Why Kerry won't win.

[MGB8]

I'm a Democrat. On Domestic policy, I lean more towards the left (American Left, which is about the same policy as the European right) than towards the right.

However, unless John Kerry dramatically changes course, I can promise you that he will not win the 2004 elections.

He doesn't get it - the "it" being something Bill Clinton did get.

What's that "it". "It" is the fact that the US is not a "50/50" country, as stupid commentators repeat over and over again.

Its actually closer to 15 (left) / 60 (middle) / 25 (right). On the left are semi-socialist secularists. On the right are pure lassaiz faire bible thumpers. In the middle is everyone who doesn't really fit into one of those two groups.

Now Bill, being from Arkansas, understood this. Unforunately, Kerry is from Massachusets, where the split is more like 45 (left)/ 35 (middle)/ 20 (right). So his instincts are to stick pretty left of center, thinking that will carry the day for him. As Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis found out, that thinkings wrong.

In order to win, John Kerry has to have more than a "sista-soulja" moment - he needs to put some real space between himself and the left. No more hanging with Dean, Kennedy and Crazy Al. No more sympethizing with lunatic protesters. No more stupid talk about our "allies" the French and Germans.

No more of the automatic - if Bush supports it it must be wrong, define yourself as the anti-bush.

If John Kerry wants to win, he needs to make that middle understand that he shares their american common sense. He needs to blunt Bush's strong points - IMO that common sense and common morality, while focusing on Bush's MANY weak points.

He needs to tell Americans that he realizes that the French government is self-serving and contriving, as does Bush, but that, unlike Bush, he understands better ways to twist their arms into being good little poodles, or at least not quite as obnoxious.

He needs to tell Americans that the Arab Muslim world is not our friend, but that, while he supported the war in Iraq, he would have had better planning for the post war period - including more boots on the ground, a firm plan as to how to destoy the terrorist and hard core baathis elements, and how to take steps towards democracy, while also doing things like close monitoring of the Borders with Syia and Iran and teams of diplomats to keep neighboring states a little calmer.

He needs to tell Americans that while the Kyoto treaty was unfair to US Business & would encourage outsourcing to 3rd world countries, that Bush has gone well beyond abdicating unfair treaties to hurting the environment at home and abroad.

He needs to tell Americans that the problem with the Bush administration isn't so much where its heart is, but its personal corruption with the Palme scandal and Halleburton, with its lack of skill in diplomacy, and with its "business can do no wrong" policies - for example the terrible Medicaid drug benefit bill.

Thing is - I don't think Kerry realizes this, and will stick with his left leaning buddies, all the way to defeat.

[Semsem]

Most Jews will vote 4 Kerry, which I don't understand.

[MGB8]

Jews tend to be soft-hearted, a little paranoid when it comes to social issues (ie. separation of church and state), guilty about being wealthy if they are (so give more money to the poor)....and this leads to leaning towards the Democrats.

The Jews are so "civilized" that they don't understand that the survival of the fitest mentality of capitalism drives productive lives -hence why so many jews in the past have been socialist, even communist before Stalin showed the world what communism really means.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted byMGB8
... better ways to twist their arms into being good little poodles...
Good points you make and I must admit I'd be tempted to throw my support to anyone who could accomplish the above. :cool:

[David_in_NYC]

You think he's got problems now, you just wait until the Democrats show us four days straight of hardcore left-wing hyena screeching. His problem is not only that his instincts lead him way left - it's also because there's no other point of view that is permissible any longer in the Democrat party.

Try arguing the anti-war point of view with other Democrats and see how long it takes before they descend into hysteria. Or see if they can be persuaded not to use the word "choice" as a substitute for "abortion". Or to see any of the benefits of lower taxes, private education... private anything, really. It can't be done.

These folks really have to hit bottom before they'll be willing to make the hard choices they'll need to make to get back on their feet.

