Asymmetrical Information

This is good news, but it probably isn't going to help Bush much. We have had plenty of good economic news before this over the past several months, and Bush's approval ratings continue to sink. As long as Iraq is a problem, Bush will never enjoy a sustained bounce in the polls based upon the economy.

"Of course, it's not great news for all Americans. There has to be some consternation in Kerrystan right now . . ."

I wouldn't bet on it. Your boy Bush seems to have a talent for taking really bad ideas and implementing them in the worst of all possible ways. See, e.g., Iraq. A lot of us thought the invasion would lead to (1) a pointless loss of American life (800+ and counting), (2) useless expenses for the U.S. ($200 bil. so far, I think), (3) civil war in Iraq (should have checked with Daddy, GWB), (4) a significant deterioration in our relationships with the rest of the world (in some ways, this might be the worst effect), and (5) no positives for the US. And all of that has proved true. But Abu Ghraib, Chalabi spying for Iran, and the extent of the anger the rest of the world feels towards us were unexpected (at least by me).

As every CEO knows, you can only play with the metrics for so long - sooner or later the truth will out. That's one explanation for an average CEO tenure of 4 years (not sure on exact number). And now GWB is forced to face this reality: it has been nearly four years, he has proven himself to be well out of his depth, and the country has come to realize that the metrics on which it relied (WMD, Al Qaeda = Saddam, etc.) were fiddled. At this point, I truly believe that the election is Kerry’s to lose. (NB: Given that we went into 2000 on the heels of six to eight years of peace and prosperity, and Gore still lost, I’m all to aware of the Dems ability to sink the unsinkable).

No matter how good the economic news (and let’s be honest, the latest stats fall more into the “Can’t Keep A Good Man Down” category than into the "Achievements of GWB" category), I can’t believe it will be enough to save him. A turning economy wasn’t enough to save his father (who was actually a good President), and I don’t think people will feel comfortable enough with the new economic circumstances soon enough to help GWB.

And if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. We’ve survived worse than GWB before. It’ll just mean that another four years will be wasted, and that there will be more to clean up, when the Dems (or moderate Republicans) get the office in 2008.

Some call him Tim - and some call him a partisan troll.

The United States is in a war - sadly, with murderers rather than soldiers. To defeat the murderers is going to be a long, painful, expensive process. It is not going to be easy or pretty, and we will not be perfect in our struggle.

Of course, we can blame ourselves, and give up - and then pay a price that makes our current outlay of money and blood look like pocket change.

I agree that this is good news for all Americans -- with the possible exception of bankruptcy attorneys and Kerry supporters. It's bad news for Kerry because the Democrats thought they were going to have two issues: jobs and Iraq. As of right now, they are left with Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, has anyone else noticed how "success" has been redefined to the point it's impossible to achieve? Before the Afghanistan war, we were told by Bush's opponents there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands, American casualties AND that there would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilian casualties. Before the Iraq invasion, we were told it there would be tens of thousands of American casualties and millions of civilian casualties. In both cases, actual casualties have been far, far less than even Bush supporters dreamed they might be.

Why, when supporters once thought the war was worth 10,000 - 20,000 American lives to fight, are former supporters now saying less than 1,000 lives was too high a price? Is this not, instead, an overwhelming success? Why are we so willing to pronounce Iraq a failure just because peace and prosperity have not taken hold in the year since the invasion? The administration warned us that winning the peace would take longer and would be more difficult than defeating Saddam. Even if we did not hear that warning, we should have known this would be the case. Show me a single example of a defeated country having it's government reestablished in less than two years. It took us far longer to establish governments in Germany and Japan after WWII. By the new definition of success, Bush can only succeed if he does what has never been done before -- establish a democratic, stable, peaceful, friendly, country in less than 20 months.

David: The answer to your "why" is easy. The wrong guy was running things, and success helps Bush.

I wish it wasn't so cynical and so simple, but all available evidence says that it is, for the majority of those involved.

It's no secret that I am a Kerry supporter. I'm pretty much of the ABB mentality and happily admit it. I don't think Bush is evil. I don't think Bush is an moron. I just can't, with perhaps two exceptions, point to any decision he has made in the past 3.4 years and say, "That was a good idea...and well implemented too."

What pisses me off is when, because I dislike Bush and his policies and his actions, I am attributed with having evil thoughts about the success of the United States in any respect. Hey, I have friends who have been out of work for a year too. I'd much rather have Bush for 4 more years then have any of them loose their houses or be unable to provide for their children.

It's typical partisan clap-trap. I never once said at any point from 1992-2000 to my more conservative (and Clinton hating) friends, "Oh, you must hate the fact that the economy is going gang-busters because now no one can beat Clinton."

They were unhappy about Clinton (for some very good reasons, I might add. I just didn't agree with them) but they were thrilled about the economy. Why is it, when the tables turn, we "Progressives" (apparently that's the new "I'm not a liberal but I am" buzzword) are rooting for the country to go down the tubes, just because we dislike Bush's policies (and for some very good reasons, I might add. You just don't agree with them)?

Once again, I find this type of pandering beneath you. I expect better.

I didn't say that all Democrats, liberals, what have you, are rooting for the economy to go down -- or at least, I didn't mean to say so. "Kerrystan" was a reference to his campaign, not his supporters. And I do, absolutely, think that most of the people on the Kerry campaign would like to see economic growth, and jobs growth, hold off long enough to get Mr Kerry into office--politicians at his level are dedicated to winning elections above almost all other considerations. I'm sure that they have convinced themselves that they feel this way because it's really in the long term interest of The American People -- but if you think that the folks down at Kerry headquarters are celbrating today because, hey, we may lose the election, but Getting This Economy Going Again is far more important than Petty Partisan Concerns . . . well, I don't think you've spent enough time with campaign types. Those folks are in it to win.

