The failed party

[Ming]

Mad... nahhh... just having fun with somebody making broad generalizations and throwing around insults based soley on people disagreeing with his opinion of things. It's always fun to troll people who are so sure of themselves, even when they are wrong

[Arrian]

Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in.

Capitalism, for all of its benifits, does have a downside: Marx saw it, though he overestimated its negative effects. A capitalist economy is cyclical in nature. Boom, followed by Bust, then back to Boom, and so on and so forth. The government, as it is currently set up in the US, can only have a limited effect on that.

Yet time and again, Presidents get popularity boosts in times of prosperity and suffer the opposite when times are tight. Even though they have very little to do with it.

If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point.

-Arrian

[DanS]

"His foreign policy is just plain bad."

His foreign policy is where he has the most support and where his team has the most experience. So if it's bad, then I suggest you could expect the very same policies (although not as competently prosecuted) from a lefty Dem.

Well, a Dem would make a lot more promises that he couldn't keep. Like extension of Kyoto or other silliness.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Also handing over a complete government to a leader who has made the economy worse and completly turned world opinion against us

The economic dowtern began during cClitons term, nearly a year befor Bush ws inagurated. With the typical reposnse time of the economy, government factors causing the downturn, if any, would hav been yet a year before that, sometime in 1999.

[DinoDoc]

GePap: Here's an international take on the issue:

What explains his success? First, the quality of his opposition. Apparently still in shock over the non-defeat of 2000, where they felt the presidential election was stolen from them, Democrats have struggled to find their voice. Their national leaders, **** Gephardt in the House and Tom Daschle in the Senate, are solid but uninspiring: neither was able to tour the nation, building genuine momentum.

Nor has the party generated much in the way of new talent. Two years after Bush Sr lost the White House in 1992, the Republicans had already developed a new programme and a radical new leadership, in the person of Newt Gingrich. There is no Democrat equivalent. On the contrary, the Democrats had to turn back to their past in this election, putting up 78-year-old Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey and 74-year-old Walter Mondale in Minnesota. Their best campaigner was not a new face, but an old president: Clinton.

More crucially, the Democrats failed to craft a single, winning theme for this election. It should have been the economy, which is certainly suffering. But that message did not get through.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,834573,00.html

[Jac de Molay]

Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in.

That might be true. But I can't help noticing how the stock market ticker falls every time Bush opens his mouth on CNN.

Bush, IMO, is doing some things that are undermining consumer confidence and the economy. One is the constant talk of impending war and the notion that the country is now mired in an endless "war" on terrorism. This does absolutely nothing to instill long-term confidence and economic momentum.

Second is the lack of bite in his corporate reform bill, and the public perception that his appointees and special interests are a big part of the problem. How
does market confidence get restored when the SEC chairman was a lobbyist for the very interests that caused the problem, and is now forced to resign? How does secrecy on the part of **** Cheney's energy task force restore investor confidence in these markets. It's a mess

Third, making economic policy based on unrealistic trends and projections. Clinton, if anything, underestimated economic growth in formulation budgets and economic proposals, and when projections were more optimistic, the administration and markets were given that much more confidence.

Back to work

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Republican Senate canidate in Georgia won largely because he painted the Dem, Max Cleland - a veteran triple amputee, as weak on defense.

So if you lost three limbs suddenly you are always strong on defense? Please...

And this election was a signal. The Dems failed greatly. They didn't offer anything, and the popularity of Bush won a staggering amount of races, especially after his unprecedented political gamble of campaigning days before a midterm election.

[chequita guevara]

He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.

[korn469]

He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.

and he won the Bronze Star and the Silver star for valor in combat

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Arrian
If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point.

-Arrian

I hardly doubt that Americans are the only one "stupid". Russians had already fallen for the freak Shirinovski once, and are now following on Putin about just everything.

Germany's parties are so uninspiring that voters had no choice but to give the ineffective Schroeder a second term.

If you can just tell me one democratic country in this world in which only few complain about their government, my hat off to you.

My conclusion is that everyone is stupid.

[Shi Huangdi]

"He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War."

And we can honor his sacrifice, but that doesn't mean he can't hold a position that people think is detrimental to the security of this country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.

Yeah, I know... what is your point?

Just because you lost three limbs in Vietnam doesn't mean that you can't be taken to task on your vies on defense. For the Dems to call it an outrage that that was done is pretty silly. I didn't know that it was forbidden to ask questions of him on that .

[Winston]

Well, Dem. figureheads have a record of dodging drafts. Apparently the party base is unfamiliar with candidates being attacked even when they don't.

[Gatekeeper]

I do believe that Max Cleland is much more familiar with the cost of warfare than a good deal of our leaders are.

You don't lose three frickin' limbs and earn military commendations and *not* learn a thing or two about just how frickin' bloody war is. And, yes, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if those memories would make the man think twice (or thrice) about sending our young men and women into potential meatgrinders overseas.

As for my home state — South Dakota — it appears that Sen. Tim Johnson (D) has come out on top by the grand total of 528 votes or so. I expect that there will be a recount request made by Rep. John Thune (R) shortly. So we won't know who our senator is until probably December.

Gatekeeper

[Winston]

I think a recount in S.D. is mandatory, as the margin of victory is within .25% of the total number of ballots.