Economy Fucked Up, This Is One Reason

[thoughtone]

An answer to a question never asked


source: Reuters


Republicans eye missile-defense site on East Coast


(Reuters) - Republicans who control the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee called on Wednesday for studies on what could become a third missile-interceptor site in the United States, this one on the East Coast.


The plan would require the secretary of defense to conduct an environmental impact review by December 31, 2013, on "possible locations on the East Coast of the United States for the deployment of a missile defense site."

U.S. forces currently deploy a combined total of 30 operational missile interceptors in silos in Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in central California.

The three-stage interceptors are part of a layered shield against limited numbers of missiles that could be fired by a country like North Korea or Iran, some day potentially carrying a nuclear warhead.

The proposed step toward a third site is to be considered Thursday by the Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, an early stage of the crafting of the annual defense authorization bill that guides military policy.

The proposal was made public by Representative Howard McKeon, chairman of the full committee, and Representative Michael Turner, the subcommittee head. Such legislation is likely to be adopted by the full, Republican-controlled committee. It would have to be meshed with a companion defense authorization bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has not yet put one together.

It was not immediately clear whether the Obama administration would support such steps toward an East Coast missile site.

The House Republicans' measure would require the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency to develop a plan for the deployment of an East Coast site to be operational not later than the end of 2015.

Advocates of an East Coast site have said it would bolster the Boeing Co-managed ground-based shield against any intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be fired from Iran. One likely site is Fort Drum in northern New York state, according to experts.

"The committee is aware that a cost effective missile defense site located on the East Coast of the United States could have advantages for the defense of the United States from ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East," the bill said.

Baker Spring, a missile-defense expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said current U.S. capabilities for countering long-range missiles were geared chiefly toward North Korea, providing greater defense of the western United States than the east.

 

[thoughtone]

source: New York Times

Some Lawmakers Look for Way Out as Defense Cuts Near

SUMTER, S.C. — Senator Lindsey Graham rode last week like Paul Revere from South Carolina’s wooded upstate to its gracious Lowcountry to its sweltering midsection, offering a bureaucratic rallying cry for his military-heavy state — the defense cuts are coming.

On Jan. 2, national security is set to receive a heavy blow if Congress fails to intervene. That is when a 10-year, $600 billion, across-the-board spending cut is to hit the Pentagon, equal to roughly 8 percent of its current budget.

Mr. Graham’s colleagues in the Senate have been strangely quiet about the impending cuts, set in motion last summer when the Budget Control Act[/URL] ended an impasse over raising the nation’s borrowing limit with a deal designed to hurt both parties if they did not strike an agreement later on. A special select committee was assigned to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. If it failed, the cuts would come automatically, half to national security, half to domestic programs.

It failed, and the reckoning is approaching.

“Our ability to modernize will be basically gutted,” Mr. Graham told National Guard officers in Greenville. The Marine Corps will have to choose between its giant training camps in San Diego or Parris Island[/URL], he told community leaders in Beaufort, a stone’s throw from Parris Island.

The C-17 fleet at Joint Base Charleston[/URL] would be “devastated,” he warned city leaders at the Charleston Chamber of Commerce. The cuts to the soldiers and airmen at Shaw Air Force Base[/URL] would leave behind a “hollow force,” he intoned in a windowless room at the Quality Inn in Sumter.

In fact, no one knows what “sequestration,” the term for the automatic cuts, will look like, not lawmakers, not the military. But Republicans who helped create it as a bludgeon to force a bipartisan budget accord are now desperate to undo it. Indeed, some of the loudest advocates for blocking the cuts — like Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee — voted to create them; 28 Senate Republicans and 174 House Republicans voted for the Budget Control Act, overwhelming the opposition.

But the threat they created may be doing its job. Mr. Graham is openly talking about revenue increases to offset the costs. Even South Carolina’s ardently conservative House members, Mick Mulvaney, Joe Wilson and Jeff Duncan, said last week that they were ready to talk.