Although I am an independent, I believe that Mr. Bush will get my vote. And, I've already placed my bets... that Kerry will not win a single state except Massachusetts. I expect to collect.

I, in general, believe that Mr. Bush has performed well. I don't believe it is the job of the president to create economic success. That is the job of the market. There will always be good and bad times.

I believe that Mr. Bush did the right thing in Afghanistan and in Iraq, even though I am not convinced that the outcome will necessarily be what we would like it to be. The real world has a way of intervening in these things.

And, Mr. Kerry alienated me with the first words he spoke in this campaign, when he literally suggested that Mr. Bush was in league with the Ku Klux Klan. This odious statement convinced me that Mr. Kerry is a no good piece of crap. My wife, who is black and Filipino, immediately said: "Takes one to know one." The man is a racist slob. The Democratic Party is now the avowed party of racism and racist condescension. The legacy of Democratic welfare policy is the destruction of the black family. The renunciation of this racist legacy of the Democratic party is just beginning to be recognized and rejected within the black community (see Bill Cosby's remarks).

I don't see the Democratic Party having a single idea to offer. I wish it were otherwise. I am, in fact, a registered Democrat who voted twice for Clinton. The Democratic Party needs to go down in flames, so that it can humble itself and find something to offer us.

The Democratic Party is in the very odd position of offering up a candidate for Commander-in-Chief was has testified before Congress that he committed war crimes as an officer in the Vietnam War. John Kerry is a useless human being.

Kate - It is good to be reminded that there are good and decent people on both sides of the political debate. Unfortunately, there are far too many ABB types who have been equating Bush with Hitler for far too long (and far too few fellow ABBers objecting when the Bush = Hitler charge is made) to avoid the good folks on your side from being tarred with this brush. Unlike the Clinton bashing that went on (and still goes on), you did not find senior elected Republicans using the kind of rhetoric about Clinton that Kennedy, Gore, Dean, Daschle, Gephardt, Kerry, et al, have routinely employed against Bush. Since they were building their campaign on the theme of "two million lost jobs," since they could not contain their glee anytime the unemployment rate ticked up, it's fair to wonder if they aren't a bit disappointed when there's good economic news (or for that matter, good news from Iraq).

It's not that these folks are un-American. No, they're just rooting for the other side. As some ABBers have expressed it, if a few more Americans must die so that our country will learn it was a mistake to elect Bush, so be it. Again, they don't want Americans to die. If there were another way for us to learn our lesson, they'd be all for it. But, hey, you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs and all that.

With such an attitude about the worth of American lives, don't try to argue that some on your side wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a few jobs just to teach us a lesson. It's all for our own good.

It's not bad news for Kerrystan for two reasons.

First, as several have pointed out, the situation in Iraq is drowning out everything else. Unless that changes the economy will make no difference.

Second, I don't think there is much evidence that GDP numbers mean much. Bush I had good GDP numbers in 1992 and look how much good it did him. It's jobs that matter more. Yes, they have been growing the last few months but they have a long, long way to catch up and Bush will end with negative job growth.

Kerrystan is simply waiting on the sidelines watching Bush implode.

Jane Galt: ""if you think that the folks down at Kerry headquarters are celbrating today because, hey, we may lose the election, but Getting This Economy Going Again is far more important than Petty Partisan Concerns . . . well, I don't think you've spent enough time with campaign types. Those folks are in it to win."

Of course they're in it to win, if they aren't then Kerry should fire their sorry asses.
A less snarky writer might assume that they're happy in economic terms about good economic news but at the same time concerned because it could make electing their guy (who they think will be a better president than the incumbent) more difficult.

Regarding the recent reversal of the employment trend, if you exclude government jobs (which Bush has created in great numbers), the economic situation looks even worse. And how can we rely on an all volunteer service to thrust hundreds of thousands of soldiers into death's way? Because non-military, non-minimum-wage, non-temp jobs are in such short supply in many regions of the country. It has been sad to read the stories of soldiers in Iraq (whether wounded/killed or not) and see time after time economic factors playing a role in their decision to enlist.

The Democratic Party is in the very odd position of offering up a candidate for Commander-in-Chief was has testified before Congress that he committed war crimes as an officer in the Vietnam War.
Posted by Stephen

Except he didn't.

Also, your pal Bush couldn't be bothered to serve in Vietnam, or even to complete the Air National Guard rich kid gig he was given instead.

John Kerry pulled two tours of duty in Vietnam and earned three Purple Hearts there, among other decorations. That earns him the right to say anything he damn well pleases about the Vietnam war.

I dont think the these numbers on the economy necessarily remove the economy as an issue that the Kerry campaign can exploit. It takes a long time for economic news like this to have an impact on most voters. In the early 90's, for example, the recession officially ended in March of 91, at least according to the N.B.E.R. yet Bush 41's approval on handling of the economy never really improved and provided Clinton with his most potent campaign issue, even with pretty solid growth being announced for the quarter prior to the general election. There are still plenty of economic issues out there:outsourcing, loss of manufacturing jobs, budget deficit, high fuel costs, that can hurt Bush as well.

1. Parker - I'm not aware of trolling. If I've violated some rule of the comments board, let me know. If you're just f*cking with me, consider yourself f*cked back. (smiling).

