no limit whatsoever on how high they want to raise taxes, or anything like that. That would be as silly as me suggesting that Republicans have no limit as to how much to cut taxes for the rich, and they won't be satisfied until the rich pay no taxes at all. None of the Democratic candidates have proposed raising taxes to any higher level than they were under Clinton. Even the most ardent conservative would still have to admit that the economy boomed in the 1990's despite the tax increases. I think it was because of them, but even if you don't think so, they certainly at least didn't stop the economy from booming. It's kind of funny to go back to the budget debates of 1993 in which not a single Republican voted for Clinton's economic plan, and read some of the statements from Republicans about how Clinton's policies were going to throw the nation into a depression and do nothing at all to help with the deficits. But anyways, clearly the Clinton tax rates were at a bare minimum not an impediment to strong economic growth, and thus I don't see how going back to those rates now could be expected to hurt the economy.

Ah, but what Nym90 fails to understand is that demand on consumer goods and services increase cost for those items, which puts a strain on consumers and the economy. I don't see how increasing demand will create a better economy much at all. However, if there is increased supply, and not as much demand, prices drop, people will buy, not increasing demand, but buying what's already on stock. Consumers, sometimes will purposely not buy a new product/service intentionally, just to wait for the high prices to drop. I've done it myself. Once a good or service has been available for some time, the high market price will drop, opening the door for more people to be able to afford it. And my theory does hold much truth to it. Some of my prescriptions used to go as high as $280 for a 30 day supply, when they were first released for public use, those scripts have had a fairly nice drop in price, in just over 1 and 1/2 years. Now that $280 drug price has dropped to $187 for a 30 day supply.
     Care to elaborate further your theory of Demand v. Supply there Nym90.
     I still support you fully for the Nomination.

Does anyone else care to elaborate? I really want to hear/read your views.

"Get rid of tax cuts" means increase taxes.

I don't really agree that the tax cuts are causing the deficits, and that tax increases would necessarily cure the deficit.  Economics is often counterintuitive.

The deficit is caused by a combination of decreased revenues due to the economic slowdown, decreased revenues (in the short run) due to the tax cuts, and massively increased spending.

While the Democrats generally did not favor the tax cuts, there is no record of Democrats fighting spending increases, unless of course that spending is for defense.

The tax cuts are an attempt to pump up the economy in order to produce larger revenues in the future.  Keep in mind also that since states require balanced budgets, the entire burden of stimulating the economy falls to the federal government.

As far as the mix between spending and tax cuts as a means of stimulus, you could debate that forever.  This administration has done both.  I tend to favor tax cuts because it is very difficult to bring increased spending under control again.  Once a program is created, the need for it develops, and it's very hard to ever make it go away.

dazzleman, I do agree with you that once a program is created it is damn near impossible to eliminate. I was taught that throughout my Political Science Undergrad studies.

Yes, I agree that cutting spending is probably more politically unpopular than raising taxes, although tax cuts are hard to reverse as well.

True, the deficits are caused by a number of factors, one of which is clearly the lagging economy. I agree with all of the factors you listed as being reasons, but I still think the tax cuts are the biggest reason. Of course it's impossible to prove either way since there are so many variables.

Yes, the Democrats mostly opposed the tax cuts, but quite a few did support them, many more than the number of Republicans who supported Clinton's economic program (which was literally ZERO, in both the Senate and House). At least some of the Dems were willing to give Bush a chance.

Yes, states require a balanced budget, which is negating some of the effects of the tax cuts as state governments are being forced to either increase taxes or drastically cut spending to get their budgets to balance. So overall, taxes aren't going down nearly as much for people as they appear to be. And likewise, social programs are being cut, just not at the federal level. Also, many states are drastically increasing other revenue sources such as user fees, which are really just hidden taxes.

That's the main reason why I would oppose a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, I trust legislators to make the right decisions regarding budgeting and then trust the people to throw them out of office if they don't want deficits. It's better to allow the flexibility to deal with problems as they arise. Deficits aren't always bad, they are necessary in some situations. However, they are always bad in the long term, so any short term benefit must be weighed against long term consequences.