“I’m personally offended that they’re playing a high-stakes game of chicken with our national defense,” fumed Weston Newton, chairman of the Beaufort County Council, after hearing Mr. Graham’s dire warnings.

Eugene R. Baten, chairman of the Sumter County Council, told the senator of the one-cent sales tax increase that helped finance a land purchase to protect Shaw from encroaching development. “We have sacrificed as a community,” he said. “But we can’t do it alone. I’m not saying it’s the Democrats’ fault. I’m not saying it’s the Republicans’ fault. It’s both of y’all’s fault.”

On its face, the automatic cuts do not sound that bad. If they are put into effect, military spending would decline to its 2007 level, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. But really it is worse than that. The law exempts war costs and allows the administration to wall off personnel levels and military pay, about a third of the Pentagon budget. That means everything else — operations and maintenance, research and development, procurement, fuel, military construction — would face immediate cuts as deep as 13 percent, Mr. Harrison said.

And under the law, the Defense Department could not do the kind of planning that would rationalize the cuts. Mr. Graham warned the citizens of Beaufort that the Marines would have to shut either their Parris Island or San Diego training camps, and would face the same choice between their airfields at Beaufort or Cherry Point, N.C. In fact, under the law, all bases face the same cuts because Congress has prohibited base closings.

The dire warnings are not coming from Mr. Graham alone. They are coming at least as loudly from Leon E. Panetta, the secretary of defense. The administration, with the assent of some Republicans like Mr. Graham, has already agreed that the Pentagon will contribute around $450 billion in deficit reduction over the next decade. Tack on $600 billion more and the impact will be debilitating, Pentagon officials say.

But those warnings have not gotten Mr. Panetta very far. In May, the House did vote to shift the first year of automatic defense cuts to domestic spending, but the legislation did not get a single Democratic vote and will go nowhere in the Senate. Even some Republicans recoiled at foisting Pentagon cuts onto programs like food stamps and school lunch programs.

“I voted my conscience, and I voted my district,” said Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, who voted against the shift to heavier domestic cuts. “Reductions like this need to be equitably shared across the agencies.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has given no indication that he will undo the cuts without a broader deficit reduction deal[/URL] that would include revenue increases — and no such negotiations are under way.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Republicans were given the choice during the debt ceiling[/URL] negotiations between automatic defense cuts or automatic tax increases in the event that the so-called supercommittee failed to reach a deficit deal. They chose the defense cuts.

“The consistent pattern here is they have chosen to defend special interest tax breaks over defense spending,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “They made that choice.”

Mr. Graham’s intention is to separate defense from the larger deficit issue by aiming his arguments high and low. The high argument is about American greatness.

“The debate on the debt is an opportunity to send the world a signal that we are going to remain the strongest military force in the world,” he said. “We’re saying, ‘We’re going to keep it, and we’re going to make it the No. 1 priority of a broke nation.’ ”

To that end, his arguments grow increasingly complex, involving a near-term confrontation with Syria and what he is sure will be a military strike on Iran late this summer, “an air and sea campaign from hell,” he tells an audience in Sumter. A large screen at the Third Army command center in nearby Shaw Air Force Base seemed to back him up on that. It broadcast a multicolored map of Iran with its air defenses demarcated in loud, red circles.

Then there is the low road: fear.

“The soft underbelly that I’m trying to exploit is, ‘What does this mean to your state?’ ” he said.

The audience for that appeal could be forgiven for greeting it with a yawn. So far, at least, Congress is acting as if the constraints it imposed on itself last August will simply be ignored. The House in May approved an annual defense policy bill that authorized Pentagon spending $8 billion higher than spending caps approved in the Budget Control Act — without the automatic spending caps. The Senate Armed Services Committee stuck largely to those caps but included nothing to prepare for sequestration beyond ordering up a study of its potential impacts.

