Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Roosevelt]

1. Absolutely correct

Do not allow the repubs to have the national security issue, particularly when they have done THE MOST to put this country in greater peril than any before.

The economy IS a given - the market is no indicator of how well THE PEOPLE are doing - in fact, it is not much of an indicator of anything (other than how advisors and companies can scam investors into believing they're doing well).

Democrats can and should steal the national security debate, and should also cast the economy as a national security issue. A weak American economy makes for weak American security.

[leftyandproud]

2. I can't stress...

How risky this is.
What if the economy recovers? There is SO MUCH stimulus working its way through the economy right now that a recovery is virtually guaranteed in my view. I wouldn't be surprised to see the markets up 20-30% from today's levels by next Nov...unemployment down to 5.5%--mortgage rates still at 30 year lows. I'm sorry, but there is no way to stop this dead cat from bouncing...We will be booming in 18 months, so planning an entire strategy around "the economy" as an issue is not gonna work. The DEBT, on the other hand isn't going anywhere. This recovery is built on borrowed dollars, on the personal and federal level. The debt will not disappear by elections, and I think it most definately is a weak spot for dumbya and co.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

3. Good points

I expect (and hope for) the economy to be in recovery in 18 months, and you just know Bush is going to claim all the credit for it, his tax cuts, etc. All we will have to do is point to the debt.

[Code_Name_D]

7. This is 100% false.

What if the economy recovers?

What if the WMD would actually be found? Such speculation is made despite the evidence going to the contrary. Its like the murder claim "yay, well I killed him, but what if he deserved it?" The economy is not recovering. And it is not going to recover.

There is SO MUCH stimulus working its way through the economy right now that a recovery is virtually guaranteed in my view.

This "stimulation" is nothing more than a tax cut. Its not stimulating any thing other than GOP fundraising.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the markets up 20-30% from today's levels by next Nov...unemployment down to 5.5%--mortgage rates still at 30 year lows. I'm sorry, but there is no way to stop this dead cat from bouncing...We will be booming in 18 months, so planning an entire strategy around "the economy" as an issue is not gonna work.

Little more than wishful thinking. But I love how you cap it with the following.

The DEBT, on the other hand isn't going anywhere. This recovery is built on borrowed dollars, on the personal and federal level. The debt will not disappear by elections, and I think it most definately is a weak spot for dumbya and co.

LOL. Your whole arguments seems to resemble the claim that a square wheal roles just as smoothly as a round one, so long as you ignore the bumps. The debt and budget deftest are examples of these bumps, and have a far greater cost than you might imply. I remind you that all 50 states are also looking at deficits, and don't have the luxury of running in to the red. Sense many of these states are run by Republicans, or have sufficient republican presence to filibuster tax bills, to oppose on a philosophical level (logic be dammed) even a token increase on taxes, save those born by the poor (such as sin taxes, court fees, and sails taxes.). They have no chouse but to cut vital services such as police and education. And cut funds given to counties so that THEY will have to raise taxes.

The economy is not, nor no where near, recovering. Rising unemployment is NOT a sign of a recovery as Repugs would spin it as. It’s a sign of a worsening economy.

[Allah Akbar]

15. 100% correct I believe D

and if anything the boom in the 90's would be attributed to the relief of the debt during that time more than any other factor.

The market will not operate smoothly during times of economic uncertainty such as operating under a record budget deficit.

[aquart]

46. The economy cannot recover with Bush in office.

If you're seeing signs of recovery, you're hallucinating.

There is NO faith in this government.

Do you honestly believe that if the $4 billion a month bill on Iraq crunched him enough, George wouldn't default on US Treasury obligations?

THIS MAN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF CONSEQUENCES.

[twilight]

57. the village idiot has an MBA

He might as well use it to wipe his butt with. He doesn't know the first thing about economics or the economy or even his own finances which are held in a trust by daddy.

I suspect that the DOW is going to tank like mad now that this news is coming out. No one wants to invest in a jobless recovery even if the #'s are up for it makes NO sense!

I suspect by the time the election occurs, the economy will tank back down to 7,000 like it was earlier. You ain't seen nothing yet!

and ... don't forget about deflation!

Many bond investors have sold ...

The idiots holding stock will be next once again. Get ready for another big CRASH!!!!

:dem:

[Brian Sweat]

60. The economy will not recover in time to save Bush

It may not recover for quite some time. Right now, the economy is being proped up by the housing boom, but the housing boom is on it's last legs. As other sectors of the economy start to pick up, the housing boom will peter out and there will be little net gain in the economy.

[nannygoat]

4. Good article about how *co uses language to keep us all

scared and intimidated.

Power of presidency resides in language as well as law
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html

<snip--last paragraph>

"Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the
American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the "national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004."

