Bush: Slipping Away?
carrrnuttt
03-10-2004, 09:24 PM
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/lebo031004.shtmlBUSH: SLIPPING AWAY?
PANIC HAS GRIPPED THE WHITE HOUSE
By: John LeBoutillier..This column is not for or against any candidate. Rather it is dispassionate political analysis and an effort to help explain Campaign 2004. The writer's personal views do not enter the analysis.
Panic has gripped the Bush White House and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign team. Oh, they won't admit it. But actions speak larger than words. Let us look at the most recent developments:
1) Jobs: the very, very poor jobs-creation report issued last Friday morning has undercut the President's ability to trumpet his tax cuts as the centerpiece of any economic recovery. With only 21,000 new jobs created in the entire nation - when economists and Wall Street had anticipated 125,000 - the Bush campaign is deprived of the podium to talk of a marvelous economic recovery. As odd as it sounds there actually is a good, strong recovery. But the one awful consequence of our dynamic economy is that companies can get more productivity out of fewer workers thanks to computers, automation and more efficient management. Part of these 'savings' is the new 2004 campaign buzzword: outsourcing. This may yet bedevil the Bush Administration - even though it is not their fault.
2) Ohio: this normally solid GOP state has lost 193,600 manufacturing jobs since the Bush Administration began. Polls show it neck and neck between Bush and Kerry. If the Democrats can win Ohio they can win the election. In fact, they will win the election if they win Ohio. GOP presidents always win Ohio. The very fact that Bush is in trouble there highlights how perilous his re-election is.
3) Florida: the latest poll there shockingly shows Kerry ahead 49%-43%. This is a total stunner - and has the White House in a tizzy. The President has been there 19 times since taking office. His brother is the very popular Governor who was just overwhelmingly re-elected 17 months ago. The Floridian economy is growing. And yet somehow Kerry is in the lead. Why? The White House wants to know.
4) Rust Belt: the swath of states from Pennsylvania to Michigan, including the aforementioned Ohio and also Illinois are all fertile territory for the Democrats this year. Precisely because of the loss of manufacturing jobs, these states are leaning toward the Democrats this year. Simply stated, Bush cannot win in the Electoral College if he loses all these states.
5) Attacks: the dire jobs and electoral situation explains why we are seeing something never before seen in American politics: an incumbent President personally - by name - attacking his Democratic opponent eight months before the election. Since last Tuesday's clinching Super Tuesday sweep by John Kerry, President Bush has been going hard after Kerry and his Senate voting record. Normally these attacks are left to surrogates - especially the Vice President - and TV commercials. But for the President of the United States himself to even utter his opponent's name is a departure from precedent. It tells us that Team Bush believes it cannot defend their economic record and instead wants to shift the focus to Kerry.
In any election the goal is always to make the other guy the 'issue' in the campaign. Then it is easy to demonize him and get the voters to vote 'against' him.
Right now the Democrats have had two and one half months of making Bush the issue. And as they have done so the President's numbers have sunk to all-time lows. So he and his team are now desperately trying to shift the national focus off of him and back onto Kerry. It is their hope that the country - more conservative than ever before politically - will not accept a Kennedy clone from Massachusetts.
The problem is that there is an underlying sourness in our nation. Perhaps fueled by economic worries, 60% of the people in a new AP poll believe the nation is on the 'wrong track.' That is an alarming number for an incumbent president in an election year.
In fact, in most polls taken this week Mr. Bush is hovering around 44%. That is the base GOP vote. He cannot win if that is the sum total of his support. At present he barely wins the male vote; loses the female vote and is getting creamed among Independents.
Indeed, it is fair to ask: is it already slipping away for Mr. Bush?
Is this the explanation for TV commercials which try to shift the focus back to 9/11?
Is this the explanation for the sudden attacks on Kerry?
Indeed, panic is sweeping the upper echelons of the White House. And as their panic increases, so too will the attacks on Kerry.
The White House wants to paint Kerry as another Mike Dukakis, whom the first George Bush savaged in 1988. But guess what? Kerry is no Dukakis. Kerry is a tough, mean, no-holds barred campaigner who has not lost a race since the 1970's.
And the more the White House hits Kerry, the more Kerry hits back.
As long as the economic and jobs situation remains sour, Kerry can survive the attacks.
Can the President?
PANIC HAS GRIPPED THE WHITE HOUSE
By: John LeBoutillier..This column is not for or against any candidate. Rather it is dispassionate political analysis and an effort to help explain Campaign 2004. The writer's personal views do not enter the analysis.