[Mediocrates]

Jews tend to be soft-hearted, a little paranoid when it comes to social issues (ie. separation of church and state), guilty about being wealthy if they are (so give more money to the poor)....and this leads to leaning towards the Democrats.

The Jews are so "civilized" that they don't understand that the survival of the fitest mentality of capitalism drives productive lives -hence why so many jews in the past have been socialist, even communist before Stalin showed the world what communism really means.


That's BS. Softhearted? Tzadakah. Guilty? Nobody I ever heard of. Read Talmud - even it says a man must not impoverish himself helping the poor. Democrats? Show me all the White Republicans welcomed us when we were working 16 hrs a day in sweatshops.

Jews were socialists and bolshevists because they literally had nothing to lose. Russia was going down in flames and the Jews were getting blamed for it.

[Mira~]

I don't know what the hell Kerry stands for.

[MGB8]

That's true. The old-guard republicans were very much anti-semitic, and still are.

But I'm speaking in generalities - softhearted...in general soft, is the Jewish reputation, and not completely undeserved. Jewish guilt and being a small minority tends to lead to left leaning opinions, too.

I'm not a republican.

I'm not for, for example, privatized secondary education, which I think is just a way of making sure that the rich have better educations than the poor. That said, much of the problem with public education is absolutely terrible administrations, and, like other government jobs - too much job security for some.

I'm also for massive health care subsidy by the government - of course adjusted so that health care users bare a portion of the costs of the care they use (or else they'd have no incentive to not use it), but this is also to lower American business costs, which are too high.

I'm for strong environmental standards - and for free trade only if those standards are applied to the nations we trade with.

I'm for progressive taxation, because about 70% of the US economy is driven by the US consumer - meaning the bottom 99%, buying US goods - and redistributing wealth to consumers helps that, while consolidating wealth, which is what capitalism and profits do - what is a profit after all but getting someone else to pay more for a good than you paid to give it to them....Malthus was right, at the margin.

I'm modestly pro-choice, although abortion troubles me greatly, but in this regard I have to take the libertarian stand of a limit on governments intrusive power....

But, regardless, these positions can be staked out and argued without the hysteria that a Michael Moore-esque left seems to be leaning towards.

I would much prefer, at least on domestic issues, for Kerry to be elected....but I don't think he understands the American public well enough to realize that the ranting is a big time turn off.

Maybe I'm wrong?

That's BS. Softhearted? Tzadakah. Guilty? Nobody I ever heard of. Read Talmud - even it says a man must not impoverish himself helping the poor. Democrats? Show me all the White Republicans welcomed us when we were working 16 hrs a day in sweatshops.

Jews were socialists and bolshevists because they literally had nothing to lose. Russia was going down in flames and the Jews were getting blamed for it.

[I am David]

He needs to tell Americans that the Arab Muslim world is not our friend, but that, while he supported the war in Iraq, he would have had better planning for the post war period - including more boots on the ground, a firm plan as to how to destoy the terrorist and hard core baathis elements, and how to take steps towards democracy, while also doing things like close monitoring of the Borders with Syia and Iran and teams of diplomats to keep neighboring states a little calmer.

He needs to tell Americans that while the Kyoto treaty was unfair to US Business & would encourage outsourcing to 3rd world countries, that Bush has gone well beyond abdicating unfair treaties to hurting the environment at home and abroad.

He needs to tell Americans that the problem with the Bush administration isn't so much where its heart is, but its personal corruption with the Palme scandal and Halleburton, with its lack of skill in diplomacy, and with its "business can do no wrong" policies - for example the terrible Medicaid drug benefit bill.

Actually, this sounds like what I'v been hearing from Kerry more or less. Granted, the Mainstream media doesn't report it as such, but that's not Kerry's fault.

[David_in_NYC]

The lamestream media is too obsessed with attacking President Bush to care what John Kerry might have to say.

[I am David]

Aha, so that's why...

[golani]

I do globally concur with that in dephth political analysis.