2. David - I agree that Dems in Congress who supported the war were feckless (this inc. Kerry), and readily agreed to the cost the President proposed. I agree that some (but certainly not all) Dems opposed to the war overstated the risks to the US. I won't try to defend either group, but I'd say that the important point is that people are now coalescing around the realization that the cost/benefit ratio of the invasion of Iraq sucks now and has always sucked. Are they changing their minds as the facts change (or become more clear)? Of course. Do I wish they'd been more sensible early on, and opposed the war for the long list of rational reasons that were available? Of course. Does it change the fact that we shouldn't be in Iraq, or that there is little reason to believe this Administration can achieve any of the goals it has set (and reset) for itself? No.

As for the Bush = Hitler thing; some whackos (sp?) on the left use it, but no one (except maybe the whackos) believe it. Now, if you are complaining that people find the Admin. faintly 1984-ish and say so, well, go re-read the book.

And I seem to recall a number of Republicans referring to Clinton as a rapist. Which strikes me as pretty bad. But that might be just me.

3. Kate - if there is some technical definition of "moron," well, then you're probably right. His IQ is almost certainly over 80, for example. I think mostly people use it (and more and more often) to indicate that they have very little faith in the clarity or depth of his thought process.

That said, I think Jane's right that Kerry's campaign people want the economy to improve only after (but immediately after) he's sworn in. Hopefully, they are mindful of the pain of the unemployed, but I doubt it.

4. Jane - shouldn't it be entitled "Back on Track" instead of "Still on Track"?

Tim, with respect to your point 2, don't forget that Dan Burton called Clinton a "scumbag" and that Jesse Helms warned him to bring a bodyguard if he ever came down to North Carolina. The democrats/liberals who have used the "Hitler" analogy with Bush haven't been people in the rank and file like Burton and Helms were.

Eamon writes:

I dont think the these numbers on the economy necessarily remove the economy as an issue that the Kerry campaign can exploit. It takes a long time for economic news like this to have an impact on most voters.

Good economic news may limit Kerry's ability to convince the media that the economy is an issue, but I agree that in the absence of some radical economic turn, any economic news between now and November won't affect the election too much. Someone who has been unemployed since 2001 and gets a job in September may be marginally more likely to vote for Bush, but it's not going to be a slam dunk. (Of course, I also think that the election will be very close because both sides' bases are energized, so maybe a few votes will make the difference, and what the hell do I know.)

Does it change the fact that we shouldn't be in Iraq, or that there is little reason to believe this Administration can achieve any of the goals it has set (and reset) for itself? No.

As Jon Stewart said to Eric Alterman IIRC, "I was with you up to there, but now you're just talking crazy." In this case, there is no 'fact' per se about whether anyone 'should' be in Iraq or whether the administration is capable of achieving 'any' goals it set, since 'facts' are generally understood as having a quality of objectivity, yet those cited claims are (a) dependent on datapoints that are subject to the observer's prejudices and any information deficit those prejudices may themselves be subject to, and/or (b) dependent on datapoints that have at least some logical probability of occurring in the future. YMMV, of course.

I agree that this is good news for all Americans -- with the possible exception of bankruptcy attorneys and Kerry supporters. It's bad news for Kerry because the Democrats thought they were going to have two issues: jobs and Iraq. As of right now, they are left with Iraq.

The mind boggles at the level of self-deception needed to convince oneself that "worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover" isn't going to be a campaign issue.

Before the Iraq invasion, we were told it there would be tens of thousands of American casualties and millions of civilian casualties

Care to cite any mainstream sources that predicted millions of civilian casualties in Iraq?

The administration warned us that winning the peace would take longer and would be more difficult than defeating Saddam.

No, they didn't. In fact, I think the term "cakewalk" was bandied about. That and being greeted with flowers, etc.

Show me a single example of a defeated country having it's government reestablished in less than two years. It took us far longer to establish governments in Germany and Japan after WWII

Care to point out any outbreaks of violence on the level of what we have seen in Iraq a year or two after the Japanese surrender? Did FDR claim that bringing democracy to Germany and Japan was the primary aim of the war?

People in the US were lied to about the reasons for war. They were lied to about how long the war would take, and how much it would cost. They were lied to about the effort required. Now, as the truth comes out, you pretend to be shocked that former supporters of the war are backing away.

Figure it out. It's not rocket science.

Felixraybillyjoebob,

It is a bit of apples and oranges considering that there were not nazis around the world that traveld to Germany explicitly to kill Americans. I don't think there is any doubt that many terrorist islamofacsists have infiltrated Iraq for expressly that reason. In spite of that, it is fairly well established that nazi loyalists and guerrillas did continue to attack the occupying American forces and those Germans who were viewed as cooperating for at least a year after the end of the war.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030903-115834-9905r.htm

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has compared the attacks on U.S. and British troops in Iraq to those carried out by Nazi fanatics known as "werewolves."
"SS officers called werewolves engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them, much like today's Ba'athist and Fedayeen remnants" in post-Saddam Iraq, Miss Rice told a Veterans of Foreign Wars gathering in San Antonio last month.
Historians point out, however, that the Nazi Secret Service officially disbanded the werewolves shortly before Germany surrendered.
Nevertheless, other radicals who viewed Adolf Hitler as a martyr — many of them associated with the Hitler Youth — continued to call themselves "werewolves" and engaged in violence up to a year after the war ended.
The werewolves were blamed for the assassination of the mayor of Aachen, Germany, in May 1945.
"Aachen was the only city under U.S. administration. It was infiltrated by an SS hit squad who killed this guy," said Tom Schlesinger, a retired Army major and political science professor at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire, who served in Army intelligence in occupied Germany.

