Given that, in my opinion, it would be impossible for the Republicans top pick a candidate as bad as Bush in 2008, even one term is fine with me. It looks like a close race but I really don't understand why it is close. Anyway, it may be nieve of me but I would bet on Bush simply because I can't see a majoriy of voters completely ignoring his record.buffarg said:
Bush vs. Kerry .........who wins?
- Thread starter Tiger Williams
- Start date
I don't follow Florida politics but if Jeb is like his father it will be a big improvement over the current president. I can't see how he could be as bad as his brother but as I say, I don't follow Florida politics.bbking said:Can you say ------ JEB BUSH
bbk
Despite his performance in the after math of 9/11, I would be worried about Giuliani simply because of his policing policy of supporting police harass of people (civil rights are important to me). I can’t really comment on the others you mention.bbking said:- I do think Jeb will take a run at the nomination 2008 but he is going to have some tough company - Pataki, Guilliani, Furst and others.
bbk
There is one thing that worries me about Kerry. I hear that he has a protectionist voting record. I would strongly argue that that would be bad for both the U.S., Canada and the rest of the world but given Bush’s record I would likely be prepared to accept it as the lesser of too evils (those who know me would be very surprised that I would be prepared to even accept an anti free trader to anyone). There seem to be a lot of Americans on this board that likely know more about Kerry’s voting record than I do. I was wondering if they think there is any truth to the claim he is an anti free trader.
Clinton is not really correct there. Trade tends to have an effect more on a country’s level of income rather than its employment level. Also, if by deficits you’re referring to American’s International deficit, it will create long term problems for the U.S. and the World. However, the cause is no so much particular trade agreements but the low rate of private savings in the US combined with a high government deficit. Basic national income accounting shows that the international deficit is equal to the domestic dissavings (or the negative of savings, if private savings are positive) plus the government deficit. The only way to really reduce the international deficit to reduce the government deficit and encourage more private savings. In other words, to stop consuming more than they produce. I get the impression that the American public still unwilling to do this. Eventually the will be forced to. Until they are forced to do this, we can only hope that politicians will not try to use other countries as scapegoats for their international deficit. If they do, they might notice that they also have a big trade deficit with Canadabbking said:Kerry is not anti free trade like his veep - he is more in the camp of enforcing the treaties the US already has - China, India violate their trade agreements with the US all the time. I think it was Clinton that pointed out that Bush can't protect jobs against China, Japan because of the huge deficets - those deficets have to be financed by someone and China and Japan do large part of that - so how can you protect trade deals from your bankers.
bbk
The Democrats aren't doing themselves any favours by allowing a dingbat like Ben Affleck speak at their National Convention. If they continue to look flakey Bush will romp in November.
Can't disagree with everyone you said Don, but slagging someone for being a 'former' drunk is simply asinine. Anybody that can kick booze........or dope for that matter definitely possesses some degree of fortitude.DonQuixote said:What did Georgie Porgie ever do in his youth other
than live off his father's name. He's an empty shell
of his father, who I respect. POTUS41 served.
Unfortunately his son didn't inherit his courage.
Bush is a coward and a former drunk.IMHO Don
I hope Kerry wins and I think he wins in Nov for several reasons. I think people still don't feel good about the economy. Its been too bad for too long, and that will get layed at Bush's feet. I think GWB will be able to do anything about troops getting killed in Iraq or to get them home. I believe the media will get more determined to make him answer hard questions that he'd like to avoid. Finally I think he'll try negetive attacks on Kerry that have a large chance of backfiring. He he tries to attack Kerry on Vietnam he risks too many questions on Iraq. If he tries to bring up Kerry's senate record then his failed policies tend to surface. Then there is Chaney, where has he been for four years? Hiding.
I don't believe Pataki will be a factor in 2008 as I don't think he'll win reelection for governer of NY. My bet there is on Eliot Spitzer.bbking said:I do think Jeb will take a run at the nomination 2008 but he is going to have some tough company - Pataki, Guilliani, Furst and others.
bbk
I don't agree... they're all roaches IMO. It doesn't matter where they are, you have to get rid of them - otherwise, eventually they will come for you.bbking said:Yeah but in Bush's case he keeps spraying in the wrong spots. bbk
I'm against extremism in all its forms. I believe that Bush has it right - it's better to be proactive than reactive. You may not think someone who's shooting a loaded rifle a mile away is anything to worry about; however, when he comes knocking on your front door, it's an entirely different story.
You conveniently forget that all intelligence agencies, including the european ones, agreed on the threats posed by Iraq's sultan. And that the plan to remove him began in 1999 and was handed over to Bush.
TOVisitor said:Read the 911 Commission report. Saddam's quiver was empty. And while there was plenty of intelligence to SUGGEST that he might be more dangerous than he was, the quality of that intelligence was poor and unverifiable or old.
The tragedy is that the Bushies (and Tony Blair) took to interpreting all of the intelligence as fact and to present them to the world as fact without any possibility of a grey area whatsoever.
TOVisitor
I wonder what the instructions from the White House will be for the period between now and the Election?
I think the Bush white house will continue to manipulate the system of terror alert warnings to keep the American public on edge and more susceptible to the suggestion that Bush & the Republicans are the only ones who can handle the volatile terrorist situation.bbking
the only thing holding Bush up is the perception that only Bush can manage the war on terror
I also agree that the likely hood of a terrorist attack in the run up to the election is high, and the fall out from that (if it does happen) will certainly determine the outcome of the election. (But I have little faith in the intelligence community’s ability to ferret it out and even less willingness to believe the Bush team’s interpretation of & warnings based on that intelligence.)originally posted by DonQuixote
This election is going to be determined by events outside
the influence and control of the candidates and parties.
The commonly held belief is that a terrorist attack
is all but certain to occur between now and November.
If the administration stops the attack then Bush is in.
If the attack occurs then Kerry is in.
I also think that in this election the independent & swing voters will hold their options open until the last minute, to see what does happen. So all of the rhetoric & chest pounding & polling results between now and October won’t really mean much.
If nothing dramatic happens, then voters will simply vote either for or against Bush. The fact that voting against Bush means voting for Kerry, who they do not know very well, won’t matter. Being unknowns & possible lightweights didn’t stop Carter or Clinton from getting elected.
