2004 Presidential Election

[JOEBIALEK]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush.  After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes.  I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."  While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush.  I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations.  Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance).  Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide).  After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found."  In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation.  The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be?  The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security.  Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War.  Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft.  Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq.  He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation.  Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history."  Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years.  Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States.  The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure.  Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq.  These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years. 

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.  His first two years in office resulted in  2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History."  His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc.  Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr.  Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general.  As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide.  On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

[Andrew]

They better.

I don't see what kind of dumbfounded economic person would suggest that you cut taxes (mostly for the rich) and then go and spend the most money ever spent in US history.

Taxes are supposed to pay for government expenses. No taxes = No spending.

I think this is your best article yet. Mostly because I agree and it is not as silly as your Sexual Harrasment thread which was full of holes (or at least the company the woman worked for).

[Andrew]

So lets take bets on what date Osama BinLadin will be captured before the election date.

I think it will be on a friday-monday time frame. If Osama is captured, it will help Bush a lot and is probably why they have already captured him and are waiting for the prefect opportunity to tell the world.

[JOEBIALEK]

fair enough.....

[Edric O]

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't more to Bush's economic disaster than meets the eye. In the short term, it's pretty obvious that he's trying to benefit his rich sponsors as much as possible, and to hell with everybody else. But it's equally obvious that his economic policies are unsustainable in the long run - and I doubt he actually wants to crash the economy on purpose, so he must have some sort of new ideas in mind for the next 4 years. Massive cuts in all branches of government except the military, perhaps?

[HasimirFenring]

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't more to Bush's economic disaster than meets the eye. In the short term, it's pretty obvious that he's trying to benefit his rich sponsors as much as possible, and to hell with everybody else. But it's equally obvious that his economic policies are unsustainable in the long run - and I doubt he actually wants to crash the economy on purpose, so he must have some sort of new ideas in mind for the next 4 years. Massive cuts in all branches of government except the military, perhaps?

Better still, he will maintain his suicidal level of spending for his second term, and then force the democract who succeeds him to take the heat for cutting the programs which are no longer affordable.

[Andrew]

Well it is known that government usually makes too many positions available that are not needed.

I can give an example that I learned last weekend if needed.

So maybe Bush will cut government jobs. Or just transfer them to the military. I can see it now... a senator fighting insurgents in Iraq.

[HasimirFenring]

So maybe Bush will cut government jobs. Or just transfer them to the military. I can see it now... a senator fighting insurgents in Iraq.

I think Michael Moore showed us that Congress is unwilling to do its own dirty work.

[Edric O]

Well it is known that government usually makes too many positions available that are not needed.

You mean Bush should make the government more efficient and use the extra money to fund the services that really matter, like health, education, welfare, etc.?

Heh, not a chance in hell. That's certainly not Bush's style. ;)

[Andrew]

No I mean they got so many jobs in the government that are not needed. The government overhires and makes up jobs that are not needed.

Obvisouly Bush wouldnt do anything good with job cuts if he did so. He'd probably pay back any taxes that rich people paid. ;)

[JOEBIALEK]

Bush will lose.......

[thomas]

how can you be sure, it's estimated that most staes are bush states, Kerry only has a chance because of "liberal strongholds" such as illinois, new york and california

[SurlyPIG]

I don't buy the polls.  I think that enough Americans will have a bitter taste in their mouth that otherwise apathetic non-voters will get out and vote for Kerry, even if they have to cross their heart and close their eyes while doing it.

[Andrew]

Like I said before (I think), if the US would pay attention to other countries once in a while (like Canada) they would realize that polls are complete bullshit.

The last Canadian election they were sayign that Liberals and Conservatives were in a dead heat and the conseratives could win.

The liberals won more seats than the conservatives. I've heard canadian commentators saying this about the US election.

There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

[SurlyPIG]

"There's lies, damn lies and statistics."

This phrase really bugs me.  Statistics can be very valueable in decision-making.  The problem is not with statistics but people that don't know how to interpret them and take them for more than they're worth (which can go from a lot to almost nothing at all).  With political polls, people don't realize how rare it is to find a sample group of a few hundred/thousand people that is actually representative of hundreds of millions.  People don't get that the "margin of error" is a mathematical concept relating to the size of the sample group compared to the size of the electorate and gives no consideration to the validity of the sample group as a representative of the whole.  It's shortsighted to think that a polling company that randomly calls up a bunch of people is going to get a true representation of the populace.

[nemafakei]

"The problem is not with statistics but people that don't know how to interpret them and take them for more than they're worth (which can go from a lot to almost nothing at all)"

The real danger is when people abuse statistics. Though whether that was what Disraeli (?) was getting at I don't know.

[Andrew]

Like my Statistics professor said:

Don't fall in love with your method [formulas etc], fall in love with your data.

Yah, stats can be skewed to look a certain way if a person wants them to be.

[lowzeewee]

JOEBIALEK do you just post short messages like "fair enough" and "Bush will lose" after starting out so well on the thread just in order to make us feel that you are not trolling?

[Dude_Doc]

I think I can speak for all of us when I say "Go Kerry! Get bananas!"

[nemafakei]

I think *I* can speak for all of us when I say "You've already gone bananas".