All Forums | Politics

Worst president in history?

...

Participants:

Search

Posts: 74

wallstreetcappers

Covers Linesmen

Joined: Feb, 2003

Posts: 58255

Posted: May. 22, 2007 - 11:52 PM ET #26

Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:

-oil embargo
-DD interest rates and inflation
-iran hostages
-prime rate over 21%
-1980 olympic boycott

Koaj,

If I recall you werent around much for the Carter era. I was younger myself but do recall some of the things you mentioned and I have to comment on a few things you bring up here.

The president of the US has ZERO and that is a big ZERO control over interest rates. The federal reserve controls interest rates, thus the Prime rate. Carter had no way of changing federal reserve policy and it has nothing to do with him. Just like now, Bush doesnt deserve the credit for historic low rates, that is federal reserve policy plain and simple. The oil/gas issue was completely caused by the inefficient vehicles made during the time and the inefficient production methods that our industries used to make raw and finished goods. Can you even imagine the effect 65 buck oil and 3 dollar gas would have if our vehicles were pieces of sh!t running 5-10 MPG?

I could really care less about the Olympic boycott, who cares if the Soviets were peeved at us, who considers this a presidential event?

If it werent for the federal reserve eliminating our view of M3 and pumping HUGE liquidity (Mexico style) and killing the value of the greenback, I think we would be experiencing some heavy inflation. These policies will return on us, not if but when.

There is no comparison between Carter and Bush. The comparison really should be between LBJ and Bush II

0

HouseBeer

Veteran

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 1423

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 4:22 AM ET #27

YES YES YES YES

0

HouseBeer

Veteran

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 1423

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 4:25 AM ET #28

Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:

-oil embargo
-DD interest rates and inflation
-iran hostages
-prime rate over 21%
-1980 olympic boycott

Gas at about 3.20 a gallon now

thousands of young people dying..

everyone in his cabinet quitting on him?

dont even think about comparing him to Carter or saying Carter is worse

That is just pure Republican ignorance..plain and simple....

0

HouseBeer

Veteran

Joined: Sep, 2006

Posts: 1423

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 4:31 AM ET #29

Quote Originally Posted by 69_Amazin_Mets:

Koaj,

you also have to look @ who Rolling Stone is geared for.

A younger crowd ( that probably doesn't remember back past Clinton )

and

The long haired maggot infested drug culture

So if the National Review does such a poll, should we put as much weight in it??

you know once you put it all out there and say what a great pres we have....then he fucks up not once...twice but about a hundred times...I guess you have to try something....you retards really need to wake UP...it is really getting embarrassing for all of you...lets start a pool on what member of his cabinet quits next instead of going down with the ship...who is left? Cheaney? he is half dead already ..he is not going anywhere

Jimmy Carter....worst

LBJ.... second

0

Redlad

Captain

Joined: Aug, 2001

Posts: 6814

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 5:56 AM ET #30

Bush DERANGMENT SYNDROME is alive and well on the Covers Political forum.

Now some are even blaming the Bush family for Hitler and WW11.

0

SarasotaSlim

Covers Rehab

Joined: Jan, 2007

Posts: 35125

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 8:26 AM ET #31

Damn, I would have covered that Utah game ......if it wasn't for BUSH. He has to be the worst!!!

0

Williestyle1441

Veteran

Joined: Dec, 2003

Posts: 2442

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 7:33 PM ET #32

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Koaj,

If I recall you werent around much for the Carter era. I was younger myself but do recall some of the things you mentioned and I have to comment on a few things you bring up here.

The president of the US has ZERO and that is a big ZERO control over interest rates. The federal reserve controls interest rates, thus the Prime rate. Carter had no way of changing federal reserve policy and it has nothing to do with him. Just like now, Bush doesnt deserve the credit for historic low rates, that is federal reserve policy plain and simple. The oil/gas issue was completely caused by the inefficient vehicles made during the time and the inefficient production methods that our industries used to make raw and finished goods. Can you even imagine the effect 65 buck oil and 3 dollar gas would have if our vehicles were pieces of sh!t running 5-10 MPG?