Meanwhile, I would refrain to emit a prognosis, november is still far from now and political surprises (domestic or from abroad) may not be dismissed

While I pray for Bush victory ,I still do believe that current administration could to more for environment

[Oh Jerusalem]

Maybe the reason and the hope that John Kerry won't win is the bottom line of the following article at Women's Enews (http://www.womensenews.org/). I urge you to pass this around to anyone you know that's considering letting this first family into the White House, as well as to those who already know better but would appreciate this extra piece of information.

July 1, 2004
Hizbullah Widows Enjoy Honor, Comforts in Lebanon (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1527/context/archive)
Run Date: 09/14/03
By Sarah Smiles
WeNews correspondent

In southern Lebanon, a generous support network provides for the widows of Hizbullah martyrs and ensures them a place of honor in the community.

BEIRUT, Lebanon (WOMENSENEWS)--Like many Shiite Muslim girls in southern Lebanon, Rima Naji was married early, at the tender age of 13. By 15 she had delivered her first child--a healthy boy--and by 19 her husband Sheikh Fadi Abboud was dead.

"He was martyred on the 10th of February 1995. He was 21 years old," she says. "Thank God he died according to the objectives of Hizbullah."

A member of Hizbullah or "Party of God," the Shiite Islamic resistance group that controls southern Lebanon, Aboud died in a commando operation against the Israeli army, which occupied the south from 1982 to 2000. His death was not extraordinary. During the lengthy occupation, scores of Lebanese were displaced, maimed and killed in a bloody guerilla war. When the Israeli army withdrew in May 2000, grinding their tanks out from bunkers across the south, Hizbullah--which is listed as a terrorist organization by the Pentagon--emerged victorious.

No Regrets About Husband's Fate
A staunch, pious woman veiled completely in black, Naji shows little regret about her ultimately fateful marriage.

"When I married him, I knew he followed the party. I knew I had a martyr at home," she says. Leaning closer, she confesses her ambitions for her sons, the youngest of whom was a nursling when Aboud died.

"When my sons tell me: 'I hope to become a martyr one day,' I say: 'I hope so too. I hope God chooses you as a martyr.'

"Although a mother doesn't need to tell the son of a martyr to do it," she says, "she may guide him towards it, but really, it's innate. He automatically has a feeling that he must follow his father."

After her husband died, Naji began studying to become a religious Sheik, finding comfort and acceptance of her husband's death in Islam.

"Although it's sad that he died, it also brings me enormous pride," she says of the honor her husband earned by dying as a martyr professed in the Koran. "It's more respectful to die as a martyr than a normal death."

Admired for Husbands' Heroism
Deified in paradise and venerated on earth for fighting Israel, Hizbullah's martyrs are nothing short of heroes in southern Lebanon. Their wives are in turn admired, because of their husband's sacrifice.

"I have no problems in the community. I only get respect," says Naji.

Hizbullah has built up an impenetrable support network for the women. Through the Hizbullah martyrs' wives association some 2500 families in Lebanon receive a monthly salary, free health care and schooling for their children--to the tune of $1,200 each a month.

"We do everything in our power to make them feel they are not missing anything," says Mohsan Shaheen, a spokesperson for the association. "Anything a martyr's wife wants, we will give it to her, basically, because her husband sacrificed himself. The only thing we can't provide for her is to bring him back."

On top of sending their children to the best schools and universities abroad if they choose, the association runs vocational training classes and seminars for the woman and offers a dating service to help them remarry if they wish.

Remarriage Is Recommended
Remarriage is "strongly recommended" by Hizbullah, says Shaheen. Men often approached the association looking to marry a martyr's wife, he says. "Her husband sacrificed himself and that's an honor." Nevertheless, he admits that twice martyrs' wives had remarried, only to be widowed once again.

For Naji, the financial and emotional support of the association has been life-saving. Considering her lack of skills and education, she may have been destitute without it. Somewhat indebted, she pledges her loyalty to the party.

