The federal budget deficit is $450 billion, our troops are in danger Iraq, and Bush's approval ratings are starting to drop. There are more who would like to see Bush gone then want him to stay according recent polls. Isssues like balancing the budget and Iraq are independents to people like Howard Dean. Is the prospect of having 4 more years of Bush enough to get a liberal democrat elected?

Nope. Bush will win. Although is approval rating has dipped to 49% he is not in trouble. This is typical of re-elected presidents. They call it a third year dip. Clinton was at about 46% during this part of his presidency. (See Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, op-ed page).

No matter who is president, removing the troops from Iraq in a haphazard manner is a HUGE mistake. Like Clinton not getting Osama in '98 when he had the chance.

The idea that we can just stop what's happening in Iraq is crazy. We must stay the course and finish the job. The cost seems high right now, but will pay off in the future 10 fold.

As a moderate, i think that either Dean or Clark can fill Bush's shoes unless Bush does something about the unemployment and toot sweet or he will be like Davis and be looking for a new job.

The Unemployment numbers come out tomorrow. The market expects less jobs to be lost (the market expects -25K to have been lost, compared to the -93K last month) in the nonfarm payrolls section & a 6.2% unemployment rate. If those go higher, then Bush's ratings will dip lower and he will definetly be dead meat

Personally, I'm voting for anyone BUT Bush. I want him out of office (and hopefully in a nice prison somewhere for crimes against humanity) at any cost. The man is doing nothing good for this country and is ultimately going to make us an even larger target for terrorism worldwide. Clark and Dean both seem like reasonable candidates, but we're still a long way from the vote so who knows what might happen.

I don't have a link, but I remember from some of my undergrad political science research that there might be a six-month delay between a change in macro-economic details (GDP, unemployment, etc.) and people feeling/perceiving the change. So an economic turnaround, especially on jobs, will have to become significant in early May for it to have full impact on the election. There's plenty of time for that to happen, but there's also variables uncounted in the current figures, like people who stopped looking for work, who might start looking again when things improve, creating a statistical difference between jobs created and unemployment rate.

As for what will happen with Iraq, if less soldiers are being killed, people will probably forgive scandal regarding the justification. Poll numbers around May, especially after the individual Dems develop name recognition, will be much more helpful (i'm waiting to make bets).

I perceive both Dean and Clark to be socially liberal and economically moderate, though Dean has his moderation on gun control helping him with the "Nascar Dads" types. Bush no longer has a majority of male voters locked-up, that's where the real movement was in the recent polls. I think the trick for any Dem- since they can't plan on having the same scene with the economy and Iraq a year from now- is to focus on a positive economic alternative to Bush, fixing the deficit, and credibility on foreign policy. Dean's a deficit hawk from a banking family, and Clark's a general who teaches economics. Either have the potential to give Bush a royal drubbing if they make their case clearly and stay on message.

My concern with Dean is when some of his supporters realize he's not that liberal, and his lack of foreign policy credentials. He'll need to look strong on defense in the general election to appeal to men and worried moms (the new concern for "soccer moms", according to an article I read in Time). He's going to need a viable solution for Iraq and a way to point out Bush's lack of credibility without sounding too shrill.

Clark should squash the credibility of Bush and his entire admin. on foreign policy, but he has to worry about the "lefter-than-thou" folk who won't forgive him for voting for Reagan. His fundraising efforts will need to be neutralized, although I think most people don't care if a political "outsider" changed his mind on some issues, so long as he doesn't do it during the election. I think his real problem will be in appealing to those farther left, which leads us to . . .

Rat-fink vanity candidate Ralph "I love Bush " Nader of the Getting Republicans Elected Every November party. He said he might stay out of the race if Dean didn't moderate toward the general election, but I imagine he's want to attack Clark. I haven't heard anything on this recently. I think that the preceding 4 years of Bush have brought reality to many who supported Nader in 2000, and a moderating Dean could keep his left-wing. The question is how Clark can- although, really, all he needs to do is win Gore's states plus NH by enough that we can avoid the Nine in Black Dresses.

Yep. Bush will win. I would actually say by a landslide, but you never know.

