Mitchell
07-07-2004, 12:10 PM
When examining the climate of our nation in the summer of 2004, it strikes me that the climate in our country today, with the election between George W Bush and John Kerry, is quite similar to that of the election in 1992 between George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton.
In 1992, our nation was recovering from a horrible recession. Plagued by high (8%) unemplyoment, record deficits, stagnant wages and hiring, and general malaise, the country knew and decided that after this terrible economic condition, and record deficit, that it was time for change. This being said, from the numbers, in the fall of 1992, George HW Bush may have been a victim of having the presidential election happen at the wrong time. During his term, the "recession" lasted 9 months, but we went through an 18 month period of stagnancy, where jobs were not there, and the economy was weak, and Bill Clinton took advantage, ousting Bush 41 by getting only 43% of the vote. Of course, as we all know, Ross Perot was a major factor in the 92 election, with his 19% of the vote, which may well have and probably did cost Bush 41 the election. In reality, after the election that year, there was a report that the economy in the 4th quarter of 1992 grew significantly, which indicated that if this election had been held three or six months, later, and Ross Perot had not been involved, Bush 41 probably would have won re election. Alas, it was not to be.
In 2004, the country finds itself in a similar circumstance. Bill Clinton left office on January 20, 2001 having turned a 4 trillion dollar deficit into the greatest surplus in history through economic growth, creating 22 million jobs in his terms, record stock market levels, and a strong vibrant economy. Now in 2004, George W Bush has succeeded in turning those numbers into the greatest deficit in our country's history due to tax cuts that most benefit the wealthy, an out of control cost war, a horrid recession, and stagnant recovery. 3 million jobs were lost at the height of Bush 43's term, a number that the Republicans would like us to believe will all go away by election day, 2004. In reality, there have been weaker than expected job reports in the last month, and the 3 million jobs will not be recovered by election day, 2004. The easy question for most Americans in an election is are they better off 4 years ago than they were at the last election. In 1992, the answer for most was no, so Bush 41 lost. In 1996, the answer for most was yes, so Clinton won a second term. The 2000 election was an enigma, and had more to do with Gore running a terrible campaign, and the Surpreme Court decision, than any logical force that decides elections. Yes, the economy in 2000 may have been starting to turn for the worst, but not enough, based on past history, to warrant removing the Democrats from office.
While the economy may be "improving" according to George W Bush, few Americans are actually better off today than they were on January 20,2001 when he took office. The economy may be "recovering", but it will be interesting to see whether or not the "recovery" is enough for him by election day. On January 20, 2001, the nations unemployment rate was 4.2 %, and now it is 5.6%. This combined with the record deficit due to the war, and George W Bush's negative image around the world, and the negative image he created for our country, should hopefully be enough to derail his re election in November.
A very important factor in all this will be the kind of campaign John Kerry runs. He needs to hammer away at Bush's poor record on jobs, I believe his health care platform is a good one. Where Kerry might get into trouble is on the war issue, a main one that we know he voted for. I have a notion of how he may attack the war issue, but do not want to post it here due to the controversial nature of what he might say. George W Bush has a lot to be attacked on, and if Kerry runs the right kind of campaign, he can win this election.
One final point in all this. There has been criticism of John Edwards for being too "inexperienced" and concern over how Edwards would take over a top spot if heaven forbid anything ever happened to John Kerry. My rebuttal is this. Besides being the son of an ex president, and governor of Texas, what qualifications did George W Bush really have for president? It isnt so much experience, although John Kerry has much experience in the senate, but what you do with that experience, once in office. In 1992, the country elected a 46 year old little known southern governor with no experience, and he turned out to be a great diplomat, and a fine two term president. I do agree with the Democrats that Edwards probably needs seasoning before becoming president. Being VP will get him that seasoning. John Kerry is ready to be president now, with 20 years experience in the Senate, he and John Edwards care about the middle and lower classes in a way that Mr George W Bush cannot relate to, and, if they get their message out, the country will see that they are the right choice to replace Bush. It was a courageous move for John Kerry to choose John Edwards, a man of conviction, and passion, and counage, and character, who has fought for the rights of the underprivliged in his law career. It is apparent that Kerry knows Edwards will be a great asset in his administration, and, if they are elected, will work side by side, complimenting each other's strengths and weaknesses, to put the country back on track after the four years of economic slumber under George W Bush.
