Final Presidential Debate Thread

[Clutch]

This is for the Final debate which takes place tonight. Lets get ready to RUMBLE....haha

Lets have another clean thread guys, the other one went really good, I hope no one walked out mad at anyone.

[TheGr81]

When does it start? 9:00 like the others right? I don't wanna miss Lost. :D

[Nomad]

I'm pretty convinced that Kerry will 'win' this one, but I also feel that Bush has a good chance, he did much better in the second debate than the first one.

[Clutch]

As Nomad wanted we will start this thread with my post from the other debate thread.

On to another subject before the final debate tonight.

Lets talk about Jobs. How about the $180 million that Bush cut from the Youth Opportunity Grants in 2003, so much for young people getting jobs, guess there not important. Or how about the $399 million cut from the Health Resources and Services Administration? How about the entire $10 million for universal hearing screening for newborn babies?

Under Bush's plan he was to increase $40 billion increase per year to medicare, how come in 2004 he was 85% away from this goal?

About one hour to go. Get some popcorn guys.

[Clutch]

Prof....You said that there were WMD found in Iraq, but the link you sent me to only said that one "155-millimeter artillery shell" was found, that may be from the Gulf War? The site also said that "no more have turned up" so we went to war for one old artillery shell? :scratch:

[profdlp]

...I hope no one walked out mad at anyone.
I think you already know this, but you're still OK by me. :cheers:

I remember reading once that during the Revolutionary War Thomas Jefferson managed to maintain a good relationship with several of his Tory friends from before the war. (Tory in this case referring to Americans still loyal to the British crown, not the modern political party in the UK.) Had the revolution failed he would certainly have been hung, but he still didn't believe in letting politics spoil a good friendship. :wave:

[Thrax]

I'm still going to stab you in the face and kick your car.

[Clutch]

Don't worry Thrax, I'm not taking my new car up to the next lan, I will be flying in a airplane for sure, so you can just give me a hug ;)

[Thrax]

And a STAB IN THE FACE.

[entropy]

You could always bring along a Matchbox model of Clutch's car and kick it around the whole time...;D

[profdlp]

Prof....You said that there were WMD found in Iraq, but the link you sent me to only said that one "155-millimeter artillery shell" was found, that may be from the Gulf War? The site also said that "no more have turned up" so we went to war for one old artillery shell? :scratch:
That was in that one particular roadside ambush. Several more were discovered after that. In all there were two liters of Sarin gas recovered, which (as I said) would be enough to kill 500,000 people.

The key point is that intelligence agencies around the world believed he had much more. To go back to your "car on fire" analogy, if you raced out of the classroom because several of your classmates told you they saw your car on fire, only to find nothing more than a smoldering match laying on the hood, would it make you a liar for telling your teacher you had an emergency? Who would be the one who made a mistake? You? Or the classmates who gave you bad info?

And would someone please explain Saddam's refusal to allow inspections? If he truly had no WMD why didn't he just let Happy Hans tool around the country on a wild goose chase? Had he done so he would be relaxing in one of his palaces today, firing up a big stogie and helping Uday and Qusay pick out their next rape victim.

Put another way:

Suppose you were caught DWI. The judge tells you that as long as you quit drinking and take a daily breathalizer test he will suspend your sentence. If you do indeed stop hitting the bottle wouldn't you take the breathalizer in order to stay out of jail?

Iraq is about the size of California. Enough chemical weapons to kill everyone in the US would fit in an average single family home. The fact that we haven't discovered a warehouse full of stuff (imagine the closing scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark) doesn't mean it's not there. (Or elsewhere. Syria, maybe?)

[Nomad]

I think you already know this, but you're still OK by me. :cheers:

I remember reading once that during the Revolutionary War Thomas Jefferson managed to maintain a good relationship with several of his Tory friends from before the war. (Tory in this case referring to Americans still loyal to the British crown, not the modern political party in the UK.) Had the revolution failed he would certainly have been hung, but he still didn't believe in letting politics spoil a good friendship. :wave:

Unlike Franklin who disowned his own son, a Tory and a royal governor of New Jersey of which Franklin said, "To hell with him."

Anyhow, it's kind of interesting. I criticized the president for repeating himself in the first debate and speaking poorly, but at this point I think he's doing better than Kerry, and Kerry is drilling the whole Tora Bora mountain range thing again as well.

[Nomad]

Also, they are both wearing the same tie.

[Clutch]

Ok I get it, so he cut out 85% of the increase of Medicare for this year and we wonder why everyone can't get a flu shot. It all makes sense now.

[profdlp]

Also, they are both wearing the same tie.
At the same time? :eek:

[Clutch]

I think that a match on a car is not as big as the fact the country was under attack though.

[Nomad]

"Ok I get it, so he cut out 85% of the increase of Medicare for this year and we wonder why everyone can't get a flu shot. It all makes sense now."

Flu shots are made the season before, in anticipation for how many people the expect, that's why they lack the shots, because there is a premade amount.

[profdlp]

Ok I get it, so he cut out 85% of the increase of Medicare for this year and we wonder why everyone can't get a flu shot. It all makes sense now.
No one who follows the news wonders.

The factory which makes the vaccine screwed up. It has nothing to do with money.

"Americans are facing a shortage of available flu shots after a bacterial contamination occurred at the Liverpool manufacturing plant (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liflu1014,0,3972544.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines) of Chiron Corp, a company that makes the vaccine and is responsible for almost half of the supply in the United States."

[Clutch]

"Here is some help for you to go to a community college" so this is what Bush says. But Bush froze the Maximum Pell grant at $4,000 for the SECOND straight year in a row. Yea he sure is behind our education. You all remember the "No child left behind" act that he was all for right? Well I explained that one in the other thread.

[Clutch]

"Ok I get it, so he cut out 85% of the increase of Medicare for this year and we wonder why everyone can't get a flu shot. It all makes sense now."

Flu shots are made the season before, in anticipation for how many people the expect, that's why they lack the shots, because there is a premade amount.

I would think that with the craze last year for flu shots would pretty much say we need more this year, but I guess not.

[Nomad]

In my opinion the flu shot thing is just retarded, if you're not older than 65 and younger than 10 I don't think you should be able to get one.

[Nomad]

Wow, low blow, good job bring up Dick Cheney's daughter. I'm sorry but that's just an ******* thing to do on Kerry's part in particular because Cheney isn't really vocal for or against the issue and Kerry is against gay-marriage anyhow.

