John Kerry have any chance at all at Presidency?

[Redhot_man]

Even if he does okay in the popular vote, he will still likely be slaughtered in the electoral college. I dont think the general public really cares that Bush blatantly lied about Iraq, hell it was pretty damn obvious they were lying their asses off before we went over there in the first place.

What odds is Vegas offering on the election?

[Ed Miller]

I think the Democrat has a good chance to win the election. In fact, at this point, I wouldn't bet on Bush at even money.

If the election were held today, I think Bush would win, barely. I don't see a lot of opportunities for him to gain support between now and the November, but I see a lot of opportunities for him to lose it.

[Clarkmeister]

The last time I looked Bush was at -181 vs whoever got the Democrat nomination.

[Poker blog]

Hey Ed --

You may be a good poker player, but you're no political handicapper. Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

[CrackerZack]

I'll take bush at even money if you want. hell I'd give you 5 for 4.

[TripDuck]

I am not willing to bet, but I think Bush wins this election narrowly, again.

[Taxman]

So what are your odds and your reasons behind them?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Ed --

You may be a good poker player, but you're no political handicapper. Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. In 1996, Dole was beating Clinton in the polls. In 1984, Mondale was beating Reagan in the polls. In both situations, the challenger was high in public popularity due to locking up the nomination. But, when Election Day came, people voted for the incumbent of a good economy.

Reagan and Clinton both also had problems. Reagan was heavily criticized for his management of relations with the Soviet Union and the lack of any summit meetings during his administration. Clinton had both policy and personal attacks against him. Both Presidents lost big in the mid-term congressional elections.

I think 2004 will be a lot like 1984 and 1996.

[AceHigh]

If you go back 4 more years, to Jimmy Carter, you would have an even split between incumbants winning and losing.

Latest polls have Kerry 49%, Bush 46%.

Bush wouldn't have gone on Meet the Press if he didn't think he needed to.

My guess is it's going to be close and the smart money will/should go with the better odds.

[andyfox]

"people voted for the incumbent of a good economy."

Two million less payroll jobs now than when Bush took office. If Kerry wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois, he wins.

[Poker blog]

Uh, Andy, maybe you meant to include Ohio on that list.

Because otherwise your comment makes no sense at all.

[David Steele]

Pinnacle has Democrats +143
Republicans -153

If the money wasn't tied up for so long I would bet the
Dems.


D.

[Zetack]

Its an interesting question. Certaily six months ago it looked incredibly unlikely. Now?....well everything's changed.

Despite your comment about Irag, just like 12 years ago the driving issue here is: its the economy stupid...

On economic issues, Bush does get to trumpet tax cut, tax cut, tax cut! But while it used to be Republicans could crow about tax cuts and about being fiscally responsible...Bush has crossed a line and started to look incredibly fiscally irresponsible. And, even if the experts say the economy is moving, to a lot of people it still feels pretty darn bad out here. And so Bush is really vulnerable on the most important issue for a sitting president: the economy.

Of course if the economy rebounds in a huge way in the next six months....look out.

Ok, Bush gets remind us--as he just did--that he's the war president. But when he gets out on the stump again and people really start paying attention to him, will he carry the gravitas of a sitting president in a time of war or will his fumble footed speech patterns remind people that his incredible difficulty putting together coherent sentences makes him appear close to idiotic?

...And speaking of war...does he get to keep riding the crest of support that comes with being commander in chief or does that issue continue to morph into a test of his credibility--and isn't it the case that when a man ran to restore "integrity" to the White House, it doesn't take a lot of apparent duplicity to fall a long way in people's eyes?

And there are of course interesting twists to the election such as: is it possible the "guvanator" can deliver California to the Republicans? If so, lights out for the democrats.

And it appears to me that democratic sentiment is more polarized against Bush than any republican candidate I can remember... If the Democrat gets fierce support and large turnout from his base, its that many fewer votes he needs from the geat middle and the great disillusioned.

Hey I don't know what's gonna happen. But it looks real likely that win or lose, this is going to an incredibly difficult election for the incumbent.

