posted on December 4, 2003 05:21:58 AM new
It's a certainty that Dennis Kucinich will not be the presidential candidate. However, I believe that he would be a good president... head over heels above what we have now.
It's not a good policy for Democrats to oppose any of the nine candidates. Any one of them will save the country and the world from the ravages of another Bush administration.
When more and more Republicans start slamming the president then his chances are diminishing greatly. Two million jobs is a lot of jobs lost. Far, far too many. Because of the business I am in I attend many community meetings, fundraising event and the like. Not one Republican that I have talked to intends to vote for President Bush in November - no matter what rabbit he feloniously pulls out of his hat. My personal bankruptcy attorney says business is better for her than it's ever been. It's not those who have run up their credit cards on spending binges, it's those who are out of work from our steel mills, hospitals (we just lost another one here) and manufacturing plants. Yes, he's done a wonderful job - putting a majority of Americans in the gutter. Sorry, JMO. You are an American and have the right to vote for who you want to as long as you do it fully informed, which I believe you are.
Helen
Have you seen the new MoveOn Bush commercial? It's hysterical. They bring up the 2 million lost jobs and how his tax cut was supposed to prevent that. Then at the end of the commercial the words "Mis-Leader" are plastered over his head.
Edited to repair my horrible morning grammar.
Cheryl
http://tinyurl.com/vm6u
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Dec 4, 2003 07:20 AM ]
posted on December 4, 2003 08:39:22 AM new
Cheryl - Unemployment, right now, is not higher than what has been considered 'normal' for many, many years. You guys on the left, keep harping about this....but anything under a 6% unemployment rate is pretty normal for this country. I once posted past years unemployment rate charts to prove this. Guess you didn't see it then.
------
More and more Republicans 'slaming' Bush? You think those same republicans who might have a disagreement on policy issues are going to vote democratic in the 2004 elections?
posted on December 4, 2003 08:49:09 AM new
Here's another more moderate dem I always enjoy reading/listening to. At least she can clearly see things as they really are.
The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.
Ari Emanuel, a talent agent who represents Larry David and whose brother served in the Clinton White House and now in Congress, knew just how bad the Drudge story was for Democrats. "People are assembling over a political issue -- the 2004 election," he told the press in response to the ruckus about hating Bush. "The invite didn't say 'Hate Bush,' and I don't think (the Drudge story) was productive."
Productive? I bet it produced a lot of money for George Bush. And worse, it helps produce votes for him.
The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.
Enemies are one thing, but with friends like Laurie David, the Democratic nominee is going to need all the help he can get.
[Estrich is professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California. Contact her at [email protected]]
No, I didn't see the unemployment stats. I don't rely on those stats. Those only count the number of people who are receiving unemployment compensation. There are many, many people who do not qualify to receive them. I would be one of them since I work for a non-profit organization with fewer than 5 regular employees. How many small companies with fewer than 5 do you suppose have closed? Those employers do not have to pay in to the insurance fund. There are also those who didn't work someplace long enough to collect it, those whose benefits have fun out and there are a whole slew of other reasons why someone is not on unemployment compensation. Those numbers are meaningless.
Edited to add: I do agree with the message in your other posting. Hatred for one person tends to produce the opposite effect. You have people runnnig to the poor fellow's defense which is what we see a lot of on this board.
posted on December 4, 2003 11:14:29 AM new
Cheryl - [i]Those numbers are meaningless
[/i].
Well...maybe to you...but they're the figures that our government has always used to show where the unemployment levels are currently. No matter who's counted in them or not. Nothing has changed from who was counted to who's not being counted now.
So...it's no different now than it has been under past administrations....that's all I'm saying.
posted on December 4, 2003 12:46:11 PM new"So...it's no different now than it has been under past administrations....that's all I'm saying."
Eight times a year the Federal Reserve releases the Beige Book:
This is from the December 8, 1999 Beige Book, released after almost seven years of the Clinton presidency and 47 weeks before the 2000 election:
Tight labor markets were reported in all Districts. Workers that have been in especially high demand include high technology workers in Boston and Atlanta, carpenters in Cleveland, skilled workers in St. Louis, and entry level employees in a variety of industries in Kansas City. Stores in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Minneapolis, and San Francisco said they were having difficulty finding temporary workers for the holiday shopping period.
Wage increases were described as persistent in most Districts. Reserve Banks received reports of increases ranging from 3 to 10 percent on an annual basis. Although the rate of increase did not appear to be accelerating generally, there were some reports of higher recent salary increases in some industries and regions. Richmond District employers noted substantial wage increases recently. Atlanta noted significant increases in compensation for health-care workers. The use of signing bonuses has spread, according to reports from several Districts.