[_Wayne_]

5. The two are related, but good points

Bush's perceived strenghts are national security, but in reality it's his biggest weakness. 9/11, Afghanistan, and the War on Iraq weakened our economy, along with increased defense spending. The Dems win the economic debate every time, but national security can counterbalance this, and Bush can red herring his way out of it. Concentrate on terrorism, but the economic woes resonate with too many Americans to put it on the back burner

[Code_Name_D]

6. I disagree, but not in the way you might think.

Oh contraire, the Democrats need to run on the economy. But not because it's "a winning issues" and most certainly not because voters "traditionally punishes the sitting president" when the economy turns sourer. I think you are correct that if these are the foundations of any economic campaign issue, than such a campaign is destined to fail.

I also do not agree with the "signal backset" approach towards campaigning. The Democratic candidate is going to have a number of issues that they should hammer away at. National security will be one of them, but so two will the economy. In fact, the two are linked. After all, how secure are you if you could lose your home at any minute? Dose it really mater if it's destroyed by a terrorists act, or repossessed by the bank?

Something else that concerns me. This is so called "war on terrorism" is truly little more than a threat by the phantoms of our own fear. Its easy to think you have been over run by terrorists if you consider a terrorist to be any one of middle eastern decent. And how "strong" can Bush be on this issue when we know he was responsible for 9-11 in the first place? (LIHOP)

But even so, this current war on terrorism is still grew out of roots found in economics. If the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was about oil (which I believe it was in large part) as it was detailed in PNAC, than how can you address this security issues without first addressing economics? Too pull the week, you must also pull the root.

This is the problem with have with the "republican light" Democrats. They just mow down the plant, leaving the roots untouched and unarmed. Ignoring the US economy, it's health, structure, nature, and directives, will be ignoring the roots.

So yes. The Democrats must press the economic issue. But what they must press, is the bad economic policies, they must address the issue fo funding wanted social services, they must focus on public education about both basic and advanced economic principals, they must focuses on the accuracy of economic forecasting numbers (currently, they are as cooked as Enron books.) And this is only a short list of economic issues that MUST be addressed to see to the welfare of America at large.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Nobody said terrorism was imaginary

The idea that Bush protects us from it, is completely imaginary. Nobody said not to run on the economy, but unless we tear down the perception that daddy W is protecting us, what we say on the economy won't matter.

[Allah Akbar]

17. How is Bush viewed as strong on protecting us

when Osama Bin Badman and Sodamn Insane are still running around as free as birds?

What has he really done that makes us "safer" in that regard?

[Brian Sweat]

65. But he landed that fighter jet on that carrier!

How can you say he is not strong on national security.

[scisyhp]

8. If economy recovers, WMDs are found, US troops promptly

leave peaceful, democratic, prosperous and self-governing Iraq then
Bush certainly deserves the second term for being such a great
President. Don't hold your breath though.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

10. Would it be wrong of me to say that focus on which issue

to run on may, in fact, depend on which candidate is running? Isn't this also a variable when one chooses a VP candidate? No one, NO ONE, will be silent on foreign affairs; it's just a matter of emphasis. So, if you're Lieberman, and your position is already hawkish, you focus on the economy. I'd even say that Wesley Clark could focus on the economy. I think his experience in collaborative international work speaks for itself. But Dean, for example, would have to sell his position in foreign affairs, especially since he's a governor (I'm not bashing Dean; I like Dean). His economic record in Vermont can speak for itself. This is why a VP selection can make the difference when it comes to focusing on the issues. When Chimpy and Heart Attack ran, this was their formula. Chimpy knew nothing about foreign affairs (still doesn't) and Heart Attack was former Sec. of Defense. It makes the press's job easy, and whatever makes it easy for them, well . . . .

The Dems, no matter who wins the nomination, would be stupid not to beat the hell out of this administration over their foreign policies, including defense. A policy of preemptive war is the single biggest failure of this administration and the single most radical shift in US foreign policy since, well, it may be the single biggest shift, theoretically, in the history of US foreign policy.

[iH8repukes]

11. No way the dems can win on national defense.

Are you kidding? You think moderate and swing voters will trust democrats to protect them from Korea, Iran, Al-Quada? Do you seriously believe that?

Do you really, truly, honestly think the middle of the electorate (where the election will be won or lost) will blame Bush for taking out Saddam? I think that most Americans like the fact that Bush is more likely to "overreact" than "underreact" to a threat. In other words, they would rather be wrong than be dead. I also think that most Americans believe that democrats will "underreact" and wait too late before they deal with a threat.

I have no polls to back up my thoughts. These are my gut feelings. If you think I'm wrong and think the majority of Americans will trust a democrat to protect us in a very, very dangerous world, I'll respect your opinion. Even though it differs from mine.

I'm a democrat because we care about the little man and the repukes only care about the rich guy. I'm a democrat because I want freedom of choice. I'm a democrat because I want my children to have a good education. But when it comes to defense, I believe the repukes will do a better job of dealing with terrorism. There's no point in flaming me. I respect the opinion of anybody who disagrees. It doesn't make me wrong if you disagree.