--Zetack

[AceHigh]

In 2000 Bush won Ohio and barely won the electoral college. If Kerry wins Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania he is going to win. Bush needs 1 of those 3 and it will be tough for him to get any of them. Bush will probably lose New Hampshire and West Virginia which he won in 2000. Florida will be close.

Electoral College results from 2000:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/votes_2000_2005.html#2000

Wartime presidents don't do well in the peace that follows, see Truman after Korea, Wilson, Adams, etc.

Oh yeah and G. Bush I.

[Redhot_man]

No one here is really focusing on the electoral college. The polls may be close, big deal. Since the last census, the southern states picked up more votes, as did other states where Bush is favored. Bush is expected to take Florida. He is guaranteed the middle of the country, and should keep most of the states he won last election.
What is Kerry running on? What are his plans? Is he only gonna criticize Bush? He voted for the fricking war in the first place. Not to forget historical records on incumbent presidents.

Take a look at the electoral map and you will begin to see how bad its looking for Kerry - A liberal Democrat from Mass.-- Cant wait to see how he does in the south. Even if he runs Edwards, I doubt he can take more than Edwards home state. Gore didnt even win Tenn. last election.

I dont really like Bush, personally, but I cant dream up any situation inwhich Kerry could come out on top.

[Ed Miller]

I checked the new numbers. If Bush won the same states in 2004 that he won in 2000, he would have 7 more votes and would win by 18 votes.

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
I checked the new numbers. If Bush won the same states in 2004 that he won in 2000, he would have 7 more votes and would win by 18 votes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Florida doesnt look close anymore. Most major publications who have predicted it, have put it to Bush.

Of course we know what happened last time, LOL...

But with the new space talk and Jeb, its gonna be very hard for Dems to take FL

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
In 2000 Bush won Ohio and barely won the electoral college. If Kerry wins Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania he is going to win. Bush needs 1 of those 3 and it will be tough for him to get any of them. Bush will probably lose New Hampshire and West Virginia which he won in 2000. Florida will be close.

Electoral College results from 2000:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/votes_2000_2005.html#2000

Wartime presidents don't do well in the peace that follows, see Truman after Korea, Wilson, Adams, etc.

Oh yeah and G. Bush I.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt be surprised if Bush took 2 of those 3

[Ed Miller]

Florida doesnt look close anymore. Most major publications who have predicted it, have put it to Bush.

A lot can change between now and November. Bush will win in Alaska, the Great Plains, Rockies, and the Deep South. Kerry will win in DC, Hawaii, New York, New England, and California. I would be very hesitant to predict any other states at this point.

BTW, as Poker Blog pointed out, I actually have no real idea what I'm talking about. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
Florida doesnt look close anymore. Most major publications who have predicted it, have put it to Bush.

A lot can change between now and November. Bush will win in Alaska, the Great Plains, Rockies, and the Deep South. Kerry will win in DC, Hawaii, New York, New England, and California. I would be very hesitant to predict any other states at this point.

BTW, as Poker Blog pointed out, I actually have no real idea what I'm talking about. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Me either. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Taxman]

I'm glad two people on this board can admit it /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. I on the other hand know exactly what I'm talking about ..... and it's not much /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
And there are of course interesting twists to the election such as: is it possible the "guvanator" can deliver California to the Republicans? If so, lights out for the democrats.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, Arnold isn't even all that conservative. Fiscally he may like some of Bush's policies, but I have a hard time believing that he would deliver California to the Republicans, even should he voice support for Bush. Stranger things have hapened though I suppose (and after all we did elected Nixon and Reagan here in sunny CA).

[Taxman]

Why?

[Sleepy Weasel]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. In 1996, Dole was beating Clinton in the polls. In 1984, Mondale was beating Reagan in the polls. In both situations, the challenger was high in public popularity due to locking up the nomination. But, when Election Day came, people voted for the incumbent of a good economy.
...
I think 2004 will be a lot like 1984 and 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think maybe 1992 would be a better parallel?

Plus I'm not convinced the economy is going to get much better by november (of course I have no idea what I'm talking about there)

[Redhot_man]

cant wait to see how that plays out, guess he missed the 84' election.

[CrackerZack]

Ah...one of the perils of living in NY. I could vote, but why? Kerry will take NY handily. Maybe I'll actually do it anyway to feel more american.