Regarding FDR:

From a campaign dinner 9/44
http://www.hpol.org/fdr/fala/
We are even now organizing the logistics of the peace, just as Marshall and King and Arnold, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Nimitz are organizing the logistics of this war.

I think that the victory of the American people and their allies in this war will be far more than a victory against Fascism and reaction and the dead hand of despotism of the past. The victory of the American people and their allies in this war will be a victory for democracy. It will constitute such an affirmation of the strength and power and vitality of government by the people as history has never before witnessed.

And so, my friends, we have had affirmation of the vitality of democratic government behind us, that demonstration of its resilience and its capacity for decision and for action - we have that knowledge of our own strength and power - we move forward with God's help to the greatest epoch of free achievement by free men that the world has ever known.

From the Arsenal of Democracy Speech:
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/fdrarsen.htm
We must be the great arsenal of democracy.
...
I believe that the Axis powers are not going to win this war. I base that belief on the latest and best information.

We have no excuse for defeatism. We have every good reason for hope—hope for peace, hope for the defense of our civilization and for the building of a better civilization in the future.

From the Four Freddoms speech:
http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/fdr.html
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look
forward to a world founded upon four essential human
freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression --everywhere
in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his
own way-- everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world
terms, means economic understandings which will secure to
every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants
--everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into
world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to
such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation
will be in a position to commit an act of physical
aggression against any neighbor --anywhere in the wold.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite
basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and
generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of
the so-called "new order" of tyranny which the dictators
seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

Not exactly a claim that bringing Democracy to Germany is the primary aim, but I don't believe it was Bush's either. Clearly, Roosevelt, not unlike Bush, felt that extending democracy was an integral part of our national defense.

Jim English
Chicago

felixjoebillyrayjoebob,

From your post:
No, they didn't. In fact, I think the term "cakewalk" was bandied about.

You think wrong! The "cakewalk" reference was from a former Rumsfeld assistant named Ken Adelman and was made in regard to the toppling of Saddam's regime.

From his Wapo Editorial linked below:
I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1996-2002Feb12¬Found=true

It seems he wasn't that far of base. Especially since he calibrates the term "cakewalk" by likening it to Gulf War 1.

Here is an actual quote of what President Bush had to say about post war Iraq near the end of the war.

President Bush at a Press Conference with Tony Blair in April 2003

"This work when the war is finished will not be easy, [but] we're going to see it through. "
http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Feb/04-785235.html

Nice try. Next time do some research instead of allowing you obviously faulty memory to be the basis for your arguments.

Jim English
Chicago

COuldn't ask for a better example of useless partisanship. Only fringe liberals compare Bush to Hitler but the administration itself said Iraq would be a cakewalk. Bush has the "worst job record since Hoover" but "care to cite any mainstream sources predicting millions of casualties.?"

Being the party/ideology faithful means believing, excusing or marginalizing your own side's bullshit while maintaining strict or unattainable standards for the other. Neither side is less guilty, but it sure as hell ain't dialogue, and it definitely isn't going to help.

-somecallmecynical

There have been some comments about people referring to former President Clinton as a rapist.

I don't know the truth of that particular matter.

I do know that there have been a number of serious accusations against him in this area - but I also know that accusations are not always based on facts.

However, I do know that he paid an $850,000 settlement with regard to his untoward behavior.

I regard it as proven that he is both a perjurer and an adulterer.

That being said, the accusations of rape don't seem to be made up of whole cloth - but do seem excessive in the absence of a confession or a conviction.

Parker, sane people believe that if Clinton cheated on his wife it is a private matter having no bearing on his fitness to be president.

The perjury you mention was not, in fact perjury, and consisted of lying about his sex life. Wow.

As to the rape allegations, no one has come up with a shred of evidence to back them up. Just more of the right wing's lies.

Amazing how you people get so het up over Clinton's lying about his sex life, but couldn't care less about Bush's lying about his reasons for wanting to go to war with a country which posed no threat to us, killing 15000 or so people, and horribly wounding thousands more.

Orbit (what an appropriate name),

At what point do you provide evidence that Iraq posed no threat to us? Given a whole slew of links suggesting that Saddam's regime cooperated with terrorist groups, including Al Qaida. Given his WMD programs.

I'd also like your estimate as to how many Iraqis would die under Saddam over the past year, and whether or not that number would be higher or lower. Ditto for a 10 year projection.

I'm confused. When exactly did "we" establish governments in Germany and Japan? One might also point out that we were responding to attacks on our country when we went to war with Germany and Japan. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan EVER attacked the US. Yes there was Sept 11th but the terrorist that day were not from Iraq, and their leader was a citizen of Saudia Arabia, and still is. In fact the leader of Al Qeada's family was allowed to leave the US without ever even being questioned.
What media source predicted hundreds of thousands of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan?
As far as the economy goes, it's kind of like those pitiful little checks we got back in the summer of 01. I don't know about anyone else but I need a hell of a lot more than a measly $5 or $10 in my paycheck for me to feel like things are getting better. Especially since BushCo has helped my employer get around paying me overtime.
I will admit, Bush did say it would be a long hard battle in Iraq. But, when I realized he'd been mistaken about the WMD's I was hoping he'd been mistaken about the long hard part too. Figures that would be the one thing he'd get right.
By the way, great blog you guys have here. It's like getting a lesson in economics just reading the comments!!

Wanda - You are correct, Japan attacked us while Iraq did not. Your point? In WWII, Germany and Italy had not attacked us (just their ally Japan) and yet our first response was not against Japan but against the Germans and Italians in North Africa. After we chose to fight, were we wrong to decide to take on all our enemies and determine ourselves the time and place of battle?