[Classical_Liberal]

13. Why don't you vote for Bush then?

he protects you better than the Democrats. If Democrats can't win on national security they can't win period, as your post illustrates. If I thought like you I would vote Bush. Why do you call youself I8repukes when you don't! I don't hate them but would never vote for them and don't think they are better on ANY isssue including National Security.

[iH8repukes]

16. I respect your opinion.

I believe dems do better on EVERY other issue including the economy, healthcare, and education.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. but he protects the country better, and smart people will vote on that

and that is more imporant than any other issue. If it is not more imporatant than any other issue, than your thesis that he can't be challenged on it is incorrect. Make up your mind.

[iH8repukes]

20. Where did that quote come from? Certainly not from me.

I said nothing about smart people. But look. If you think dems will beat Bush on national defense, god bless you.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. You said you think they are better on national security

are you saying your opinion and the opinions of what you consider the majority aren't smart? Why would they vote for a candidate if that candidate conceded to being inferior at protecting the country from foriegn threats? That is more important than they economy. Even I believe that.

[iH8repukes]

27. Why did Reagan get a carrier named after him?

Is it because he was "weak" on defense? No, it is the PERCEPTION among many people who are not too smart that Reagan was a tough mother fucker who won the cold war with the Soviets and brought down that wall in Berlin.

You don't have to be smart to think the repukes are PERCEIVED as being "cowboys" on defense and that the majority of voters would rather have a cowboy than a pacifist.

Being smart has nothing to do with it. Go read the polls yourself and tell me who the American's trust on defense.

We gotta win on the economy and healthcare.

Gore in '04

[Classical_Liberal]

28. Ok if they are better why won't you vote for them?

? The polls show the public is turing around. You aren't turning around, and you clearly think Dems can't defend this country from 9/11 so why don't you vote for Bush who is better by your own standard? A dem, according to you will underreact if 9/11 happens. How can we win if the public thinks that?

[iH8repukes]

30. There's no point in arguing with you. You're way too smart for me.

I think Bush will go after terrorists before they go after us. Sure, he's going to be wrong sometimes. But, as I said before, I would rather be wrong than be dead.

That's not to say that the dem candidate will leave us defenseless. I don't believe that.

I happen to believe in my gut that the majority of Americans agree with me. If you don't think so, that's fine. There's room for both of us in the party, don't you think?

[Classical_Liberal]

31. Why don't you vote for him then?

? If you vote for a Democrat he will would be too cautious and you will die! Protecting the country from terrorists is more important than the economy.

[iH8repukes]

32. Can't you read?

I've said I believe my party is much better on every issue OTHER than national security . . . better on education, better on the economy, better on healthcare, better on privacy matters, etc., etc, etc.

That trumps national security unless the democrat will leave us DEFENSELESS which I NEVER, EVER said.

As I said, you are the most brilliant person I've ever come across. I just wish you could read better.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. I read very well, and if I was as scared of the world as you seem to be

I would definately vote Bush and it would trump all those other issues. I would also not be trying to elect a democrat to oppose Bush. There weren't many strikes during WWII, because most of the country thought defense was more important.

[iH8repukes]

36. Well . . . got news. You're not me.

I am afraid of terrorism. But I've never voted for a repuke and I don't plan on starting now.

But, since you are so concerned about my voting, I pray we get a strong centrist democrat candidate like Edwards or Kerry or my dream candidate, Gore. Someone like Dean will lose in a landslide against Bush.


Gore in '04

[Classical_Liberal]

37. Gore said he wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq

His position on national security is identical to Deans. Edwards is much more Hawkish than Gore.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Why are you afraid of terrorism?

That's as silly as my mother being afraid to go to Japan because they have earthquakes.

Do you know how many people died suddenly in car accidents, fires, falls, botched surgeries, anaphylactic shock, blood clots, or you name it during the week of 9/11? A lot more than 3,000.

We need to talk sense to the American people. Terrorism is not common, it's not an ideology but a tactic used by many ideologies, and even if you insist on being afraid of it against all logic, not one thing Bush has done will protect you.

[iH8repukes]

76. I admire your courage.

I have my fears . . . you have your fears. I think we are in for a long, bloody war with the terrorists. I pray I'm wrong.

[w4rma]

90. Dean and Gore hold nearly identical positions on Bush's Iraq invasion

Al Gore: I would Never Start This War
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=21239

Al Gore has never been a supporter of Iraq war
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3451987&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security.

I happen to disagree with that; I think we had Saddam pretty well contained. My problem with the war in Iraq isn't with motivation; it's with justification.

I don't believe the President was able to show that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security; his whole rationale for using force was based on the idea that they might be a danger to the United States at some point in the future.