[profdlp]

...But Bush froze the Maximum Pell grant at $4,000 for the SECOND straight year in a row...
There are still plenty of student loans available.

Pell Grants are just that: Grants. They do not need to be repaid.

So what you're sore about is the fact that someone can get four large, clear and free, and that's not enough? My advice to all: Get through college any way you can, even if it requires taking out a loan which (gasp!) must eventually be repaid.

Of course, had Bush raised the Pell Grant maximum, people would be whining that a bunch of spoiled college kids (who will earn vastly more in their lifetimes than non-grads) were sucking up all the money that should have gone to help __________.

[Clutch]

Yay we are talking about Health Care!!!!

Speaking of which, Bush said in 2003 "My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare." but boy is he WAYYY off the mark this year. Remember my above post about being 85% off the mark.

[Clutch]

There are still plenty of student loans available.

Pell Grants are just that: Grants. They do not need to be repaid.

So what you're sore about is the fact that someone can get four large, clear and free, and that's not enough? My advice to all: Get through college any way you can, even if it requires taking out a loan which (gasp!) must eventually be repaid.

Of course, had Bush raised the Pell Grant maximum, people would be whining that a bunch of spoiled college kids (who will earn vastly more in their lifetimes than non-grads) were sucking up all the money that should have gone to help __________.


Not all free and clear, You get a Pell grant and you use that money for books, classes, etc..then after the term what little bit is not spent you get in a check. I got a Pell grant last year from my community college, and I got maybe like $40 back.

[profdlp]

Not all free and clear, You get a Pell grant and you use that money for books, classes, etc..then after the term what little bit is not spent you get in a check. I got a Pell grant last year from my community college, and I got maybe like $40 back.
How much would it have cost you to pay for that stuff yourself? How much do you have to pay back?

By that logic I am vastly underpaid.

I got my money, then went out and spent it on reefer, booze, cheap floozies, and computer parts. I woke up the next morning with a pounding headache, crabs, and five bucks in my pocket. I deserve a raise... :bawling:

[Clutch]

Well, for me to actually pay for the books, classes that the Grant took care of. I would have to wait at least a year to save up enough to buy books, etc.

[Clutch]

Border Security is the question.........


This is funny because Bush proposed to cut total "Border and Transportation Security" by $284 MILLION. Now that is what I can protecting our borders :shakehead

[profdlp]

It would appear that the program was quite helpful to you, then.

I'm glad. :thumbsup:

[Clutch]

Just like any program, people will abuse it, which I'm sure there are people who get the Pell grant and don't buy books etc,... Which is really sad.

[Clutch]

Well here we go again with the 125,000 Iraq troops trained by the end of the year. Well he lied when he said that 100,000 were trained when it was only about 8,000 in reality so I doubt he will make it to 125,000 by the end of Dec.

[profdlp]

Just like any program, people will abuse it...
Just so I am sure you didn't misunderstand, my joke about the floozies, etc, was not meant to imply that you or anyone else was spending their Pell Grant money on that. I was just making the point that if the money coming in covers the necessities of life then that's not so awful bad.

[Clutch]

Just so I am sure you didn't misunderstand, my joke about the floozies, etc, was not meant to imply that you or anyone else was spending their Pell Grant money on that. I was just making the point that if the money coming in covers the necessities of life then that's not so awful bad.


No, I know what you meant, don't worry ;) I know when someone is kidding and when not. :thumbsup:


Just got me a bannana sandwich for the debate, yummy

[entropy]

Well, I actually watched it, which I haven't ever done before, even though I'm pretty opinionated. I thought Bush's comment on his daughters, etc, was hilarious ;D. Anyone else notice how Kerry TRIED to be funny ... but only got maybe a chuckle or two? ;D

I also agree that Clinton was the one who crapped the economy ... but, see, I was too young to care then, so I don't really know. It makes sense, though - an economy takes a long time to start falling, so it couldn't've been Bush's fault.

And, this is just a feeling, but does anyone else get the weird feeling like Bush is an actual ... well, human? Kerry doesn't hardly smile, laugh, joke, or anything. It's almost ... unnerving to me :(. Like, who would you rather have as a grandfather? If you say Kerry ... well ... crap, he seems like a sucky grandpa to me ;D.

[Clutch]

Well I wouldn't want to have either as a grandfather actually, lol

I like the fact that Bush said his wife could speak better english than him, that really says alot about him being a Tard to me. He even said that people can understand what she says, then smerks about it. And he wonders why people always laugh at him because he can't talk worth a crap, and stumbles over words so much.

[profdlp]

I got a question for you. It's obvious you don't like Bush.

What's your attitude about Kerry?

[Nomad]

"I like the fact that Bush said his wife could speak better english than him, that really says alot about him being a Tard to me."

Yes, because all white land owning males must have superior speaking skills than that of their female counterparts.

[entropy]

FARK! I just lost everything I was typing due to my retarded mouse button. Crapweasel, here we go again... *sigh*

It's been said before, but just because he stumbles doesn't make him an idiot. Take me, for example. I've read hundreds and hundreds of books. I LOVE reading. But if you give me a page to read out loud in front of people, you'd think I've been reading for less than a year. I had to read part of The Odyssey out loud today, and I sounded like an idiot. I stumbled over words and phrases that I would never, EVER stumble over in my head, or even reading out loud with only friends or something.

People who don't know me well think I'm incredibly shy. My friends think I'm the most opinionated, loudest, most outspoken person they know ;D. I get flustered in front of people I'm not overly close to. Now, multiply that a hundredfold and you have what Bush has. He's running for President of the U.S.A., ffs. USA! Not just babbling to himself or his family. He's speaking, or trying to speak, on behalf of a country. I don't imagine it's very easy.

And what I meant about the grandfather thing was how different the two are. Bush is friendly (seemingly), warm, animated, and just barely aloof enough to let you know he cares. Kerry seems like a robot - it seems like everything he says was pre-determined. For the life of me I can't detect more than a smidgeon of emotion in his voice. He doesn't have that comforting, but strong characteristic I tend to think anyone running a country should have. Bush does...

(HA! I made it through without smashing the back button (actually, I lied, I hit it, but for some dumb reason when I tried Forward again, it saved my text :confused: ) :D)

[Clutch]

I got a question for you. It's obvious you don't like Bush.

What's your attitude about Kerry?