We may or may not agree with him, but Bush made it clear that our beef was not just with the individual terrorists who attacked us September 11, 2001. We also were going after the countries that supported terrorists. The Administration never claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, just as Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. The Administration did claim that Iraq supported terrorist groups, including al Qaida. That, and the fact Iraq was still failing to live up to its obligations arising from the end of the Persian Gulf War, were the Administration’s primary reasons for taking on Iraq. (WMDs only became much of a focus as part of our attempt to gain full UN backing for war with Iraq.)

As for setting up the German and Japanese governments, we (together with the French and British) ran West Germany for four years. During that time, we established the German government. We ran Japan for seven years. We also set up their government — General MacArthur even wrote their constitution. My father was part of the army of occupation in Japan. Despite what many now think, perfect peace did not appear overnight. What’s going on Iraq today is not materially different than what was going on in Germany and Japan some 60 years ago.

My point is that by all reasonable standards the war in Iraq has gone very well. It’s only our lack of historical perspective that causes us to think differently.

Thank you Jim English for watching the fort while I was busy.

Orbitron - The rape charge about Clinton was made by a Democrat named Juanita Broderick on a 3 letter TV news station. I wish I had time to post the link but I don't. Kathleen Willie was a Democrat who was one of the victims in a big way. The reason why Clinton perjured himself was to try to evade conviction in a judicial proceeding. Someone was having their day in court (Paula Jones) and Clinton chose to lie. He was convicted of perjury and stripped of his ability to practice law by a judge who was a woman and a "Democrat".

FelixraymanJim English kind of set you straight. But I have a feeling that because you are a liberal (which means you have a problem with the English language I've determined - no other explanation), that you won't read and take in Jim's attempt at providing facts to you. Jim did an excellent job posting links and everything. Let me just say, Jim gave one example but for over 2.5 years, I have never heard George Bush say anything but how we have 1) a long way to go 2) it'll be hard 3) it'll be a long hard sacrifice etc. George Bush said it for Afghanistan and for Iraq. You can read all of his speeches. It isn't debatable. Now, the question is: What will you do with this information. To go on spreading lies after being corrected is to be 1) a propagandist and/or 2) untrustworthy as a perveyor of information.

ABR You are factually incorrect about the jobs. There were a lot of federal government hires in the last months of 2001 and 2002 but that didn't offset the private sector losses in the job market. The recession lost jobs in those years faster than the federal government was hiring. In the year 2003 and now 2004, there has been an upturn in the economy and the private sector jobs have turned back around. BTW, since you are a liberal you may not know when Bush took office. He took office in Jan 2001. The first major crash in the stock market was April 2000. The second big dip was October 2000. And it was in October of 2000 that many indicators were showing a dramatically downturned economy.

SomecallyouTimBoy. All I see from you is hate and discontent (for many many posts). Nobody learns anything from your posts except that you are full of "dislike" to the point that you can't see facts straight. It's ok to have a different point of view or see things differently, but you take it over that line with the Daddy Bush this and calling George Bush a liar over and over again. Someone would actually take the time to debate facts with you but you present yourself as so unreasonable and someone that wouldn't care to understand someone elses perspective that they don't bother.

General Public - The one thing to understand is that when the extreme left out there keeps calling George W. Bush an extreme right wing conservative there has to be more than "feelings" to back it up. Most conservatives (including myself) understand that George Bush is slightly to the left of center. He created an Education Bill that increase federal spending on Education more than Clinton did during his "8" years. He created a Medicare Bill with prescription drug benefit that cost 500 Billion, one of the biggest federal entitlement program expansions in a generation. He has proposed forms of amnesty for "illegal" immigrants. Even though he has been criticized by lefties as cutting Veterans benefits he has actually increased them with a huge increase. Libertarians want government to be 20% the size it is now. That is extreme (although appealing to some degree). Conservatives just want to see a government that at least is only increased by a cost of living adjustment if not reduced just a smidgeon. But yet, us conservatives out here have not been able to witness something like that in our life times. For over 60 years the federal government has grown and grown. Huge increases in spending along with power bases being developed and grown so that there is no chance of a cut ever. To cut would elicit screams of foul play or starving children or dying elderly. Even if only by 3%.

Remember general public, in 1995, for 5 long months, Bill Clinton in concert with the press railed against Republicans for cutting Medicare when the Republican Medicare bill had proposed a 7% increase per year for 7 years. More than 49% because of compounding. Bill Clinton called it a "CUT" of $270 Billion dollars. The press repeated that for 5 long months. I don't need to go into the intricacies for everyone to see that a 7% increase per year is not a cut.

This election comes down to a choice between a man like George Bush, who does and means what he says, is moderate/left of center. ..

.. and a man like John Kerry, who you don't know what he really means even after he says it (for the war, against the war) and has been tallied up by a few organizations to have one of the most left set of votes in the Senate.

John Kerry may win because George Bush doesn't excite conservatives, makes us mad concerning topics like amnesty for illegals and doesn't have a passionate voice very often setting the critics straight on the facts. I've seen Bush speak passionately only twice. Once in front of the Cato Institute. It was a real treat. Not using teleprompters, speaking from the heart, not stumbling. I was proud. He took on people on the left.

But I still have hope and optimism that this country will be able to see the clear choice and that George W. Bush will win with a landslide even though conservatives don't see him as our man.