I could really care less about the Olympic boycott, who cares if the Soviets were peeved at us, who considers this a presidential event?

If it werent for the federal reserve eliminating our view of M3 and pumping HUGE liquidity (Mexico style) and killing the value of the greenback, I think we would be experiencing some heavy inflation. These policies will return on us, not if but when.

There is no comparison between Carter and Bush. The comparison really should be between LBJ and Bush II

INTEREST RATES ARE LOW WHEN OUR ECONOMY IS BAD! MORTGAGE RATES ARE DRIVEN BY THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE, A GOVERNMENT BOND. IT IS AN EXTREMELY SECURE INVESTMENT AND ONE THAT HAS A VERY LOW RETURN. LOW RISK = LOW RETURN. YOU BUY A 10-YEAR NOTE, YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT A LOAN OF $1,000 FOR 10 YEARS, EVERY YEAR THEY PAY YOU A YIELD (OR RATE OF RETURN). THIS YIELD IS LOWER THAN ALMOST ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS OUT THERE BECAUSE IT IS LOW RISK. WHEN THE ECONOMY IS DOWN INVESTORS MOVE THEIR MONEY AWAY FROM RISKIER INVESTMENTS SUCH AS STOCKS (WHICH TYPICALLY WILL GIVE YOU HIGHER RETURNS, HIGH RISK = HIGHER RETURN) AND INTO SECURE INVESTMENTS SUCH AS THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE. THIS DRIVES THE YIELD OF THESE BONDS DOWN, BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND. IF MORE PEOPLE WANT TO BUY GOVERNMENT BONDS THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH OF A PREMIUM AND THE YIELD GOES DOWN. AND INTEREST RATES GO WITH IT.

SEE THIS LINK: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5eTNX&t=5d&c=

THE HIGHER THE YIELD ON THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE THE HIGHER INTEREST RATES GO. THIS IS DUE TO LESS DEMAND FOR THESE NOTES AS INVESTORS REQUIRE A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN TO BUY THEM VERSUS STOCKS. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, AND ANY ECONOMIST CAN TELL YOU THE SAME THING, WHEN RATES ARE LOW IT MEANS THE ECONOMY IS NOT DOING WELL.

0

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Koaj,

If I recall you werent around much for the Carter era. I was younger myself but do recall some of the things you mentioned and I have to comment on a few things you bring up here.

The president of the US has ZERO and that is a big ZERO control over interest rates. The federal reserve controls interest rates, thus the Prime rate. Carter had no way of changing federal reserve policy and it has nothing to do with him. Just like now, Bush doesnt deserve the credit for historic low rates, that is federal reserve policy plain and simple. The oil/gas issue was completely caused by the inefficient vehicles made during the time and the inefficient production methods that our industries used to make raw and finished goods. Can you even imagine the effect 65 buck oil and 3 dollar gas would have if our vehicles were pieces of sh!t running 5-10 MPG?

I could really care less about the Olympic boycott, who cares if the Soviets were peeved at us, who considers this a presidential event?

If it werent for the federal reserve eliminating our view of M3 and pumping HUGE liquidity (Mexico style) and killing the value of the greenback, I think we would be experiencing some heavy inflation. These policies will return on us, not if but when.

There is no comparison between Carter and Bush. The comparison really should be between LBJ and Bush II