People such as dean may have a huge part of the dem votes, but the majority of america is still in favor of Bush, and will stand by him.

Unless things change, i think we will see Bush next term also. Those are my opioions on that.

I agree. I am simply going to vote for whoever has a chance of dethroning Bush.

Another hardcore republican? what if? will you still vote for him, to dethrone Bush?

No sir. There has not been one liberal Democrat elected in a very very long time. Believe it or not, liberalism doesn't get you elected, and well, Bush vs. Liberalism is no contest.

CP

Since no other Republicans will be running, obviously you can't vote for one. I don't care who gets into office at the moment, I'd vote for Hitler over Bush, although I don't see much difference between the two.

I'm completely non-partisan. I voted for a Republican to oust a Democrat in California, I'm going to vote for a Democrat to oust a Republican in the presidency. I'm equal-opportunity.

There hadn't been a radical conservative elected for a long time before Dubya. I agree that very liberal polices aren't going to get democrats elected more moderate economic issues will get them elected.

The Bush Administration's plan to shift the tax burden to the poor is not popular economic policy and has never been successful historically. About 400 hundred years ago Spain did the same thing; they became the backwater of Europe. The cycle of federal tax cuts for the rich followed by state tax increases on everyone or budget cuts that affect everyone is beginning to be seen by more of the public. Once more people see the tax burden moving to the poor they will run staright out of Mr. Bush's big compassioate conservative tent.

The Bush administration's budget deficit is not popular. Balancing the federal budget is not a liberal issue; it's a sanity issue. Ross Perot got 20% of the vote on this issue. If the democrats tap into these voters they'll be able to win the 2004 election.

There is a growing portion of our society that is against Bush's Iraq policy. People are starting to ask questions and the Bush administration is running out of answers. Iraq is becoming a money pit and the results of the war aren’t too promising so far. And perhaps most importantly in the word of Dennis Kucinich "Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction??!!!"

I'll vote Green before I'll vote for Bush. At least we know the Green party can't be bought by major corporations.

It would be great to elect somebody who would fight for single-payor, national health insurance, and who is protective of the environment. Someone who isn't a warmonger is also high on my priority list.

When you look at head to head, in the poll cited, Bush beats Dean by 14%, Clark by 4% and Kerry by 8%.

No, its either Bush or another Republican. I'm assuming Bush will win the Republican primary. If someone else wins, that pretty much takes care of Bush.

I bet Dubya was losing to Gore before the first primary. The fact that most people don't know who Kerry, Clark and Dean doesn't help their cause either.

This is ignorant and insulting. Do you not know what Hitler did?

That being said, I feel Bush will win because of the lack of cohesion in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party seems fractured and disorganized to me. They need a strong candidate with a unified message to win. I do not think Clark or Dean can provide either of those things.

Hey freedom of speech now, i think cephus has a good point. Hitler was a delusional madman, i can actually see what he is talking about. As for being a republican, since when did a political party mean you were the borg. I don’t really belong to any party, i hate this administration but i also don’t like and of the democratic candidates, i think trying to silence someone is ruder then comparing the barbaric acts of two leaders.

The only people that should be compared to Hitler in such a context should be people who have been proven to commit genocide. Actual genocide, in it's technical definition. I'm tired of everyone being compared to Hitler. He did deliberately kill millions based only on ethnicity. Such claims about Bush are a little too "UN black helicopter" for my tastes.

I can now assume that whenever any of the conservatives here complain about "liberal Democrat" Bush-Bashing, they'll add " . . .and Independents, and moderate Republicans . . ." It's as if we're not the only ones to dislike Bush!?!?!?!

And, of course, they'll likewise vigorously defend decorated veterans like Sen. Kerry and fmr. Senator Cleland when they're deemed anti-America by chicken hawks for practicing the deeply American and democratic tradition of debating how best to protect the nation.

Now to the topic: I agree the Dems seem fractured right now. It's as if there are 9 candidates or something. The winnowing has begun with Graham, things will pick up speed in January, and name recognition will expand. It's only up from here, candidate wise, with some polls showing a dead heat or better. The rest of it will turn on how well the eventual winner's campaign is run and what the foreign and domestic scene looks like going into the general.