As for demand side vs. supply side economics, the reason that I feel that demand is more important than supply is because if sufficient demand exists for a product, businesses will produce more of it to increase their profits, and new businesses will sprout up to sell more of the product, as well. That's the nature of capitalism, supply will follow demand. Creating supply when little demand exists, however, will not lead to an increase in demand for the product if one did not already exist. If people don't want something, they won't start buying it just because it gets cheap enough. But, if people want to buy a product, in capitalism there will always be businesses racing to produce more of it since the potential for profit is clear. Supply can create demand to a certain extent if low prices causes people to buy, but if they don't want to buy, it's not going to have much of an effect. So supply can create demand, if prices are exorbinant and that is substantially driving demand which would otherwise exist, but prices would have to get to be quite high before cutting prices would result in greater profits, so overall the ability for demand to create supply is much greater than the ability of supply to create demand.

You can think of government fiscal policy the same way you can think of running a business to a certain extent, in terms of that a business will make more profit in the long run by producing a high quality expensive product than by producing a low quality cheap product.

No problem. I am a fiscally conservative morally moderate independant. By fiscally conservative I mean not entirely a supply sider but that the people's money comes first before the gov't and I feel that we as a society are taxed enough. budget cuts should come first and if there is a tax raise I think the gov't should provide something with it not just more money for the gov't. As for moral issues I feel that this country needs to continue to explore alternatives and to seek ground that is good for as much of the majority as practical. However, I feel that recently those on the liberal side have gone too far with moral issues and in an attempt to "not offend" anyone we are starting to lose individuality. I think we should welcome people of faith to be able to dislpay and share their beliefs, just as we should with any and all cultures so long as the practices and rituals are not defammatory or injurious in nature, of course. I think that people should be able to say Merry Christmas without worrying about others rights. I think Children should be able to participate in voluntary prayer and the schools should welcome this because it is "voluntary" We should continue to strive for culteral diversity and freedom, not take it all away.
Lately I have ben siding more with Republicans although I have some serious issues with the party. If GW Bush wins fine what I'm more concerned with right now is that I feel that the democratic party is teetering on implosion and that will leave the Republicans with too much control. For all of these reasons and various others I am an independant.   Although I often score on a libertarian side with the ploitical identity polls I don't really consider myself one.

Sounds like you're close to me then! :) Thanks for the answers, I will try to remember which is which now.

encouraging signs in California for President Bush!.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7705225.htm

If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.

Bush: Bin Laden Aide Is Caught in Iraq    

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The minister in charge of Iraqi police said Monday that al-Qaida was probably behind some suicide bombings in Iraq (news - web sites), and President Bush (news - web sites) praised the capture of a senior member of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network.

"There is a presence of al-Qaida in this country. We've announced that directly and indirectly," Interior Minister Nouri Badran said.

"A lot of the suicide attacks have the fingerprints of the crimes committed by al-Qaida," he added. Asked if al-Qaida is operating in Iraq, he said: "Yes, it is."

But he provided no evidence to back his claim. There was no immediate comment from U.S. military commanders.

During a visit to Little Rock, Ark., on Monday, Bush said Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq last week.

"He was a killer. He was moving money and messages around South Asia and the Middle East to other al-Qaida leaders. He was a part of this network of haters that we're dismantling," Bush said.

Iraq has witnessed a number of devastating suicide vehicle attacks since the ouster of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime in April — attacks aimed at both coalition forces and their Iraqi allies.

A few non-Iraqi Arab and foreign fighters have been detained or killed in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, but coalition forces have been reluctant to clearly say if they were part of or directly linked to al-Qaida.

sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  

Heh...this is the 4th time this site is posted on the forum, but it never fails to give positive reactions each time... :)

I suppose you like it b/c it seems so encouraging to the Reos. Let me just remind you that some of them has a lot of undecided, and those usually go against the incumbant. States where Bush is polling below 45% now are not that likely to vote for him in Novemeber. But I agree that Bush chances are looking pretty good right now.

exactly! we win OHIO it is over.  I do like that site though for many polls.

Polls were from jan 12 though and before IA.


www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  

[

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579


I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush.

Hey I wonder what happened to my post above?

Here's a repost:
The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

Quote:
 

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote:
 

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush

Dean is not the nominee anymore, and Kerry is a much stronger candidate. I expect California and Michigan both to vote clearly for Kerry. He will break 200 EVs.

