For Dems only.

[Balta1701]

Besides if you really want to believe the worst of a party, wouldn't it be much easier just to steal another election, and install another proxy President, instead of risking a HUGE public backlash?

The only way you can get that conspiracy is if none of the Republicans can get a majority and Jed steps in to save the day in a brokered convention.

[Rex Kickass]

Besides if you really want to believe the worst of a party, wouldn't it be much easier just to steal another election, and install another proxy President, instead of risking a HUGE public backlash?

 

It's not out of the realm of possibility. Tight electoral vote count? Crazy electronic balloting? Some strange irregularities in a swing state like Florida or Ohio or Missouri?

 

Stealing elections happens quite often. 1960, 2000, 2004 (although it probably didn't need to be stolen in the first place).

[southsider2k5]

It's not out of the realm of possibility. Tight electoral vote count? Crazy electronic balloting? Some strange irregularities in a swing state like Florida or Ohio or Missouri?

 

Stealing elections happens quite often. 1960, 2000, 2004 (although it probably didn't need to be stolen in the first place).

 

now contrast that to somewhere like Pakistan today... That's my point.

[Balta1701]

now contrast that to somewhere like Pakistan today... That's my point.

Our army is almost entirely overseas today. They can't stage a coup here as easily.

[DBAHO]

 

Short, sweet and to the point!

 

Hey, you and I see a lot of things very similiarly, and I agree that GWB has handled himself about as poor as a president can, but he's not bats*** crazy.

 

Anyway, I digress. Have a good one, sir. I better get at the daily grind.

Well I'm glad an avid Republican as yourself Kap can see that GWB hasn't done a very good job.

 

And I mean, I'll be frank. Most Australians, and probably most people around the world would say GWB is probably the worst (and dumbest) president America's ever had.

 

Whether that's fair or not, I don't know, but that's just the perception.

[kapkomet]

Well I'm glad an avid Republican as yourself Kap can see that GWB hasn't done a very good job.

 

And I mean, I'll be frank. Most Australians, and probably most people around the world would say GWB is probably the worst (and dumbest) president America's ever had.

 

Whether that's fair or not, I don't know, but that's just the perception.

For me, I think that GWB was right in policy a lot of the time, even including Iraq. But the handling of the way a) things were presented, and b.) the aftermath of the war, and c) the overall communicative direction he has given, especially in the second term, has been horrendous.

 

Immigration, he was wrong on. The economic factors for the most part he's done well, the housing crap the exception, but I don't think he has a lot of power to effect that. Anytime that taxes have been cut it's given the government more overall revenue, war spending aside.

 

You also have to remember that the war spending was one of the things that gave the economy a boost the first time anyway, right wrong or indifferent. The worst part of Bush is the allowance of Republicans, on his watch, to spend like Democrats. That is my biggest beef is the fiscal irresponsibility.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

For me, I think that GWB was right in policy a lot of the time, even including Iraq. But the handling of the way a) things were presented, and b.) the aftermath of the war, and c) the overall communicative direction he has given, especially in the second term, has been horrendous.

 

Immigration, he was wrong on. The economic factors for the most part he's done well, the housing crap the exception, but I don't think he has a lot of power to effect that. Anytime that taxes have been cut it's given the government more overall revenue, war spending aside.

 

You also have to remember that the war spending was one of the things that gave the economy a boost the first time anyway, right wrong or indifferent. The worst part of Bush is the allowance of Republicans, on his watch, to spend like Democrats. That is my biggest beef is the fiscal irresponsibility.

Bush's policy record on the environment has been horrifically bad.

 

[BigSqwert]

Anyone know of a good, objective site that breaks down local candidates running for office?

[Balta1701]

Anyone know of a good, objective site that breaks down local candidates running for office?

In most cases, nothing seems to be better than your local newspaper.

[kapkomet]

Bush's policy record on the environment has been horrifically bad.

For the most part, I agree, although I will say that I agree with his stance on Kyoto. Until the rest of the belchers of s*** in China and India are held to the same standard, you can't sign that treaty.

 

[DBAHO]

I suppose the argument there is America signing the treaty would have put far more pressue on China and India to follow suit.

