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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9368)	1/27/2004 8:57:35 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Here's what seems to be clear, judging from all the controversy on this thread: 1. There are really no decent Democratic candidates 2. Out of the litter of possibles, one will emerge who is thought to have the best chance against Bush 3. It won't matter who that is, really, as long as the Dems believe he can win 4. The general election will generally turn on (a) the state of the economy by then, (b) whether the majority of Americans have moved markedly to the left, (c) whether there is really the widespread anger suggested by Democratic rhetoric, (d) whether the 40 million tax filers who pay no taxes think they deserve more tax credits, (e)whether families earning over $100,000 want to see their money redistributed without corresponding benefit, (f) how many of each camp actually vote. The alternative scenario is that the Democratic contender morphs himself from a left leaning liberal into the pretense of a Clinton moderate in time for the general election. For any of the Dem contenders to make this move to the middle, as has been frequently suggested by AS and others, would mean to me that they are not being truthful about their liberal leanings and what they believe. After all, almost to a man, the liberal agenda has been on the forefront for the potential Democratic candidates. As a voter, I will have to believe what these folks said during the primary season. Moderate commentary, after nomination, will mean nothing to me. Bush went wrong when he adopted the left's social spending agenda, IMO, thereby abandoning fiscal conservatism. Ironically, that's one of the very things the Dems hold against him, but they use it as a means to promote increased taxes. Thinking voters will have to ask themselves whether they want to have increased spending plus tax increases under a Democratic administration or whether they want to hold Bush's feet to the fire on conservative spending policies and let tax relief continue to stimulate the economy and growth.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (9368)	1/27/2004 9:14:51 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10965

They'll be even more fractured and counter-productive than the incredibly disappearing Dem party under your total loser leader, Terry McAuliffe. What a joke that McAulliffe is. You should be complaining about HIM, not Bush. After all, McAulliffe orchestrated your party's massive, across-the-board losses in Nov 2002. What do you say about that??? Why are you Dems always silent about Nov 2002? What's your problem with changing your loser coach after that massive loss in Nov 2002? What's wrong with you Dems anyway ?? Can't you place blame where it's due??