[quote=“Alien”][quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
I am not convinced that Iraq is sooo bad for Bush. All the bad news recently has not hurt his poll figures much, has it?[/quote]
Incumbants with such a low position in the polls this close to an election have never won reelection. I read it a couple months back. Look it up for yourself if you need proof.[/quote]
May well be true. By recently, I was referring to a matter of the last few weeks. But remember I was making a point about news on the war in the future (not the past). I think most people have made up their minds on the war. More bombings may just remind people that Bush is a “War president.”
Also, you assume that it is the Iraq issue that is causing the low polls. i think people’s view of the economy is another strong cause. So, the marginal change in the numbers in the future may be due to peoples’ changing views on the economy.
[quote=“alien”]
As Clinton said last night at the convention (GREAT SPEECH, btw, for those who missed it. Brokaw called him Elvis!),
“Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.” [/quote]
Indeed - but decisiveness and dithering are. And that was the contrast I was making.
[quote=“alien”][quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
Very close this election - my suspicion has all along been that Bush might just, just squeak in again. [/quote]
Good suspicion. Black box voting will have a lot to do with an upset such as that.[/quote]
Until then, you were being quite adult! I mean, really, that’s a wee bit silly.
[quote=“alien”]
[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]
If Bush loses, I think it will be because people believe the danger is passed and its time to rebuild ties with France! Much as that will have FS spitting blood.[/quote]
Well, yeah, that, and the economy is in shambles,[/quote]
It isn’t in a shambles. I believe it is weaker than most people imagine. But… Any weaknesses there are in the economy though come from a) an unsustainable housing bubble - the Greenspan effect and b) the build up of personal debt during the roaring 90s.
So, Bush may well not get elected because of a deteriorating economy around election time, but I would not BLAME him for it, which you seem to do in a rather naive way.
It is too high. It is not “out of control.” Taxes will have to be raised, i feel or dramatic cuts in spending. take your pick.
Something which happened during the Clinton years to an astonishing degree. The rise of corporate CEOs as national heroes - the impact of technology on the wages of skilled and unskilled workers. Would you hold clinton accountable for that? If not, then why Bush?
Despite the fact that spending on education has gone up dramatically. The fault seems to lie at the state level, where funds are not being spent. So…, what? You would increase spending even more to have the states not spend even higher sums? Besides, this line was just a little campaign slogan, devoid of much meaning, wasn’t it now?
Alien, you have my vote at least, for the title of one of the forum’s more peurile posters.