Us presidential election 2004

[Bordoy 0]

Still theres people talking about Bush being crap and all that. The fact is he won, done and dusted. Bush said whats hes gonna do and how. Kerry is like "we will get stronger", but doesnt tell us how.

[Akira 0]

Still theres people talking about Bush being crap and all that. The fact is he won, done and dusted. Bush said whats hes gonna do and how. Kerry is like "we will get stronger", but doesnt tell us how.

Er. Um. Ok.

[Blake 0]

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf

I urge you to find more detailed info from Bush site.

It seems Bush is still too scared to allow foreigners to his site, too bad.

I just what Bush is now going to do? The same copy-paste plan from last four years?

You are just kidding yourself.

If you don't bother to read or watch debates then don't come blaiming of 'having no plan'.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I urge you to find more detailed info from Bush site.

I just what Bush is now going to do? The same copy-paste plan from last four years?

You are just kidding yourself.

If you don't bother to read or watch debates then don't come blaiming of 'having no plan'.

Alot of people do not have the internets. Also, Kerry did not have the energy has that other guy who got elected in the 90s. Furthermore, Kerry was stupid for not using Clinton in the South. Kerry had to win at least two southern states and he hardly campaigned down there.

[shinRaiden 0]

Well Bush has been able to fairly successfully rebuild the economy after the artificial Clintonian bubble economy, cracked down on corporate accounting scandals to support long term financial stability, cut taxes on the middle and lower income brackets so that they would have the ability to move more liquidity in the economy, cut the taxes for the higher brackets to help get more money moving into the economy, changed the tax code on small vehicle depreciation to help encourage businesses to expand their motor pools and create automotive demand in the Mid-West, worked to stabilize the economy following 9/11 as well as the increased and previously underbudgeted security support, and as one analyst noted that there has been a net gain of about a million and a half new jobs, from over 600 million jobs created and lost, indicating a large amount of growth and activity in the economy.

Additionally Bush has been energetically supporting new industries such as Charter Schools, Energy Research, Security Contractors, and other value-adding businesses that create new long-term jobs and grow wealth by serving the community.

That's a pretty good track record, and one that with a little tweaking to fit the next four years will be of great benefit to America and the World. Of course those policies should continue, since they're right, and have been proven to work.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]"MORE ON THE GOP BASE: Per my piece from this morning and my previous post, here's an extremely telling piece of exit polling data from yesterday: Not only did Kerry win by an 86-13 margin among self-described liberals, he also won by a 55-45 margin among self-described moderates. So how'd Bush pull it off? He won 84-15 among self-described conservatives, and, more importantly, he made sure conservatives comprised a much bigger chunk of the electorate than they did in 2000. (Conservatives comprised about 34 percent of the electorate yesterday, versus 29 percent in 2000--a huge shift, raw numbers-wise.) Anyone anticipating a conciliatory second Bush term should stop and consider how much Bush owes his base.

Some other surprising or telling exit-poll numbers: Moral values edged out the economy/jobs (22-20) as the most important issue on voters' minds--more evidence that Bush's base turned out big; more voters trusted Bush on the economy than Kerry; a higher percentage of voters thought Kerry's attacks were unfair than thought Bush's attacks were unfair (it's possible that the missing explosives issue Kerry flogged down the stretch figured into this); by a 56-44 margin voters said the bin Laden video tape was important (by which I'm assuming they meant an important factor in their decision)."

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well Bush has been able to fairly successfully rebuild the economy after the artificial Clintonian bubble economy, cracked down on corporate accounting scandals to support long term financial stability, cut taxes on the middle and lower income brackets so that they would have the ability to move more liquidity in the economy, cut the taxes for the higher brackets to help get more money moving into the economy, changed the tax code on small vehicle depreciation to help encourage businesses to expand their motor pools and create automotive demand in the Mid-West, worked to stabilize the economy following 9/11 as well as the increased and previously underbudgeted security support, and as one analyst noted that there has been a net gain of about a million and a half new jobs, from over 600 million jobs created and lost, indicating a large amount of growth and activity in the economy.