Mitch
In 1992, our nation was recovering from a horrible recession. Plagued by high (8%) unemplyoment, record deficits, stagnant wages and hiring, and general malaise, the country knew and decided that after this terrible economic condition, and record deficit, that it was time for change. This being said, from the numbers, in the fall of 1992, George HW Bush may have been a victim of having the presidential election happen at the wrong time. During his term, the "recession" lasted 9 months, but we went through an 18 month period of stagnancy, where jobs were not there, and the economy was weak, and Bill Clinton took advantage, ousting Bush 41 by getting only 43% of the vote. Of course, as we all know, Ross Perot was a major factor in the 92 election, with his 19% of the vote, which may well have and probably did cost Bush 41 the election. In reality, after the election that year, there was a report that the economy in the 4th quarter of 1992 grew significantly, which indicated that if this election had been held three or six months, later, and Ross Perot had not been involved, Bush 41 probably would have won re election. Alas, it was not to be.
In 2004, the country finds itself in a similar circumstance. Bill Clinton left office on January 20, 2001 having turned a 4 trillion dollar deficit into the greatest surplus in history through economic growth, creating 22 million jobs in his terms, record stock market levels, and a strong vibrant economy. Now in 2004, George W Bush has succeeded in turning those numbers into the greatest deficit in our country's history due to tax cuts that most benefit the wealthy, an out of control cost war, a horrid recession, and stagnant recovery. 3 million jobs were lost at the height of Bush 43's term, a number that the Republicans would like us to believe will all go away by election day, 2004. In reality, there have been weaker than expected job reports in the last month, and the 3 million jobs will not be recovered by election day, 2004. The easy question for most Americans in an election is are they better off 4 years ago than they were at the last election. In 1992, the answer for most was no, so Bush 41 lost. In 1996, the answer for most was yes, so Clinton won a second term. The 2000 election was an enigma, and had more to do with Gore running a terrible campaign, and the Surpreme Court decision, than any logical force that decides elections. Yes, the economy in 2000 may have been starting to turn for the worst, but not enough, based on past history, to warrant removing the Democrats from office.
While the economy may be "improving" according to George W Bush, few Americans are actually better off today than they were on January 20,2001 when he took office. The economy may be "recovering", but it will be interesting to see whether or not the "recovery" is enough for him by election day. On January 20, 2001, the nations unemployment rate was 4.2 %, and now it is 5.6%. This combined with the record deficit due to the war, and George W Bush's negative image around the world, and the negative image he created for our country, should hopefully be enough to derail his re election in November.
A very important factor in all this will be the kind of campaign John Kerry runs. He needs to hammer away at Bush's poor record on jobs, I believe his health care platform is a good one. Where Kerry might get into trouble is on the war issue, a main one that we know he voted for. I have a notion of how he may attack the war issue, but do not want to post it here due to the controversial nature of what he might say. George W Bush has a lot to be attacked on, and if Kerry runs the right kind of campaign, he can win this election.
One final point in all this. There has been criticism of John Edwards for being too "inexperienced" and concern over how Edwards would take over a top spot if heaven forbid anything ever happened to John Kerry. My rebuttal is this. Besides being the son of an ex president, and governor of Texas, what qualifications did George W Bush really have for president? It isnt so much experience, although John Kerry has much experience in the senate, but what you do with that experience, once in office. In 1992, the country elected a 46 year old little known southern governor with no experience, and he turned out to be a great diplomat, and a fine two term president. I do agree with the Democrats that Edwards probably needs seasoning before becoming president. Being VP will get him that seasoning. John Kerry is ready to be president now, with 20 years experience in the Senate, he and John Edwards care about the middle and lower classes in a way that Mr George W Bush cannot relate to, and, if they get their message out, the country will see that they are the right choice to replace Bush. It was a courageous move for John Kerry to choose John Edwards, a man of conviction, and passion, and counage, and character, who has fought for the rights of the underprivliged in his law career. It is apparent that Kerry knows Edwards will be a great asset in his administration, and, if they are elected, will work side by side, complimenting each other's strengths and weaknesses, to put the country back on track after the four years of economic slumber under George W Bush.
Mitch