Frankly, I've never understood why he was concentrating on Iraq, which had been successfully contained for twelve years, while every day a country like North Korea develops its nuclear capability.
...
LiberalOasis: You've taken some flak for saying, following the downfall of Saddam Hussein, "I suppose that's a good thing.”

USA Today's Walter Shapiro said it was an "off-key note" and "even Democrats who doubt the strategic wisdom of the war have to agree that Saddam's ouster was unquestionably a good thing."

Senator Evan Bayh said in response, "equivocating about whether Saddam's departure is a good thing or not doesn't help the Democratic Party." What's your response?

Howard Dean: It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. In my opposition to the war, I have never suggested anything to the contrary.

Of course, in and of itself, Saddam’s departure is a good thing.

But the costs of the war - some known, some unknown - and what I considered to be an insufficient justification for unilateral action led me to conclude that this was the wrong war at the wrong time, and my view has not changed.

The jury is still out on whether or not the operation will be seen as successful one; we’re not quite sure what we have created in the Arab world. The reconstruction effort has gotten off to a very rocky start.

What we have created in Washington, though, is a dangerous new doctrine of preventive war that could cause serious problems for us down the line.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htm

[corarose]

38. Bush isn't after terrorists he is after their OIL

Got it! Your boy Bush is after their OIL not helping the US. He doesn't care about life he is a murderer and the Bush Crime Cabal needs to be brought down.
I guess you would feel safer is the Mafia were running this country. Oppps the Bush Mafia is running this country.

[iH8repukes]

41. Bush ain't my boy sweetie.

I vote democrat.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. Yes, but it is a wonder you do, given how "inferior" the dems are.

.

[iH8repukes]

48. Wonder away honey . . . dems are superior in every way but one.

We will win this election if our candidate is considered STRONG on defense and he's centrist and he's for guaranteed health care coverage. We will lose otherwise.

Gore in '04

[Classical_Liberal]

50. If he can't challenge them on National Security, how can he be strong

on defense? you already said you think a dem would underreact, which isn't very strong. Gore would definately challenge Bush on National Security. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

[iH8repukes]

52. Gore's my man.

I pray for Gore to get into the race in the next two months.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. So than Democrats CAN challenge Bush on National Security

and win. If Gore can win not going into Iraq, so can Dean, or any other Democrat.

[iH8repukes]

58. Dems can challenge . . . but they won't win on defense.

They'll have to win on other issues.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. than Gore wouldn't win, so why do you want him to run

He is clearly different from Bush on national security, and by the DLC's standards not a centrist, because he won't go into Iraq.

[iH8repukes]

64. He would win because of EVERYTHING he offers.

Strong but not the strongest on defense.
Strongest on every other issue such as economy, eduction, et. al.

[Code_Name_D]

61. This is difcult to beleive

given the effeort you are presenting to defend Bush's war on terroisem. Care to explane this contradiction?

[iH8repukes]

67. No contradiction. Who doesn't want a war on terrorism?

Should we sit back and wait for terrorists to set off more bombs, or fly more planes into more buildings, or release more toxic agents, or whatever other horrors they can unleash?

I'm not defending Bush. You can if you want. I'm defending anyone, democrat or republican, who protects us from terrorists. Why is that bad? Do you support terrorists or something?

[Classical_Liberal]

69. You said that the democrats will do precisely that.

but you support them.

[iH8repukes]

70. Precisely what?

I am a dem . . . I support dems because of much, much, much more than defense.

[Code_Name_D]

71. But the Republicans are sorces of terroists.

9-11 was aloued to happen becase they needed "another perl harber" to set off their little chees board game to build the Project for New American Centory.(PNAC)

They supply the terroists with wepond and ability to strike us. Bush permited the terrists to hit us on 9-11 He let it happen on perpuse. (LHOP)

The Republicans are NOT strong on nationl defence. The are prducing their own threats to attack us with, in oder to carry forwored their agenda.

One can do NOTHING and still be stronger on defence than that.

Why should I fight Bush's clay monters?

[iH8repukes]

74. "Allowed to happen" ??? Sorry, I'm not buying your conspiracy.

We'll just have to disagree on that, okay?

[Code_Name_D]

77. You seem to have me confused with a salesmen.

I am not here to "sell you" any thing. I don't come to the DU to sell PNAC or LIHOP any more than I sell vacuum cleaners.

I am here to try to inform you of the facts. Your "opinion" to the contrary to these already well established facts only makes you "willfully ignorant."

Plus, I find it contradictory that would on the one hand, completely disavow any support for Bush, and then dismisses out of hand any information that lend support to your own self proclaimed position of NOT supporting Bush. At the vary least, one would logically expect you to at least have an open mind, and be curious as to the contents of these bodes of knowledge. (PS: PNAC is not a conspiracy theory by the way, but a plan publicly published by this administration about their intentions for the future. And these plans are literally to construct quote, "a new American empire.")

