But Kerry had been elected Senator of Massachusetts for...oh, right.

Here this guy starts out in his 20's ordering his unit to take battle-ground reenactment super-8 movies of him, as a start in his plans to become "the second JFK" to be president. He gets the pre-planned hero's medals in just 4 1/2 months, and he's outa there.

He comes home, finds a raging wind of disaproval of the Vietnam War all over the country, and so poof! He becomes a vocal anti-war advocate, so much so that he gets himself on TV in front of congress. Step two (he thinks)

He marries wealth (twice) to allow him to pursue politics full-time, takes the senate route towards the presidency, then bides his time until the right moment.

His moment comes when Dean flames out. His party has nowhere else to turn, and off he goes to be nominated.

The own first words of his acceptance speech begin his destruction. No convention bounce. He babbles whatever he thinks he can say, in sonorous, presidential tones, to crawl ahead. It just gets worse. He claims to have a plan for everything he promises, but nobody has a clue what they are (because he doesn't, either). The only plan I've heard about is his economics plan, where he plans to find a really really rich country for the US to marry.

The good-ol' American voting public finally gets it, and the rest is about to become history.

Whoopee.

Talk about a single-minded life's goal shot to hell. How's he gonna live with this?

At least Teresa will be able to fire the pool man.

Perhaps Kerry should consult with the Gorebot (Ver. 2.0, now with emotion chip!) about having their common "destiny" thwarted.

Don't get too excited, Ace. Newsweek polls have been notoriously all over the map, and for no good apparent reason, other than a) they suck at polling and get bad samples, or b) they're trying to make the election seem interesting.

I still think Bush is winning, but not because a Newsweek poll (or most other polls) says so.

Caution! Bush is narrowly ahead in national polls, but there is a risk of a reverse 2000. Bush wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral vote.

At this time Bush appears to be lowering the gap in states like California, NY, NJ, Michigan - still leaning Kerry -and getting more votes, while in Red States Bush has high popular vote margins.

In the Midwest Swing States, Kerry is in the race, and the economic news still is very bad, since they were hit hardest by foreign cheap labor and benefited the least from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (more very wealthy in NY, CT, California than in Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Pennsylvania).

Watch the Swing state polls. We won't have a good idea who is likely to get the electoral votes there for a while to come.

This monkey prison you mentions intrigues me. I'll have to look into applying for a job there.

Zogby has Bush by 4.

Cedarford. (economic news is very bad?) Minnesota's unemployment is 4.1%

All the economic indicators in 2004 are better than all the economic indicators in 1996 when Clinton ran for a second term.

The difference is this:

In 1996, the MSM said the economy was booming and consequently Clinton deserved to be elected.

In 2004, the MSM said the economy is the worst it has been since the Great Depression consequently Bush deserves defeat.

Newsweak always understates Republicans in polls by 5%, Bush leads by 11 pts.

The latest TIME poll spends 90% of the article detailing how Kerry cleaned Bush's clock in the debates and how Kerry is surely in a good place,but the poll itself shows that Bush = +2,and Kerry = +1 since the last TIME poll.
Why does this not demonstrate that DESPITE the debate wins,Kerry is LOSING ground and is now in a very poor position ? Hmmmmm---

http://realclearpolitics.com/

It's his wife. She's fucking insane. Americans wouln't let that crackpot get anywhere near the whitehouse.

Meanwhile.... back at the ranch... the MSM continues to give Kerry a pass on not filing Form 180 to release his military records. Records that would probably tell the American public they are getting dangerously close to having the biggest fraud of all time foisted upon them.

dougf: All the economic indicators in 2004 are better than all the economic indicators in 1996 when Clinton ran for a second term.

Average new job pays 9,000 less than jobs lost to China. 450 billion in trade deficit. 460 billion in debt for 2004, 1.8 trillion under Bush II, mostly borrowed from foreigners. Concentration of wealth at it's most extreme since 1928. 4 years of job losses, and almost half of the jobs created have been in government due to Bush's growing Big Government. Health costs up 38%. Oil up 40%. Hopes for new high tech jobs employing significant numbers of Americans gone. Black male unemployment rates 40-45% in cities.

No way is this comparable to or better than the economic picture of 1996.

Other data on past Presidents economic performance: http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidentstable_print.html

Note Bush II will displace the bottom performing Presidents - Gerry Ford, Carter, Daddy Bush - in most categories.

