Buftex Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 We have a good economy, the war on terror is the war on terror, and Iraq is making progress to election this winter.....Unlike when George Sr. lost...there is nothing right now Kerry can exploit 100%. I dunno swede, a lot of what you say is very open for interpritation. The latest job report, on the surface looks okay for GW, but if you go further under the surface, the economy is nowhere near as robust as the Republicans are wanting people to believe it is. They brag that the jobless rate is exactly the same as it was when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, yet fail to recognize that the average income is much lower, and more people than ever are without health insurance. And then, GW has the sack to approve a bill, just one day after his convention where he pandered to the elderly, and make the largest increase in medicare costs (to patients) since the 1940's. I don't think GW is nearly as confident about the economy as the party is leading you to believe. Call it be an "economic girlie man" (it gets lots of laughs from the delegates), but since GW has been in office, there are near 500,000 children (we are talking only children, mind you) fewer who have health insurance, than they did in 2000. To be sure, all of this is not entirely Bush's fault, but his federal spending has been irresponisible, and many of the programs he lauded himself for this past week have proven to be a collasal waste of money ("leave no child behind" has been a bust- just look at the spiraling graduation rates across Bush's Texas, and Arnold's Kalifornia) and not the success that the compasionate conservatives are congratualting themselves for. Bush's economy is a mess. It is not a trickle down economic plan Bush has, it has been more a "trickle on" plan...and the middle and lower class are definitely getting pissed on. Can't remember if it was Bush or Cheney who said, in their speech, that "this president is not the friend of the trial lawyer that is bleeding our health care system, but is the friend of the doctor, the patient, the nurse", or something to that effect. I know that they were trying to take a dig at John Edwards. What they failed to mention is that Bush's administration has done what all good Republicans do, and affixed its' puckered lips to the pharmacutical industry, which is raking Americans over the coals on an obscene level. Pharmacuticals are as big, if not the biggest factor for the high cost of healthcare. In the end though, I fully expect Bush to be re-elected. Those horrid displays of political sleaze (both the RNC and the DNC) just serve as evidence that people are impressed by the dumbest of things. They prefer good theater (the RNC wins that race hands down), to honesty, and healthy pragmatism.
swede316 Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Hmmm...Buftex..i offer you this...maybe we are the educated voters....We ramble on here about this and that...we offer counter poise and poise......But the average voter we are not............No matter our affliation we are informed voters...the rest cannot be said of the majority of the voting public....so my question to you is...does Kerry have enough to beat bush on the basis of the casual voter?..I say no.
Buftex Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Hmmm...Buftex..i offer you this...maybe we are the educated voters....We ramble on here about this and that...we offer counter poise and poise......But the average voter we are not............No matter our affliation we are informed voters...the rest cannot be said of the majority of the voting public....so my question to you is...does Kerry have enough to beat bush on the basis of the casual voter?..I say no. 19490[/snapback] On that, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
IDBillzFan Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 Hmmm...Buftex..i offer you this...maybe we are the educated voters....We ramble on here about this and that...we offer counter poise and poise......But the average voter we are not............No matter our affliation we are informed voters...the rest cannot be said of the majority of the voting public....so my question to you is...does Kerry have enough to beat bush on the basis of the casual voter?..I say no. 19490[/snapback] And therein lies the rub. Unless Buftex can text message Kerry's campaign message to the 18-30-year-old American Idol crowd, the only politics that they understand is: "Dude...Kerry's, like, a flip-flopper dude." "Dude, that is so harsh. Bush, like, so lied about WMD..." "Yeah, but I'd do his daughters dude..." End of political conversation.
Buftex Posted September 6, 2004 Posted September 6, 2004 And therein lies the rub. Unless Buftex can text message Kerry's campaign message to the 18-30-year-old American Idol crowd, the only politics that they understand is: "Dude...Kerry's, like, a flip-flopper dude." "Dude, that is so harsh. Bush, like, so lied about WMD..." "Yeah, but I'd do his daughters dude..." End of political conversation. 19590[/snapback] No joke. Just saw on CNN an analysis of Bush's post convention bump. While he was down slightly among women, and married voters with children,his biggest gain came from unmarried white males, under 30....
IDBillzFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 No joke. Just saw on CNN an analysis of Bush's post convention bump. While he was down slightly among women, and married voters with children,his biggest gain came from unmarried white males, under 30.... 19986[/snapback] Dude, that's like...so happening.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 No joke. Just saw on CNN an analysis of Bush's post convention bump. While he was down slightly among women, and married voters with children,his biggest gain came from unmarried white males, under 30.... 19986[/snapback] Let me guess - from a survey of under 1000 people. Love polls. Very honest.
Buftex Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Let me guess - from a survey of under 1000 people. Love polls. Very honest. 20209[/snapback] They were talking about the Time magazine poll, that concluded, first, that Bush had a 11% "bump" after the RNC. I can't say that I put too much stock in polls either, unless they come to very definite conclusions. Bigger polls that have come out since the Time poll have shown similar results, according to CNN. I know, I know, you can't trust CNN...that's what they tell me.
Recommended Posts