Military leaders in South Carolina came to the microphones of Mr. Graham’s events, speaking of “insidious” impacts and “devastating blows.” But pressed privately, Maj. Gen. Robert E. Livingston Jr., South Carolina’s elected National Guard adjutant general, conceded: “We don’t know what sequestration looks like. There hasn’t been a whole lot of planning.”

For now, Democrats and Republicans are waiting for the other side to blink. And the pressure may be working. Mr. Graham said the sentiment for raising revenues by closing tax loopholes or imposing higher fees on items like federal oil leases is expanding in his party.

Asked about the “no new taxes” pledge almost all Republicans have signed, he shrugged: “I’ve crossed the Rubicon on that.”

 

[QueEx]

I am convinced that the failure to seriously attempt to resolve any economic crisis as well as what I believe are deliberate efforts to create a lack of consumer confidence are all a part of a general plan and scheme by the right to oust the president, inspite of the damage done to the country,

in the interim.

 

[Cruise]

I am convinced that the failure to seriously attempt to resolve any economic crisis as well as what I believe are deliberate efforts to create a lack of consumer confidence are all a part of a general plan and scheme by the right to oust the president, inspite of the damage done to the country,

in the interim.

You believe in the magic honkey.

Suddenly, whites are powerful enough to control public confidence, but not powerful enough to fix the economy.

Whites don't have the power to do either. White control is dying.

If Barack Obama doesn't show that, front and center, nothing will.

 

[thoughtone]

I am convinced that the failure to seriously attempt to resolve any economic crisis as well as what I believe are deliberate efforts to create a lack of consumer confidence are all a part of a general plan and scheme by the right to oust the president, inspite of the damage done to the country,

in the interim.

It's all about preserving the status quo. A non-white president, the demographics of the country becoming less European American, the economic dominance shifting from western nations. The white male is becoming even more paranoid as such he is defaulting to his baser instincts.

 

[Lamarr]

I am convinced that the failure to seriously attempt to resolve any economic crisis as well as what I believe are deliberate efforts to create a lack of consumer confidence are all a part of a general plan and scheme by the right to oust the president, inspite of the damage done to the country, in the interim.

What BS!

It's all about preserving the status quo. A non-white president, the demographics of the country becoming less European American, the economic dominance shifting from western nations.

So where is the economic dominance being shifted?

 

[QueEx]

You believe in the magic honkey.

Suddenly, whites are powerful enough to control public confidence, but not powerful enough to fix the economy.

Whites don't have the power to do either. White control is dying.

If Barack Obama doesn't show that, front and center, nothing will.

- white and honky are your most used terms -- which you seem to have a habit of placing opposite of your position, even if its contradictory to something you've just said.

 

[QueEx]

What BS!

and you're hoping like hell it works.

 

[Lamarr]

and you're hoping like hell it works.

No, I just don't believe he, or Romney have the desire, or policies to allow an economic recovery.

See, Pres. Obama believes in capitalism without consequences. (Taxpayers foot the bill for the incompetence of others)

Romney allows for consequences, just as long as it isn't him or his other Wall Street cronies (in that case, taxpayers again, foot the bill)

No one wins except the "fat cat" bankers that bankroll the Republicans & the Democrats

 

[QueEx]

No, I just don't believe he, or Romney have the desire, or policies to allow an economic recovery.

See, Pres. Obama believes in capitalism without consequences. (Taxpayers foot the bill for the incompetence of others)

Romney allows for consequences, just as long as it isn't him or his other Wall Street cronies (in that case, taxpayers again, foot the bill)

No one wins except the "fat cat" bankers that bankroll the Republicans & the Democrats

Bullshit Lamar. Your comment to my belief that the republican right is deliberately trying to make matters worse in an attempt to unseat the President -- did raise any of your talking points above.

So that we're clear, notwithstanding your last, are you telling me that it is your honest belief that there are not those on the right who are taking positions and making statements with the specific intent to make matters relating to the economy worse or appear hopeless under this President in order to get their/your guy in ???