"I can now help Hizbullah by bringing up the next generation of Hizbullah," she says.

Like Naji, many Hizbullah widows speak fearlessly about what they view as the martyrdom of their husbands. Ibtisam Zoorgoof, 28, is an exception. A fragile, intellectual woman with mournful eyes, Zoorgoof buckles with grief as she describes her status as a widow.

"It will always hurt me to think that I was expecting a child when he died. That my daughter didn't know her father," she says.

Pregnant when her husband Ahmed Fadlallah was killed in a Hizbullah operation in 1999, Zoorgoof has struggled to come to terms with the loss.

"I tell my daughter: 'your father is a hero.' I take her to his grave. But this feeling of loneliness and despair . . ." she says, her voice growing distant.

Since Fadlallah's death, Zoorgoof has relied heavily on the Hizbullah martyrs' wives association, which is helping her buy a house and pays for her to go to university, where she is studying Arabic literature.

"Hizbullah is like a family. It takes care of us, provides for us," she says.

Alarmed by U.S. Calls to Dismantle Hizbullah
Completely dependent on Hizbullah, women such as Zoorgoof are directly threatened by the United States' recent calls for Hizbullah to dismantle. Visiting Beirut in May this year, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded Hizbullah disarm and that the Lebanese army be deployed to the Israeli border.

Since 2000, Hizbullah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has controlled south Lebanon autonomously. This decision is ultimately condoned by Syria, which has occupied Lebanon since the end of its civil war, and views Hizbullah as a card to play in any future peace negotiations with Israel.

Nizar Hamzeh, a politics professor at the American University of Beirut, dismisses Powell's call for Hizbullah to withdraw from the border as ludicrous. "Withdraw to where? This is nonsense. The people live there. This is a civilian resistance," he says.

Hamzeh says Hizbullah is still a force to be reckoned with in Lebanon. Three years after the Israeli withdrawal, it still commands enormous respect and loyalty from many Lebanese. Its generous social-welfare programs and infrastructure projects in southern Lebanon have only boosted its popularity. It is also firmly engaged in Lebanese politics, occupying seats in the Lebanese parliament.

Dismantling the party that has a constituency of 500,000 supporters could only be done by force, says Hamzeh. "And this will mean a civil war. It doesn't seem that Hizbullah will just pack its bags and leave."

Hizbullah Budget Larger Than Government's
Hamzeh also estimates the budget of the group at over $1 billion a year, more than that of the Lebanese government. Fifty percent of this figure comes from Iran, says Hamzeh, which as a Shiite theocracy holds a spiritual veto over the party.

The remaining 50 percent is the fruit of Hizbullah's own business ventures inside Lebanon and abroad and donations to the party, he says.

Even if Iran was pressured into cutting funding to Hizbullah, the group is self-sustaining, says Hamzeh. Yet he thinks it unlikely that the group will lose its funding, especially regarding the martyrs' association.

"Even (Iran's President Mohammed) Khatami would not abandon support for the martyrs' association," he says. "It has to do with morality. Supporting those who fought for the party."

At present it appears the future of Hizbullah is ensured, not only financially but by the willingness of many of its women to offer up their offspring.

"God chose my husband to be a martyr and a Muslim, and that's a great honor," says Naji, enamored with the promises of glory outlined in the Koran. "I hope my children become martyrs and my father and brothers too. Inshallah," she says. God willing.

Sarah Smiles is an Australian freelance journalist based in Beirut.

For more information:
Hizbullah--"Remembering struggle for liberation, martyrs'
widows hold heads high":
http://www.hizbollah.org/english/press/p2002/p20020524.htm

Copyright 2004 Women's eNews. The information contained in this Women's eNews report may--with the prior written authorization of Women's eNews--be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed. To obtain permission, send an e-mail to permissions@womensenews.org and provide the publication or broadcast date and the name of the newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, cable network, Web site, newsletter or list serve where it will be replicated. Please include the approximate size of the audience you intend to reach.