[TripDuck]

Thinking about this more and more, I think Bush wins. Look at the mid term elections. The entire country is trending Republican. Heck, Minnesota (my home state) has voted for the Democratic nominee since, like, the dawn of time and I do not think it will vote for Kerry come November. So, I think Bush wins big in November unless things get much worse than they are now, or some nasty photos come out of George and an intern.

[daryn]

please please please...

i don't often get involved in these political debates, but you'd be amazed that there are supposedly intelligent people out there in the world that don't know the difference between a mistake and a lie.

if you give me information, and i trust you.. then i pass that information to someone else, and it turns out the info was bogus, I AM NOT A LIAR, I JUST MADE A MISTAKE.

bush made mistakes, obviously! liar? no.

[daryn]

living in massachusetts is basically the same deal. why vote?

[Ed Miller]

living in massachusetts is basically the same deal. why vote?

In 2000, I did it for the satisfaction of knowing that I voted against Ted Kennedy. I guess you won't have that option, though...

[Taxman]

Unless of course he knew there were no WMDs or he knew that a huge plane based attack on sept 11 was likely. That knowledge would make him a liar based on many different statements. Not saying that he did know such things, but if he did....

[Sleepy Weasel]

Let's go back to ancient history...it must have been, oh, about a year or two ago. I know, that's far back to remember, but stay with me.

Remember how the white house was getting upset about the intelligence agencies consistently downplaying the threat from Iraq? Oh wait, I must be misremembering that, because now the white house is telling me that it was the CIA all along who was hysterically raising alarms saying Saddam certainly had nukes. Silly me, must be that I can't remember that far back.

Please. No more of this "other people were giving him bad information!" nonsense.

[daryn]

no, i don't remember.

[Legend27]

Bush never blatantly lied. Clinton did though. Bush will win because he'd a better president than Kerry.

[Sleepy Weasel]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush never blatantly lied. Clinton did though. Bush will win because he'd a better president than Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the saddest thing I've read in quite awhile.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush never blatantly lied. Clinton did though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton lied about his personal affairs, Bush either lied or mislead not about something personal but about a WAR HE WAS TAKING THIS COUNTRY INTO. To my mind, what Bush did is orders of magnitude worse.

Also, this whole thing about Bush's intelligence being wrong, well, that's his fault. I've only started following this recently, but it's my understanding that he presented the WMD as a fact, and now the intelligence is wrong and he's blaming the intelligence. Well, that's shirking responsibility. He should have reviewed the intelligence and made some judgments about it's credibility and then said "there's a very good chance there are WMD's" or "we're pretty sure there are WMD's" and now that the intelligence is wrong, he should take responsibility for it.

danny

[AceHigh]

Joe Scarbough, a conservative commentator on MSNBC, said last week that he doesn't think Bush will pick up any states he didn't win in the last election. Now the states he won picked up 7 electoral states, but West Virginia and New Hampshire will probably swing to the Democrats.

[ QUOTE ]
Cant wait to see how he does in the south.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter, South will go Republican, North East will go Democratic. It's the border states where the election will be won.

[mikelow]

It's a close wager, IMO.
Bush 43 is a better campaigner and more likeable than Bush 41. Kerry may show more personality that people expect.

I think it will be close but I don't think Edwards would be the right choice as it won't bring any southern states. The real battleground will be in the Southwest and Upper Midwest.

I see Bush getting a narrow victory.

[daryn]

the president should make judgements on the source of his information? it's the CIA... they exist specifically so the president himself doesn't have to be the one listening to wire taps and whatever they do

[Redhot_man]

[ QUOTE ]
the president should make judgements on the source of his information? it's the CIA... they exist specifically so the president himself doesn't have to be the one listening to wire taps and whatever they do

[/ QUOTE ]
did u ever consider that the CIA and President worked together on defrauding the people?