How did you know I don't like Bush? hehe ok j/k

As far as Kerry, I think he will be a good leader. If he does come into office he has a lot to clean up after Bush, like I have stated in my other posts. I mean with all the millions of dollars that Bush has already cut for Border Security, Education, Health care. Kerry has been in war before, and I think he has a better idea of what the troops are going through. Which is why he said he would reduce the amount of troops in Iraq in 6 months.

My dad is a Veteran from Vietnam, and do you know how much help he is getting from VA for his cancer treatments? O%, this is real life stuff here, and I don't even want to know how many more veterans are getting treated like this. I just don't agree with a lot of Bush's plans, and all. And to be honest I don't think we can do any worse, so I am all for giving Kerry a shot. To me, Bush has not proved himself to me in his term, so I am willing to give someone else a try.

Most people only see the ads on tv and decide their vote from them, but I don't like to do that myself. I would like to see our country turn around especially for the Health care issues because of my father. My whole family will place their vote for Kerry becuase of these certain issues.


EDIT: I also like how Kerry wants to fight for the middle class Americans as well. I think the system needs a change to be honest. Just take for example my dad was out of work for 6 month before he got his first check for being on disability. And trust me, it's not easy going 6 months without a pay check and we collected a lot of debt because of it. I'm not going to go into detail because of certain things but this is just another example. I just don't like the way things are being ran from what I have personally seen and I'm ready for a change.

[Clutch]

"I like the fact that Bush said his wife could speak better english than him, that really says alot about him being a Tard to me."

Yes, because all white land owning males must have superior speaking skills than that of their female counterparts.


When someone has the power that he holds yes I would expect him to have better speaking skills. I mean Jesus, he is the leader of the country. If I was going to apply for a job as a news reporter, do you think they would allow me to speak in front of a camera if I couldn't talk worth a crap? I don't think so.

[entropy]

What if you were going to be a behind-the-scenes person? The best. YOU got the scoops, info, stories, etc, and told someone else what do say. Just cuz you aren't that great at going in front of people, doesn't mean you aren't good at what you do...

[Nomad]

I'd take a poor public speaker who I feel knows how to lead rather than a charismatic idiot. Bad analogy with the news reporter, yeah of course you'd be expected to have great public speaking skills, but there is so much more to then just being able to speak well. A lot of our most highly esteemed presidents were not the greatest public speakers.

[Thrax]

FARK! I just lost everything I was typing due to my retarded mouse button. Crapweasel, here we go again... *sigh*

It's been said before, but just because he stumbles doesn't make him an idiot. Take me, for example. I've read hundreds and hundreds of books. I LOVE reading. But if you give me a page to read out loud in front of people, you'd think I've been reading for less than a year. I had to read part of The Odyssey out loud today, and I sounded like an idiot. I stumbled over words and phrases that I would never, EVER stumble over in my head, or even reading out loud with only friends or something.

People who don't know me well think I'm incredibly shy. My friends think I'm the most opinionated, loudest, most outspoken person they know ;D. I get flustered in front of people I'm not overly close to. Now, multiply that a hundredfold and you have what Bush has. He's running for President of the U.S.A., ffs. USA! Not just babbling to himself or his family. He's speaking, or trying to speak, on behalf of a country. I don't imagine it's very easy.

And what I meant about the grandfather thing was how different the two are. Bush is friendly (seemingly), warm, animated, and just barely aloof enough to let you know he cares. Kerry seems like a robot - it seems like everything he says was pre-determined. For the life of me I can't detect more than a smidgeon of emotion in his voice. He doesn't have that comforting, but strong characteristic I tend to think anyone running a country should have. Bush does...

(HA! I made it through without smashing the back button (actually, I lied, I hit it, but for some dumb reason when I tried Forward again, it saved my text :confused: ) :D)

You sound like me. I write well, I love reading, and trying not to toot my own horn.. I have a good vocabulary. However if I don't know my audience well, and I'm speaking aloud or reading out loud from a book, I sound like an ass. I stumble over crappy little words that I breeze right through in my head. I'm alright when I know my audience, or the content is well-rehearsed, or I'm speaking off the cuff.. But damn, speaking aloud to an unknown audience when going from a book, I sound bad.

Also, people that know me well ALSO think me to be outspoken, vehement, etc. But in a place like a party, or a gathering where I know one or two people.. Good luck finding me talking.

[entropy]

...Bad analogy with the news reporter, yeah of course you'd be expected to have great public speaking skills...
Yeah, mine sucked, too, but it was the best I could come up with as tired as I am :D :p

edit:
Thrax, isn't that weird? I mean, I like people, I like reading, and I like talking. But put them together and it's a recipe for chaos. Even for recitals I get really uptight, and I don't even have to say a word ;D.

[Leonardo]

General comments:

- Win or lose the debate? I think Kerry had more poise in all the debates, and generally better debating craft. I think Bush had better command of logic and reasoning.

- Please, someone, anyone show any REAL cut that the Bush administration has made. While you are at it, be prepared to tell my why you won't blame Bush for budgtet deficits for runaway social spending.

- Someone, anyone, please inform me what founding American document requires taxpayers to give others healthcare, a roof over their head, food, and every conceivable social program under the sun. (Not saying that social welfare is always a bad thing; just that I don't understand where the mentality came from that government must hold our hands and provide our needs.)

By the way, I fault Bush for spending too much money for the liberal's agenda. Frankly, I don't understand why he is so hated by the left, when he pushed through so many big social bills that previous left-leaning administrations only could dream about! It's just baffling. I guess social largesse doesn't count unless you are from the right party.

[Leonardo]

(Sorry, this post was originally at the 2d Debate Thread. Upon completion, I noticed we had opened a new thread. The other thread is here (http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21500&page=5) if you need the previous posts for context of my epistle below. :) )


“Let me take a stab at this...at the risk of being majorly flamed....”

Thanks for your comments. It is very valuable for anyone to view their own country or culture through the eyes of someone from a foreign country. My nine years living overseas provided insights that I probably would have never gained otherwise

"It has also been the case that some terrorists have looked to Canada as a way to get into the US. Not many years ago they caught a fellow with a car full of explosives on a ferry between BC and Washington state. They believe his goal was to set it off at LAX airport. The result was that the US clamped down severely on the northern border, slowing down cargo trucks and regular tourists, subjecting them to new searches, tighter rules, etc. The US blamed Canada for being soft on terrorists and of having lax immigration policies...”