Panic has gripped the Bush White House and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign team. Oh, they won't admit it. But actions speak larger than words. Let us look at the most recent developments:
1) Jobs: the very, very poor jobs-creation report issued last Friday morning has undercut the President's ability to trumpet his tax cuts as the centerpiece of any economic recovery. With only 21,000 new jobs created in the entire nation - when economists and Wall Street had anticipated 125,000 - the Bush campaign is deprived of the podium to talk of a marvelous economic recovery. As odd as it sounds there actually is a good, strong recovery. But the one awful consequence of our dynamic economy is that companies can get more productivity out of fewer workers thanks to computers, automation and more efficient management. Part of these 'savings' is the new 2004 campaign buzzword: outsourcing. This may yet bedevil the Bush Administration - even though it is not their fault.
2) Ohio: this normally solid GOP state has lost 193,600 manufacturing jobs since the Bush Administration began. Polls show it neck and neck between Bush and Kerry. If the Democrats can win Ohio they can win the election. In fact, they will win the election if they win Ohio. GOP presidents always win Ohio. The very fact that Bush is in trouble there highlights how perilous his re-election is.
3) Florida: the latest poll there shockingly shows Kerry ahead 49%-43%. This is a total stunner - and has the White House in a tizzy. The President has been there 19 times since taking office. His brother is the very popular Governor who was just overwhelmingly re-elected 17 months ago. The Floridian economy is growing. And yet somehow Kerry is in the lead. Why? The White House wants to know.
4) Rust Belt: the swath of states from Pennsylvania to Michigan, including the aforementioned Ohio and also Illinois are all fertile territory for the Democrats this year. Precisely because of the loss of manufacturing jobs, these states are leaning toward the Democrats this year. Simply stated, Bush cannot win in the Electoral College if he loses all these states.
5) Attacks: the dire jobs and electoral situation explains why we are seeing something never before seen in American politics: an incumbent President personally - by name - attacking his Democratic opponent eight months before the election. Since last Tuesday's clinching Super Tuesday sweep by John Kerry, President Bush has been going hard after Kerry and his Senate voting record. Normally these attacks are left to surrogates - especially the Vice President - and TV commercials. But for the President of the United States himself to even utter his opponent's name is a departure from precedent. It tells us that Team Bush believes it cannot defend their economic record and instead wants to shift the focus to Kerry.
In any election the goal is always to make the other guy the 'issue' in the campaign. Then it is easy to demonize him and get the voters to vote 'against' him.
Right now the Democrats have had two and one half months of making Bush the issue. And as they have done so the President's numbers have sunk to all-time lows. So he and his team are now desperately trying to shift the national focus off of him and back onto Kerry. It is their hope that the country - more conservative than ever before politically - will not accept a Kennedy clone from Massachusetts.
The problem is that there is an underlying sourness in our nation. Perhaps fueled by economic worries, 60% of the people in a new AP poll believe the nation is on the 'wrong track.' That is an alarming number for an incumbent president in an election year.
In fact, in most polls taken this week Mr. Bush is hovering around 44%. That is the base GOP vote. He cannot win if that is the sum total of his support. At present he barely wins the male vote; loses the female vote and is getting creamed among Independents.
Indeed, it is fair to ask: is it already slipping away for Mr. Bush?
Is this the explanation for TV commercials which try to shift the focus back to 9/11?
Is this the explanation for the sudden attacks on Kerry?
Indeed, panic is sweeping the upper echelons of the White House. And as their panic increases, so too will the attacks on Kerry.
The White House wants to paint Kerry as another Mike Dukakis, whom the first George Bush savaged in 1988. But guess what? Kerry is no Dukakis. Kerry is a tough, mean, no-holds barred campaigner who has not lost a race since the 1970's.
And the more the White House hits Kerry, the more Kerry hits back.
As long as the economic and jobs situation remains sour, Kerry can survive the attacks.
Can the President?
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-11-2004, 06:43 AM
I'd say Kerry will have the upper hand.
Outsourcing - a load of shit?
A company wants to reduce costs. Its too large to manage itself properly and is having trouble coordinating workers. To save money and slim down the company the corporation seeks to shift the work load to an out side company that can do the same tasks but for less money.
What will happen in the long run?
The outside company has to make a profit so they are doing work which is costing alot less than the parent company's original cost for the work. Which results in how do they manage to save money. Poor quality work cut corners or they may not save money go bust and the work that the parent company needed won't be done and they'll be fuxored. In either case outsourcing means that people are loosing jobs that they've been doing for years.
cliffnotes : Outsourcing is shit.
Outsourcing - a load of shit?
A company wants to reduce costs. Its too large to manage itself properly and is having trouble coordinating workers. To save money and slim down the company the corporation seeks to shift the work load to an out side company that can do the same tasks but for less money.