Hold on, now, I never said that I wanted a radical conservative [which Bush is not], however, conservatives have, and will get elected, very few LIBERALS do, most democratic president nominees are moderates, i.e Bill [I didn't have sexual relations with that woman] Clinton.

CP

Wait a minute! Freedom of speech now for me too!

You have just accused me of being barbaric for criticizing this comparison. How is your statement any different than mine? If you can criticize me, why can I not criticize Cephus’s ridiculous comparison of Bush to Hitler?

I am not saying Cephus should not be free to talk.

I am saying that what he said is completely wrong, insulting, and ignorant. This is true of what you have said as well.

Hitler is much worse than a leader who just commits genocide. Hitler was a man who rounded up people and executed them by the MILLIONS in gas chambers based on their race or social status. He authorized medical experimentation that resulted in the violent death of the subjects. He authorized medical experimentation concerning the ability of animals to breed with humans. He starved people in concentration camps and worked them to death. He invaded neighboring countries in an effort to conquer Europe. He dismembered the bodies of his victims and buried them in mass graves. He separated fathers and mothers from their children.

So make your case, please. How is Bush like this?

You can hate Bush's policies. You can scream bloody murder about it. If your American you can vote for someone else. You can harbor any opinion you want. But, Cephus’s comparison is EXTREEMLY insulting to Americans; it is EXTREEMLY insulting to those Europeans who fought against Hitler and saved the world; it is EXTREEMLY insulting to Jews around the world, whose people were murdered by Hitler.

The point is, there is no case that can be made to back up a comparison like this. I’m sorry, but you are wrong in your comparison.

I agree, campbejm. Trying to compare George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler is silly and reflects a poor understanding of history by the person making such an assertion.

Every opinion should be respected to the extent that it is based in reality and nobody has made a single credible comparison to Bush and Hitler than stands up to this criteria. I bow to no one in my disdain for this president, but I oppose Bush based upon his own mistakes and shortcomings which provide me with ample ammunition. Trying to say Bush is a evil dictator with plans for global domination and the eradication of "inferior races" is so bizarre an idea that I can't begin to entertain such a thought.

To beat George Bush in 2004 it's going to take Democrats, independents and maybe even some Republicans to choose a better option than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Shrill appeals to conspiracy theories and wild allegations aren't going to get it done.

You can hate Bush's policies. You can scream bloody murder about it. If your American you can vote for someone else. You can harbor any opinion you want. But, Cephus’s comparison is EXTREEMLY insulting to Americans; it is EXTREEMLY insulting to those Europeans who fought against Hitler and saved the world; it is EXTREEMLY insulting to Jews around the world, whose people were murdered by Hitler.

I concur. Demonizing Bush isn't the same thing as beating him.

Count me in the camp for voting for anyone but Bush.

Normally I don't have too much trouble understanding some Republicans. But Bush is a different story. I don't know if I can explain it in words,but here goes.

He comes across as arrogant. Every time I see him on tv he has that smirk on his face which to me means: I am the King and what I say goes and there is nothing you can do about me. So accept it.

He is so coarse in his speaking. If he doesn't have a speech made up for him,he is a bumbling,mumbling fool. Actually I almost(i said almost) feel sorry for him. To me that is what he is since his high school grades definitely weren't good enough for Harvard. Must have had something to do with his LAST NAME.

I guess I could go on all night,but that wouldn't be fair to all the folks at AD.

I know I have not presented any facts. But sometimes(my grandpa told me) we have to use a little common sense and a persons actions(which is another story).

And this didn't include all the lies(can I say that). Well lets be nice for a change and call them stretching the truth.

He didn’t go to Harvard. And in fact public speaking ability is not the sole indicator of intelligence nor is the lack of a facial expression you find appealing.

Secondly, I understand your desire not to go on all night, but at least mention something of substance.

The problem with democracy is that people vote for someone just to avoid voting for the incumbent based on a smirk and speaking ability. Voters basically disregard content.