The US certainly has its flaws. Both Canada and the US have international borders thousands of miles long to protect. Canada does many things, but not all, well. When I say ‘Great neighbors to the North’, I really mean it. (Oops, actually, you are southeast of me now.) If I were to give letter grades for border security, I’d give the US a ‘C+’ (improved since 9/11). I’d probably give Canada a ‘D’. Canada never has taken border security seriously. Until very recently, Canada has been renowned as a country very easy for a foreigner to enter with very little risk of scrutiny of identity or background. No slam on Canada. Both our countries certainly have room for improvement.

“Globally, the US does the same through out the world...”

Actually, I agree with much of what you wrote above in your post above. I do though, believe any country’s leaders should look out for their own people first; but breaking or ignoring treaties is not right. If a treaty is deemed illogical or unsound, then the dissenting nation should formally pull out of the treaty, as in the case of the US formally separating itself from the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. (Concerning the US’ erratic behavior concerning NAFTA: yup, we are pretty big hypocrites when it comes to ‘free trade’. I hate unwarranted protectionism, whether sponsored by the left or the right - it just damages all parties’ economies.)

“US foreign policy over the years has been hypocritical, denouncing civil rights abuses by one country, while propping up the dictator next door who does the same thing.”

To a point - yes. But that’s oversimplification. We can’t turn around every evil government in the world. We would need an Armed Forces several times the size it is now. We would need a president even more stubborn and determined than GW Bush. I can just imagine the cries of "American emperialism...cowboy foreign policy". Pragmatism dictates that we must balance the needs of our own country and the desire to spread democracy. I think it is undisputed though, that we have cottoned to regimes in the past that we shouldn't have. It really is a difficult balance, and sometimes well fall flat on our face. The only way to avoid mistakes, and the resultant deserved criticism is keep to one's self and avoid national expression. But then, we'd be in another mileau - isolationism. Not an apology here - just the way it is as I see it.

“Saddam Hussein was okay while he was your country's puppet, you financed and equipped him when he was at war with Iran. The US encouraged him to go to war with Iran, and sold him the bombs, bullets and mustard gas to do it.”

Correct, except for the "mustard gas". At the time, Iran was considered a greater threat to world stability than was Iraq. Radical, fundamentalist Islam controlling a nation with nuclear weapons intentions and modern military hardware was viewed as dangerous to the world and the US. And the fact that our entire US embassy staff was held hostage by "students" with the tacit approval of the ruling mullahs didn't exactly set the stage for equality of treatment concerning Iraq and Iran. Also, I don't think a "puppet" would have invaded it's master's friend - Kuwait.

"Then he decided to invade Kuwait, but didn't ask you first."

It was believed that Saddam’s intentions went beyond acquisition of Kuwait.

Had Iraq taken the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields, there would have been global economic chaos. OPEC would be philanthorpists by comparison. And, by the way, the ramifications would have been much worse for Europe and Asia than for the US. And for those that disdain American unilateral military action, the Gulf War (I) was fully sanctioned and encouraged by the UN.

”The US trumpets it's policies of freedom and justice and liberty for all, then locks up "enemy combatants" in violation of those ideals and in violation of Geneva conventions.”

“Violation” is debatable. It really all depends upon whether the detaining nation has formally declared war. Prisoners of war are always detained or imprisoned. (Of course, war criminals shoot legitimate prisoners.) The legality of the action hinges on definition of war without a formal declaration of such. My personal opinion is that if the coalition picked up armed combatants in Afghanistan that weren’t 'friendlies', they are therefore “enemy combatants” subject to prisoner of war status if they are in uniform; subject to indefinite detention if not uniform.

“But why not afford them some rights anyway?”

They were, and have been! They have received necessary medical care, shelter, adequate food, and even access to religious clerics of their particular faith.

“The US pressures other countries into nuclear non-proliferation treaties, while at the same time it abandons nuclear treaties it signed itself.”

Abandon? If you are referring to the 1972 ABM treaty with the USSR: that treaty had a provision that the signatories could withdraw with formal announcement - as the US did in 2002. The provision was applicable to the USSR as well. I am not one to view anti-ballistic missiles as threatening to anyone. The US has kept its word on treaties based on SALT, START, START II, and INF and has not abondoned those agreements.

“When you live in the country with the largest economy in the world, the most powerful military in the world, economic interest around the world with a hypocritcal and hackneyed foreign policy history, and have a history of using that military and economic force to influence goverments and policies throughout the globe to suit your interests and needs at the time, you have to expect that other citizens of other countries are going to take a keen interest in who becomes your next president.”

Indeed. I think you’ve expressed the view of millions of people who are not US citizens. No flaming you, Sir. I think you’ve brought a lot of food for thought into this thread. Although I’d love to debate you ad nauseam, with my apologies, I’m simply not going to take the time needed to do so. Not avoiding your articulate arguments at all - I would concede much of what you posit.

” I believe in and support many of the ideals that the average American stands for. I fly an American flag proudly beside the Canadian flag at my house. I am a Commisioned Officer in the Canadian Forces reserve, and believe in and would defend the same ideals of freedom and justice and equality that your country does.”

Although I just became a civilian a couple weeks ago, I salute you! Thank you (personally and collectively as a nation) for being my neighbor. (Wow! Leo gets warm and fuzzy - and he really means it. )

“Many people in your own country see this history of foreign policy hypocrisy which causes international tensions, and are willing to speak about it openly...”

And so it must be for any democracy to flourish, freedom of speech must not only be allowed, but must be encouraged.

“Whew, that was long...that took my whole lunch break to type, my apologies for the length”.

No apologies necessary. (Besides, I’m just getting warmed up. I’ll probably need to apologize when I’m done.)

---------------------------------------------

"word draft' sends shudders down the collective spine of American youth"

Those who shudder should quit listening to self-serving idiots who don’t care whom they frighten. New York and South Carolina voters should express their dismay with their respective politicians, Rep. Charles Wrangel (D) and Sen. “Fritz” Hollings (D) respectively. Also, the sky-is-falling site stopthedraftnow.com would do wall to research what they react to for more than three minutes.
Associate Press Summary of MTV Stunt and Rumor
Time Magazine Article on Origin of Rumor

-----------------------------------

“You mean like Bush saying "It's hard work" over and over?”