The contraction of your position becomes more and more glaring with each post you submit.

[Classical_Liberal]

78. At this point all we know is the PNAC took advantage of 9/11

The LIHOP theory is speculative at this point. The PNAC is a plain fact.

[Code_Name_D]

80. So it is.

However, given the brain power and evdince behing LIHOP, I think the use of the term "thriory" lends itself to be abused. LIHOP may be a thiory, but this is a high level of position, not a low one. And this thiory is itself built on a perponderance of other facts as well.

[iH8repukes]

81. Gosh, I need to start watching more Star Trek.

Then I will be as informed as you!

Spare me your conspiracy bullshit. No one let 9-11 happen. No one. Sorry. Call me a Bush supporter all you want but that's just plain crazy.

Gore in '04

[iH8repukes]

79. Are you for real?

So, if I (along with 98% of the rest of America) do not believe that Bush "let" 9-11 happen, then that makes me a Bush supporter and "willfully ingnorant"?

All I can say is "wow"!!!!!!! Good luck getting anybody to believe you.


Gore in '04

[Classical_Liberal]

82. no, but you have other reasons, that would make most vote Bush

11 I think that most Americans like the fact that Bush is more likely to "overreact" than "underreact" to a threat. In other words, they would rather be wrong than be dead. I also think that most Americans believe that democrats will "underreact" and wait too late before they deal with a threat.

I believe the repukes will do a better job of dealing with terrorism. There's no point in flaming me. I respect the opinion of anybody who disagrees. It doesn't make me wrong if you disagree.

16. I respect your opinion.

I believe dems do better on EVERY other issue including the economy, healthcare, and education.

30
I think Bush will go after terrorists before they go after us. Sure, he's going to be wrong sometimes. But, as I said before, I would rather be wrong than be dead.

Lastly, I still think Bush would probably do even better than my man Gore on defense because he would take out more threats before it would be too late. I still wouldn' vote for him but that's just the way I feel.

56Lastly, I still think Bush would probably do even better than my man Gore on defense because he would take out more threats before it would be too late. I still wouldn' vote for him but that's just the way I feel.

[iH8repukes]

83. Look, go ahead and vote for Bush if you like.

You are obsessing over voting for Bush. Bush only wins on ONE issue. Don't take my word for it . . . read the polls. The dem wins on 50 other issues. So, our dem candidate MUST be strong on defense as well as offer health coverage to win.

[Classical_Liberal]

84. I didn't say those things, you did.

The polls show his rating on national defense to be about 20% lower than they were 2 weeks ago. I assume continuing to atttack him on security(Iraq) will make them even lower. Why argue with success. Your individual opinion not withstanding.

[iH8repukes]

85. Good. Now if they fall below the democrat's number . . . we win!!!!!!

It's all relative. As long as Bush's national defense number beats our candidate's number, Bush is a threat. Do you agree? Or am I still stupid?

[Classical_Liberal]

86. We can agree on that, so long as you agree it is important

to change poll numbers in which case we should attack and attack, and keep attacking.

[iH8repukes]

92. Attack! Attack! Attack!

Does that make you happy?

[Classical_Liberal]

98. yep

that's what i want.

[Code_Name_D]

88. Is Bush a threat, or not?

Acording to you, only Bush can protect America. The Democrats fall short of this.

[iH8repukes]

94. No, a democrat CAN protect America. But not EVERY democrat can.

Gore could, Edwards could, Kerry could, and Gephardt could.

Dean couldn't, Sharpton couldn't, Mosely-Braun couldn't, etc.

Gore in '04

[Classical_Liberal]

97. Since Gore's policy would be the same as Deans

The burden of proof is on you to make sense of that statement. Gore wouldn't have fought Iraq, but would have fought Afghanistan. Dean wouldn't have fought in Iraq, but would have fought in Afghanistan. No difference. See. So your statement that Gore can defend America but Dean can't makes no sense at all. I agree Gore is great, along with Dean he would be much better than Kerry, or Edwards on defense. he would defend this country when necessary and balk at stupid unfounded wars like IRaq.

[corarose]

40. Crazy Right Wingers need a hero and Raygun is their HERO

The only thing that should be named after Raygun is an outhouse because he was full of SHIT!

[Merlin]

75. The economy will NOT recover by Nov 04. This is a sucker's rally.

The economy can't recover until two things occur:
1) Consumers lose some of their unprecedented debt load, and
2) Businesses start investing again in durable goods.

Durables haven't budged in 2 years. They're not going to move until corporate profits bump up. With productivity at high levels, that won't happen without an increase in demand. But demand won't increase without more consumer buying, and consumers are maxed out on their credit.

Substantive credit reduction will only come over time without some major stimulus that reaches the overburdened lower and middle income sectors.