Lets hope if he wins he has better luck and better policies in his 4th term. Kerry isn't any better as an extreme liberal who believes the economy exists to serve the Government and elites ideas....but Bush is also an extreme radical in the opposite direction - in believing the American economy is only a tool to better the fortunes of the owner and investor classes - who then "trickledown" their beneficence on the lesser American masses.

Cedarford, have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Just curious.

Go easy on Cedarford -- he seems to have never recovered from the Reagan era.

Ever notice that "Cedarford" and "apologist" have the same number of letters? I'm just sayin'...

Internals of this poll are screwed up or someone at Newsweek made a typo. Bush is behind among men and ahead among women. There is just no way...

Read and weep Cedarford:

(From Political Vice Squad).

Year-over-year growth in real GDP (as of June 1996) = 3.97 percent
Year-over-year growth in real GDP (as of June 2004) = 4.85 percent

24-month real GDP growth rate (as of June 1996) = 3.10 percent
24-month real GDP growth rate (as of June 2004) = 3.58 percent

Unemployment Rates

September 1996 - Clinton

Whites - 4.5 percent
Blacks - 10.5 percent
Latinos - 8.2 percent
layoffs as a percentage of total workforce = 0.25 percent.
Discouraged workers" as a percentage of total labor force = 0.29 percent.

September 2004 - Bush 43

Whites - 4.7
Blacks - 10.3
Latinos - 7.1
Layoffs as a percentage of total workforce = 0.23 percent.
Discouraged workers" as a percentage of total labor force = 0.28 percent.

Inflation

Total CPI inflation growth - 1995-1996 = 2.95 percent
Total CPI inflation growth - 2003-2004 = 2.99 percent

Interest Rates

Avg. 30-yr. mortgage rate - August 1996 = 8.00 percent
Avg. 30-yr. mortgage rate - August 2004 = 5.87 percent

Housing Market - Price-Based Equity Appreciation for Homeowners

Median price appreciation for existing homes - 1996 = 4.8 percent
Median price appreciation for existing homes - 2004 = 7.0 percent

"Cedarford" also has the same number of letters as "buttmunch." Mere coincidence? I think not.

Some news chick (not a babe) from NBC referred to the Newsweek poll as a dead heat, and never even mentioned the fucking numbers.

Some news chick (not a babe) from NBC referred to the Newsweek poll as a dead heat, and never even mentioned the fucking numbers.

Are you surprised? Newsweek refers to its own poll as a dead heat and then actually gives the non-dead-heat actual numbers. I'm really not sure which is worse.

Bush could have 60% nationally and still lose if those 60% were in the wrong states. The national poll really doesn't mean much.

PA, OH, FL - that's what keeps me up at night (well, figuratively).

But hey, the Miami Vice fad appears to have run its course, so thank god for small favors!

zetetic sez: Cedarford, have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Just curious.

Ah, yes, that one's been around since the early Reagan years and is supposed to stop "trickledown" skeptics dead in their tracks...

Usually said by younger true believers unaware of how hiring actually works in corporations, government hire, or in contractor business transactions. Most of the "job position needed" and hiring decisions are indeed done by people less well paid than the person that is hired. In small businesses, it is true the owner-investor makes the decision. But the exception rather than the rule. BTW, ever give a job to someone paid more than you? Of course you have, if you ever visited a doctor.

That "only the rich hire" myth is usually accompanied by the follow-on mislogic of true believers declaring that the richer we make a small minority of any population, the more prosperous we all will be since they will hire and trickledown their wealth to us like crazy.

So Versailles was actually an optimum supply side allocation of French industry and labor assuring the common welfare. Similarly, the Czar knew what was best for his serfs, and they had a great life under his trickledown. Control of all of Iraq's oil wealth in the hands of the Richest 1% there - Saddam and his Ba'athists, was bound to enrich all Iraqis eventually through his Palace-building program and investments in Swiss banks (the purchase of goods or investments abroad usually have the idiot logic that goes like this - the billions Saddam gave the Swiss to work with will make the Swiss more prosperous and really want to buy Iraqi dates and goats, thus both countries really make out. It's Gospel Adam Smith comparative advantage!)