Women's eNews is a nonprofit independent news service covering issues of concern to women and their allies. An incubator program of the Fund for the City of New York, Women's eNews is supported by our readers; reprints and licensing fees; and the Fund for the City of New York, the Teresa and H. John Heinz III fund of the Heinz Family Foundations, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, The Helena Rubinstein Foundation, the Sister Fund, the Starry Night Fund. The donations from readers are critical to our success. They are an important measure that we are serving our audience--the yardstick that our foundation supporters will measure us by. Donate now by going to http://www.womensenews.org/support.cfm

[Macc]

Many of the polls show that that it's dead even, but that's just Liberal Propaganda. The latest none liberal polls show Bush is way ahead.

Bush - 53%
Kerry - 45%
Nader - 2%

Bush is gona win, John Kerry is wasting time; no one even knows what he stands for anyway.

[I am David]

What poll is that?

[Macc]

I believe it was Rauters news service.

[David_in_NYC]

Yeah this election is going to end up looking like Reagan-Mondale. Kerry is now at least as clueless as Mondale was then, if not more so, and there's no way he's going to make it through a single debate without destroying himself. What plays well in Massachusetts is a 30% draw nationwide.

[cerulean]

Yeah this election is going to end up looking like Reagan-Mondale. Kerry is now at least as clueless as Mondale was then, if not more so, and there's no way he's going to make it through a single debate without destroying himself. What plays well in Massachusetts is a 30% draw nationwide.

I'm not sure Kerry will do badly at all. In fact, I'm not sure he will lose. I think MGB8 has lots of good points, but I'm not sure if Kerry is really perceived as being that "out there."

In any event, I doubt there will be much effective difference in domestic social policies between the parties in any event. Any major change is blocked by huge inertia and a desire to keep the status quo. I do doubt Kerry would have introduced those "faith-based initiatives" that Bush did, though (which I opposed).

[Mira~]

Kerry position paper on Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/446429.html

Kerry and Bush, if you can hear me....."Please announce a realistic environmental agenda that will get us off oil and switched to cleaner burning fuels."

[Mediocrates]

It's still going to be about the economy no matter what the pundits say. Foreign policy is Field Marshall Rove's attempt to distract everyone from that point.

[Gilgamesh]

It's still going to be about the economy no matter what the pundits say. Foreign policy is Field Marshall Rove's attempt to distract everyone from that point.

As for now, I don't know if Bush as a chance. If Kerry will pick Clinton as vice... Bush is a goner.

Yes, it is the economy. Bush's policy strenthen the economy so no people think there is more money to give away... and the left ideology is based on giving money away to different "causes". I am saying that, because we have the very same problem in Israel.

Kerry will have to make terrible mistakes Bush can exploit, to prevent Kerry from being voted.

Even if Bush will bring to Washington Bin Laden's head, on a pike in the middle of the white house lawn, people will think: "Great! the war is over, no need for Bush". (Just like Churchil who lost his office in the elections after the WWII. Also, Trueman, who almost lost the elections).

Next, is the turn out. Most leftis don't like to stand in the line with "commoners" and vote. In Israel, the right used it, through better organization of bringing voters, with personal phonecalls, and driving, to increase the margines in his favour.

[Mediocrates]

It has nothing to do with classic liberal programs and everything to do with the fact that the economy is a shambles right now. It's going to turn on the issue of "You tried Bush and it failed disasterously for you, no matter how you feel ideologically about tax breaks for the wealthy. It is time for something else." That is more or less the message that Kerry will use.