And every time he says it, he’s absolutely correct. It’s not a 45 minute television show where Hollywood puts all the pieces back together in one episode. It took nearly ten years in central Europe after the crushing of fascism in Germany, Italy, and Romania to build lasting democracies. (No offense Clutch - I respect your opinion, just disagree.) Cleaning up a mess always takes much longer than making a mess. I’ve been to two wars in that region, in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait. As Paul Harvey would say: “It is not one world”. It will take MUCH hard work and dogged determination to transform a nation that has known nothing except dictatorial tyranny and monarchy, a nation surrounded by dictatorships and religious oligarchies, into a functional democracy.

So, we weren’t prepared for the war’s aftermath? No, we weren’t. Unfortunate - but so what? It's water under the bridge. We’ll make the best of it. We weren’t prepared for nearly all of our most significant campaigns in the entire history of our nation. Strange, I don't recall FDR being castigated by historians for being nearly completely unprepared for WWII.

-----------------------------

"I would refute that the comparisons between are Iraq and Vietnam are nominal, I normally see them as an attempt to draw this war to an unpopular war and liken them so much as to cause people distress.”

But, the intentions were good in both wars. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson thought Vietnam was justified - great intentions to prevent an assumed “domino effect” of Communist takeovers. Intentions as they were for Congress and President Bush, were also good for the Iraq invasion. So what’s the deal? I thought good intentions immunized leadership? (Yeah, tongue in check. Let’s just make sure we apply our standards the same to leaders from both sides of the spectrum.)

---------------------------------------

“Lets talk about Jobs. How about the $180 million that Bush cut from the Youth Opportunity Grants in 2003, so much for young peopel getting jobs, guess there not important. Or how about the $399 million cut from the Health Resources and Services Administration? How about the entire $10 million for universal hearing screening for newborn babies?”

"Under Bush's plan he was to increase $40 billion increase per year to medicare, how come in 2004 he was 85% away from this goal?” Of course, such funding would only increase the budget deficit, which would be entirely Bush’s fault."

Keep in mind how much of the press and most tax-and-spend politicians (left and right) define “cut”. It means that the rate of increase is lower than projected or promised. If my employer promised me a 25% raise, but only provides a 10% raise, it is not a cut, but an increase. Of course, I could whine and cry that my pay was cut, and probably get many people to believe me. I tend to be honest, though. If these are actual cuts, please correct me. To my knowledge, their have been no real cuts in social spending. In fact, Bush has pumped enormous amounts of money into many of the opposition party’s darling social programs. If one party increases spending, they are heros and care about the ‘common man’. If another party increases spending, it’s a cut, “taking food out of the mouths” of the needy, and forcing the elderly to choose between prescription medications or their meals. If one party increases taxes on social security income (not the present Administration), it's called fiscal responsibility. If another party wants to try something new and let people invest part of their own Social Security taxes in order to beat Social Security's abysmal returns, well, well....we just can't trust the common man to make decisions for himself.

(No offense to the poster. It’s a matter of press speak when they don’t like a particular politician or party.)

(OK, my apologies. I got so addled staring at this screen so long that I strayed way off topic. Well, it is all about the debate, right? :scratch: :)

[Dexter]

Leo, excellent post. A couple of comments:




If I were to give letter grades for border security, I’d give the US a ‘C+’ (improved since 9/11). I’d probably give Canada a ‘D’. Canada never has taken border security seriously. Until very recently, Canada has been renowned as a country very easy for a foreigner to enter with very little risk of scrutiny of identity or background. No slam on Canada. Both our countries certainly have room for improvement.


Absolutely agreed. I am no fan of the current goverment here who has allowed this to happen. Our immigration laws are too lax, it is easy to get in the country then stay in and abuse our own system of appeals to stay here ad infitum. An acquantance of mine is an Immigration Enforcement Officer, and his job is to help track down immigrants who have overstayed their welcome or broken laws which invalidate their immigration status. When he speaks candidly of the number of suspected or known immigration violators who have simply disappeared, it is both unnerving and frustrating. I am all for controlled immigration and multiculturalism, but if someone shows up in an airport without a pre-approved visa, send them home and let them appeal it to the embassy there. Don't let them stay to appeal it here. :shakehead They disappear, many into the US to work illegally.




“US foreign policy over the years has been hypocritical, denouncing civil rights abuses by one country, while propping up the dictator next door who does the same thing.”

To a point - yes. But that’s oversimplification. We can’t turn around every evil government in the world.

I agree, but that goes to prove my point. Why do UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq get enforced but UN Security Council resolutions against Isreal get ignored? Why do some countries get away with civil rights abuses or even get supported for them, and others get ostracized and punished. To the people in the those countries, that gets perceived as hyprocrisy and double-standards, and they lose respect for or even hate the US for it.





Iran was considered a greater threat to world stability than was Iraq. Radical, fundamentalist Islam controlling a nation with nuclear weapons intentions and modern military hardware was viewed as dangerous to the world and the US. And the fact that our entire US embassy staff was held hostage by "students" with the tacit approval of the ruling mullahs didn't exactly set the stage for equality of treatment concerning Iraq and Iran.


Of course not. But the US (and UK) was supporting the Shah's regime, in fact they undermined an *elected* government and helped the Shah come to power (Operation Ajax.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) The Shah was a dictator, and many civil rights were trampled freely. The current regime is no better...they just happen to oppose the US interference in their history. Perhaps if the US had not interfered with their internal governance Iran may have chosen a different path. The path they chose included sponsoring terrorist groups to strike at an enemy they could not confront head-on. But the US and UK's desire to control Iran's oil and keep it flowing away from the USSR lead them to undo a democracy, install a dictator, and pump money into his pockets while he abused his populace. When he was overthrown, they did basically the same thing next door in Iraq, except for the part where they overthrow a democratically elected gov't. Hussein was already a dictator with a long record of human rights abuses, but they cozied up to him nonetheless.



It was believed that Saddam’s intentions went beyond acquisition of Kuwait.

Had Iraq taken the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields, there would have been global economic chaos. OPEC would be philanthorpists by comparison. And, by the way, the ramifications would have been much worse for Europe and Asia than for the US. And for those that disdain American unilateral military action, the Gulf War (I) was fully sanctioned and encouraged by the UN.


Saddam Hussein had aspirations of being a pan-arabic dictator and hero to the entire Middle East. Likely he would have made moves on Saudi oil as well, plunging the region into war and the world into a massive oil crisis. But would he have gotten to that point if he felt that he was an ally of the US? It has been widely reported that the US Ambassdor to Iraq left some ambivelance as to what the US reaction would have been to a Kuwaiti invasion, and that was perceived by Hussein as weak indifference, emboldening him to invade.