Bush used massive tax cuts and government stimulus to bootstrap the country out of a fairly mild recession. This is not bad in and of itself, but his desire to make the tax cuts permanent beyond their usefulness indicates his fascination with tax cuts is ideologically motivated rather than being based in any kind of economic reality. In addition to this, the unprecedented increase of federal deficit levels, though encouraging growth, have caused the value of the US dollar to sink precipitously; this in conjunction with the mainly foreign financing of our economic recovery, and our already weak position vis-a-vis the trade balance (especially in the current accounts deficit) raises the possibility of the dollar crashing and serious inflation in the future. Not an especially good record for a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative.

Quote[/b] ]

Additionally Bush has been energetically supporting new industries such as Charter Schools, Energy Research, Security Contractors, and other value-adding businesses that create new long-term jobs and grow wealth by serving the community.

Which begs the question, how does Bush plan to pay for increases in government spending? Keynesian theory of government injections works, but only when you plan on paying for it eventually. Not to mention that none of these are genuine conservative positions to hold- so far Bush's unprecedented increases of government program activity suggests he's a bit of a crypto-socialist.

Quote[/b] ]That's a pretty good track record, and one that with a little tweaking to fit the next four years will be of great benefit to America and the World. Of course those policies should continue, since they're right, and have been proven to work.

To be sure, the Bush administration's handling of the economy was never my main grievance. I am far more concerned that Bush is the defacto champion of a cultural movement in Red America that seems bent on constitutionalizing discrimination against an effectively helpless minority. That sort of thing is anathema to America's founding ideals.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The reason the whole county is not colored in is because Georgetown on the northern edge of Travis County went for Bush.

Heh, sorry about that. I did my part, but the old people over at Sun City tend to trump my youthful idealism

[Bernadotte 0]

Published August 28, 2003 by the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Quote[/b] ]The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

I guess he kept his promise.  His Diebold electronic voting machines that produce no paper trail were used in many areas of Ohio.

Edit: link

I see that we're off again to Konspiracy Korner...

Must you always resort to shitting on posts whenever you lack the intelligence to discuss something?

I don't like the potential for conspiracy theories to exist when they can very easily be vanquished by doing something like:

Quote[/b] ]I hope someone releases information showing that the exit polls were equally wrong in areas without the electronic machines.  That would certainly help put the matter to rest.

But of course you had to delete that sentence from my post.  

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Well Bush has been able to fairly successfully rebuild the economy after the artificial Clintonian bubble economy, cracked down on corporate accounting scandals to support long term financial stability, cut taxes on the middle and lower income brackets so that they would have the ability to move more liquidity in the economy, cut the taxes for the higher brackets to help get more money moving into the economy, changed the tax code on small vehicle depreciation to help encourage businesses to expand their motor pools and create automotive demand in the Mid-West, worked to stabilize the economy following 9/11 as well as the increased and previously underbudgeted security support, and as one analyst noted that there has been a net gain of about a million and a half new jobs, from over 600 million jobs created and lost, indicating a large amount of growth and activity in the economy.

Additionally Bush has been energetically supporting new industries such as Charter Schools, Energy Research, Security Contractors, and other value-adding businesses that create new long-term jobs and grow wealth by serving the community.

That's a pretty good track record, and one that with a little tweaking to fit the next four years will be of great benefit to America and the World. Of course those policies should continue, since they're right, and have been proven to work.

Hey when you still have a deficit of 500 billion + $ in 4 years, you can't blame it on Clinton like all the Problems bush has.

[Pathy 0]

Bern, in answer to that, yes he does

Hmmmm how does Bush solve unemployment in his next term....oh wait....i got a great idea.....lets draft them all!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Bern, in answer to that, yes he does  

Hmmmm how does Bush solve unemployment in his next term....oh wait....i got a great idea.....lets draft them all!  

Simple solutions for complicated problems

[Bernadotte 0]

Concede already. I claimed victory!!! No hard feelings...

I conceded already, even before Kerry conceded.  Please see my comment for you and Placebo at the bottom of this page.

According to CNN, the separation between the candidates is 3.06%.  If you agree then please PM Placebo to look at this post and adjust our counts accordingly by 612, ok?

