"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:03:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:59:34 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:14:02 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


That's why it's called wishful thinking. When was the last time
any
President had the very approval ratings that Bush has consistenly
had,
plus
a rebounding economy, been the incumbent, and lost?

Hmmmm, I think his father was a one-term president.

You don't really like to stay in context, do you?

You asked a question.

Bush was *very* popular with the people, especially after the Gulf
War.

His father went back on his word about taxes. The Democrats got
people
to
believe that the economy was bad, which was a lie.

As yes, the dumb people. So easily manipulated.

Enough. The economy was growing at 3% under Bush the first. Not the
worst
economy in 50 years.

This will come back to haunt you later in the post.

There is more an varied news media now, than then.

I think that you're going to see a backlash pretty soon. How big it
will be, I don't know.

The current Bush holds the record IIRC for highest sustained job
approval
ratings.

Well, you can only ride the 9-11 wave for so long, especially with the
war in Iraq sending more and more people home in body bags. And his
ratings have dipped at times as well.

The American people approve of the war @63% I don't think that means only
Republicans.

IIRC, Bush Senior's approval rating was about that at the time of the
war. He wasn't even saddled with an unclear situation with Americans
coming home in body bags long after the fact.

Polling shows that suport for his stand in Iraq has INCREASED.

We'll see how long he's able to sustain that.

The tax cuts worked.

I think that this isn't clear yet. If you like huge deficits, maybe.

Tax cuts are the way to reduce deficits in the long term.

Didn't work for Reagan.

Of copurse they did, the last time we saw this kind of growth was after the
Reagan tax cuts.

Didn't work for Bush Senior. The current Bush
has already taken a modest surplus to a HUGE deficit in three years.
And it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

It's not a huge surplus when viewed as % of GDP the way all past deficits
have been.

The Democrats have moved to far to left. They have nothing new to
offer.

TOO, TOO, please try to proof...unless it's just a fact of having to
learn the difference between too and to.

Well, all I can say is wait and see.

Bush has outflanked them on every issue they used to own, plus the
fact
that
Democrats are a major reason for the weakness we had in our miltary
and
intelligence gathering capabilities because they voted against every
bill
that would have helped the U.S. be prepared are widely known.

In English please.

Do some research on what things the democrats voted for and agaainst in
terms of the military and the CIA.

YOU need to do some research and see who started the military
drawdown. Let me give you a hint. It started in about 1983. I remember
the moaning from the career soldiers at the time, who were watching
their chances for advancement get worse and worse. This started when I
was in basic training.

Clinton cut the military

So did Reagan, you dolt.

Because he ended the ****ing coldwar, but he did not cut or change the rules
on intelligence gathering.

plus many people who might have stayed in got out
because they despised him.

People were already getting flushed out in 1983 and the following
years.

BTW, you can't solely lay the blame on the Democrats on this issue.
The erosion started with Reagan's drawdown in the 80s. I was there you
know. I saw it first hand.

Reagan did not gut our intelligence gathering capability.

Nice change of subject. You can't even argue truthfully.

Like you can.

The context of this upcoming election is very different from his
father's.

Actually, I don't think it's all that different, with the exception of
9-11. You know, the Republican's considered Bush's (the elder)
election a foregone conclusion as well. He had just won a war and the
economy wasn't bad.

It was sold as being the worst economy in 50 years. The broken promise
on
new taxes hurt Bush with his base.

No ****. Iwonder how Medicare is going to take.

With the AARP endorsing it, pretty well, I should think.

The war was long over when the election rolled around.

Well, less than two years. Besides, I maintain that this will be the
current Bush's Achilles Heel (among other things).

I don't think so, especially after catching Saddam.

And nobody knew who Clinton was either (well, some
of us knew him because he was governor of a neighboring state).

And here are some interesting stats. The first column is "applies",
the second "doesn't apply", the third, "no opinion". Looks to me that
in every category, he's slipping, in some cases just a bit and in some
cases, by quite a margin.
snip
A lot depends on the questions asked.

I hope you remember this the next time you crow about President Bush's
poll numbers.

You seem to forget it then.

History is on the side of the popular incumbent.

Except for Daddy, of course.

For the reasons already outlined. Now who's not arguing honestly?

When the economy is strong it makes it even better, and right now the
economy IS strong and by election
day, it will be even stronger.

And as you said, the economy wasn't bad under Bush Senior either.

But not growing like it is now.

You just keep making my point for me. Thanks.

Your welcome. When did your point become how Bush is going too be
re-elected?

Lastly, I think the lateset news on the idiotic things said by McDermott,
Albright and Dean are not helping the American publics perception of the
Democrats.

How would you know?

Because of all the negative comments I've heard regarding their comments.

You don't have any sort of objectivity at all.
You've already got Bush elected.

That's teh most likely scenario, given his popularity and how much the
Democrat establishment is conspiring to ruin Dean, plus his own idiotic
statements and contradictions.