My, how times change. This if from the summary of the Beige Book released this week, three years into G.W. Bush's presidency and 48 weeks out from the 2004 election:
Labor markets across the nation generally improved or remained stable, with several districts noting a slowing in layoffs. Stronger demand for temporary workers was noted by Boston, Richmond and Minneapolis; Chicago added that the higher demand for temps was widespread. Several districts indicated that firms are waiting for sustained increases in orders before hiring permanent workers, although Boston reported some increases in permanent placements by temp agencies. Firms had difficulty finding some specialized workers in the Kansas City district, but labor markets remained slack there overall. Dallas and San Francisco also reported slack labor markets, although Dallas did note fewer layoffs. Minneapolis also reported increased hiring plans in some areas. Labor markets remained steady in the Cleveland and Atlanta districts as a whole, with few signs of impending increases in employment.
Wage pressures were mostly subdued, although almost all districts reported concerns about escalating health and other insurance costs. Several districts noted that employers were shifting more health insurance costs onto employees, with Kansas City adding that some small firms are eliminating health insurance entirely. Dallas cited rising health insurance costs as a factor, making firms reluctant to add new employees. New York reported that bonuses in the securities industry are expected to be 20 percent higher than last year.
posted on December 5, 2003 11:09:31 AM new
our profe said: "Carol Mosely Brown (sp?) impresses me greatly, but......
"I would call the United Nations and I would call our allies around the world and offer them all Krispy Kremes and make up and engage them in helping us to come out with honor." -- Carol Moseley Braun, on what she would do about Iraq if she were President, 11/17/03[/b].
posted on December 6, 2003 09:39:52 AM new
"donuts! m-m-m-m"- Homer Simpson
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 6, 2003 10:01:07 AM new
profe - Donuts?????
You and Ms. Braun are exactly the people Joe Lieberman AND the U.N. are targeting. Donuts.....shame....shame.
Lieberman: Food Is the Enemy
"Sounding less like a presidential candidate than something of the Onion, Sen. Joe Lieberman is waging war on Big Food. "Parents today are being forced to contend with a new threat--big food companies targeting junk food at children," the new York Sun quotes Lieberman as saying. "We cannot raise strong and healthy children if the best efforts of good parents all across America are being consistently undercut by corporations looking to profit by spreading bad behavior."
"The Sun adds that Lieberman "criticized President Bush, saying he had 'dropped the ball' on the issue."
"It seems minor matters like fighting al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have distracted the president from what's really important, namely the battle of the bulge.
"Meanwhile, a Reuters headline proclaims: "U.N. Launches Fight Against Obesity, Poor Diets." May we offer a suggestion? Since the United Nations' ineffectiveness has forced America to deal with the security of the world essentially alone, why don't we let the U.N. handle this on its own? Surely the Security Council at least has enough will to enforce a New Year's resolution.
posted on December 6, 2003 11:40:14 AM new
I like Krispy Kremes, although it's a long way to buy them. I also agree with Lieberman. Every time I go to town I'm amazed at all the gravely overweight people I see. These folks are going to be an immense drain on the healthcare system as they get older. I don't blame the fast food industry though, I blame lazy people who think they don't have time to fix decent food for their families. They've made a choice to be fat. Around here, it's not an issue. My son and I burn more calories before the sun comes up than most people burn all day. Getting a 140 pound Ram untangled from a fence he tried to climb, or unloading and spreading 8 90 pound bales of alfalfa before your first cup of coffee will tend to increase your metabolism.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 6, 2003 12:05:44 PM new
profe - I'm sure you do expend a tremendous amount of energy, thus using a lot of calories during each day. And that the average American doesn't. We, as a nation, are getting heavier...no doubt about that.
Educating people is one thing. I'd just like the government to stay out of regulating what Americans choose to eat. My opinion is no one is forcing anyone to eat anything. Blaming this on the companies that offer these foods for sale is ridiculous, imo. Talk about 'big brother'.
Just as some say if there were no desire for drugs, there'd be no illegal drug sales. [No one buying] Same thing here, imo.
posted on December 6, 2003 03:47:54 PM new
I agree, but having said that, there may be some truth in advertising issues there that could be pursued. Ultimately though, if you're a victim of advertising, in my opinion, it's YOUR fault and problem, not the government's.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
No matter who's counted in them or not. Nothing has changed from who was counted to who's not being counted now.