I don't know what planet some people live on but here on earth, even if your job is not at risk your long term financial health is. The Bush economic miracle will effectively ensure that I NEVER retire. I am planning to literally die in the harness at this point. Now certainly it's never the fault of one person or one thing or one policy but anyone can see Nero fiddling while Rome burns right now and making noises about yet another tax cut that my state, county and town is planning to take with the other hand is not actually going to help anyone. And I live down the road from Ground Zero of the Libertarians and where ALL the candidates are 'Conservatives' where when had 2 Republican Senators, Jesse Helms was the Liberal and they're talking about tax increases in fact we just got a whopper of a property tax boost.

In fact the Republican/Consevative candidates here are starting to get in front of tax INCREASE dialogs because what they want to do is hire 3 zillion cops and deputize everyone.

[cerulean]

I think Hillary Clinton is unpopular enough that Kerry's camp would suffer from choosing her.

I agree that a policy of expensive programs (including wars) and a policy of tax cuts simply do not mix.

[David_in_NYC]

I don't know what source you're getting your info on the state of the economy, Medio, but the numbers show us to be in rather excellent shape as a nation, which is all the more impressive after the half-trillion dollar economic damage of 9/11, and the subsequent massive expenses on security, public and private.

[Mediocrates]

I don't know what source you're getting your info on the state of the economy, Medio, but the numbers show us to be in rather excellent shape as a nation, which is all the more impressive after the half-trillion dollar economic damage of 9/11, and the subsequent massive expenses on security, public and private.


My source? Reality. State unemployment 30 year high for one thing. The 'recovery' is or was being fueled by primary consumer debt which at 109% of aggregagte household income in the highest in the world. Now that rates are creeping up you can expect the housing market to flatten out in the middle range and that will fuel a huge debt crunch. The average new homeowner in America carries twice as much household debt as twenty years ago, most of it leveraged from refinancing and the remainder is revolving or lines of credit.

Most states, are now in defecit spending. My own, to the tune of 6 billion dollars. State funded or assisted sectors of the economy are drying up left and right.

Gee I could go on but I have to take a pause and look at my portfolio right now which is in the following whole sectors and shows a loss on the year: Defence contractors, oil companies, power/energy companies, computers & tech stocks, speciality chemicals, regional banking. All sectors that are way down. This is the first time in 25 years that has happened and I have been a continual market investor since the late 70's. I lived through the Ford-Carter-Reagan disasters with 21% prime interest rates and 16% unemployment, the S&L failure, the October 87 market crash and the like. I know what bad looks like. It looks like this.

[I am David]

............

[Mediocrates]

But I don't imagine you would be pursueded either way, would you?

[I am David]

Me? I agree with you, I just wanted to delete that post. (I'm not David_in_nyc)

[David_in_NYC]

Well, you can't pick the worst characteristics of your home state (especially if it's California) and apply them nationally. Nationally, we're at or near as low a level of unemployment as we've ever been. A lot of states which were previously in deficit are now seeing improving budget balances. As far as the stock market goes, a lot of the drop is the correction of the fraudulent accounting of companies in many sectors during the Clinton administration. It may not appear to be as good as it was then, but it never was as good as it appeared to be, then.

I see people improving their lots in life, and are ready to spend money after a long time of unwillingness to do so. While the economy may not affect every individual in the same way, in general, things are much improved in the past two years, and we have a lot more positive economic news to look forward to in the future.

[Mediocrates]

About a trillion dollars of financial wealth has evaporated under the current administration. The trade defecit is higher than it's even been and we're looking at larger defecits at the Federal level than the next largest national total GDP.

[cerulean]

I presume consumer debt is a huge problem, and if interest rates rise (as is inevitable) lots of people with mortgages and debt will be in trouble. But I think that will happen with either presidential candidate.

[Mediocrates]

Sorry, "The Devil You Know" won't wash. The current administration shows zero inclination to address these problems.

[David_in_NYC]

What I am trying to say is that this trillion dollars never existed in the first place. The Clinton administration policy was nearly zero enforcement of corporate accounting law, and once the Bush administration started enforcing those laws, many of the scams dried up, and took with them the false wealth.