Actually, Bush got his MBA at Harvard. Insert some insults here along the lines of what you implied about popeye47.

Campbejm:

I believe King George II went to Harvard,too. See quote below:

College Education: Yale and Harvard
Daddy went to Yale too. George W. majored in history. He also played baseball and rugby while there from 1964-1968. George got a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard in 1975.

I believe if we are going to debate we need to get the facts correct. Do I hear an apology. Well, maybe I am a little hard of hearing.

And contrary to what you think. You can tell about a person character by just listening to him,his actions, and some old common horse sense

I am also sorry that what I mentioned was not of substance. Whose definition are we using, yours or mine.

Do I detect a whiff of testosterone in this thread? Not that I would ordinarily mind, but it does seem to be getting a bit personal in here, guys.

And, Popeye, I believe it's okay to refer to the lies of public figures as lies. I have been chastized, though, for referring to the lies of other contributors here as lies. So, knock yourself out: George W Bush is a liar! (Just be prepared to support any such allegations.)


(Caution: the linked thread was started earlier on in the history of America's Debate - before we were quite as civil, quite as conscientious about providing links, or quite as good at sticking to the topic as we have become ).

Fine. I was thinking of his undergraduate studies at Yale. So in the spirit of intellectual debate, how about some substance for your argument along with those biographical facts. And no, you do not hear an apology. Good news though, your hearing is ok.


How about the American Heritage Dictionary's:
def #4: That which is solid and practical: (usage) a plan without substance.

In other words, use things like Bush's tax plan or his war on terrorism or the Patriot Act as reasons not to vote for him since those subjects are concrete (solid) and relevant to the political arena (practical).



Yeah. Clearly you can judge Bush's capabilities from sound bites and two dimensional images on your T.V. screen. What do you really know of his presidency?


My overarching point being, there is a branch of liberal thinking in this country that votes based on a knee jerk reaction. (I'll be the first to admit that the radical right does the same thing also.) This branch of liberal thinking is occupied by those people who want Bush out of office without good reason. These people are the same ones that called any accusation against Clinton foul play and a Republican ploy to discredit him. These people try to make conservatives look like backwards hay seeds.

So, if you aren't going to vote for Bush, at least educate yourself as to why you will vote for "anyone but Bush." And if you are going to debate the matter, at least use a substantive argument.

No, the prospect of having 4 more years of Pres. Bush in the White House is enough to get anyone in there and Pres. Bush out.

Because of past actions, along with present actions of a lot of Democrats I strongly feel that the war on terror would still be in the think tanks. Not a single democrat running has given (from what I have read thus far) given me any idea of what their plan would have been after 9/11, how they would have dealt with Iraq, how they would deal with Korea, Iran and so on. They have yet to lay out their plans that make me comfortable, on what to do now that our troops are in Iraq and how they would get them out with out making Iraq a festering hot bed of civil war and terrorist training camps.

I make 30,000 a year. Since September my insurance has gone up on both my medical and car, my rent went up, gas has gone up along with other things that usually go up in a years time. With out a pay raise from the company I work for this next year looked like I was going to have to go back in the hole after struggling to get out. Yet, what also happened on September 1 of this year is the tax breaks went into effect there by covering all of the expenses that had gone up. I am not better off then I was a year ago as far as income in and income out, however if it wasn’t for the tax break that this current president pushed through I would have had a very bad next year. I do not think from what I have herd from any of the other parties that they would have done anything to improve my situation or keep me at an even keil. And this is coming from an average blue collar worker.

That is why I will vote for this President again in 2004. He has a plan, he explains his plan, and regardless of weather you agree with it or not, none of the others have given a clear cut (that I have read) explanation of how they are going create jobs, lower taxes, reduce government spending and insure my safety. President Bush has done two of those things and wit

The only one of those four he has done for sure is lower taxes. It's not just a matter of disagreeing with his plan, it's a matter of him failing to create job and balance the budget, and quite arguably making our safety worse. I'll admit I don't know what plans have been proposed by all the 9 Dem candidates, but some have proposed their tax plans and intentions for Iraq. In fact, many are for maintaining the middle and lower class tax cuts and for working to increase international contribution to our Iraq commitment. At least Clark and Lieberman fall into that camp, I believe Kerry and Edwards do, too. I suggest you check out their individual webpages to find out their specific plans.