What will happen in the long run?
The outside company has to make a profit so they are doing work which is costing alot less than the parent company's original cost for the work. Which results in how do they manage to save money. Poor quality work cut corners or they may not save money go bust and the work that the parent company needed won't be done and they'll be fuxored. In either case outsourcing means that people are loosing jobs that they've been doing for years.
cliffnotes : Outsourcing is shit.
TexasF355F1
03-11-2004, 10:23 AM
I'd say Kerry will have the upper hand.
Outsourcing - a load of shit?
A company wants to reduce costs. Its too large to manage itself properly and is having trouble coordinating workers. To save money and slim down the company the corporation seeks to shift the work load to an out side company that can do the same tasks but for less money.
What will happen in the long run?
The outside company has to make a profit so they are doing work which is costing alot less than the parent company's original cost for the work. Which results in how do they manage to save money. Poor quality work cut corners or they may not save money go bust and the work that the parent company needed won't be done and they'll be fuxored. In either case outsourcing means that people are loosing jobs that they've been doing for years.
cliffnotes : Outsourcing is shit.
There are pros and cons to outsourcing. Funny thing is I just read over stuff about outsourcing in my marketing book. It's a fairly controversial issue, especially among unions.
Anyway, it's really still early to tell. There's still 9 months left for both sides to screw up and/or improve our confidence in the candidates. In the end it will still be a very close race.
Outsourcing - a load of shit?
A company wants to reduce costs. Its too large to manage itself properly and is having trouble coordinating workers. To save money and slim down the company the corporation seeks to shift the work load to an out side company that can do the same tasks but for less money.
What will happen in the long run?
The outside company has to make a profit so they are doing work which is costing alot less than the parent company's original cost for the work. Which results in how do they manage to save money. Poor quality work cut corners or they may not save money go bust and the work that the parent company needed won't be done and they'll be fuxored. In either case outsourcing means that people are loosing jobs that they've been doing for years.
cliffnotes : Outsourcing is shit.
There are pros and cons to outsourcing. Funny thing is I just read over stuff about outsourcing in my marketing book. It's a fairly controversial issue, especially among unions.
Anyway, it's really still early to tell. There's still 9 months left for both sides to screw up and/or improve our confidence in the candidates. In the end it will still be a very close race.
YogsVR4
03-11-2004, 10:37 AM
Considering that only the democrats have been compaining for the last few months, they got a bump. Same thing happened with Dole and the republicans. Big deal. The same thing will happen afer the conventions. Its of no value (other then the news pundits) until we are withing a few weeks of the election.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Ace$nyper
03-11-2004, 12:08 PM
Yogs summed my thoughts up well. I dont think were close enough that what is felt now will cause a change. Unless something huge happens but we'll find out in a few months.
op012503
03-13-2004, 08:06 PM
OUTSOURCE BUSH!! All that he's accompished is covering up one mistake with another at the expense of american lives. Im so pissed about the job situation as well. Im a college student who has about a 30% chance of finding a crummy job after i graduate. Im changing majors because i have heard too many horor stories. This comming from a Republican. I guess its the lesser of two evils here. One one hand theres bush, the rightious protector of the inocent from those vile 'evildoers' and then on the other hand there's the grim reaper. hehe i hate politics
taranaki
03-13-2004, 09:01 PM
OUTSOURCE BUSH!! All that he's accompished is covering up one mistake with another at the expense of american lives.
Give this guy a medal.He's still in college,but he's figured out that he's smarter than the dog turd in the Oval office.
Outsourcing...sucks
Classic example...New Zealand Rail.
Was a mediocre government department.
Sold by a bad government for far less than its value.
Stripped of its assets by an American corporation.
All of its technical expertise outsourced to a French corporation
Essential elements of track and locomotive maintainance outsourced to a French multinational.
Bought back ten years later by the New Zealand government to prevent essential services from stopping due to impending corporate bankrupcy.
Condition:gutted
infrastructure:gutted
finances:gutted
now doing more volume than ever,but with lesser equipment and outsourced infrastructure.
Give this guy a medal.He's still in college,but he's figured out that he's smarter than the dog turd in the Oval office.
Outsourcing...sucks
Classic example...New Zealand Rail.
Was a mediocre government department.
Sold by a bad government for far less than its value.
Stripped of its assets by an American corporation.
All of its technical expertise outsourced to a French corporation
Essential elements of track and locomotive maintainance outsourced to a French multinational.
Bought back ten years later by the New Zealand government to prevent essential services from stopping due to impending corporate bankrupcy.
Condition:gutted
infrastructure:gutted
finances:gutted
now doing more volume than ever,but with lesser equipment and outsourced infrastructure.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025