Jeez, Abe. You scared me for a minute.
Just like when I found out Ashcroft was the ‘designated survivor’ for the last State of the Union address.
[ul]
[sup]Gary Hart?[/sup][sub]or perhaps, Al?[/sub][/ul]
Well, early in 1992 I didn’t think the Democrats had a chance either, because they had no real viable candidates.
I hope W’s in trouble.
Actually, Bosda, he’s got to convince Saddam to do all that for him.
With less than two years until the election, there’s way too much that will have to occur between now and then to save his presidential butt. It’s not that long.
In my opinion, that is. 
Blame the economy on a President? Why not the weather and the peccadilloes of the previous administration? Four years aren’t enough to create a trend, for one thing, and economics is a semi-stable system prone to nondeterminsitic bouts of instability, for another.
Huh?
And I vote.
My point is that all that means very little to those of us who are not economists, and/or are not interested in any more than whether we “feel poorer” or not. Many of us “felt rich” while Clinton was in office.
See what I mean?
I agree completely . . . hey anyone realize that two short years ago we actually had a balanced budget ?!
Who is spending money like it grows on trees ?
There will be so much money backing this ass in the next election that he will have a hard time losing. Big business loves him. Unfortunately, we have the best government money can buy. Worse yet, it’s our money – it’s built into the cost of everything we buy.
The freakin’ oil companies love him. What the hell?
Bwhahaha!
I think Harborwolf is on to something.
While a big “talking point” in the 1992 election was that electing a Democrat as President and simultaneously electing a Democratically controlled Congress would eliminate the “logjam” in government and get things (that some of us saw as ridiculous) done, exactly that happened, and Clinton couldn’t get any of his agenda through. He got next to nothing done and saw Congress become Republican on his watch.
So many people saw him as a likely one-termer. But, as I saw and advised friends in 1994, the Republicans really didn’t have a thoroughbred in the chutes, and we wound up running stop-gap stalwart Bob Dole.
I didn’t stay up late to watch the returns.
Shoe’s on the other foot right now. We have a Republican President who may or may not oversee a great economic recovery, but who still runs very positive approval ratings, and is the incumbent, likely running against…, who? As in '94 for the Republicans, the Democrats just (with Al, I think, having timed his exit exquisitely) do not have a thoroughbred in the chutes.
"that if we go to war the economy will rebound DUE to the war "
Well, if you say that how do you explain why the stock market drops whenever we talk about going to war?
I fully agree with these sentiments. Do the Democrats, or the Greens, or the Libertarians, or anyone have a viable alternative to GHW Bush? Because if they don’t, we will have six more years of the Bush legacy, and I shudder to think what that will mean for our country.
I mean, Jesse Ventura is starting to look like a stateman to me …
Yes, and what it means is that candidates have to campaign to simpletons instead of to those who bother to actually think. It truly amazes me those that somehow think that the inevitible train wreck that was the internet stock bubble wasn’t inevitible unless the previous administration had taken steps to cool things down.
Well, thank god we dummies have brainy thinkers like you to look up to.
…Can I help you loosen that tangled metaphor of yours?
I think this whole war against Saddam Hussein is just a cheap ploy to divert our attention from the economy. And we’ve got Kim Il Jong line up as the next enemy for the repuppetcans to protect us against so Cheney can get elected in 2008. I hope the Democrats can come up with a decent candidate in 2004. I’m too disillusioned to hope that the Greens or Libertarians or anyone else will actually stand a chance in presidential politics within my lifetime.
And so would 46% of those polled in Pennsylvania recently, a key battleground state (43% would vote for Bush).
When will people outside the USA get to vote?
Since Bush’s decisions affect us all we should have the right to vote in the US elections too - especially as most of us are MUCH closer to Iraq and the middle east than anyone in America.
If we all had a say then perhaps we’d not be on the brink of war now.