No hard feelings at all.  IMHO we both lost.  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I conceded already, even before Kerry conceded. Please see my comment for you and Placebo at the bottom of this page.

According to CNN, the separation between the candidates is 3.06%. If you agree then please PM Placebo to look at this post and adjust our counts accordingly by 612, ok?

No hard feelings at all. IMHO we both lost.

k....

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Must you always resort to shitting on posts whenever you lack the intelligence to discuss something?

I will keep making big, steaming plops on your Konspiracy posts as long as you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that the exit polls were skewed towards female urban voters.

Quote[/b] ]But of course you had to delete that sentence from my post.

Actually, I pressed the "Quote" button before you edited that post again.

[shinRaiden 0]

There are three reasons for the deficit, not the two of just 911 and Iraq. The third is the baseless projections from the artificial Clinton Bubble Economy. It was those projections that created the illusion of budgetary surpluses from the constant churning of the economy propped up by the acounting scandals. Bush was handed the bubble as it burst, and the sooner it did the better.

That cut the head off of the rigged numbers, and then 911 cut off the legs, and the demands of all operations of the War on Terror imposed a major additional load as well. The fact that the economy is not in the tank, and that it is improving is proof of the economic genius of George W. Bush.

As for environmental issues,

The EPA figures clearly show the impact of the economic growth and environmental concern by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and the positive effect that they've had in increasing economic output while reducing environmental impact, and you can see that those trends stagnated under Bill Clinton.

[shinRaiden 0]

And to those that see this as somehow urging Bush towards a more centrist 'unity' government structure, read this

Quote[/b] ]

It has been 60 years since Republicans were this strong in Washington. While ideological conservatives do not make up a majority of the House or the Senate, they are a strong majority of the reasonably solid Republican majorities that do exist. President Bush should be able to get much of his program through, and Republicans will then be held accountable for it in 2006 and 2008. Previous legislative disappointments could be attributed to Democratic obstruction. There will still be Democratic opposition, of course, but the excuse will be less plausible.

But the suggestion is being made that for Bush to go full speed ahead with a Republican agenda would be somehow untoward. In the hours after it became clear that Bush was going to win reelection, some liberals complained that Bush was going to conduct himself as though he had won a landslide, not a majority of a few points. After all, he had governed confidently after winning with a minority of the vote last time.

After the 2000 election, I myself briefly took the view that Bush should respond to the closeness of the result, and the post-election wrangling in Florida, by leading a national-unity government. He should give Democrats important Cabinet positions, scale back his tax cuts, etc. A colleague changed my mind. Her argument was, essentially, that I was wrongly assuming that the country had voted for half a Republican government. Half the country had voted for a Republican government: a different thing. For Bush to move left would make some people happier, or at least less unhappy, about his presidency (although it could also project a lack of confidence in his own legitimacy in the office). But it would make many other voters a lot less happy. Why not give the country a taste of Republican governance, and see if they liked it enough to give Bush a bigger vote next time?

Accountability requires choice, and choice implies the exclusion of some possibilities. It can therefore be "polarizing." Perhaps Bush could have governed in a way that left the country less polarized — although that is not as clear to me as it seems to be to others. But while gratuitous offense and incivility are always to be avoided, political harmony is not an important goal in its own right. It is not more important than setting pro-growth policies, defending unborn human life, or providing for the common defense. Conservatives who thought Bush should try to accomplish those goals were not wrong to pursue them even at the risk of inspiring some bitterness.

Even, yes, in a time of war. In thinking of models for successful wars, we probably think too much of World War II. Other wars have witnessed a lot more contentious debate about tactics, strategy, and war aims. Would Bush really have bought support for his strategy on terrorism by surrendering on taxes or judges? He surely believed that changing his economic policy would have resulted in a weaker economy, which would not have helped his ability to fight the war, even politically. If liberals maintain that they would have supported Bush more heavily on the war if he had met them halfway on these issues, they are saying more about their own pettiness than his.

When Republicans say that the American people have decisively spoken in favor of the president and his policies, and when Democrats say that it wasn't as decisive as all that, they are both, of course, making moves in the mandate wars. Presumably intelligent Democratic politicians will know full well, when bills come before them, whether they are really running big risks in saying no to the president — mandate or no mandate. I'm not sure this "mandate" business means much: Look at what Clinton's second-term mandate got him. (Okay, maybe hold that thought.) Or Reagan's. Or Nixon's.