I, for one, think the many of the candidates have provided more information on themselves than Bush did this far out in 1999. I'd rather "gamble" on the economic and defense plans of General Wesley Clark (Phd. in Economics and taught it at the War College) than a president who's record is lackluster.

Hopefully I have listened to more than a few sound bites and I think I know a little(maybe not as some people think they know) about his presidency.



You can bet your boots I am not going to vote for King George II. I believe that anyone that educates themselves WILL NOT vote for King George II.

My reasons are:

Bush is the first president to go from a surplus to a record deficit

American people are displeased in having a CIA non-operative cover blown just because of her husbands findings

I am unhappy with a warmonger president

I am unhappy with the economy,people losing jobs and the adminstration keeps telling the people that it is improving. Tell the people it enough times and they will believe it

I believe that is all this UN-INTELLECTUAL knows. But I am sure the Rush Limbaughs,Sean Hannittys, and Bill O'Reillys will set me straight.

Just to clarify: this statement is false. See my blog (link at the bottom) for details. We NEVER ran a surplus during the Clinton years, but we came close a few times.

The LAST president to go from a surplus to a deficit would be... John Kennedy.

See also Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 2000 for a table showing the growth of our federal public debt as presented by our very own U.S. Treasury Department.

If by "warmongering" you mean engaging our military in frivolous combat operations around the globe, be careful who you vote for. Kerry supported the Iraq war, and Dean supports peacemaking operations.

As I recall, the surplus was projected, not real. And I believe Congress (remember, they have the power of the purse, see Article I) did away with any hope of causing the projection to become a reality.



This has yet to be proven, and likely never will.



What exactly do you consider to be a "warmonger"?



Sorry, but the President doesn't have much of an effect upon the economy. In any event, we're prepared by all accounts to resurface from the situation we had been in. Since Democrats run on bad news, this will not make too many of them happy.

Not really. Carter messed up big time & Reagan had to clean it up.



Fine. We will CEASE the war on terrorism and let the terrorist blow us all to Hell. When you whine to Bush for not doing anything, then you remember your post about you hating him because he is a warmonger



Fine. But complain to the consumers. They decide whether the economy goes up or down because they shop, which gives profits to comapnies, which helps the economy. Bush has no control over this. Consumer Confidence, jobs, GDP, GNP are all in the hands of the consumers. How are jobs controlled by the consumer? If they don't buy from a particular company, and that company loses profits, they fire people to make a profit. This all includes YOU. Your decision to buy 1 DVD instead of 3 effects the whole economy (or at least veeeeery mild portion)

If you don't like that explaination and rather call me a Bush apologist, so be it. I will just simply ignore it.

There is a lot of room between not fighting terrorism and fighting countries that harbor relatively few terrorists because you have a grudge against them. I for one would give more support to Dubya if he invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran. Then he could play the fighting terror card. He can't now.

The majority of people who are not buying the three DVD's are probably going to spend it elsewhere. The rich who are got the tax cut from Bush may even save it. He's doing the opposite of what your scenario would call for to improve the economy. The Bush education plan also needs to be carried out by the state for example. The state needs to raise money because Bush didn't give them any. The video store gets it's property taxes raised to pay for the failing schools in the state. The video store rasies the prices of its DVD's to pay for this. The person decides to buy one DVD. See, it's possble to blame Bush for the economy.

My O my when will my Republicans learn how to read. The link is only concerned with the NATIONAL DEBT. There is a difference between the NATIONAL DEBT and the NATIONAL DEFICIT. For no one that has never taken economics 101(apparently Bush hasn't) here is the difference:
NATIONAL DEBT is the accumulation of the NATIONAL DEFICIT each year.
NATIONAL DEFICIT is only for that year(one year time period only),

And yes we have had more than 1 year of BUDGET SURPLUS under Clinton,contrary to what you may think. Look at the following quote from the OMB.



