No. Dissaffection at the top of the ticket often translates to races at the bottom.
Actually it's not the modesty of the tax cuts that's the problem, but their temporary nature.
Both are of concern, neither is any less serious than the other. Let the Democrats take back power and watch tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2010 find themselves expiring MUCH sooner. Vote for Republicans and the liklihood of preservation of these and institution of other cuts is far more probable. But you already knew that, of course. As obvious as that is on its face, it should require no further explanation.
Yes, I know the President has been calling for making the cuts permanent, but as long as he continues to spend like a drunken sailor he's not likely to get very far with that call.
Bush doesn't spend money. Congress spends money. Look it up.
Really? All the Democrats need is for the Republicans to lose one millionth of a percentage point? I think they might need to rethink their strategy a bit.
You've again missed the point. See below.
Yes, and look at how the Dem-allied media egged them on. Any wild guesses at why they did that in what they knew would be a close race?
538 Green votes (the liberal "self-righteous" who didn't think Gore was liberal enough) who abandoned the Dems in 2000 in FL cost Gore the vote in FL, and the Presidency with it. If you didn't think every vote counts, think again.
Failure to vote at all is automatically the equivalent of a vote for the winner by default, because the potential voter did nothing to oppose the winner.
Failure of the conservative voter to vote for the Republican candidate, regardless of the name of alternative step-child party he does vote for, has supported the Democratic opponent by default, because his vote has mounted no credible opposition to the Democrat and has offered no held or support to the Republican.
Some on FR are willing to fall on their CP sword, out of a misplaced sense of "principal." They are of no more value to what will be victories in coming years than deserters are to the winning forces on any battle field.
Deserters in battle are typically shot when caught. In a "kinder, gentler" sense, however, I'll be content to just welcome them back to the fight when they finally screw their heads back on straight, quit sniping at the quarterback, and tame their passions to fight with a more mature perspective which retrains their eye to focus on the ultimate prize.
You're not making sense. How someone chooses to vote in a presidential race in no way constrains him in how he votes in other races. It's no problem at all for him to vote CP for president and GOP for Congress.
Let the Democrats take back power and watch tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2010 find themselves expiring MUCH sooner.
I wasn't aware that the President had the power to unilaterally order tax hikes. But you seem to be the constitutional expert around here.
Vote for Republicans and the liklihood of preservation of these and institution of other cuts is far more probable.
What's even more probable, given current trends, is that whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the WH, federal spending will continue to rise, and with it will rise the political difficulties inherent in trying to make those cuts permanent. That is, unless the Republicans receive a certain amount of "encouragement" to maintain their proper commitment. Is there a risk stemming from this encouragement? There's always a risk with everything. It's just that there's a much greater risk that, left to their own devices, the Republicans will do what I described, with the outcomes that I described.
Empty assurances as to what they might do have little meaning when juxtaposed against what they actually are doing.
Bush doesn't spend money. Congress spends money. Look it up.
I took your advice and this is what I found:
From Article II, Section 3: "[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"
So, any wagers on what some of these recommendations have been from him? He shares the responsibility for the excessive spending.
You've again missed the point.
The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal. If the Democrats are depending on the Constitution Party to turn the election in their favor, and if the CP has as little support as you say, then the Dems simply have very bad strategy. The only other conclusion is that they view the CP as a threat, not an asset.
538 Green votes (the liberal "self-righteous" who didn't think Gore was liberal enough) who abandoned the Dems in 2000 in FL cost Gore the vote in FL, and the Presidency with it.
Now you're missing my point. I asked you a question: Why did the media give Nader so much publicity when they knew the election would be close? I think that once you arrive at an answer, you'll find it instructive.