And I gotta call you out on the unilateralism of that war...yes it was fully sanctioned by the UN, but it was also a large international coalition. The largest contributor was the US, but 34 nations were involved, including Canada which was one of the first nations to support and commit to military involvment. That is a very stark contrast to the 4 to 6 that joined in Op Iraqi Freedom.



“But why not afford them some rights anyway?”

They were, and have been! They have received necessary medical care, shelter, adequate food, and even access to religious clerics of their particular faith.


Point taken. But for a long time they were denied the right to seek legal counsel, nor any indication of justice standing under either US or International law. They were basically being held without any legal recourse.


“The US pressures other countries into nuclear non-proliferation treaties, while at the same time it abandons nuclear treaties it signed itself.”

Abandon? If you are referring to the 1972 ABM treaty with the USSR: that treaty had a provision that the signatories could withdraw with formal announcement - as the US did in 2002. The provision was applicable to the USSR as well. I am not one to view anti-ballistic missiles as threatening to anyone. The US has kept its word on treaties based on SALT, START, START II, and INF and has not abondoned those agreements.


Point conceded. The ABM treaty refers to weapons which destroy incoming weapons, which of course limits defensive weapons, not offensive ones. The perception of that decision is that the US did that to proceed with the missile defence shield, which is still seen by many as a re-birth of Reagan's star-wars SDI program, a weaponization of space - which many believe will trigger a new arms race. But the history of the world is an arms race, isn't it...? :shakehead



"word draft' sends shudders down the collective spine of American youth"

Those who shudder should quit listening to self-serving idiots who don’t care whom they frighten.



Does that apply equally to those who use scare tactics by saying that a vote for Kerry will encourage terrorists to attack (such as Cheney said would happen if you make the wrong choice on election day) or every person who has a web forum sig icon that says 9 out of 10 terrorists support Kerry? ;)

Dexter...

[Leonardo]

Oh boy, Dex; I don't have time respond before I go to work. Back atcha in about nine or ten hours. :cool:

[Clutch]

"Under Bush's plan he was to increase $40 billion increase per year to medicare, how come in 2004 he was 85% away from this goal?” Of course, such funding would only increase the budget deficit, which would be entirely Bush’s fault."

Keep in mind how much of the press and most tax-and-spend politicians (left and right) define “cut”. It means that the rate of increase is lower than projected or promised. If my employer promised me a 25% raise, but only provides a 10% raise, it is not a cut, but an increase. Of course, I could whine and cry that my pay was cut, and probably get many people to believe me. I tend to be honest, though. If these are actual cuts, please correct me. To my knowledge, their have been no real cuts in social spending. In fact, Bush has pumped enormous amounts of money into many of the opposition party’s darling social programs. If one party increases spending, they are heros and care about the ‘common man’. If another party increases spending, it’s a cut, “taking food out of the mouths” of the needy, and forcing the elderly to choose between prescription medications or their meals. If one party increases taxes on social security income (not the present Administration), it's called fiscal responsibility. If another party wants to try something new and let people invest part of their own Social Security taxes in order to beat Social Security's abysmal returns, well, well....we just can't trust the common man to make decisions for himself.

(No offense to the poster. It’s a matter of press speak when they don’t like a particular politician or party.)



When I say he cut 85% of the Medicare, that is what I mean. Bush said in 2003 "My budget will committ an additional $400 billion over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare" at the State of the Union, this is not made up this is what he said. So by his budget there should be about $40 billion increase each year for Medicare alone. But for FY 2004 was only $6 billion. So I think about $34 billion is a pretty big number that he did not give to Medicare which he promised he would. There is no way around that one, he did not do as he said he would. So much for "reform and strengthen Medicare" I think. So when I say he cut 85%, he really shafted almost $34 billion dollars to Americans for Medicare.

When I talk about the "Youth Opportunity Grants" getting cut $180 million that is just it. there was a 16% unemployment rate for those 18-24, but Bush still eliminated ALL funding for the "Youth Opportunity Grants" The grants got $225 million in 2002, but in 2003 he only gave them $45 million, that is a lot of money considering all the jobs we are loosing. Well for me at least.

So you can say he "cut" a percentage, or didn't meet his promise, or you can see the actually dollar signs for what he done with what I have just gave to you.

[Dexter]

I also agree that Clinton was the one who crapped the economy ... but, see, I was too young to care then, so I don't really know. It makes sense, though - an economy takes a long time to start falling, so it couldn't've been Bush's fault.



Ummm, Clintons had 8 years of economic growth and droppging unemployment numbers. There was a reversal of those trends at the END of Clinton's 2nd term, which had much more to do with the stock market correction/crash spurred on by the dot-com meltdown. Note also that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the recession to have occurred in 2001. See the following graphs:

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

The graphs show that under Clinton unemployment dropped steadily, and employment rose steadily. At the end of 2000 (oh, say around November 2000...around election time......) you see a huge spike in unemployment, s trend that starts long before 9/11/01 and continues long after 9/11/01 and the indicated recession, in fact it continues well into 2003. You also see that the steady employment rise under Clinton flattens around the same time (about when Bush was elected) and then dropped somewhat in the time to follow.

That's just one set of criteria on the economy, if you want to read a longer post I made over at KBJ as to whom you can blame the recession on, see here:

http://www.keyboardjockey.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=241&st=0

for links that include consumer spending and confidence, income and spending, GDP, etc.

Now, many people point out that you cannot give the government all the credit when the economy does well, nor all the blame when it does poorly. But the government can enact polciies which have direct effects on these things. Items such as consumer confidence and spending are often linked to other socio-political factors that help deteremine whether people are going to spend their money or save it. But when you look at any of the leading indicators of the economy, and you listen to the government rhetoric, keep in mind these things: what are they taking credit for, what are they blaming on the other guy, and most importantly, what are they promising? Bush promised his tax cuts would create millions of jobs. For nearly 2 years, they did not. Then, finally, after 2.5 years, some modest gains were made. But they were nowhere near what he promised, and right now in your country, unemployment is still 1.5 % higher than it was when Clinton handed the keys to Bush.

If you think that Clinton crapped the economy, point to the actions taken or decisions made by Clinton at the end of his term that caused said crapping please. What specifically did he do that caused the economy to collapse in the last few months of his time, after 8 years of steady increases in economic gains and decreases in unemployment? How, specifically, did he crap the economy? Let's see facts, not partisan rhetoric. :)

Dexter...