 

[Lamarr]

Bullshit Lamar. Your comment to my belief that the republican right is deliberately trying to make matters worse in an attempt to unseat the President -- did raise any of your talking points above.

First off, it's not right / left with me but...

Do the Presidents advisors understand the problem with the economy? These are the same cats, (Geithner & Bernanke) that didn't see the credit crisis coming! These are the same cats that demanded a stimulus program or we would see 8% unemployment, with Jon "MF" Corzine serving as advisor & architect.

Really......Do these guys understand the underlying "fundamentals" of the economy? I know Chris Dodd, author of the Dodd-Frank bill, sure doesn't. He told me the fundamentals were "sound" and within a week, Fannie needed a bailout.

QueEx, really, should we believe those guys have the cure for the illness when they can't accurately diagnose the disease?

What have the Republicans done to "deliberately" make things worse? Well, I have just as much confidence in them as I do with the Dems

 

[QueEx]

First off, it's not right / left with me but...

Do the Presidents advisors understand the problem with the economy? These are the same cats, (Geithner & Bernanke) that didn't see the credit crisis coming! These are the same cats that demanded a stimulus program or we would see 8% unemployment, with Jon "MF" Corzine serving as advisor & architect.

Really......Do these guys understand the underlying "fundamentals" of the economy? I know Chris Dodd, author of the Dodd-Frank bill, sure doesn't. He told me the fundamentals were "sound" and within a week, Fannie needed a bailout.

QueEx, really, should we believe those guys have the cure for the illness when they can't accurately diagnose the disease?

What have the Republicans done to "deliberately" make things worse? Well, I have just as much confidence in them as I do with the Dems

If I may quote AAA: "Typical."

As usual, you wholly failed to respond, on-point.

 

[thoughtone]

What BS!



So where is the economic dominance being shifted?

To the non-western nations.

 

[Lamarr]

To the non-western nations.

Under Pres. Obama's watch?

If so, what is his plan to reverse the tide?

 

[thoughtone]

Under Pres. Obama's watch?

If so, what is his plan to reverse the tide?

Fool, when did manufacturing begin leaving the US. Do some research for a change.

Since you continually deflect this thread here it is again. The truth shall set you free:

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=594078

One of the over 100 bills the republican filibustered. We would have been out of this morass along time ago if the republicans weren't bent on making President Obama a one term president.

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OOzl5yUy6ag" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

 

[thoughtone]

Under Pres. Obama's watch?

If so, what is his plan to reverse the tide?

source: The Hill

Republicans blocking highway bill for 'political reasons,' says Reid


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday accused Republicans of trying to kill the pending highway funding bill for political gain.

"Republican leaders have wasted almost a month of the Senate's time obstructing this valuable measure for political reasons, obviously," said Reid in his opening volley from the Senate floor on Monday.

The highway bill has been pending in the Senate since Feb. 7, when it cleared its first procedural hurdle with a strong 85-11 vote. Since then, however, disagreements about which amendments will see votes and over tax hikes included in the bill have prevented further progress.

Reid repeated on Monday that the bill would create 3 million jobs and said Republicans ought to get out of its way.

"If they ended the filibuster and we passed the bill before us it would be a huge step forward," he said.

Reid ended his speech, however, suggesting that he expects the filibuster will continue.

"In today's political climate, bipartisan support isn’t enough to keep good legislation alive," he said. "In today's political climate, 85 votes to begin debate on a measure isn't enough to guarantee the measure will become law."


<HR>

 

[Lamarr]

source: The Hill

Republicans blocking highway bill for 'political reasons,' says Reid


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday accused Republicans of trying to kill the pending highway funding bill for political gain.
7
"Republican leaders have wasted almost a month of the Senate's time obstructing this valuable measure for political reasons, obviously," said Reid in his opening volley from the Senate floor on Monday.