The point can be put in a way that makes it sound menacing, or gloating, but it is also plain fact: The president doesn't need a "mandate" if he has Congress, and this one does. Govern away.

And many more voters than 2000 liked what they got, so the momentum for Bush and the conservative movement grows and builds.

FMCAT Statement

Quote[/b] ]

November 4, 2004

By FreeMuslims.org

The Free Muslim Coalition Against terrorism congratulates President George Bush on his victory and reelection to the presidency of the United States. Bush won a decisive victory and we wish him all the best in the next four years.

President Bush has led the War on Terrorism with clarity and steadfastness. In the face of extreme criticism, President Bush never wavered. He continued to fight the War on Terrorism, despite political and personal risks. Since we formed, the Free Muslim Coalition endured criticism and attacks from all sides for our efforts in the War on Terrorism. We understand how difficult it is to fight the temptation to bend to constant criticism and stick to your principles, as Bush has done with confidence. President Bush is the leader we need to win this War and we are encouraged to have his courage and leadership.

We also thank John Kerry for running a vigorous campaign, and we congratulate the voters that showed the world that America's democracy is strong and vibrant.

Now that the campaign is over, we ask President George Bush and Senator John Kerry to work together to unite the people behind a more prosperous, stronger, and more secure America.

The United States has many challenges ahead. However, no challenge is so great that a free and united country with strong leadership cannot overcome.

[Blake 0]

Isn't there a clear error in that chart? It is showing 25 year period in a shorter section than 8 year period.  

5 year leaps show bigger reduction than 1 year leap - big surprise! Is this chart used to distract some blind people?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

There are three reasons for the deficit, not the two of just 911 and Iraq. The third is the baseless projections from the artificial Clinton Bubble Economy. It was those projections that created the illusion of budgetary surpluses from the constant churning of the economy propped up by the acounting scandals. Bush was handed the bubble as it burst, and the sooner it did the better.

That cut the head off of the rigged numbers, and then 911 cut off the legs, and the demands of all operations of the War on Terror imposed a major additional load as well. The fact that the economy is not in the tank, and that it is improving is proof of the economic genius of George W. Bush.

I'm calling bullshit on you right now, because you quite clearly have no actual knowledge on this issue.

The tech bubble had nothing to do with the federal budget surplus, because there is no mathematical correlation (at all) between the GDP and what the federal government spends. The budget surplus was never illusory; it was produced through nearly a decade of fiscal discipline in the US Congress (thanks to actual conservatives) and near-gridlock in between the Legislative and Executive branches of the government. The fact that the surplus was spent is not a bad thing, so you don't have to go grasping at specious reasoning to apologize for it. In the face of a recession, budget surpluses stimulate saving, which by extension reduces economic growth due to the smaller amount of currency in circulation.

Now on to the economy itself. Bush's handling of the shallow recession in 2000-2001 is not the problem here; tax cuts and stimulus were exactly the right perscription. However, economics is a science free from ideological shackles, and when conditions change, so should policies. Bush's push to make the tax cuts permanent while dramatically increasing government spending in the discretionary and deficit categories is reckless at best; when it is viewed in the context of our current position within the world economy it is downright masochistic.

[denoir 0]

Well Bush has been able to fairly successfully rebuild the economy after the artificial Clintonian bubble economy, cracked down on corporate accounting scandals to support long term financial stability, cut taxes on the middle and lower income brackets so that they would have the ability to move more liquidity in the economy, cut the taxes for the higher brackets to help get more money moving into the economy, changed the tax code on small vehicle depreciation to help encourage businesses to expand their motor pools and create automotive demand in the Mid-West, worked to stabilize the economy following 9/11 as well as the increased and previously underbudgeted security support, and as one analyst noted that there has been a net gain of about a million and a half new jobs, from over 600 million jobs created and lost, indicating a large amount of growth and activity in the economy.

It's funny when people start believing the propaganda they make up.