[entropy]

If you think that Clinton crapped the economy, point to the actions taken or decisions made by Clinton at the end of his term that caused said crapping please. What specifically did he do that caused the economy to collapse in the last few months of his time, after 8 years of steady increases in economic gains and decreases in unemployment? How, specifically, did he crap the economy? Let's see facts, not partisan rhetoric. :)

Dexter...
I told you, I don't know the details. I was too young to care much at all. But it just makes sense that the economy doesn't crash in an instant (nowdays at least, it's very hard for it to). I don't know. I've heard from a lot of people (Bush and Kerry supporters) that it was Clinton. I already said I didn't know, and don't really have the facts to back it up. I only used my logic.

[Nomad]

"Ummm, Clintons had 8 years of economic growth and droppging unemployment numbers. There was a reversal of those trends at the END of Clinton's 2nd term, which had much more to do with the stock market correction/crash spurred on by the dot-com meltdown"

It's a generally accepted theory that in a capitalist economy a presidents economic policies will 'linger' a few years into the next term. If you also look at the first graph you posted, Clinton in '94 has roughly the same unemployment rate as Bush for about a year, and then both of theirs decline, and shown by the table on that same page, unemployment is decreasing. Certainly, the first two years of unemployment during the Bush presidency couldn't be attributed to him, a stock market downfall at the end of the Clinton administration produced lasting effects into Bush's administration, and then worsened by 9/11.

In November of 2000, by your assumption, Clinton was still in office officially until Bush was sworn in, meaning that those unemployment problems you just attempted to blame on Bush would actually be Clinton's fault, or a problem of the declining economy at the end of the Clinton administration.

An excerpt from the Labor studies:
"Nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend upward in September, increasing by 96,000, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the prior 3 months, payroll employment rose by 103,000 on average. In September, modest job gains occurred in a few service-providing industries."

[profdlp]

Don't forget the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 and the "Contract With America". If not for that we may have been saddled with Hillary's health care boondoggle.

The year before, Clinton got the highest tax increase in American history pushed through congress. The ripple effect from that made a recession inevitable.

As far as the economy in general, you can pull numbers out of your ear all day long (and both sides do). Unemployment down? Maybe inflation is on the rise, too. Home ownership on the rise? What do interest rates look like? I don't care who you are (except Jimmy Carter, who sucked all around), the economy is almost always going to be a mixed bag.

There's an old joke that goes "There are only two economists in the world who fully understand the US economy - and they disagree". It is better to stick to a proven set of principles and let the statistics sort themselves out over the long run. The best thing Bush could have done was his tax cut. His biggest failing has been allowing spending to go out of control. I expect we'll see the veto pen come out in his second term.

The relationship between the presidency and the economy is akin to a managers role in baseball. You get too much credit when things are going well, too much blame when you're losing.

[Dexter]

I did not blame anything on Bush. I did state that is incorrect to blame it all on Clinton, no matter how convenient that may be to Republicans. I stated pretty clearly, that recession was triggered by the stock market correction/crash brought about by the dot-com meltdown. Now, if someone can please point to any policy or action of Clinton's that cuased the dot-com meltdown or the ensuing stock market correction, I would be happy to read it. If you cannot point to any specific policy or action, you are not using logic, you are talking BS.

The only thing I said about Bush was to see if his policies yielded the results he promised. Clearly, they did not. Only in the last few months has the US economy started to upswing, and nowhere near as high or as rosy as Bush predicted. Bear in mind that while all this has been happening, the value of the US dollar against other major international currencies has declined fairly steadily since 2002

sources: http://federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/Summary/indexb_m.txt

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ14Dj01.html

That means that other currencies (and by extension, other economies) have outperformed the US in that time period. The Euro is outperforming the US dollar handily since 2002. There are lots of sources for that, search it for yourself.

Clearly, Bush's economic policies are not working for you as promised, and you now have a record defecit: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/10/14/us.budgetdeficit.ap/index.html

Let's see you blame that on Clinton... ;D

Dexter...

[Clutch]

I 'm for the biggest change in Health care myself, cheaper meds for people that need them, and education.

The reason for this? Because it will make or break most of the working people. I want to see it where most seniors and others don't have to go to Canada for their meds. I mean for christ sake, my dad has a bottle of pills for his treatments that cost $5,000 per month, this is no lie, 30 pills for $5,000 F&$#% dollars. And he has to have them. Now who is their right mind set that price? :shakehead I don't care what kind of insurance you have that is awful. It is things like this that is just terrible and it makes me sad to be honest. Most people that need certain meds can't get them, and we almost lost my dads health insurance this year, but luckily we did keep it. ( I'm not getting into details on how or why...) Sad sad sad I tell you.

[profdlp]

I did not blame anything on Bush. I did state that is incorrect to blame it all on Clinton, no matter how convenient that may be to Republicans. I stated pretty clearly, that recession was triggered by the stock market correction/crash brought about by the dot-com meltdown. Now, if someone can please point to any policy or action of Clinton's that cuased the dot-com meltdown or the ensuing stock market correction, I would be happy to read it. If you cannot point to any specific policy or action, you are not using logic, you are talking BS.

The only thing I said about Bush was to see if his policies yielded the results he promised. Clearly, they did not....
I did point to the "highest tax increase in American history" in 1993. Yes, the dot-com meltdown was the primary cause of the recession, but it was not the only factor. To state otherwise is being simplistic.

"Clearly they did not?" Then explain this:

(The low point on the graph in '02 is where Bush's tax cuts kicked in. Note that growth in '04 was higher than in any year of the Clinton administration.)

[Nomad]

Clutch, there is a high possibility that a government regulated medicare plan could actually increase the costs of drugs. Without competition to lower the prices of medical supplies for your average joe, then there is no reason for them to lower the price to beat out the competition, the prices could go even higher when they add more and more coverage over people, all that money comes out of your pocket still.

" did not blame anything on Bush. I did state that is incorrect to blame it all on Clinton, no matter how convenient that may be to Republicans."

As you wish to say it'd be incorrect for us to blame it all on Clinton, we are trying to show you that it's unfair to blame everything on Bush. You said you, "aren't blaming it on Bush," then who are you blaming it on? Certainly there is a reason that you're supporting John Kerry, but if this administration isn't responsible for the economy at this point, as you said you aren't blaming it on Bush, then why are you so argumentative over it? No administrations policies ever meet all their campaign promises, it's simply not possible. Congress will usually vote down a lot of initiated plans, or people find out that it's just not able to happen, if you think Kerry is actually going to enact all the promises he's made, then you are extremely wishful in your thinking.