Then there is September 11 and the economic fallout thereof; $200 billion in physical damage alone; $300 billion more in lost economic activity as a direct result of the attacks; and uncountable billions more that must be spent privately on security.

In the face of all these challenges, George Bush has done a commendable job in keeping the economy not only afloat, but in a position to make solid gains on a continuing basis in the future.

Clinton was the short-term CEO who pumped up the numbers to raise the stock price at which he could sell. Bush is the long-term CEO who accepts that the good of the long-term future be considered without regard to its impact on this quarter's numbers.

[MGB8]

No, Medio is right.

Easy money (low interest rates) and consumer debt has made supply side look much better than it should, but, as rates rise, we're going to see a lot of bancruptcies and foreclosures, which are going to hurt companies - by killing comsumer spending and taking off their books money they counted on coming in - assets that will never be paid - which will drop the stock market and hurt people's retirements.

The housing bubble will burst, too, so stupid people who are overpaying now to lock down low interest rates (it is a good time to buy IF you find a fairly priced house, but in many places houses are worth double or even triple what they should be because of easy money...remember the 1929 crash...) will suffer in terms of possibly having mortgages worth more than the value of the house they own.

This won't be an economic disaster, IMO, but it certainly won't be a good thing, and many people will suffer, just not the elite - mostly the middle class and even upper middle class.

We're setting ourselves up for BIG inflation to get ourselves out of this debt, too.

Best long term investments - rentable land, and gold and oil futures.

[MGB8]

You really don't believe this, do you.

Bush was great friends with Ken Lay. While Clinton may have been a bit lax on the accounting laws, no one expected the abuses that took place, and the DEMOCRATIC efforts to separate, for example, financial advisors and accounting (the cause of the Anderson scandal and related to Enron, Tyco, etc.), were blocked by the REPUBLICAN congress.

Meanwhile, Bush is giving corporate welfaire in the medicaid bills, pay for play with Halleburton, and in general hurting the finances of the country through voodoo supply side economic, which doesn't help investment nearly as much as purported (because there was more than enough money floating around to invest before the cuts in the top brackets.)

Its ideological, and its class warfare by the most wealthy who don't want to pay to support the society and nation that allows them to accumulate that wealth. Sheer greed.


What I am trying to say is that this trillion dollars never existed in the first place. The Clinton administration policy was nearly zero enforcement of corporate accounting law, and once the Bush administration started enforcing those laws, many of the scams dried up, and took with them the false wealth.

Then there is September 11 and the economic fallout thereof; $200 billion in physical damage alone; $300 billion more in lost economic activity as a direct result of the attacks; and uncountable billions more that must be spent privately on security.

In the face of all these challenges, George Bush has done a commendable job in keeping the economy not only afloat, but in a position to make solid gains on a continuing basis in the future.

Clinton was the short-term CEO who pumped up the numbers to raise the stock price at which he could sell. Bush is the long-term CEO who accepts that the good of the long-term future be considered without regard to its impact on this quarter's numbers.

[Mediocrates]

David -
That's simply not the case. Financial wealth is financial wealth even if dreaded evil democrats are in the white house. That's just basic financial accounting. Just because it's a bubble doesn't mean it's not real - that's actually a Marxist point of view to think the wealth has to be "real" or tangible. About 100 trillion, with a T dollars in electronic money flow through the world on a daily basis. It's real, and the actual wealth we derive from that is a small fraction. It's like a bank with a 10% reserve that takes in 1 million dollars, lends out 900,000 at 5%. In this simplistic case the bank has created 945,000 dollars which it can then take in 90% of then relend at the same rate and so on. It's the velocity of money.

Most of the economic damage from 9-11 was covered under primary and seconday reinsurance pools - even the owner of WTC was covered for 3 billion dollars - what the disputes were about was whether the coverage should be doubled because both buildings fell.

As far as the airlines were concerned, they were primed to receive up to 4 billion dollars in assistance from the federal government a month BEFORE 9-11.