Facts:

[*] $477 billion budget deficit

[*] A net of 585,000 jobs lost

Sorry, couldn't find newer graph, but the jobs in the private sector have gone up during 2004

[*] $7.5 trillion national debt

[*] Euro vs USD from 0.8 in 2001 to 1.3 today.

[shinRaiden 0]

You're part-way right, in that the stonewalling and Clinton defense cuts limited expenditures while the revenues increased due to the bubble. But there was a whole pile of factors - the market corrections to the realistic track, the below norm impact from 911, and the unanticipated expenses of Iraq and Afghanistan - that popped the predicted decade of surpluses.

Secondly, that decade of surpluses was anticipated to disappear anyway when Social Security implodes in a bit, again because the Clinton Era economic machine chose to do nothing while they had the artificial opportunity. But the fact that the economy has done as well as it has, and rebounded from those three factors as quickly as it has supports Bush's economic plan, and confirms it for another term.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You're part-way right, in that the stonewalling and Clinton defense cuts limited expenditures while the revenues increased due to the bubble. But there was a whole pile of factors - the market corrections to the realistic track, the below norm impact from 911, and the unanticipated expenses of Iraq and Afghanistan - that popped the predicted decade of surpluses.

Secondly, that decade of surpluses was anticipated to disappear anyway when Social Security implodes in a bit, again because the Clinton Era economic machine chose to do nothing while they had the artificial opportunity. But the fact that the economy has done as well as it has, and rebounded from those three factors as quickly as it has supports Bush's economic plan, and confirms it for another term.

I'm not talking about the projected surplusses- those were never more than just that: projections, and projections based on bubble-influenced data, no less. I'm talking about the solid period of time in which the government actually ran surplusses. The fact that you're trying to make apologies for something that no one is upset about demonstrates how out of touch you are with the actual arguments people are making against Bush, as opposed to the weak-ass strawmen GOP shills flog mercilessly.

Now repeat it with me: the IT bubble had nothing to do with the actual surplusses that Bush and a Republican Congress demolished, and even less to do with the subsequent record-setting deficits they went on to create.

Also: Bush did not veto a single spending bill that crossed his deask in four years.

[Akira 0]

@ Nov. 05 2004,00:32)]

The reason the whole county is not colored in is because Georgetown on the northern edge of Travis County went for Bush.

Heh, sorry about that. I did my part, but the old people over at Sun City tend to trump my youthful idealism

Good to see you back. Hows Sothwestern? I'll be driving up there tomorrow to pick up my wife's painting that was in the Alumni art show.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Nov. 05 2004,00:32)]

The reason the whole county is not colored in is because Georgetown on the northern edge of Travis County went for Bush.

Heh, sorry about that. I did my part, but the old people over at Sun City tend to trump my youthful idealism

Good to see you back. Hows Sothwestern? I'll be driving up there tomorrow to pick up my wife's painting that was in the Alumni art show.

SU's great, thanks. Certainly beats Midland by a fair sight, heh.

[denoir 0]

It's interesting to note that Bush lost the big cities and the college communitites, and won all the rural areas....go figure.

I think this is the key to understanding the elections. Traditionally Republicans vs Democrats has been about mostly economic isses and partially about socio-economi issues. This time around it has switched to conservative vs progressive.

It's the "moral values". Now, I'm obviously biased in this question, but I cannot seem to remember any regressive policy that has lead to anything good in retrospect. The society is always evolving.

All change is certainly not good - artificially introduced ones and radical ones like say communism have failed because they wanted unrealistic goals too soon and too fast.

The common denominator between failed conservative and failed progressive policy is that they usually originate in dogma, be it political, religious or otherwise. And as I see it, the current conservative agenda in the US is largely based on dogma, rather than a natural development.

Take for instance the gay marriage issue. Honestly, do you think you can gain anything in practical terms by banning it? Do you really think that the ban will hold a long time? What do you think they will be saying about it in 100 years.

I can't help but to draw parallels to the past when people were opposing interracial marriages on similar "moral" grounds. How do we look at it today?

And finally, I really can't see what was so great about the late 19th century. The conservative values are more or less identical to the values that dominated then. Can anybody honestly say that they believe that going back a century or two in social evolution would be a good thing?