While the defecit is high, the Secretary of Treasury has stated that Bush is on a plan to cut it in half in five years, also, the final assessment of the defecit is about $100 Billion dollars short of what critics had proclaimed. The Euro, while it has increased in value, has also deflated many economies and put them on a 'fair level' which angers many conservative Europeans. In some countries, they offered free exchange of money, meaning that one Deutschesmark which is equal to about 1/4 was exchanged for a Euro. The American dollar has had steady inflation for the last 30 years+, and has had extended periods of decreased value.

[Dexter]

Prof:

read my statement again: "he only thing I said about Bush was to see if his policies yielded the results he promised. Clearly, they did not."

How many jobs did Bush promise his tax cuts would produce in how much time? Then how many were actually produced?

From here: http://www.jobwatch.org/

The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA, see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 4,590,000 jobs would be created over the last 15 months. In reality, since the tax cuts took effect there are 2,882,000 fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts. The September job growth of 96,000 fell 210,000 jobs short of the administration's projection. As can be seen in the chart below, job creation failed to meet the administration's projections in 13 of the past 15 months.

From here: http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=48208

President Bush had been hoping to wave a glowing September jobs report in John Kerry's face for the rest of the presidential campaign.
Instead, the president got stuck with lackluster results showing U.S. payroll jobs grew by only 96,000 last month - far below expectations and well below the minimum 150,000 that economists say are needed to keep pace with population growth.
The Labor Department yesterday also revised downward by 16,000, to 128,000, the number of jobs created in August. The jobless rate remained at 5.4 percent last month.


From here: http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/08/news/economy/jobless_september/index.htm

"In political terms, sure, this isn't good for the President," Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, a Bush supporter, said to CNNfn. But he insisted it was not a sign of weakness in the economy.

In addition to the lower than forecast September gain in payroll, its expected revisions to past employment reports also was weaker than the Bush administration was hoping for.

Again, I could google and quote numerous articles that all state the same thing: the growth was not what was promised by the President and his administration.

Now, tell me where I said they had no effect at all? I did not say that. The tax cut had an effect, there is no doubt about that. Everywhere that tax cuts have been made, consumer spending increased and jobs were made. I have seen the same thing here in Canada both federally and in 2 provinces I have lived in. I have not disputed that the Bush tax cuts have had an impact. My statememt is that they have not delivered the numbers promised by Bush when he sold the tax cut to the people. Maybe he "misoverestimatated" the results....maybe the economy was too sluggish to respond a quickly or drastically as his analysts predicted. Maybe it was not his fault. But the question is...why won't he just admit that the cuts did not match his rhetoric? He keeps saying "they're working." Yes, Mr. Bush, they are working, but they are *not working as well as you promised they would.* Be a man and admit that. But peruse his website, and show me where he admits that he failed to meet the promises that he made? He won't, not with an election 3 weeks away. He'll say "they're working", and "it's hard work", and so on, but he won't say "It did not work as well as we hoped or expected." Don't you, the tax-paying voting public, deserve that last answer from your leader?


Nomad:


You said:

As you wish to say it'd be incorrect for us to blame it all on Clinton, we are trying to show you that it's unfair to blame everything on Bush. You said you, "aren't blaming it on Bush," then who are you blaming it on?

I am not laying blame. This conversation started when Entropy said that Clinton "crapped the economy." He laid the blame on Clinton, I have challenged any comers to prove how that is so. The declines shown in the graphs near the end of 2000 are not gradual declines (aka trends) they are sharp changes (aka events.) What policy, action or decision of Clinton's triggered those change events? No one has answered that yet. That is why I am argumentative over it: when people make statements like that without any facts to back them up, they deserve to be challenged. If someone can show factually how that recession was Clinton's fault, I will concede the point. But so far no one has, and Entropy said he did not know.

And I am not blaming the recession on Bush. As I have now stateed MANY times, I have simply stated the obvious: his tax cut/job growth plan did not nearly meet the promised results. Why is it so wrong to say that? I'm not saying it's his fault. The way I see it, there are a couple of possibilities:

a - He may have trusted the advice of his advisors and did his job as the leader to sell it to the people and push it through the legislative process.


b - Or maybe he and his advisors knew that the numbers were grossly over-optimistic, but decided to sell those numbers anyways.

c - Or maybe things beyond their control happened to prevent the predictions they made from bearing fruit.

If it is "a", then the blame you want to assess belongs to his advisors, in which case you would expect he would be firing a few of them and getting new ones. Has he? (Rhetorical question...)

If it is "b", then he did what many politicians do...paint a rosier picture than they know should be painted. In which case, he should be accountable to his people and admit it, as a true leader would.

If it is "c", then then no one can really take the blame, factors beyond their control were responsible. But if that is the case, you end up in a catch-22, as has been pointed out earlier in the baseball manager analogy....why is it politicians say they cannot be blamed when outside factors hinder their promises, but when things turn out better than promised they do not hesitate to take the glory?


No administrations policies ever meet all their campaign promises, it's simply not possible.


I've been around more than long enough to know that. :) But that begs the question....how is either one of them going to make good on any of their promises? How do you know that the promises your candidate is making are factual and achievable. By that statement, you can't know. So it's down to a trust issue...you have to trust that your guy's promises are believable, right? And that is why the challenger goes after the incumbent's record. The Bush campaign have been trying to spin lately that Kerry is a guy with a lot of complaints and no plans. That's just spin, and they know it. An election with a challenger vs an incumbent is *ALWAYS* a referendum on the incumbent's performance.

Instead of saying Kerry has no plans, I think Bush's campaign should just do a better job of explaining why their promises did not happen. Bush had a good opportunity to just that in the 2nd debate when he was asked to cite 3 mistakes he has made. But he would not admit to even one, and gave a weasely answer instead. Why is it so hard for him to say "well, we overestimated the jobs growth a little, and some outside factors kept us from reaching those goals. And as your President, I'm sorry that we haven't got there yet, but look at what we have acheived, and let's stick with it and keep working on it together." I think people would respect him for that...instead they get no admission of the failure to achieve the promised results, and some weasely answer about "people I appointed, but I'm not going to name names and embarrase them...."

That's the only thing I am faulting him for here: inability to admit any mistakes or failures or missed targets as far as the economy goes. :)

With that, I am going to bow out of the economic aspect this discussion now, it is getting too circular and I think my point is being missed.

Dexter...