[cerulean]

This article suggests the stock market does better under Democrats:

http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2071929

In addition, decades of empirical evidence suggests that you shouldn't elect a Republican president if you want to control spending. Certainly Bush is disinclined. It may well be that Bush is still the best choice overall, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out the failure to keep spending under control.

[Mediocrates]

Republicans never create less government than Democrats. The Government has never been as large as it is right now and all this talk about smaller government is smoke.

[David_in_NYC]

I simply don't agree that the Cold War and the War on Terror are 'smoke'. I'm not a big fan of this President's economic policies, particularly the drug-benefit giveaway, but I don't see Kerry doing any better - he's a Carter, not a Clinton. Remember Jimmy Carter? He's the reason that the GOP got the reputation for being better for the economy. Clinton only seemed to be good for the economy because of the restrictions on him by the GOP House voted in in 1994, and his willingness to inflate numbers. All the corporate scandals - Anderson, Worldcom, Enron and others - cover activity during which occurred during the Clinton administration. All of these scandals were brought to light under Bush.

Yes there is virtual wealth. But it does not translate 1-for-1 into actual wealth. The value of virtual wealth varies widely. The wealth in the value of the loan in your bank example may be nearly certain to become actual wealth (a default could erase it, but this is a small percentage); however, the wealth in the value of a stock, when it is based on business projections that have been deliberately falsified or are otherwise erroneous, is not as certain as a bank loan, and doesn't translate at as high a ratio into reality. Over the period of the Clinton administration, especially post-1994, accounting law was not enforced and companies were encouraged to engage in puffery in their numbers. That is no longer the case and the discoveries of fraud have erased their value.

Are the Republicans totally clean? Undoubtedly not. However, as an order of magnitude and arrogance, Republican corruption pales next to Democrat corruption, and as a non-aligned voter, I have to choose the only game in town on the crucial issue of the war.

[Justcurious]

I didn't read all posts, but has anybody mentioned that Hillary Clinton might become the vice-president for Kerry, if he wins? This matter was mentioned in an evening paper in Finland today.

[MGB8]

Finland misunderstands American politics - Kerry decides on his VP before people vote - well before, and he must do so as well, as people vote for the VP, sort of.

[Alfred]

Well, Edwards is the VP choice.

Kerry will get a bounce this week and another bounce in ratings after the Kennedy Memorial Democratic Convention in "Baston" later this month. Most of Bush's efforts will be in the period after the Sept Republican Convention...unless Kerry gets a big jump over some disaster before then.

Look for "trial lawyers" to become an issue.

Iran is starting to hit the news. "Mr Kerry, what would you do about Iran?"

The UN of course.

Iraq will start to come down very hard on their little internal "foreigner" problem. Look for the Iraqi government to start chopping heads and taking no prisoners.

Here is the current list of Kerry supporters.

North Korea
Al Jazeera
Al Qaeda
France
Canada


I am sure there are more. I will compare lists of who supports Kerry versus Bush and then vote :)

There was a recession before Sept 11...it is a cyclical occurance. 1971-73, 1981-82, 1991-92, 2001-2003. There will probably be one in another 8-9 years. The dot.com boom reminds me of the Tulip boom in the Netherlands back in the 1600's. History repeats itself.

If Reagan had been elected in 1976 we would have come out of that recession much quicker. Malaise was a Jimi Carter prediction and accomplishment.

[Mediocrates]

I am an Edwards constituent. We can't remember anything that he's ever actually done for North Carolina. Seriously, we draw a blank.

[Oh Jerusalem]

I am an Edwards constituent. We can't remember anything that he's ever actually done for North Carolina. Seriously, we draw a blank.
He drew a check.

[Donna]

He drew a check.

And another...and another...and another...

[Semsem]

It was so pathetic when Kerry said that he and Edwards had better hair than Bush.

Kerry's hair is obviously a wig or a toupe. It really looks awful. Better to be bald!