[daryn]

i hear a lot of these crazy theories and i just don't think they're probable that's all. it's tough being a college student in mass. and having to listen to all this political banter from kids who don't know their ass from elbow

[theBruiser500]

/images/graemlins/ooo.gifD/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifp/images/graemlins/ooo.gifr/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifc/images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifw/images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifr/images/graemlins/ooo.gifu/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifC/images/graemlins/ooo.gifI/images/graemlins/ooo.gifA/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifa/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifw/images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifg/images/graemlins/ooo.gifa/images/graemlins/ooo.gifv/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gifm/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifr/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifp/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gifr/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifW/images/graemlins/ooo.gifM/images/graemlins/ooo.gifD/images/graemlins/ooo.gif?/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifI/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gif'/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifk/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gifw/images/graemlins/ooo.gif,/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifI/images/graemlins/ooo.gif'/images/graemlins/ooo.gifm/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifa/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gifk/images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gifg/images/graemlins/ooo.gif,/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifb/images/graemlins/ooo.gifu/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifI/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifb/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif./images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifI/images/graemlins/ooo.giff/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifd/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gife/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif,/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gif'/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gifl/images/graemlins/ooo.gifl/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifh/images/graemlins/ooo.gifi/images/graemlins/ooo.gifs/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gifw/images/graemlins/ooo.gifn/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.giff/images/graemlins/ooo.gifa/images/graemlins/ooo.gifu/images/graemlins/ooo.gifl/images/graemlins/ooo.gift/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.giff/images/graemlins/ooo.gifo/images/graemlins/ooo.gifr/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gifa/images/graemlins/ooo.gifp/images/graemlins/ooo.gifp/images/graemlins/ooo.gifointing him.

danny

[Taxman]

Well I do know my ass from my elbow and I also do think that you are making statements derrived from a relative lack of knowledge. The jury is still out on whether Bush explicitly lied about the WMDs, but it is already certain that at the least he misled the public by failing to report the uncertainty behind some of his intelligence. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I do believe in politiking and I do believe that it can go too far sometimes. Like I said the extent of this remains to be seen, but even Bush supporters have to admit at this point that there was a little fudging. It's one thing if the CIA says: "Beyond any doubt, there are WMDs in Iraq" but it's another thing entirely if one source says "we think there might be WMDs," while another says "it's possible, but fairly unlikely" and a third says "some of the things people think are being made for delivering WMds would do a poor job of it." It's not the president's responsability to listen to wire taps himself, but it is his responsibility to consider all of the intelligence given to him. There is a thread on this in the other topics forum right now.

[theBruiser500]

Well said Taxman, that's what my last post was about, though perhaps a little less eloquent than yours, before all of those smiley faces somehow inserted themselves.

danny

[Taxman]

Gotta love the smileys /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[RcrdBoy]

But consumer confidence is on the rise.

Regardless of the net jobs if people feel the economy is good or getting better he's probably in the clear.

As much as it shouldn't matter, I'm not sure Kerry is charismatic enough to beat an incumbent that has a growing economy on his side.

-Mike

[Poker blog]

Ed -- It's good to know I can still read people.

The election will be close. Very close; between 0 to 5% split nationally. Depending on which extreme it is at determines how big the electoral college differential will be.

Bush wins. He's simply not going to lose any of the states he lost last time unless something bad happens. This is particularly true if Kerry is the nominee.

Bush's close wins in 2000 were Florida (0%), New Hampshire (1%), West Virginia (6%), Missouri (3%), Nevada (4%) and Ohio (4%). Other states are potentially competitive too -- LA, TN, AR -- but not with Kerry as the nominee. Frankly, Kerry is not the man to take away these states if the election is at all close. Even WV, strange as it is to say.

Gore's close wins were New Mexico (0%), Iowa (0%), Wisconsin (0%), Oregon (1%), Minnesota (2%), Washington (5%), and Pennsylvania (6%).

States in play: Florida, Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon.

If you're Kerry, you probably have to win Missouri or Ohio, assuming you don't win Florida.

I highly doubt Kerry can do it.

[Poker blog]

[ QUOTE ]
The jury is still out on whether Bush explicitly lied about the WMDs, but it is already certain that at the least he misled the public by failing to report the uncertainty behind some of his intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Er, intelligence is incredibly uncertain by its very nature.

For Bush to say "The intelligence says that there are WMDs, but it's uncertain" is redundant.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Er, intelligence is incredibly uncertain by its very nature.