Then there's the lurking specter of major league inflation and rapid upticks in interest rates hitting the minute the economy picks up because the money available to finance the deficit is relatively scarce. The only thing keeping interest rates low is the slow economy which has dried up demand for corporate investment.

Bush did exactly the wrong thing by blowing his wad on the the rich. Almost any Democrat would have known better.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iH8repukes]

18. Nothing amusing about it.

Do you really think the majority of Americans believe dems will do a better on national security?

[Classical_Liberal]

21. If they dont we're fucked anyway.

Do you really think we can win unless we convince them that we are? I see poll numbers to prove that it is quite possible to change the publics opinion of Bush in that area. You on teh other hand are are an anecdote.

[iH8repukes]

24. I'm an "anecdote"?

I'm not nearly as smart as you are. Could you please explain how I "are are an anecdote"?

I think we HAVE to win in spite of Bush winning on national security. But of course, you are the brilliant thinker. You are incredibly intelligent and KNOW that the dems will clean the parking lot with Bush's ass when it comes to defense. God, I wish I had your brains!!!!!

I want our candidate to offer Americans something that the repukes won't . . . guaranteed health coverage. That and a weak economy will win the election for us.

Gore in '04

[Classical_Liberal]

26. If you think the threat is so bad we need a President that overreacts

why in the world do you care about economic issues? don't you care about the security of this country? An other 9/11 might happen and you want a President that will "underreact"!? A President who won't protects us from us from 9/11! What's wrong with you?

You are an anecdote because your opinion is just your opinion. It doesn't tell me anything about the percentage of people who agree. Polls on the otherhand are actual measurements of the percentage of people who feel a certain way. The polling data is turning around on Bush whether you do or not.

[haymaker]

42. I don't know about an anecdote

but your "gut feelings" are bullshit. Face it, pal, Bush and the Repukes are the ones who fail when it comes to national defense. Why didn't 9/11 happen before Bush came around? Why is it that all those GOP, geopolitical checker-playing ghosts keep appearing just when they need them to enhance their sick fuck, power grabbing, money hoarding agendas?

New York City has got a new skyline because a 6'6" Arab and a one-eyed cleric got over your boy Georgie and his $30 billion or so a year intellegence agencies and his $400 billion a year military.

What photo-op is your boy gonna be hiding in when the next terror strike hits?

[iH8repukes]

44. Okay, "pal", Georgie has gotta be your boy cuz he sure ain't mine.

Your boy Georgie has too many problems for me to go into. But if you want to apologize for him, be my guest.

[haymaker]

47. Man, what post are you reading?

Nice GOPloy, accuse the enemy of doing exactly what you yourself are doing.

[iH8repukes]

49. You must know alot about GOPloys.

Hmmm. Why is that?

[paulk]

25. you may be right -

anything that isn't going to happen within the next week doesn't resonate with the average American voter. That Bush's foreign policy will make us less safe in the future doesn't compete well with the glorious adreneline rush of blowing shit up somewhere on the other side of the world today.

This perception may change if there is another successful terrorist attack on US soil, however. BushCo has managed to evade any blame for Sept. 11th, even though it happened on his watch. I don't think he'll get that benefit twice. A non partisan watch group recently concluded that we are no safer now than we were on Sept 10th, mostly because BushCo has been underfunding Natl. security. How can that sort of information stand beside our glorious leader strutting around the deck of an aircraft carrier, without falling into the dustbin of public opinion?

Perceptions about foreign policy competence could also be changed as this Iraq quagmire drags on and on and on...

[Code_Name_D]

29. Clay monsters.

Are you kidding? You think moderate and swing voters will trust democrats to protect them from Korea, Iran, Al-Quada? Do you seriously believe that?

Why not? Clinton was dealing with Korea, and even had friendly trade relations with them. They have only become hostile when Bush started including them as "the axis of evil?"

But Al-Quada, the Taliban, Sadamn Husane, Osama-"ben-forgoten", and what ever else you chose to through out are little more than clay monsters. If you take a look, you will discover their (Republicans & Conservatives) fingerprints all over them. If Husane was such a villain to gas his own people, than why did the Republican controlled congress still pass a resolution of support for Husane in the aftermath of that disaster?

Husane wasn't much of a threat throughout Clintion's administration. So insignificant a threat that they accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" and "trying to change the subject" when he made the occasional bombing in Iraq. Nor was he a threat during, or after 9-11. Instead, choosing to blame 9-11 on Afghanistan. Husane didn't even kick out the inspectors. They were pulled out to make way for bombings.

Suddenly, from out of the blue, he became a threat! He became a "threat" only when it suited the administration for him to BE a threat. Thus, he was a clay monster. You just pop him out of your back pocket, prop him up on a fence, then get all blustery in front of it, and cry monster. Then smash it with your club and claim victory. This war on terrorism is nothing more than a fostered panic attack with lots of fake bluster, armed with a club.

[haymaker]

35. Geez, you got all the talking points

memorized. Nice job.