INTEREST RATES ARE LOW WHEN OUR ECONOMY IS BAD! MORTGAGE RATES ARE DRIVEN BY THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE, A GOVERNMENT BOND. IT IS AN EXTREMELY SECURE INVESTMENT AND ONE THAT HAS A VERY LOW RETURN. LOW RISK = LOW RETURN. YOU BUY A 10-YEAR NOTE, YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT A LOAN OF $1,000 FOR 10 YEARS, EVERY YEAR THEY PAY YOU A YIELD (OR RATE OF RETURN). THIS YIELD IS LOWER THAN ALMOST ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS OUT THERE BECAUSE IT IS LOW RISK. WHEN THE ECONOMY IS DOWN INVESTORS MOVE THEIR MONEY AWAY FROM RISKIER INVESTMENTS SUCH AS STOCKS (WHICH TYPICALLY WILL GIVE YOU HIGHER RETURNS, HIGH RISK = HIGHER RETURN) AND INTO SECURE INVESTMENTS SUCH AS THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE. THIS DRIVES THE YIELD OF THESE BONDS DOWN, BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND. IF MORE PEOPLE WANT TO BUY GOVERNMENT BONDS THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH OF A PREMIUM AND THE YIELD GOES DOWN. AND INTEREST RATES GO WITH IT.

SEE THIS LINK: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5eTNX&t=5d&c=

THE HIGHER THE YIELD ON THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE THE HIGHER INTEREST RATES GO. THIS IS DUE TO LESS DEMAND FOR THESE NOTES AS INVESTORS REQUIRE A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN TO BUY THEM VERSUS STOCKS. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, AND ANY ECONOMIST CAN TELL YOU THE SAME THING, WHEN RATES ARE LOW IT MEANS THE ECONOMY IS NOT DOING WELL.

KOAJ

Covers Linesmen

Joined: Oct, 2005

Posts: 66698

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 8:43 PM ET #33

Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:

Koaj,

If I recall you werent around much for the Carter era. I was younger myself but do recall some of the things you mentioned and I have to comment on a few things you bring up here.

The president of the US has ZERO and that is a big ZERO control over interest rates. The federal reserve controls interest rates, thus the Prime rate. Carter had no way of changing federal reserve policy and it has nothing to do with him. Just like now, Bush doesnt deserve the credit for historic low rates, that is federal reserve policy plain and simple. The oil/gas issue was completely caused by the inefficient vehicles made during the time and the inefficient production methods that our industries used to make raw and finished goods. Can you even imagine the effect 65 buck oil and 3 dollar gas would have if our vehicles were pieces of sh!t running 5-10 MPG?

I could really care less about the Olympic boycott, who cares if the Soviets were peeved at us, who considers this a presidential event?

If it werent for the federal reserve eliminating our view of M3 and pumping HUGE liquidity (Mexico style) and killing the value of the greenback, I think we would be experiencing some heavy inflation. These policies will return on us, not if but when.

There is no comparison between Carter and Bush. The comparison really should be between LBJ and Bush II

wsc

you are 100% right...the president takes credit for a good economy, he takes the blame for a bad one as well

other than that GWB is the worst ive ever seen, carter was before my time but when i ask my parents about him, my dad gets a nasty look in his eye

0

wallstreetcappers

Covers Linesmen

Joined: Feb, 2003

Posts: 58255

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 10:01 PM ET #34

Quote Originally Posted by Williestyle1441:

INTEREST RATES ARE LOW WHEN OUR ECONOMY IS BAD! MORTGAGE RATES ARE DRIVEN BY THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE, A GOVERNMENT BOND. IT IS AN EXTREMELY SECURE INVESTMENT AND ONE THAT HAS A VERY LOW RETURN. LOW RISK = LOW RETURN. YOU BUY A 10-YEAR NOTE, YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT A LOAN OF $1,000 FOR 10 YEARS, EVERY YEAR THEY PAY YOU A YIELD (OR RATE OF RETURN). THIS YIELD IS LOWER THAN ALMOST ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS OUT THERE BECAUSE IT IS LOW RISK. WHEN THE ECONOMY IS DOWN INVESTORS MOVE THEIR MONEY AWAY FROM RISKIER INVESTMENTS SUCH AS STOCKS (WHICH TYPICALLY WILL GIVE YOU HIGHER RETURNS, HIGH RISK = HIGHER RETURN) AND INTO SECURE INVESTMENTS SUCH AS THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE. THIS DRIVES THE YIELD OF THESE BONDS DOWN, BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND. IF MORE PEOPLE WANT TO BUY GOVERNMENT BONDS THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH OF A PREMIUM AND THE YIELD GOES DOWN. AND INTEREST RATES GO WITH IT.