For Bush to say "The intelligence says that there are WMDs, but it's uncertain" is redundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. Some intelligence is uncertain, and some isn't, and there are many degrees inbetween. If this particular intelligence was uncertain he should have explained it. He can't have his cake and eat it too. Your cop out answer is bullshit, no offense.

danny

[Legend27]

I state the truth and some one says to me: "This is the saddest thing I've read in quite awhile." That's not my fault it's true and yeah it's sad Clinton lied when directly asked about his affairs and catagorically (mispelled that probably) denied any sexual relationships. Pitiful. The world is a better place with Bush as president. How can that be a bad thing?

[daryn]

right but maybe bush is just gullible. he heard some report from the cia, and maybe he honestly wanted there to be wmd.. maybe he really believed it. maybe you can call him gullible, or stupid, but not a liar, that is my point.

if i tell a complete idiot that "i'm pretty sure 2+2=5" and they believe me, and tell someone else, it's not a lie.



by the way i'm not a big bush supporter or anything, i just hate hearing stupid comments from both sides.

[Sleepy Weasel]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush never blatantly lied.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sad. Your standards apparently are that you are fine with your president deliberately misleading you and the rest of the country into war, so long as he doesn't technically say anything untrue. It's alright to strongly suggest that Iraq was behind the World Trade center attack, causing a large part of the country to believe this, so long as he doesn't come out and say it. You are fine with a white house who puts out economic reports that any economist in the world will tell you are pure fantasy, because, hey, it's not a lie. Yes, I call that sad. I fear for our country when this is what people think of as a successful presidency.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
bush made mistakes, obviously! liar? no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a conservatives columnist, Andrew Sullivan's take on Bush Meet the Press interview. In it Bush claims he didn't increase spending as much as Clinton did his last year in office. Excerpt from the article:

[ QUOTE ]

Bush:


I agree with the assessment that we've got some long-term financial issues we must look at. And that's one reason I asked Congress to deal with Medicare. I strongly felt that, if we didn't have an element of competition, that if we weren't modern with the Medicare program, if we didn't incorporate what's called health savings accounts to encourage Americans to take more control over their health care decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in the long run.


I believe Medicare is going to not only make the system work better for seniors, but it's going to help the fiscal situation of our long-term projection.


OK, let me put this gently here. Is he out of his mind? The minor reforms to Medicare are indeed welcome in providing more choice and some accountability in the program. But the major impact of his Medicare reform is literally trillions of dollars in new spending for the foreseeable future. He has enacted one of the biggest new entitlements since Richard Nixon; he has attached it to a population that is growing fast in numbers; and the entitlement is to products, prescription drugs, whose prices are rising faster than almost everything else in the economy. Despite all this, the president believes it will "help the fiscal situation of our long-term projection"? Who does he think he's kidding? It's like a man who earns $50,000 per year getting a mortgage for a $5 million house and bragging that he got a good interest rate.



BUSH: We've got to deal with Social Security as well. As you know, I mean, these entitlement programs need to be dealt with.


We are dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill, it's going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate's is about $370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that, but over $300 billion. And, as you know, the budget I propose is about $256 billion. So...


It would appear from this response that the president believes that highway construction is an entitlement program. Again: Does he have the faintest idea what he's talking about?



RUSSERT: But your base conservatives--listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute--they're all saying you're the biggest spender in American history.


BUSH: Well, they're wrong.


Based on what? They have the numbers. All the president has is words.



RUSSERT: Mr. President...


BUSH: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.


OK, let me be candid here and say I don't know what he means. Does he believe that discretionary spending has declined each year under his watch? Surely not. It has exploded during his administration. Is he saying that the rate of increase has slowed? Again: surely not. As Joshua Claybourn has shown, Clinton's last budget increased domestic discretionary spending by 4.56 percent. Bush's first budget increased it by 7.06 percent. His second increased it by over 10 percent. We have a few options here: The president doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's lying, or he trusts people telling him lies. But it is undeniable that this president is not on top of the most damaging part of his legacy--the catastrophe he is inflicting on our future fiscal health.



[/ QUOTE ]

The rest of the article can be found at:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan020904

How is that not lying?

