CAFTA may have been a 'victory' for the White House, but it was a loss for America.
The SELL OUT continues by Jorge.
The "standards of economists" differ slightly from the "standards of the news media" in that to the media, the economy ALWAYS sucks under Republicans and is ALWAYS booming under Dims.
I can live with that.
They should call it SHAFTA.
I'm not sure how I feel about CAFTA, but I know the rhetoric coming from some of the people against on this board is the same rhetoic that comes out of the mouths of those I disagree with 99% of the time.
The same people that talk big but lose each election when the GOP gains seats because the majority won't follow them off the cliff. I don't believe in judging the merit of anything completely by who supports or is against, but it's tempting to do so when I hear that nonsense.
This AP article sounds remarkedly like what was posted on The Note this morning. My question is whether they all got the talking point, or if ABC set the tone.
Talk of "lame duck" came from the press. Since the press is always wrong, it's no wonder they were wrong in dismissing this man yet again.
According to RASS the prez's numbers have moderated around 50% on average. The Press evidently thinks we are not aware that they are conducting polls as credible as their editorials these days.
I'll be glad in a couple of weeks when the CAFTA stuff fades away.
IN the meantime, I remind the sane republicans that spending capital means you spend it. If you could spend your "political capital" and still have numbers in the 50s, everybody would spend it.
Bush is a president who is willing to USE and SPEND his political capital, in the hopes that the investment leads to success which will replenish the capital.
Anybody know if ANWR drilling survived in the energy bill? I sure hope so, because even if it only has a few drops of oil I'll be happy just to see that stupid issue go away. There is no reason NOT to drill in ANWR.
...and they thought this would be a typical 2nd term lame duck president...
Go George!