SEE THIS LINK: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5eTNX&t=5d&c=

THE HIGHER THE YIELD ON THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE THE HIGHER INTEREST RATES GO. THIS IS DUE TO LESS DEMAND FOR THESE NOTES AS INVESTORS REQUIRE A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN TO BUY THEM VERSUS STOCKS. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, AND ANY ECONOMIST CAN TELL YOU THE SAME THING, WHEN RATES ARE LOW IT MEANS THE ECONOMY IS NOT DOING WELL.

Are you trying to teach me how bond yields are calculated and how supply and demand determine bond pricing?

Thanks, I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. What I am trying to say is this..

The Federal Reserve controls interest rates, not the president of the United States, thus Carter did not make rates go to 21% plus, nor did Bush the Great bring rates down to current levels. And I completely 100% disagree with the theory that low rates equal a bad economy, you need to study much more before drawing such generic conclusions.

If you had somthing to say, please try again with a mix of caps and non-caps and some semblence of sentence structure.

0

Quote Originally Posted by Williestyle1441:

INTEREST RATES ARE LOW WHEN OUR ECONOMY IS BAD! MORTGAGE RATES ARE DRIVEN BY THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE, A GOVERNMENT BOND. IT IS AN EXTREMELY SECURE INVESTMENT AND ONE THAT HAS A VERY LOW RETURN. LOW RISK = LOW RETURN. YOU BUY A 10-YEAR NOTE, YOU GIVE THE GOVERNMENT A LOAN OF $1,000 FOR 10 YEARS, EVERY YEAR THEY PAY YOU A YIELD (OR RATE OF RETURN). THIS YIELD IS LOWER THAN ALMOST ALL OTHER INVESTMENTS OUT THERE BECAUSE IT IS LOW RISK. WHEN THE ECONOMY IS DOWN INVESTORS MOVE THEIR MONEY AWAY FROM RISKIER INVESTMENTS SUCH AS STOCKS (WHICH TYPICALLY WILL GIVE YOU HIGHER RETURNS, HIGH RISK = HIGHER RETURN) AND INTO SECURE INVESTMENTS SUCH AS THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE. THIS DRIVES THE YIELD OF THESE BONDS DOWN, BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND. IF MORE PEOPLE WANT TO BUY GOVERNMENT BONDS THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH OF A PREMIUM AND THE YIELD GOES DOWN. AND INTEREST RATES GO WITH IT.

SEE THIS LINK: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5eTNX&t=5d&c=

THE HIGHER THE YIELD ON THE 10-YEAR TREASURY NOTE THE HIGHER INTEREST RATES GO. THIS IS DUE TO LESS DEMAND FOR THESE NOTES AS INVESTORS REQUIRE A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN TO BUY THEM VERSUS STOCKS. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, AND ANY ECONOMIST CAN TELL YOU THE SAME THING, WHEN RATES ARE LOW IT MEANS THE ECONOMY IS NOT DOING WELL.

Are you trying to teach me how bond yields are calculated and how supply and demand determine bond pricing?

Thanks, I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. What I am trying to say is this..

The Federal Reserve controls interest rates, not the president of the United States, thus Carter did not make rates go to 21% plus, nor did Bush the Great bring rates down to current levels. And I completely 100% disagree with the theory that low rates equal a bad economy, you need to study much more before drawing such generic conclusions.

If you had somthing to say, please try again with a mix of caps and non-caps and some semblence of sentence structure.

starwink

Banned

Joined: Apr, 2005

Posts: 24201

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 10:26 PM ET #35

Geo. W. Bush likes to portray himself as the "Great Protector". Terrorists have an open entrance to our vital targets through our southern and northern borders. He scuttled FEMA and created Homeland Security. At the same time, he advocates amnesty for all illegal foreigners currently in our country. He advocates making illegal foreigners in the U.S. legal citizens. GWB still refuses to secure our borders from illegal foreigners, be they terrorists or cheap labor.