Do you remember in The Godfather when Michael Corleone ask the police captain outside the hospital "How much is the Turk paying you to set up my father?" And then the cops hold him and the captain punches him in the face?

Do you remember?

Well that comes into my mind for some strange reason whenever I read your posts.

[iH8repukes]

39. Way over my head.

Can you say the same thing in plain, simple, third-grade English? I think you are putting me down but you're trying to be too cute by 1/2.

Memorized talking points? Whose points? If you think I'm the only democrat who thinks we win every single issue but national defense, then you and I will just have to disagree.

Gore in '04

[haymaker]

45. Way over your head?

That I do not doubt.

[iH8repukes]

51. Your brilliance is blinding me.

[OKNancy]

53. Hi there

I hate Republicans too. I know what your are saying and why you say it. Yes, you are right that most Americans think that the Republicans are better at defense issues. The problem is that they are wrong. Just because a majority thinks something, doesn't make it right.

Now, by my saying that I am also saying you are wrong in your opinion.
I don't mean that in a hateful way at all. I see you are a Gore fan. So, you probably know how Gore was painted as a wimp etc, when he was always quite hawkish. I remember when he was closely tied to Scoop Jackson.

It's just the stupid Republican spin that makes it seem like Democrats are weak on defense.

I also agree with you that we, as Democrats, need to stress the economic and social issue. I don't understand people who think it has to be one or the other. It can be an all encompassing campaign where we point out all of the Democratic strengths.

[iH8repukes]

56. Nancy you are very OK

Gore is the perfect balance between peace through strength and strength through peace.

I never, ever said one time, not a single time that dems are weak on defense. I said I think there is a PERCEPTION that repukes are stronger on defense.

I also think that Gore would bring all the issues I care about like education and healthcare together with a perfectly balanced defense policy.

Lastly, I still think Bush would probably do even better than my man Gore on defense because he would take out more threats before it would be too late. I still wouldn' vote for him but that's just the way I feel.

[OKNancy]

63. I'm sorry to see you write that about Bush

because truthfully, I hate him so much, I can't even bring myself to think anything good about him. But I think you probably fear terrorism more than I do. Maybe it's because of where I live, but I'm not worried at all about it. If we lived like Israel and other places where terrorism is a part of everyday life, then I might feel differently.

You are right...I did mistake you as saying you thought Republicans were stronger and not that there was a perception that they were strong...

I still can't get over you saying Bush would be better on defense, because I bet if Gore were in office right now, we would all be a lot safer, and I know the Iraqis would be too.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. You have said several times you thought they were weak on defense

11 I think that most Americans like the fact that Bush is more likely to "overreact" than "underreact" to a threat. In other words, they would rather be wrong than be dead. I also think that most Americans believe that democrats will "underreact" and wait too late before they deal with a threat.

I believe the repukes will do a better job of dealing with terrorism. There's no point in flaming me. I respect the opinion of anybody who disagrees. It doesn't make me wrong if you disagree.

16. I respect your opinion.

I believe dems do better on EVERY other issue including the economy, healthcare, and education.

30
I think Bush will go after terrorists before they go after us. Sure, he's going to be wrong sometimes. But, as I said before, I would rather be wrong than be dead.

Lastly, I still think Bush would probably do even better than my man Gore on defense because he would take out more threats before it would be too late. I still wouldn' vote for him but that's just the way I feel.

56Lastly, I still think Bush would probably do even better than my man Gore on defense because he would take out more threats before it would be too late. I still wouldn' vote for him but that's just the way I feel.

[iH8repukes]

68. Where does that say dems are "weak" on defense????

Maybe I'm just the stupidest person on earth. But I've got a "hunch" that the majority of Americans would rate Bush and the republicans as being STRONGER on defense. That's NOT the SAME as saying dems are weak. Your logic excapes me. But I'm sure it's just my low level of intelligence.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. Whatever!

?

[Ksec]

55. a dem dropped the bomb in WW2

A Dem named Kennedy kept us from being annihlated in a Nuclear war in the Cuba deal. So when did we get the weak on defense label and why ?

Also I think Kerry would go a long way in restoring the percieved weakness.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

89. So if Dems can't win on defense how come Clinton was re-elected

after the first trade center attack, after the Mc Veigh debacle and AFTER Somalia?

It seems to me that this TRUISM has been fabricated out of whole cloth.

[iH8repukes]

91. Dems can win . . . but they can't win on the defense issue.

They need to win all the other issues to overcome the defense issue deficit.

Gore in '04

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iH8repukes]

95. Sure it is.

I'll start celebrating when I see a poll showing a democrat with a solid lead over Bush on defense.

