"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:56:04 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's
anybody
who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

That's *exactly* what they said in 1991.

The war was over and he'd broken his promise on taxes.

9/11, Saddam captured, Iraq liberated, Economy rebounding like
gangbusters,


What did you major in? Library Science? Just because the Dow hit 10,000
doesn't mean the economy is rebounding. The job market is still atrocious,
spending is through the roof and the internal deficit is growing at a
breathtaking pace.

Why is it that whenever one talks about the Dems that the Californian debt
crisis becomes such a focal issue, but no one mentions the federal and trade
deficit?

McKelvy, since you obviously get all your finance news from Drudge Report
headlines, let me give you a crash course:
An increase in internal debt leads to the following:
a. makes it more difficult for the government to pay its ever increasing
debts
b. results in higher interest rates
c. will likely result in higher inflation
d. the above two will cause bond, and consequently stock, prices to crash
e. consumer spending will be reduced to zero

Just like Gray Davis imposed illegal taxes on vehicle owners, this
administration imposed illegal trade tariffs on items like steel. Again, no
coverage in the news (anyone sense a pattern?).

So, no. The economy is not making out like gangbusters. Yet. And no. He is
not the messiah. You should honestly quit smoking that stuff.


higher approval rating, Prescrition drug benefit, and people like George
W.
Bush better. That plus the fact that the Dems are at war with each other,
it doesn't look good for anybody beating a popular incumbent.

Remember, there is a certain amount of people that will vote their party
line. Then there's theswing voters, they are the ones that win elections.
They tend to be more moderate and aren't likely to "swing" towards any of
the Democrats being offered.


Again, you exemplify your paucity of comprehension. "Swing" voters, as you
call them, are usually on-the-fence Democrats (liberals or socialists, as
some have referred to them) who would vote for a Republic they liked.

A conservative would rather commit hara-kiri than do the converse.