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
i just hate hearing stupid comments from both sides

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree whole heartedly, but you disregarded the other parts of my post. It has become fairly clear that Bush was given indications that the data on possible WMDs was not certain. The intel released to the public was slanted to omit the skeptical parts of the reports. I don't know how deep or sinister the plots really were, but it is clear that some subterfuge was going on.

[daryn]

where's the lie? sorry my polygraph is off.

[Poker blog]

Just for the record, Andrew Sullivan is hardly a conservative writer.

Sullivan voted for Gore. While it's true that Sullivan strongly supports the war on terror (including Iraq), this does not make Sullivan a conservative.

Sullivan made his name as editor of The New Republic, which is certainly not a conservative mag. It's an iconoclastic liberal mag.

[Poker blog]

Powell then went on to defend the Bush administration's assertions on Iraq's prewar weaponry. "We didn't make it up," Powell said. "It was information that reflected the views of analysts in all the various agencies."

Powell said he was surprised U.N. and American inspectors did not find storehouses of hidden weapons in Iraq.

But Powell told the International Relations Committee that "we presented what we believed the truth to be at the time."

Powell testified that President Saddam Hussein's apparent intent to develop and use weapons, his record of gassing his own people and his defiance of the United Nations all were -- and remain -- valid reasons for going to war to overthrow him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34057-2004Feb11.html

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
"We didn't make it up," Powell said. "It was information that reflected the views of analysts in all the various agencies."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is true, just incomplete.

[ QUOTE ]
"we presented what we believed the truth to be at the time."

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty vague.

[ QUOTE ]
Powell testified that President Saddam Hussein's apparent intent to develop and use weapons, his record of gassing his own people and his defiance of the United Nations all were -- and remain -- valid reasons for going to war to overthrow him.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the issue at hand and it is an exercise in misdirection. I actually like Powell more than most people in the Bush administration, and I think he actually disagrees with some of the policies taken by his president, but he can't simply say that to the world. Back to why this argument doesn't matter... It's true that these are good moral reasonons to depose Saddam, but there are many more dictators in the world besides him who have done equally horrific things. And then there is North Korea who came out and told us that they were prepared to use nuclear force if we moved against them. I would call that an imminent threat. If we are going to claim that we got rid of one bad dictator (that we formerly supported) then we should depose every brutal dictator in the world unless we want to become hypocrites.

[theBruiser500]

Also, I saw someone on Hardball brought up an interesting point. If our goal in Iraq was to save lives and improve the quality of life for people we could do this better doing other things. For instance there was a bill passed to help the AIDs situation in Africa yet no funding has been given to it. If we took the money that went to the war on Iraq, and funded that bill we'd do a lot more good.

danny

[rigoletto]

I strongly felt that, if we didn't have an element of competition, that if we weren't modern with the Medicare program, if we didn't incorporate what's called health savings accounts to encourage Americans to take more control over their health care decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in the long run.

When are americans going to realize that socialized health care is only about a 1/4 the cost of market based health care!!! Health care is just one of those things that is not suited for the marketplace:

1) your kid has cancer - are you going to bargain to get the cheapest treatment!

2) Every MO invest heavily to stay competitive. Washington DC has 11 CAT scans while Toronto can service the same size population with only 2 (1993 numbers). Who do you think is paying for the extra 9!

3) routine surgery procedures (like appendix removal, hip implants etc.) are done in Europe at 1/4 the cost of similar procedures in US.

4) even if spending by far the largest amount per capita a large percentage of the US population doesn't have access to health care!

...the list goes on.

[daryn]

i have heard bad stories about health care in europe.. i'm not sure how it is where you're from, but i have heard about public and private hospitals, and if you go to a public hospital you have to slip the doctor some extra cash under the table to make sure you get treated right.

[Big Al]

you left out part of it..."on the upper class, the middle class tax cuts will not be affected". That will play very well.

[Poker blog]

[ QUOTE ]
And then there is North Korea who came out and told us that they were prepared to use nuclear force if we moved against them. I would call that an imminent threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct! North Korea is an imminent threat, because of inaction in the 90's. There's not much we can do now -- they have nuclear capabilities.

Bush always said that we must act BEFORE the threat become imminent (and was very careful to never say that the threat was imminent). You've hit the nail on the hid of why we acted in Iraq.