David Walser--Germany declared war on us immediately after Pearl Harbor. By most reasonable standards, that puts the onus upon them for starting the war between us, even if we were able to bring the fight to their territory.

Pat in CA--I don't know about Juanita Broaddrick's political affiliation, but what is indisputable is that she signed a SWORN AFFADAVIT affirming that Clinton never assaulted or harassed her. You didn't make reference to this in your post. I think it's more important than her political party or what tv station interviewed her. If you believe her accusation, you are calling her a sworn perjurer. If you believe her affidavit, you are calling her a liar.

In your opinion, is Broaddrick a liar or a perjurer, and in either case, why should she believed?

Brittain 33 - You are correct but have managed to miss the point. On December 7th, Japan attacked and declared war on the U.S.; on the 8th, we responded by declaring war on Japan; on the 11th, Germany (fulfilling its treaty obligations with Japan to declare war with anyone who declared war on Japan) declared war on the U.S; and we responded the same day by declaring war on Germany. Again, the point is that we did not respond to Pearl Harbor by attacking Japan. Instead, we invaded North Africa!

After 9/11, it became official policy to take on any country that supported terrorism. It's fair to disagree with that policy. But it's not fair to claim that we should have left Iraq alone because they had no connection with 9/11, as if the President had not made it clear all along that our war aims went far beyond simply avenging 9/11.

Brittain 33 - I've been trying to avoid this debate about Clinton being a rapist. But, since I may have inadvertently raised the question in responding to a post by Kate (I was merely trying to point out that attacks on Bush by prominent Democrats have gone well past what was once considered acceptable), I'll reluctantly jump in. First, unlike the Bush = Hitler type of charge regularly thrown at Bush, there is a lot of substance to the charge that Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick. According to the media reports, Juanita Broaddrick tried to keep the story quiet and only "came forward" after it became clear newspapers were going with the story with or without her cooperation. At the time of the alleged rape, Broaddrick told a few close friends what had happened. Those friends confirmed that Broaddrick had shared the story soon after the event, that she was very emotional, had physical injuries (a bruised lip) consistent with her account, etc. Did she sign an affidavit saying she had not been raped by Clinton? Yes. She explained, on camera, she had signed the affidavit at Clinton's request because she was still trying to keep the story quiet AND because Clinton had the ability to put her out of business. (She ran nursing homes which required she keep in good graces with the Arkansas state government.) Many Clinton supporters found her account credible. Bottom line, there is a lot of substance to the charge that Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. People of good faith could easily conclude that Clinton did rape her. Beyond a reasonable doubt? No, but if you had to bet the life of your mother, which side would you come down on?

Second, who cares anymore? The fact a few Republicans may have been over the line by charging Clinton with rape does not give Democrats carte balance to make irresponsible charges against Bush. Much of what Democrats have been doing has added heat but no light to the political debate.

Orbitron: When you are testifying under oath, not telling the truth is perjury, regardless of whether the question asked involves sex or the person's sex life.

wanda - Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan EVER attacked the US.

If you mean by presenting a declaration of war then you are correct, but to what useful end? Afghanistan was a hothouse for Al Quaeda terrorist training, and if an entity that is not a nation-state should attack, is it permissible to attack nation-states that provide them with infrastructure?

There are differing points of view on the answer to that question of course, but to dispute whether Afghanistan was a legitimate target after 9/11 (whether or not, in your opinion, that target should have been singled out) carries the acrid odor of desperation.

The same reasoning applies for Iraq (again, regardless of whether or not you felt that the target should have been taken on at this time).

Pat in CA - This election comes down to a choice between a man like George Bush, who does and means what he says, is moderate/left of center.

Left of center on...stem cell research? Abortion? Homosexual marriage? Military doctrine?

There's a reason the terms "social conservative/liberal" and "fiscal conservative/liberal" have come into vogue, and few people who hold left-leaning views in both realms will confuse Bush for being, in general, left-of-center. I similarly doubt they will be impressed by arguments to that effect, although since my views lean right-ward in both realms, I can't speak directly on their behalf.

orbitrojan(horse) - The perjury you mention was not, in fact perjury, and consisted of lying about his sex life. Wow.

This had something to do with a sexual assault law HE HIMSELF HAD SIGNED while flanked by the preeminent harpies of the feminist league, if I'm not mistaken? So yeah, definitely "wow" (unless you're really that unimpressed by poetic justice), and as for the other, do bear in mind we are discussing perjury as defined by the legal doctrine in this country on this planet, not whatever parallel universe you're in that permits you to define it otherwise. (Hint: If the last thing you remember before entering a parallel universe is a dome-capped fungal specimen or a white powder, said universe probably doesn't exist.)

fulfilling its treaty obligations with Japan to declare war with anyone who declared war on Japan

Check your history--there was no such obligation. Hitler declared war on the U.S. on his own initiative. As proof, note that the same treaty did NOT force Japan to declare war on the Soviet Union in June 1941--in fact, Japan never declared war on the Soviet Union at all! How could Germany be obligated to Japan six months after it invaded the Soviet Union and got no help from the east?

I didn't miss your point, I'm pointing out how tortured and inapposite the WWII analogy is. We didn't get to North Africa until November 1942--11 months after Pearl Harbor, and five months after the Battle of Midway, and several months after we had troops fighting to defend the route to Australia in the SW Pacific! In any event, we were at war with Germany, which had declared war on us. Where on Earth do you see a comparison to the current situation?

You're saying she's a perjurer. Check.

