Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (17869)	11/26/2003 10:48:10 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793677

Three years ago, Bush bet that tax cuts would bring prosperity in time for reelection. But even he couldn't have imagined the 8.2% growth in gross domestic product that was just announced for the third quarter of 2003. I guess we aren't talking about the deficit... Attributing the current economic cycle to Bush's intervention is as silly as attributing the '90s boom to Clinton (or Reagan, or Bush I), but hey, politicians will be politicians, and there will always be a journalist to suck up. Going to war in Iraq was another gamble. Bush could have settled for victory in Afghanistan. Instead, he decided to parlay success into a bigger jackpot. The game isn't over, but politically, Bush is way ahead... This was obvious at the Iowa Democratic candidates' debate on Monday. Among potential nominees, only Howard Dean had a cogent position I haven't heard a cogent position from either side, and certainly not one that acknowledges to realities of the situation in Iraq or the choices we face there. One moment it's "stay the course", the next it's "turn over power to the Iraqis as fast as we can". Again, hardly unexpected.