Don't forget the other howlers:

A rising tide lifts all boats
If every American becomes an entrepreneur selling Chinese-made stuff to other entrepreneurs, every American can get rich!,
The next great boom in High Tech jobs is right around the corner. So we need no industries
Americans (wave the flag) are the most educated, innovative, hardest working people on the planet (ignoring our ranking about 30th in educational performance, our innovations being sold as soon as they are patented, China now graduating more scientists and engineers, and 84 countries beating our productivity cost/hr competitive basis.
Nothing to worry about as long as we believe in our greatness, just keep focusing on supply side gifting of the rich by our borrowed foreign funds, and the rich will make us all happy!
Complaining is communist-like!
The middle class is shrinking, but only because they are lazy, even with wives now working to make ends meet

Yep, that's the deal! That's the ticket!

Uh... um... Cedarford... Was there an argument in that last post or was it just me?

Try arguing with a Nobel Prize winning economist
http://www.techcentralstation.com/101504J.html

OR

Let's argue by cute sayings:

My bologna has a first name...
Ancient Chinese Secret...
Softens hands while you do the dishes...
Calgon, take me away...
It's the quicker picker upper...

Gosh this form of argumentation is fun AND easy. As the Guinness guys say:

Brilliant!

I actually am a small business-person, small as in week-to-week make a living.

My husband and I own two single-operator stores. If the FUCKING GOVERNMENT would get off our back, we could hire two more people, who we desperately need, to help us out and help us grow our business.

As it is, we are GETTING FUCKED by more taxes than I could possibly have imagined when I was an employee. I am not kidding. It is unbelievable. Part of it is State...we pay both sides of UNEMPLOYMENT bennies which we can never, ever collect as self employed persons.

The taxes we pay could easily be enough to pay 1 1/2 people (a fulltimer + more) to help us out.

What do you suppose they would do with that income?

Why, buy clothes, food, haircuts, furniture, Christmas gifts, pay rent, car payments...etc., FUCK.
ING.
ET.
CETERA.

We need a new roof on our house. We CANNOT AFFORD TO ROOF OUR FUCKING HOUSE. We have needed a roof for four years. 1/3 of what we pay to the various government taxes would roof our house. But NO, fuck us!! The Government needs our money.

What do you suppose those roofers would have spent their paychecks on?

Since MOST of the growth and employment opportunity in this country is provided by (exceedingly) small businesses like ours, it is not such a stretch to see that 'trickle down' is a misnomer. Supply side is the proper name. The other is a fabricated slur.

Let us keep our profits, we'll show you what Capitalism can look like if its loved properly.

No, Laura--you don't exist. The Cedarford has declared it!

Lauraw - Either you pay for Bush and the Democrats massive expansion of the government, or charge it to your kids, with interest.

Don't like taxes? Fine. What will you cut from Gummint? Bush, the Republicans lack the will. In fact, more pork is on the menu. More fiscal recklessness is on the menu. As more of Bush's tax cuts for the rich kick in, his 600 billion plan to subsidize high drug prices except for non-means tested seniors - the deficit will exceed half a trillion yearly. Oh, and he wants to borrow 2 trillion to privatize social security.

How many more years will the Chinese lend us the money our out of control spending habits and half trillion trade imbalances cause? How will your business fare if we have to devalue the dollar to 30-35 cents to be competitive again and discharge our 7 trillion in IOUs cheaper? The rich are already moving into non-dollar wealth in anticipation of this.

As the very wealthy rake it in - concentration of wealth is now at it's worst since 1928 - you have to ask yourself if current economic policy is in your interest, given you claim that you can't afford a new roof (ever hear of equity loans?).

It's sad that the people supply side/free trade economics hurt the worst - the struggling middle class - have so many fans of it.

I too was a small businessman. Underline was. I got so far in debt trying to pay taxes, workers comp, insurance, overhead, but mostly payroll taxes. We grew from one man, myself to almost 30 employees in four years. This was just before the tax cuts. Looking at where I'd be now, with the cuts, we could have remained open, employing 26 people, and probably continued growing.

Cedarford, while I respect your opinion, believe me, you are a little off here. Like lauraw said, trickle down is a misnomer. I, was making less money than any employee, and paying all of the expenses. On a $11,000.00 a week payroll we were paying almost $6,000.00 a month in just Federal taxes. Nobody really understands this unless they've been there done that.

Newsweek's polls are bullshit. Whether they show Bush up by 8 or Kerry up by 10, they're always bullshit.

Cedarford,

I guess I won the debate of funny sayings, eh?
Otherwise, did you bother trying to argue with the Nobel Prize winner.
Oh, and could you relate your bona fides to comment on these issues you raise.
Mine are available on my website.

Regurgitation of slogans only means you're able to throw up, schmuck!