I think you're about right - 200 to around 230 is Kerry's potential.  The most realistic looking contributed maps are at about that level.  But I don't think Kerry is that much more likely to actually win than Dean.  He'll just lose less badly, and I'm not sure how that will matter.  Will it mean a smaller increase in the Republican Senate majority?  I don't see how.

Honestly I like Kerry better for GOP win than Dean.  Dean has the potential to try and look moderate with record from VT.  Kerry is a liberal, was a liberal and always will be a liberal.

Love it.  I'd rather they nominate kerry than Dean.

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

I still think Dean's shaky, to say the least, position on Iraq and foreign policy would have done him in worse. And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

Why should we have to do anything for them?  Their radical views are the ticket to nowhere.  It's like saying the Republican party should cater to the views of the Constitution Party.

 
 


Michigan will not go clearly for Kery. Kerry may win but it will be close.
 
 
 
 

no but allt he dems do is blame them for THEIR loss.  If i was a green I sure as h*ll wouldn't vote for a Democrat that was chastizing me all the time.

Constitutiona dn Libertarian parties are not costing GOP anything.  Simply B/c GOP is growing and controls all facets fo gov't by winning.

It depends on the defintion of clearly. I am thinking 53-47 or something similar, that's clearly to me, but no landslide of course.

That's interesting, being pro-environment is very unusual for a right-winger, which isn't really logical though, btw.  

I am pro environment , but not pro RADICAL ENVIRONMENT.  You must have balance not extremism.  The radical environmentalists groups we have int he US don't ever give any credit to the GOP and want EVERYTHING There way to protect a shrew.  Hello move the darn thing.  Oh no it has always lived here.  geez!

I grew up on a  farm and the midwest thrives on the beautiful and love of the land.  We get very offended by coast groups that come in and tell us they know better than we do about our own lands.  hello!

Case in point Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) has a very good environmental record.  He has founded a committee that has grown to be bi-partisan int he senate to study and develop alternative energy resources.  He has pushed legislation through that Bush signed for a ton of extra money there.  He is big in developing solar energy programs and setting aside lands in his own state of Colorado.  However int he 2002 elections the radical groups demonized him, if you didn't know better you'd think he was grabbing kids and feeding them pollution.  It was reprehensible.  They then went and hen picked bills they were for and showed his record to be like 15% and didn't give him any credit for the environmental things he was doing, completely distorting his record.  Luckily he won easily.

Bush has done a lot for the environemtn but the media will never let you know it you have to research for it.  He repeals some act or eases it like the brush clearing legislation and its front page news.  Talk about bias.  Yeah lets let the trees have useless brush so we can have ALL the trees burn up in forest fires.

I think it will be closer.
 
 
 
 

California Opens Arms to GOP, for Now

LOS ANGELES — In the 2000 presidential election, President Bush got clobbered by Al Gore in California, 53 percent to 42 percent.
 
And although the Golden State is perceived to be chock full of mostly registered Democrats, a recent poll shows that Bush's performance approval rating in that state is now at 52 percent. That means for this year's presidential election, California may be a key state for the GOP — the first time since 1988.

Democrats and Republicans surveyed said Bush is favored for three reasons: Saddam Hussein is in custody, there's more money in their pockets after Bush-imposed tax cuts and actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is in the governor's seat in Sacramento.

Democrats acknowledge there's a bit of a honeymoon period with the Terminator but they believe that will soon wear thin and Bush will have to stand on his own.

State GOP leaders aren't sure if Bush's uptick is an aberration or a turning point, but, to use a California term, they're getting their boards waxed and ready to ride.


--not ready to say Bush will win California, but an encouraging sign if he is running strong there.

Kerry is stronger only in one way - he seems very reliable, predictable, reassuring - a member of the 'establishment'.  I know he's a liberal, and by definition it is dangerous having a liberal in charge of anything - but particularly national defense and foreign policy.  I'm just saying that he gives the *impression* of someone who is more reliable than Dean for example - or even Edwards for that matter.  I don't think this will win him the election, but I do think it means he wins a few more 'leans Democrat' states than Dean would have.

Pretty much sums up my argument. I still think a war vet who supported the Iraq War will carry more weight than a mad doctor who dodged the draft and went skiing. But I COULD be wrong I guess... :)