The highway bill has been pending in the Senate since Feb. 7, when it cleared its first procedural hurdle with a strong 85-11 vote. Since then, however, disagreements about which amendments will see votes and over tax hikes included in the bill have prevented further progress.

Reid repeated on Monday that the bill would create 3 million jobs and said Republicans ought to get out of its way.

"If they ended the filibuster and we passed the bill before us it would be a huge step forward," he said.

Reid ended his speech, however, suggesting that he expects the filibuster will continue.

"In today's political climate, bipartisan support isn’t enough to keep good legislation alive," he said. "In today's political climate, 85 votes to begin debate on a measure isn't enough to guarantee the measure will become law."


<HR>

1. That's Reids opinion.

2. Federal & state govts. Get a percentage of every gallon of gasoline, in the form of taxes, sold to fund highways & roads.

What are they doing with that revenue? Misappropriation?

 

[actinanass]

Lamarr, notice how I quit arguing with these two.

Notice how even when I agree with Thoughtone about an issue *Trayvon*, they find a way to make me look like the bad guy.

Notice how I even give the best course of action President Obama could do politically, I still end up being the bad guy.

My point is, these folks are delusional.

Even if you agree with them, they will still disagree with you.

So, right now, I'm pretty much quiet about everything until the election. However, when I get back into this conversation, I guarantee that Thoughtone would look more delusional than he is right now.

 

[thoughtone]

Lamarr, notice how I quit arguing with these two.

No, once again, this why you quit arguing:

This is politics. Obama cannot effectively run on his record

If you say so.

Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?

So, right now, I'm pretty much quiet about everything until the election. However, when I get back into this conversation, I guarantee that Thoughtone would look more delusional than he is right now.

And so your latest excuse why you run your mouth in a thread, then disappear:

. . . meaning you totally bullshitted around the questions

QueEx;, haven't you learned yet?

 

[thoughtone]

1. That's Reids opinion.

2. Federal & state govts. Get a percentage of every gallon of gasoline, in the form of taxes, sold to fund highways & roads.

What are they doing with that revenue? Misappropriation?

That's Reids opinion.

Exactly!

You know if Governor Etch-a-Sketch was in office, he would do the exact same thing. The Republicans have approved highway bills for ever until the Black president got elected.

2. Federal & state govts. Get a percentage of every gallon of gasoline, in the form of taxes, sold to fund highways & roads.

What are they doing with that revenue? Misappropriation?

Maintenance.

Just like you do everyday to maintain your home. If you have a large expense like putting on a roof or replacing the AC, you go into debt temporary to make those purchases.

Maybe Ron Paul is using part of it for earmarks?

 

[QueEx]

Lamarr, notice how I quit arguing with these two.

Notice how even when I agree with Thoughtone about an issue *Trayvon*, they find a way to make me look like the bad guy . . .

Don't hide behind Lamar's dress.

If you have something to say to "THIS" poster, say it.

Address ME, so that I can directly address YOU.

Are you mistaking the dumb shit you say for, debate

 

[Lamarr]

Don't hide behind Lamar's dress.

If you have something to say to "THIS" poster, say it.

Address ME, so that I can directly address YOU.

Are you mistaking the dumb shit you say for, debate

AAA, cats can't defend the current economic policies, so they resort to the "typical" personal attacks

Lamarr's dress?

Go ahead Que, defend 8.2% and the questionable govt numbers

 

[QueEx]

AAA, cats can't defend the current economic policies, so they resort to the "typical" personal attacks

Lamarr's dress?

Go ahead Que, defend 8.2% and the questionable govt numbers

It wasn't a person attack, it was a figure of speech - - unless, however, you wear dresses

 

[actinanass]

Don't hide behind Lamar's dress.

If you have something to say to "THIS" poster, say it.

Address ME, so that I can directly address YOU.

Are you mistaking the dumb shit you say for, debate

Hiding?