 

I know when Howard was our PM, he didn't sign the Protocol, and it was one of the main reasons why he lost the election, and one of Rudd's new moves was to sign the protocol ASAP.

 

But maybe we had to find a way to make it more appealing for those 2 nations (with highly developing major economies) to sign the treaty by offering them benefits or something.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sqwert was asking the other day, so, here is a good reference point for Illinois local candidates - the Trib lists all their endorsements. You don't have to agree with the endorsements of course, but the articles discuss each race's candidates.

 

Combine that with this handy tool to find your districts, and you should be all set.

 

Posted in Dem and GOP threads.

 

[Balta1701]

God I love having the NYT on my side. It's remarks like this that just make it all worth it. 2nd paragraph.

Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq.

A slight bit of analysis is applied:

Let's check the numbers. Here the ranking of the presidential terms since 1960 by average annual GDP growth:

 

Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2%

Clinton -- 3.6%

Reagan -- 3.4%

Carter -- 3.4%

Nixon-Ford -- 2.7%

Bush II --2.6%

Bush I --1.9%

Envy of Most presidents = envy of his father, it appears.

[southsider2k5]

God I love having the NYT on my side. It's remarks like this that just make it all worth it. 2nd paragraph.

A slight bit of analysis is applied:

 

Envy of Most presidents = envy of his father, it appears.

 

So what did it look like if you threw out the Clinton recession/post 9-11?

[Balta1701]

So what did it look like if you threw out the Clinton recession/post 9-11?

Will President Clinton be able to throw out the upcoming housing market recession when she gets in office?

[Rex Kickass]

Will President Clinton be able to throw out the upcoming housing market recession when she gets in office?

 

IF she gets the Presidency, the answer is no. Because this recession is gonna be a lot longer and less shallow than the six month recession we had at the beginning of the decade.

[Texsox]

I do not believe Bush has been nearly as bad as many here. I also think President receive too much credit and blame for what happens during their Presidency. The fans want to take all the credit and point to their predecessor to blame any problems. And their opponents want to give them all the blame and none of the successes.

[NorthSideSox72]

I do not believe Bush has been nearly as bad as many here. I also think President receive too much credit and blame for what happens during their Presidency. The fans want to take all the credit and point to their predecessor to blame any problems. And their opponents want to give them all the blame and none of the successes.

The main reasons why this President has been so bad - Iraq, the way Afghanistan was handled (we left before it was finished, AGAIN), the oil-loving energy policy, the nearly complete lack of regard for the environment, the adverserial tone of foreign relations, the bungling of the agencies responsible for the war on terror, the my way or the highway attitude, and the outright stomping on the Constitution (signing statements, warrantless taps and searches, etc.)... all fall right on his doorstep. They were all well under his control. He receives bad press for those, and deserves all of it and more.

 

Now, on the economy, I agree - I don't think he's done a lot of damage. He's done a few good things, a few bad. And Presidents don't have a ton of control over that anyway, as you say.

 

[southsider2k5]

Will President Clinton be able to throw out the upcoming housing market recession when she gets in office?

 

Much like the first President Clinton, she will come in at the bottom, which makes it easy to build growth numbers off of.

[Rex Kickass]

So what did it look like if you threw out the Clinton recession/post 9-11?

Reagan was President under a recession that was far worse than the 2001 recession.

[Balta1701]

In a pretty rare victory...made even more rare by the fact that Senators Clinton and Obama showed up to vote...the Dems have successfully filibustered an attempt to ram through a FISA update that granted amnesty to any telecom company that joined in Mr. Bush's illegal wiretapping programs.

[NorthSideSox72]

In a pretty rare victory...made even more rare by the fact that Senators Clinton and Obama showed up to vote...the Dems have successfully filibustered an attempt to ram through a FISA update that granted amnesty to any telecom company that joined in Mr. Bush's illegal wiretapping programs.

*applause*

 

[Balta1701]

Bush issues another signing statemetn, this time on the defense appropriations bill, saying that he will ignore clauses in the bill that require him to set up a commission to investigate Fraud in Iraq contracting and the clause that prevents the U.S. from building permanent bases in Iraq.

[Balta1701]

[YASNY]

 

100% absolutely correct!