The point was always the illegal weapons programs, not the actual weapons themselves, which mostly can be made quickly.

[bigpooch]

Friday February 13, 2004 11 am PST:
tradesports.com contract ($100 at expiry) for Bush to win
election: Bid $64.2 Ask $65.9 Last $65.9.

I would guess that fair value is about $65 so Kerry's
chances should be around 35%.

[Taxman]

Of course, you have the answer! Blame Clinton! Everything wrong in the world is his fault and everything right is Bush's. I bet the Republicans are so glad to finally someone they can hate as much as Democrats hate Raegan. It's true that we certainly acted before the threat in Iraq became inmminent. Of course there's some question as to whether it ever would have. I don't think we necissarily needed to invade North Korea either. Diplomacy can work if you give it a try. Bush pretended to try, but as soon as he set his sights on Iraq, that was over. Can you remember the last time you heard much of anything about Bush trying to resolve the tension with North Korea or even discussing it?

[Poker blog]

It's clear that Hussein had lots of connections with terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda. If you don't believe me, I'd refer you to Bob Woodward's "The Commanders"

Most Americans understand that 9/11 changed the way we have to deal with terrorism. Bush took care of two threats (Iraq and Afghanistan), and it's already paid off with Libya.

[webiggy]

[ QUOTE ]
Its an interesting question. Certaily six months ago it looked incredibly unlikely. Now?....well everything's changed.

Despite your comment about Irag, just like 12 years ago the driving issue here is: its the economy stupid...

On economic issues, Bush does get to trumpet tax cut, tax cut, tax cut! But while it used to be Republicans could crow about tax cuts and about being fiscally responsible...Bush has crossed a line and started to look incredibly fiscally irresponsible. And, even if the experts say the economy is moving, to a lot of people it still feels pretty darn bad out here. And so Bush is really vulnerable on the most important issue for a sitting president: the economy

[/ QUOTE ]

I got about a quarter down this thread and thought I might chime in because this was interesting to me. If this turns out to be redundant - sue me. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It is possible that the economy could get going soon. But the thing that concerns me is the impact that our growing budget defecit and resulting increase in the National debt is going to have on interest rates.

Here in California, where there has been tremendous increases in real estate prices, people are borrowing large amounts of money against their homes are low interest rates. Some folks have locked into 30 year mortgages, but many have borrowed using interest only loans, or 3 to 7 year ARMs.

When the Gov'ment borrows money, it puts pressure on cash supply and interest rates. Consumer debt is outta control right now and it is likely that the cost of money could increase very quickly, thereby making it incredible expensive for people to keep their homes. If this happens, the banks will be in grave danger as we could very likely see a dangerous spike in property foreclosures and loan defaults. I believe (and I could be wrong) that the damage done to the economy from Internet bust was mitigated by the fact that the Fed had room to reduce short-term interest because we had budget surpluses for the first time in decades. Now that the surpluses have vanished, interest rates are doomed to increase and the longer the Fed holds rates low artificially, the more volotile bond market will become and the more sharply we'll see interest rates rise.

I'm concerned that we will be in a wild ride from an economic stand point, and Bush better pray that this happens after the election. Kerry might want to reconsider being President as I don't think he's going to want to inherit this problem.

[theBruiser500]

I always find it amusing how knowledgable people often will say things like "I could be wrong", "I'm not sure about this but I think..." like webiggy. Then you'll have your clueles biggots who don't know a thing but are sure of everything they say.

danny

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
i have heard bad stories about health care in europe.. i'm not sure how it is where you're from, but i have heard about public and private hospitals, and if you go to a public hospital you have to slip the doctor some extra cash under the table to make sure you get treated right.



[/ QUOTE ]

The story you are refering to comes from the Czeck Repuplic where this culture developed during the communist regime. In western European contries like, Germany, France, Brittain, Spain, the Scandinavian contries you will not find these problems. You'll find a cheap, well functioning healthcare system that covers the whole population with a lot less cost per capita than in the U.S.

I believe the problem is cultural. It' really hard to convince americans that they should contribute to the costs of other peoples well being (even if it's cheaper in the long run).