I was very clear on what I said. Even if I agree with you, or Thought, you both would find a way to disagree with me.

*edit* Come to think about it, as long as the economy is fucked up, Obama will only be a one term president. President Obama got elected because the economy.

 

[thoughtone]

Hiding?


Obama will only be a one term president. President Obama got elected because the economy.

This is politics. Obama cannot effectively run on his record

If you say so.

Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?

Obama Camp Accuses Romney of ‘Breathtaking Hypocrisy’ on Jobs

 

[actinanass]

If you say so.

Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?

Obama Camp Accuses Romney of ‘Breathtaking Hypocrisy’ on Jobs

I believe he is.

However, at this point, the spotlight will be on Obama's record as president more than Romney's record as governor.

Not to mention, you have a united republican front against a fractured Democratic party.

This election is more about Obama, than Romney.

 

[thoughtone]

Not to mention, you have a united republican front against a fractured Democratic party.

This is one problem listening and believing right wing radio and Faux Snooze. You tend to believe it all without critical analyzation.

This election is more about Obama, than Romney.

To the "any body but Obama crowd it is". To the rest of us, it's about who can best address the 30 years of skewed economy toward the 1%.

How will Romney defend his past during the debates?

 

[actinanass]

This is one problem listening and believing right wing radio and Faux Snooze. You tend to believe it all without critical analyzation.



To the "any body but Obama crowd it is". To the rest of us, it's about who can best address the 30 years of skewed economy toward the 1%.

How will Romney defend his past during the debates?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Dude you are delusional.

Every election, in which there's an incumbent in the White House, tends to be about the Incumbent's record. NO MATTER WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE. What makes you think this election will be different?

Do you really think people would ignore the past three years of the Obama Administration just because Romney is soooooooo mean at Bain Capital? Even when some Democrats have gave props to Romney?

The only thing Romney can mess up on is if he comes to heavy handed on his attacks on the President.

 

[yureeka9]

You believe in the magic honkey.

Suddenly, whites are powerful enough to control public confidence, but not powerful enough to fix the economy.

Whites don't have the power to do either. White control is dying.

If Barack Obama doesn't show that, front and center, nothing will.

 

[QueEx]

Hiding?

Very clearly. And very clearly over-joyed that Lamar gave you a notice.

 

[thoughtone]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Dude you are delusional.

Every election, in which there's an incumbent in the White House, tends to be about the Incumbent's record. NO MATTER WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE. What makes you think this election will be different?

Where did you hear this gem? Post your source.

The only thing Romney can mess up on is if he comes to heavy handed on his attacks on the President.

Romney has lied so much already he will have to answer for his flip flops after the GOP convention during the debates. I doubt Romney will agree to too many debates.


Romney Care

His Massachusetts record

His vulture capitalism

His being a liberal republican then his flip to conservative

His draft dodging which led him to spend that time in France

etc....

 

[actinanass]

Where did you hear this gem? Post your source.




Romney has lied so much already he will have to answer for his flip flops after the GOP convention during the debates. I doubt Romney will agree to too many debates.


Romney Care

His Massachusetts record

His vulture capitalism

His being a liberal republican then his flip to conservative

His draft dodging which led him to spend that time in France

etc....

Thoughtone, didn't Bush have to run on his record in 2004? Did Clinton run on his record *reforming welfare, lowering the deficit, ect* in 96? Daddy Bush lost because his record was poor, and the republicans vote was split. Reagan won on his record of lowering taxes, and creating a shit load of jobs. Carter lost because the economy was fucked up. I can go on, and on. The fact remains, EVERY INCUMBENT has to run on their record if they like it, or not. The American people have to decide if he/she *if that ever happens* are worthy to keep their job. I guess you think that Obama would get the benefit of the doubt because of how horrible the situation is, right?

 

[thoughtone]

Thoughtone, didn't Bush have to run on his record in 2004? Did Clinton run on his record *reforming welfare, lowering the deficit, ect* in 96? Daddy Bush lost because his record was poor, and the republicans vote was split. Reagan won on his record of lowering taxes, and creating a shit load of jobs. Carter lost because the economy was fucked up. I can go on, and on. The fact remains, EVERY INCUMBENT has to run on their record if they like it, or not. The American people have to decide if he/she *if that ever happens* are worthy to keep their job. I guess you think that Obama would get the benefit of the doubt because of how horrible the situation is, right?

Thoughtone, didn't Bush have to run on his record in 2004?

No. He Swift Boated Kerry. A weak Democrat that thought he was above the mud slinging the Rove/Atwater machine had mastered. If GW ran on his record, he would have lost in a landslide. GW took Clinton's budget surplus and turned it into a record defect. He got us into an unnecessary Iraq war we will be paying for for years to come and a monster debt because of tax cuts that weren't necessary. You aren't that dense to forget recent history are you? Oh, i forgot.

Did Clinton run on his record *reforming welfare, lowering the deficit, ect* in 96?

Clinton won because Dole was an old fart.

HW Bush lost because we were slick and tired of a Reagan third term.

Reagan won a second term because Dukakis, like Kerry didn't know how to play modern Lee Atwater republican dirt politics.

Carter lost because of a botched Iraq rescuer.

That's why your crowd hates the Clinton's. He out Rove/Atwater the republican party.

Don't think President Obama won't Swift Boat Romney.

 

[actinanass]

No. He Swift Boated Kerry. A weak Democrat that thought he was above the mud slinging the Rove/Atwater machine had mastered. If GW ran on his record, he would have lost in a landslide. GW took Clinton's budget surplus and turned it into a record defect. He got us into an unnecessary Iraq war we will be paying for for years to come and a monster debt because of tax cuts that weren't necessary. You aren't that dense to forget recent history are you? Oh, i forgot.



Clinton won because Dole was an old fart.

HW Bush lost because we were slick and tired of a Reagan third term.

Reagan won a second term because Dukakis, like Kerry didn't know how to play modern Lee Atwater republican dirt politics.

Carter lost because of a botched Iraq rescuer.

That's why your crowd hates the Clinton's. He out Rove/Atwater the republican party.

Don't think President Obama won't Swift Boat Romney.

I'm inclined to agree with you, however, every president had a situation that would allow him to play his cards in such way.

If Reagan didn't have a big recovery going on, and showed leadership in certain areas, Dukakis might have very well made it closer than it should.

Clinton's biggest advantage was being able to play into the conservative games. Clinton effectively took away every play the republicans had. The only thing that hurt Clinton was the fact that his own party turned against him. Clinton was a great democratic president, although I did disagree with him about gun control.

There was no way Kerry was going to beat Bush in 2004. Economy was good, terrorism was still in the forefront of many Americans mind, and Kerry seemed weak to voters.

It is hard as hell to beat any Presidential incumbent who has a good, solid record on the economy, or during a war/conflict.

*edit* Carter had an array of problems not just the Iran rescue blunder.

 

[thoughtone]

I'm inclined to agree with you, however, every president had a situation that would allow him to play his cards in such way.

If Reagan didn't have a big recovery going on, and showed leadership in certain areas, Dukakis might have very well made it closer than it should.

Clinton's biggest advantage was being able to play into the conservative games. Clinton effectively took away every play the republicans had. The only thing that hurt Clinton was the fact that his own party turned against him. Clinton was a great democratic president, although I did disagree with him about gun control.

There was no way Kerry was going to beat Bush in 2004. Economy was good, terrorism was still in the forefront of many Americans mind, and Kerry seemed weak to voters.

It is hard as hell to beat any Presidential incumbent who has a good, solid record on the economy, or during a war/conflict.

*edit* Carter had an array of problems not just the Iran rescue blunder.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p09UwgM8RA8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>