Brittain33 - (sigh) An earlier poster argued that we should not have invaded Iraq because Iraq had not attacked us. I responded by pointing two things out: 1) Once provoked to war, we had decided to take on not just al Qaeda but all terrorists and countries that support terrorists. This made Iraq, from Bush's point of view, a legitimate target. b) There is historical precedent for our attacking a country that did not attack us first. I think WWII is a good historical example of this. Our involvement in WWII was a direct response to Pearl Harbor, but we did not limit our response to Japan. The fact Germany declared war on us an hour or two before we declared war on her does not alter my view on this point. I strongly believe we would have fought Germany, and not just Japan, had Germany not declared war on us.

As for the purely academic issue of whether Germany's declaration of war stemmed from its treaty with Japan or not, I am prepared to yield this point (because I don't have time to research the question) with the following reservations: I was taught in school that Germany's declaration of war flowed from its treaty with Japan, but my instructor could have been wrong. And, the fact Japan had been at war with the USSR in late 1939 (and lost) may explain why Japan was reluctant to go to war with the USSR in 1941.

Brittain33: "You're saying she's a perjurer. Check." Yep. The attorney representing the governor asked her to swear the governor had not raped her (or done anything else untoward). She needed the governor's good will to stay in business. It would not shock me to learn that many in a similar position would sign a document making a declaration that they knew to be untrue. Particularly if they had no intention on publishing the true story to avoid personal embarrassment.

I don't think the affidavit helps support the charge of rape and I don't think it blows it out of the water, either. If anything, I think it cuts both ways. You have to ask, why did Clinton's attorney come a calling if there was nothing but rumor -- she had shown no inclination of going public with her story.

If serving on a jury, I would not vote to convict Clinton of rape since I think there is reasonable room for doubt. But that's not the standard we use outside a criminal trial. On balance, I think the evidence is that something happened between them. For my money, he thought the sex was consensual; she didn't.

The Brodderick affidavit only cuts one way, against Brodderick. It's a sworn denial that nothing untoward ever happened between Clinton and her. Clinton did not come to her to have her sign it, SHE sought out an attorney to avoid having to be deposed in the Jones case. He also was not governor at the time of the signing of the affidavit, he was President of the United States, so your argument that she needed to stay in the governor's good graces is simply blown out of the water by a simple timeline. You can try to explain the affidavit away, but you can't argue with a straight face that it "cuts both ways". It does not. The only questions about it are how damaging is it and can it be exlained away, but the mere fact that she signed it and swore to it of her own volition is very damning and a major body blow to her credibility.

Thank you David Walser for being a voice of reason. I dislike dredging up the past about Kathleen Willey and Juanita. I haven't done so in eon's. I remember Juanita's friends who she told within hours of the event. I remember that she just wanted it quiet for decades. Because she failed to do so the VICTIM is to be slapped around by the likes of posters in this post. Huh. I believe her but so what.... And posters here are as clean as the wind driven snow. (Bunch of lying hypocrates I'd say).

Anonymousy You raised questions:
Stem Cell research? - Yes. Left of center because any conservative would've left the funding for stem cell research to the private sector where all research flourishes and has a purpose and gets done faster. Unfortunately because Bush tried to appease the left (didn't work) he had the federal government spend money on stem cell research on the remaining stem cell stock out there. Reality check for ya.
Abortion?What has George W. done on this subject but sign legislation that came out of congress that a VERY VERY LARGE majority of Senators and Representatives voted for limiting "partial birth abortions" except in the case of the health of the mother. Imagine that. Signing something like that which a very very large majority passed earns Bush a right of center label in your eyes. Leave it to liberals to redefine issues and their meanings as they've done in the media for decades but don't get away with anymore. Reality check for ya #2.
Homosexual Marriage?Funny on that subject to. 67% of the people want something done about the fact that there are some really really activist really left of center judges, mayors, governors out there pushing to make this country the second country in the world to grant homosezual marriages. Bush is not very actively doing anything on it. He cringingly tells people that we should work towards ammending the constitution which is a very non unilateral approach to dealing with the problem. AND FOR ALL OF THE LIBERALS OUT THERE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE radical extremist muslims who hate this country and want to wipe it off the face of the earth......... UNDERSTAND that some of the reasons why is their abhorrence for homosexuality, Hollywood and the basic degeneracy that they see in this country. Now let me be clear. I could almost care less about this issue. I am merely responding to anonymousy's claim that Bush is far right or right of center or whatever he/she thinks Bush is (so much hate for the man because of the lack of perspective). Bush is definately moderate or left of center if looked at as a whole in my eyes and many conservative people's eyes. THe problem is that liberals have moved so far to the left that moderates look like extreme right wingers to them. Liberals lack the reality check guage at the moment. Yes. I'm generalizing and I love to do so.
Military Doctrine?If you left wingers want to say that protecting this country and declaring war on terrorism (not like Clinton's declared war on terrorism and not like Kerry's proposed declared war on terrorism) makes Bush right wing go ahead. Just remember. This is where Bush has his strongest poll numbers. 70+% of the people like Bush for his decisiveness and action on the "WAR ON TERROR".

So go ahead and lose this election by attacking Bush on the that subject. :) :) :) :O)

Pat/Doug,
If "all research flourishes" in the private sector, I assume you oppose federal funding for SDI Research and other military endeavors, right? And are you not overlooking the fact that much of this so-called private sector research is done with either direct grants from the government and/or pursuant to a federal contract?

(Sigh) It's obviously time to extend Godwin's law to include Bill Clinton's sex life.

Second, I don't think there is much evidence that GDP numbers mean much. Bush I had good GDP numbers in 1992 and look how much good it did him.