And no John Kennedy was not the last president to go from surplus to a deficit. That award goes to King George II. See quote:





goamerica I don't recall Carter going in to a record deficit. But I do remember Reagan going into a large deficit because of the trickle down theory. That was supposed to be where the american people would benefit from giving the companies big welfare breaks. And it sure worked didn't it

Oh I almost forgot the good news. From the OMB website is the following news:



Don't blame me, blame the OMB.

That is why I hope he is not elected again. I don't want to have to pick up aluminum cans from the roadside for a living.

Not really. You are still wrong. The economy has a cycle. Bush just got the bad part. Also here is this:

(October 1999) Is the American economy about to collapse?

The American Economy's doldrums is not all Bush's fault.

Popeye, his blog was about the deficit (which is why he wrote 'see my blog'). I think that 'Republican' knows how to read (or is that because he's a Democrat? ) .

I am sorry but I don't see anything about a deficit. I see the federal debt.

I agree with your statements: the debt is indeed the accumulation of each year's deficits. And EACH YEAR SINCE 1960, the debt has increased. That doesn't happen if you actually have a surplus, because you wouldn't NEED to borrow more, right?

Hope you weren't calling ME a Republican. Them's fightin' words!

AMF

No I didn't call you a Republican

I apologize if you thought I did.

If you think of the deficit has the amount the DEBT increases each year, you can see from the OMB numbers that there has been a deficit each year since 1961.

Creative account aside (ie. using Social Security suplusses to "offset" spending), there has been a real deficit every year since 1961, including each of the Clinton administration. This can be demonstrated by the increase in the deficit in each of those years. Had there been a true surplus, the DEBT would have decreased during a SURPLUS year.

I understand what you are saying. I work in accounting.

But I was quoting the official figures(which uses creative accounting). So using the same accounting principles every year, we did have surplus in Clintons years.

For the record I believe they shouldn't include Social Security collections in their figures.

Interestingly enough, just over 40% of our federal debt is actually borrowed from the social security "trust fund". So much for the "lock box" that Gore talked about. Supposedly, the money is safe, but it means there's a lot of IOUs in the trust fund (about $2.8 TRILLION).

And, yes, the government phonies during Clinton II did include social security's surplus in the computation to claim a "surplus" in the regular budget, but that's not going to work in another 10 years when the baby boom pop really hits. The good news is that the Clinton team really DID come close to having a balanced budget, since they borrowed very very little those years.

By the way, the $375 billion deficit from this year is also the amount that the government had to borrow (and increase our debt load), so it doesn't include any SS surplus.

This is a quote from a few posts ago, but I'm catching up and I have to say something about this.

You are right that the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich. This is always how they run their campaigns and how they perform in office. (Clinton raised taxes on the upper bracket.)

The problem I have with this is that the candidates depict the upper tax bracket as filled by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet types. The fact is the vast majority of those who pay the top rate are not at all like that. The democrats demonize those people and pit the middle class against them by painting a picture that the rich are somehow stealing from the poor. This is a bunch of B.S. and regardless about how I feel about Bush, I can never vote for candidates that seek to win by creating class warfare.

I’m sorry for those American who are fooled into thinking the middle and lower classes pay more taxes than the upper tax bracket folks. If memory serves, the top 1% in terms of income represents half of the government’s revenue stream, while the top 10% in terms of income represents 99% of the government’s revenue stream.

The top 10% also BENEFIT the most from our system of government and our tax laws. It's in their INTEREST to maintain our government and to ensure the integrity of our money by ensuring that we don't create a massive and unpayable debt.

The "upper class" benefits from having a "lower class". Some of the upper class should learn to stop tinkling downward... or is that the "tinkle-down economics" I keep hearing about?

Just a wild guess, but I would say the top 10% would include most of the CEOs that rape and plunder the companies. Their salary has increased at a much higher rate than the average person in the company. They have manipulated the books and stolen so much from the company that they definitely deserve to pay at a higher tax rate. That is if they aren't in prison(where they should be).

My companys CEO got a 55% raise,while we got no raise for 2 years. Yes those need to pay through the nose