Until then . . . I'll pray for Gore to get in the race.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[charlie]

101. Repubs have been whomping Dems

with those "soft on" canards since forever. Soft on communism, soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on defense... you'd think the Democrats would get a clue by now. Some of our worst policy mistakes have come from Democrats scrambling to innoculate themselves against charges of squooshiness -- Johnson's feetfirst leap into Vietnam was due in no small part to his fear of being labelled a commie coddler.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

104. Thankyou Charlie! Great point. If anything, allowing your opponent to

define you will get you beat every time. Heck, it just happened with the war vote in 02 and lost us steam in the house and LOST us the senate.

[charlie]

105. A-yup

It's disheartening to watch. And dull, like a 30-year re-run of the same movie.

[Classical_Liberal]

99. why Gore, since Gore is the same as Dean on defense?

?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. Gore in o4 was NOT about defense. That was a red herring.

Gore in o4 was about GUNS and churches. There WAS no national security issue at the time. Gore in 04 had more to do with those phony TAX CUTS than defense.

Your comparison is faulty. Clinton, for that matter beat Bush after the GULF war when America was still in defense MODE.

[kentuck]

23. What facts can we show to prove Repubs are better at national defense?

At least in my lifetime, the Repubs have screwed up on national defense in just about everything they have touched. From Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Viet Nam and where there were more lives lost under Nixon's reign than under LBJ's, to Ronald Reagan's handling of the Iran Contra affair, to setting up the Mujadeen in Afghanistan and supporting a fellow by the name of Osama bin Laden, to supporting Saddam Hussein and sending Don Rumsfeld over there to make deals with him, to the present debacle in Iraq, I fail to see many successes under Repub Administrations. I do see the false PR that people seem to have bought hook, line, and sinker...

[wellstone_democrat]

33. A DEMOCRATIC President WON World War II

Everyone had their fingers in Vietnam, and the little skirmishes and phony "wars" like Grenada are beneath my consideration.

When you are asked what a Democratic president would do if we were attacked. Remind them of Pearl Harbor, FDRs brilliant speech that didn't need pumping by pundits and paid retainers up to be glorious rhetoric that gave us heart and urged us on (not told us to shop and believe he was our "hero" gunslinger),and the mighty effort that won WWII. All brought to you by a Democratic administration.


mr. w_d
on edit: edited for spelling and clarity.

[Darranar]

59. How about a two-pronged attack...

On foreign policy and and domestic policy? In domestic policy, we can follow Clinton's example (it's the economy, stupid!) and challenge them there. In foreign policy, the Dems can challenge Bush on his horrid wars and devestating cowboy you're-with-us-or-against-us policies.

[Merlin]

87. Good read. Thanks for the Pincus link. Isn't that 2 days in a row?

Wonder what spooky exposes we can count on in Monday's WaPo?

[hedda_foil]

100. In Ih8repukes defense ...

From other things he's(you're a he, right?) posted, I believe he's quite young.

The fact is that Bush has greatly increased the danger to the US by alienating our allies, forcing Russia, China, Germany and France to form a tentative defense pact against us (not good at all. That's 3 nuclear powers, masses of chemical and biological weaponry, and all the troops in the world and then some), greatly strengthened AlQuaeda's image and recruiting globally, united the Arab word (where we get our energy) against us, started up a new nuclear arms race, and much, much more. He also failed to actively pursue Al Quaeda, allowed most of the Taliban and AlQ to flee Afghanistan when they should have been encircled and entrapped at Tora Bora, lied the US into a needless war that provoked most of what I stated in the first part of this paragraph, and has now got us involved in a quagmire in Iraq that will eat up vast numbers of troops and dollars we can ill afford for nothing.

All of these points are real, can be convincingly presented (as Dean does admirably) and will become increasingly apparent in the coming months as more information about the administrations lies are revealed and the 911 report is made public.

On Homeland Defense, the administration has done nothing to protect our ports, prevent smuggling of WMD into the country, round up real members of AlQuaeda, harden our nuclear power facilities, provide the funding that states and municipalities must have for first responders ... police, fire, medical around the country. All they've really done in this area is do whatever they can to clamp down on our own civil liberties. This is also easy to prove and a good candidate, like Dean, is already forcefully making this case.

The trick is not to play defense against their lies, but to take the fight to them and show them up for how they are weakening us and leaving us truly vulnerable, while at the same time scaring people to death needlessly over phantom orange alerts.

Gore would be saying the same thing, I believe.

[dansolo]

102. The economy is still an important issue

The only reason that the economy has not caused his numbers to drop is because of how much they have ratched up the fear and patriotism angle. Now that that illusion has been stripped away, you would expect his numbers to drop becuase the economy concerns will no longer be buoyed by the security concerns.

[GalleryGod]

106. Kerry/Clark: Roll 'Em with Real Military Men

Gloria WHOREger was chit-chatting about that the Kool Kidz are astounded that Foreign Policy Might be a weak spot for Shrub?:scared: Well, Miss WHOREger grab your ATTENDS, it's going to be a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng 14 months:wow: