[POLL] Do you think Bush will be re-elected?

My problem with factoring in 9/11 into a slow economy is twofold.

1) IIRC, most economists placed the start of "recession" near Feb. 2001. And most economists predicted 12 to 18 months before a "recovery". That's Feb. 2002 to Aug. 2002. One could say that 9/11 delayed a recovery but we are 12 to 18 months beyond the estimate recovery starts.

IMHO, a "jobless" recovery is not a recovery. Corporations can appear more profitable (and raise their stock prices) by laying off US workers and transferring jobs to less expensive places, but that does nothing to drive demand or increase US GDP to offset the deficit and/or 9/11.

2) How much economic damage was actually done by 9/11? Even the wildest prognosticator (Osama himself) claims $1 Tr. That's at best (or worst) 10% of a $10 Tr annual GDP...2 years removed.

I was unable to find a national figure but saw an estimate done around 10/02 stating NYC lost between $100B-$120B. I find it odd that the next years "budget" for Iraq and Afghanistan will compare to NYC's 9/11 loss.

Perhaps I am overly fixated on the economy because I have been unemployed for a very long time but I think putting Americans back to work and back to technological research has comparable long term value to spending $66B in Iraq.

Especially since we:
1) Could have lessened our $ burden by not doing it unilaterally.
2) Still have the appearance of "occupiers" to the average Iraqi.
3) Do not appear to be highly involved with diplomacy between the Palestinians and Israelis (an endeavor having way more bang for the buck).

If you divide $61B by 150,000 troops by 365 days you get ~$1,100/day. If you divide the reconstruction portion - $5B by 25m Iraqis you get a grand total of $200.

Hopefully, someone other folks are mulling this over as well.

 

You're right - making tapes doesn't mean anything. What's meaningful is that he's *obviously* alive and well, transmitting information, and still managing and influencing a world-wide terrorist network.

 

You make it seem like we have had nothing but Republican presidents for the last fifty years. The Repubs just won the last election, and yes despite your best efforts to throw on your ear muffs, they BARELY "won" that one. There is NO disputing the fact that Gore won the popular vote.

On November 7, 2000, Americans held an election to determine who would be the next President of the United States. The four biggest vote getters were Democratic candidate Al Gore with 50.16 million votes, Republican candidate George W. Bush_ with 49.82 million votes, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader with 2.78 million votes, and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan with 0.45 million votes. If Americans had chosen their President based on who got the most votes nationwide, Al Gore would have been elected.
___ Instead, Americans choose their President based on who wins the electoral college. The winner of the popular vote in each state is awarded that state's electoral votes, which is equal to the number of Members of Congress that state has. The number of electoral votes currently ranges from 3 for low-population states like Wyoming to 54 for the most populous state, California. There are a total of 538 electoral votes, and a candidate must win a majority (270) in order to be declared President of the United States. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the winner is decided by the U.S. House of Representatives.
___ In the 2000 election, the results were so inconclusive--in particular for the state of Florida--that the winner of the election was not finalized until December 13, 2000, when Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush.

The fact that you can state that "no Democrat can win unless..." is overconfident to say the least.

 

Good points. Causal relations are often over-looked, especially in politics. But, in 2000, Bush didn't propose cutting taxes to strengthen the economy. He proposed cutting taxes because the economy was *already* strong. If nothing else shows that he inherited a strong economy, that does.

 

he will always influence them...to some, he's reached prophetic status...but that has more to do with a jacked up view of God's call for judgment than it does for anything else. Honestly, if it wasn't the US...it would be someone else. Hatred doesn't have to know reason.

Who knows how well he's "managing" a terrorist network at this point. We see him put out tapes. I don't know how much he actually has to do with managing what Al Qaeda is up to now. It's broken up so much across so many cells around the world. He may be as relevant as Saddam. He may be much more relevant. I don't know.

But if you're going to blame the president for the side of the bed you slept on last night, you might consider giving some credit for the fact that we haven't had a terrorist event on our soil since that day...honestly, who would have thought in the days following 9/11 that would have been the case some 2 years later? Certainly not me.

 

not true...he was criticized big time by clinton and others for saying he felt the economy was clearly headed south.

 

How do I know how much information he's getting to his terrorist network? YOU AND I KNOW HOW HE'S DOING. If average American citizens know how Osama bin Laden is doing, it stands to reason that his buddies probably have a bit more information than we do.

 

yeah..i think they should have kept guessing. the pictures of the people holding up each ballot= to the light, studying them carefully..trying to determine the "voter's intent"...yeah...that's good. we should have kept that going!

but gray davis' recall shouldn't happen because we can't assure accuracy with that kind of voting.

 

i don't understand what you mean at all...

if we know he's doing?

i'm not saying he's not still in command...he may be. i'm not saying he isn't still effective...he may be.

 

I didn't think once about terrorist attacks through the 1990s. I didn't *have* to. Nobody punched a hole in the New York skyline until a lazy, dimwitted moron took office.

And I'm *extremely* thankful there have been no further attacks. But that doesn't mean there won't be more. We're looking at this like a sprint -- this is a marathon, and we're bragging because after being beat off the block, we've put our shoes on.

Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense.

 

again..you're making causal connections that just aren't there. until the moron took office no one attacked?? do you think they were waiting? do you think it would have been more difficult if clinton were still in office? it's freaking getting through airport security...do you think airport security was looser as soon as bush took office?? what rational reason do you have for saying that?

of course it doesn't mean there won't be more. but you're absolutely wrong on your absence argument....if the goal is, "we don't want this to happen anymore," then every day it doesn't happen, that's a good thing! no one is bragging...i'm certainly not, because i know it could happen again. but it hasn't. i'm not sure the threat will ever, ever go away. but the events have not happened again.

 

Think about what it takes for a tape to be transmitted to the world. First, he has to have a video camera. And a battery. And a tape. These are no big deals, but if he was hiding in a septic tank somewhere, he'd probably have trouble getting these modest items. But, for the sake of argument, let's just say he stored a cache before he went into hiding.

He makes a tape. Who does he give it to? What chain does it go through to get onto television? Does he give it to an al Queda guy who gives it to another al Queda guy who smuggles it across borders, and gives it to a TV station? Who knows?

But it's this chain that proves he's still a viable threat. If he's able to transmit information to the world, he can still transmit information to his terrorist network.

 

it is absolutely important to know who would have won. absolutely. but clearly there were zero procedures...we had some counties saying a vote included hanging chads...some that said no...some said a mere mark was enough..others said there had to be an indention.

so without clear procedures, how do you define "winning?" that's like saying, "ok...go play football...sometimes when you drop the ball we'll count it, though...and sometimes when you fumble, we'll just say you're down." there have to be set rules if you really want to determine who a winner is.

by the way...all the media groups that have done it since say that bush won their informal recounts. i don't know if that counts for anything or not, but it's at least interesting.

 

Republicans starting to get snappy at their "leader"


MessageIraq, Economy Roil GOP
September 15, 2003
By John Bresnahan,
Roll Call Staff


House Republicans Assail Leadership, Bush
Battered by public fears over Iraq and the economy and beset by falling polling
numbers, House Republicans lashed out at their own leadership and President
Bush during a tense, closed-door session Wednesday.
Led by GOP Reps. Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.), Anne Northup (Ky.), Nancy Johnson
(Conn.) and Ray LaHood (Ill.), rank-and-file lawmakers complained about
everything from high unemployment and unfair trading practices by China to the
slow appropriations process and leadership's failure to consult with them on
the legislative agenda.

"We are not addressing real solutions," insisted LaHood, who is pushing hard
for passage of a massive five-year highway funding bill, on hold because of its
steep price tag, as a way to jump-start the economy.

LaHood said additional tax cuts are not an economic recovery plan, especially
for the hard-hit U.S. manufacturing sector, which has shed hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the past two years. "That doesn't sell. We've milked that
cow already," said the five-term lawmaker in an interview.

The Illinois Republican added that attacks on Bush's economic record by the
nine Democratic presidential contenders are starting to hit home with voters.

"Their criticism of [Bush] on Iraq is not resonating," LaHood said. "Their
criticism of him on the economy is certainly resonating."

Many of these worries were echoed in a memo released by GOP Conference
Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (Ohio) during the meeting.

"More than any time this year, Americans are increasingly concerned about the
economy, their job situation, and the latest developments in Iraq," Pryce
wrote. "Because of the concerns converging together in recent weeks, anxiety
about the direction of the country has escalated."

According to polling done for House Republicans by GOP pollster David Winston,
a Roll Call contributor, only 37 percent of Americans feel the country is
headed in the right direction, while 51 percent think it is headed in the wrong
direction - part of a continuing downward trend over the past several months.

Things have gotten so bad for Republicans on the message front that Pryce
huddled with White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett and House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) on Thursday to come up with an approach to
push through the $87 billion Iraq supplemental funding request. The size of
that request has stunned Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers,
although they predict that the White House will get broad bipartisan support
for the additional funding in the end.

"When you get bad news from more than one front, it has a tendency to make
people nervous, anxious," Pryce said. "From a communications standpoint, I
don't think we're in the best place we've ever been."

Pryce added that Members are "tired and worn down," which plays a role in their
displeasure. She also noted that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) wasn't at
Wednesday's conference, speculating that his absence allowed rank-and-file
Members to be more frank in their criticism of the leadership.

The discord within the House GOP Conference mirrors similar concerns being
raised by their Senate Republican counterparts, offering further proof that
Bush's Sept. 7 speech on Iraq and increased White House focus on the economy
has yet to reverse a slide in the party's fortunes.

"The mood is not as upbeat as it should be given what is really happening out
there with the economy," said a top Republican lawmaker, speaking on the
condition of anonymity. "We've had a bad month, a bad six weeks."

This lawmaker also believes that opponents of the Iraq invasion have gained the
upper hand in their ongoing ideological struggle with the Bush administration
and its allies.

"The intensity is all on their side right now," said the Republican, who sees
an "increasing polarization of the country" on Iraq, despite continuing strong
poll numbers for Bush on the issue.

The White House has also suffered some surprising reverses on the Hill
recently, including losing a vote last week in the Senate prohibiting the Labor
Department from altering federal rules on overtime pay. Labor Department
officials have proposed changing the regulations, but critics say the changes
cause millions of workers to lose the opportunity to earn overtime pay. Six
Republican moderates, a number of whom are up for re-election in 2004, voted
with Senate Democrats to block the proposed changes, but the White House has
threatened to veto the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending
bill over the issue.

Both Members and House GOP staffers emphasize that House Republicans still
strongly back Bush and the Hastert-DeLay team, although they are exasperated at
what they see as a failure by the White House to alter the impression that the
United States has become bogged down in a military quagmire in Iraq.

But word of the GOP infighting has emboldened Democrats, who have been focusing
on the nation's economic situation for months, even with Iraq dominating TV and
newspaper coverage.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) said he's not surprised
Republicans are starting to privately voice their concerns about the economy.
The outlook is worsening, he added, and the GOP is to blame.

"The reality is their stewardship is putting the country into deep debt,"
Menendez said. "We're in a spiral of continuing job loss and more fiscal
demands on security at a time when we don't have the resources because of tax
cuts."

Menendez, third in the Democratic leadership hierarchy, acknowledged that GOP
dissent creates an opportunity for the minority party, which has put its
election-year focus squarely on the economy.

"We've been driving this before it became popular with the press and the
public," he said. "We've been the Paul Reveres saying this is coming."

But House GOP leaders such as Pryce and Rep. Rob Portman (Ohio), chairman of
the Republican leadership, are standing firmly with Bush and urging their
colleagues to be patient as well.

"I think we have an exciting agenda that addresses the public's concerns,
especially on the jobs front," said Portman, who added that GOP Congressional
leaders must also emphasize "the great progress we have made over the last two
years in fighting terrorism."

Bush will also renew his recent offensive on domestic issues. The president is
expected to meet with conferees on the Medicare and energy bills this week and
urge them to complete work on those proposals soon, according to GOP sources.

 

fair enough...again, maybe he is really in control...and maybe he's every bit as strong as he once was. but i think if that were true, we would have heard from him domestically again by now. i would say, at the very least, they're on the run like they've never been in their lives. that makes planning worldwide operations a bit more difficult, i'm guessing.

 

So it's Clinton's fault there were no major terrorist attacks during his term? How's that *not* causal?

I've outlined ad nauseum here how the Bush Administration failed to heed the Clinton Administration's warnings about bin Laden and terrorists. The Clinton Administration had put into place *numerous* initiatives to stave off terrorism, and the Bush Administration ignored virtually all of them. In fact, they threatened to drop any terrorist plan that didn't include missile defense work. (!)

But I absolutely agree with you on the "every day it doesn't happen it's a good thing" point. I hope there's *never* another terrorist attack on American soil. Never ever. But not acknowledging that the Sept. 11 attacks were directly related to Bush policy (not himself personally), is simply misdirected.

I think *since* the attacks, Bush has worked very hard on preventing terrorism. I disagree with some of his tactics, and I think his foreign policy will lead to many more terrorist problems, but domestically anyway, there are more safeguards than Sept. 10.

 

I am not trying to be an alarmist here...and I possess no special and precious little common knowledge about the workings of Al Queada, etc. but from what I have seen and read the 9-11 attack was a very long time in the planning; we're talking years. So to suppose that because 2 years have gone by and nothing has happened in the US proper means that Al Queda is inactive here is, I think, a leap. It's possibly a correct leap, but an as yet unsubstantiated one. Hopefully it will prove correct.

On another, techincal note...many have seemed to sidestep the poster who said, accurately, that attacks on US embassies are in fact attacks on US soil. I know it's a semantic argument, but nevertheless it's probably somewhat important to those in the rest of the world who still see those attacks as attacks on the US.

And finally, the purpose of the 9-11 attacks was to strike at the US, and undermine our presence in the Middle East. In that we now have offered up several easier, clearer and more immediate targets in Iraq...who are being attacked and killed every day...it is quite possible to theorize that those targets have made attacking us on the US mainland a lesser priority;possibly a greater comfort to our residents, probably cold comfort to those soldiers or their families.

 

i didn't say that...where are you getting that i said that??

i'm not the one pointing the finger at any administration for the attacks. my point is, it didn't matter one iota to al qaeda who the president was...they were going to do what they did no matter who occupied the White House.

yeah...you've gone on about what the clinton administration told the bush administration. we all knew there was a threat of hijackers taking over passenger planes and crashing them into targets...there were 20/20 specials talking about that threat during the first bush administration. but no one knew when...or how...or where...and those are kinda important facts if you want to stop terrorists. and you and everyone else would have been screaming like crazy if the airports had gone pre-9/11 to the kind of security we have post-9/11.

it's very easy to look back with hindsight and say, "you should have stopped that." but life just doesn't work that way.