I did some looking into this recently. I believe since 1900, when election year GDP has expanded by four percent or more, no elected incumbent has failed to win reelection. Gerald Ford, the only exception, failed to win in 1976, but was, of course, never elected in the first place. Don't know if this means much, but it would appear that in general it's a tall order to unseat an incumbent U.S. president if the economy's growing at a nice clip, as it is now. I do agree with the various commenters who note that Iraq is presenting Bush with a most unwelcome diversion from the strengthening economy, and my guess is that in any event energy prices are likely to begin sharply cutting into growth rates from here on in unless they start to come down.

Pat in CA writes "ABR: You are factually incorrect about the jobs."

I was not factually incorrect. I said that if government jobs
are excluded from the counts, the current employment trend
reversal looks worse (i.e., not as many jobs created). I did not
think this would be controversial since Kerry recently took
criticism for using the without-government figures to make Bush
look worse. I also don't see how my post brands me as a liberal,
though perhaps my implication that Bush is expanding government
contrary to his stated philosophies makes me a Bush-basher. I
was simply decrying a state of affairs in which soldiers enlist and risk their lives partly due to poor employment prospects in the private sector. I
don't care if you want to blame this on Bush, Clinton, or
whomever, it is just sad, and you don't need to be a liberal to
say so.

Another position that does not require being a liberal to hold is
stating that the Iraq war was a wrong move. Posters above write
that the war on Iraq was justified because they
harbored/supported terrorists. I am not aware of significant
evidence for this being more the case for Iraq than any of
several other countries, e.g., Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Pakistan. Furthermore it seems obvious that Iraq IS much more of
a terrorist haven now than it was, and will be into the
indefinite future. This point was raised by opponents to the war
beforehand, and disregarded. WMD is shown to be a non-issue. As
far as Saddam's cruelty to his people, there are probably a dozen
nations where intervention was/is more justified on this point
than Iraq. So none of these factors individually justifies the war.
Does the combination do so? It might, if the costs were not so
great: alienated allies, inflamed Islamic fundamentalists and
politically charged middle eastern hatred, overstretched finances
and military hindering our ability to wage more important battles
as they arise. Again, many of these points were raised by those
opposing the war beforehand. Unfortunately, politics and
patriotism somehow got mixed up in it, and as a result most
members of congress were too afraid to oppose the rush to war. A shame.

Eamon - Libertarians (who I really wish could educate America better) and Conservatives who I agree with mostly also, recognize that the constitution provides for the federal government to defend this nation. SDI, the Department of Defense, the branches of the military within, are all provided for by the constitution.

Yes, I believe that SDI (or missle defense) is necessary in this day in age to prevent nations like North Korea and China (who have Inter-Continental Ballistic capability) from hurting us.

In the process of garnering that capability to defend ourselves, it could be that defense contractors have to produce, bid, win bids, design and perform (and tests have shown performance in the last few years - it's not a dream).

But there is no other way to defend this nation. There is no mechanism or incentive for companies to just shell out money to defend this nation. Who will singally pay for it. How will a private company collect or be rewarded for their risk?

On the other hand, your apples to oranges comparison shows that yes, yes, yes, there is an incentive for private companies in the medical field to do the research necessary to figure out ways that they can market something that somebody will pay for.

If there can be a cure -for Menangitis or Alzheimers or whatever desease- a cure brought about by Stem Cell research, you can bet there will be a company who will try to find that cure. There will be a way that that company can get reimbursed for the research and development and service performed of saving lives or making people healthy again. Even Medicare will be funding the cure at that point because people who are covered by Medicare will want that coverage just like everyone in the private sector would be covered with insurance.

I'll address ABR, a long time poster later in some other post because I'm sure he'll/she'll be there (in a future post) lending to the left of center characterization that I've branded.

Eamon: Just because Bill Clinton was no longer governor of Arkansas when Brodderick signed her affidavit, it demolishes her credibility, as she had no reason to fear retaliation from state regulatory agencies?

That would make sense IF you can prove that no "friends of Bill" were in positions of power within Arkansas state government after Clinton left for Washington, D.C.

Considering that Arkansas is a small state with, until recently, a history of dominance by Democrats, that is highly unlikely.

Those who understand how state governments work would not regard your "simple timeline" as demolishing anything.

"I believe since 1900, when election year GDP has expanded by four percent or more, no elected incumbent has failed to win reelection."

So would it be a good strategy to trash the economy for the first 3 years of a new President's term so there would be a big rebound the last year?

Not to imply anything about GWB, you understand. The President (and the whole government) has a lot less influence on the economy than politicians like to claim. The recent recession started before Bush took office and was deepened by 9/11 eight months later. Neither one was in any way his fault. (IMHO, only a woof-ing moonbat could blame him for not taking more effective actions against Al Quaeda in eight months than Clinton did in eight years.) The conventional wisdom to overcome a recssion is tax cuts and deficit spending[1] - Bush did that about as deeply as Congress will allow, and the Dems have been screaming for three years about that. Maybe the tax cuts are only having an effect now, or maybe it's a part of the natural business cycle...

Note [1]. Just once, I'd like to see a different approach: Cut taxes and cut spending even further.

Pat in CA: Well, I see you've succeeded in defining those positions with respect to Bush as being "left of where I'd like him to be," but that doesn't make his responses on those positions particularly "left" as such.

Your post was amusingly like the rare occasion when I dared to venture into the Chomsky riptide -- i.e. the man seems to see himself as being the reasonable mdoerate and defines everything to his right as right-wing, whether or not the majority of people would find it to be so. Except yours was in the other direction of course, and a lot less extreme (thank-you).

Comments are Closed.