I'm not dumb but I can't understand, how he can say he's protecting us while he lets any lawbreaker who so chooses, free, unencumbered entry into our country. The words homeland security sound nice, but GWB's actions are totally opposite of the ideas, for which, he says, he stands.

0

homedawgbridger

Veteran

Joined: Oct, 2006

Posts: 1462

Posted: May. 23, 2007 - 11:59 PM ET #36

It seems like everyone is in agreement that Bush and Carter are the worst two presidents in history. The sad thing about this is the fact that Bush was elected to two terms, while Carter only spent one term in office. What does this say about Republicans in the United States over the last decade??? Voting for Bush the first time is acceptable, but voting for him again is disgusting to me. We all knew how much of a moron he was after his first term....so why did we reelect him???? Why did arguably the worst president in history get reelected??? Fear mongering? The media? Religious nuts?? I know some of you will say that it was because Kerry was running against him the second time, but that answer is a cop out.

0

SarasotaSlim

Covers Rehab

Joined: Jan, 2007

Posts: 35125

Posted: May. 24, 2007 - 12:21 AM ET #37

Starwink,

"He scuttled FEMA and created Homeland Security"

That should be changed to the Dept.of Homeland Un-Security.

0

KOAJ

Covers Linesmen

Joined: Oct, 2005

Posts: 66698

Posted: May. 24, 2007 - 7:12 AM ET #38

Quote Originally Posted by homedawgbridger:

It seems like everyone is in agreement that Bush and Carter are the worst two presidents in history. The sad thing about this is the fact that Bush was elected to two terms, while Carter only spent one term in office. What does this say about Republicans in the United States over the last decade??? Voting for Bush the first time is acceptable, but voting for him again is disgusting to me. We all knew how much of a moron he was after his first term....so why did we reelect him???? Why did arguably the worst president in history get reelected??? Fear mongering? The media? Religious nuts?? I know some of you will say that it was because Kerry was running against him the second time, but that answer is a cop out.

its sad that he was re-elected isnt it?

think about it...if the Dems offered even a semi-likable candidate they would have won the white house easy. democrats for the last 6 years have had one message "Anti-Bush"...they dont have any ideas on their own outside of undoing what GWB has done,....its sad really. the party went far left and thats not the way to win national election in this country...if they nominated a centrist like a Joe Biden they would have easily beaten GWB in 04

0

69_Amazin_Mets

Banned

Joined: Mar, 2007

Posts: 15399

Posted: May. 24, 2007 - 9:37 AM ET #39

Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:

its sad that he was re-elected isn't it?

think about it...if the Dems offered even a semi-likable candidate they would have won the white house easy. democrats for the last 6 years have had one message "Anti-Bush"...they dont have any ideas on their own outside of undoing what GWB has done,....its sad really. the party went far left and that's not the way to win national election in this country...if they nominated a centrist like a Joe Biden they would have easily beaten GWB in 04

TRUE TRUE TRUE

The Democrats to EVERY question was " well I wouldn't do what Bush did / is doing " BUT NEVER OFFERED ANOTHER PLAN.

Questions to Democrat:

Q) What would you do about Iraq

A) Well I wouldn't have gone their in the first place and if I did, i would have prepared better than Bush

Q) What would you do about terrorism

A ) Well I wouldn't act recklessly like Bush, and create more terrorists.

Q) What would you do about Al-Qaeda

A) Try to negotiate, Bush never give talks a chance

Never any plans, just I wouldn't do like Bush did......If you have no plans, how do you know what you might have done?

Lieberman is a perfect example of a "left of center" Democrat who would have won going away.

The Democratic party has been hijacked by the extreme left ( and the Republicans by the extreme right ) and the country yearns for middle ground.

I know I do, and if Hillary or Obama are the Dems nomination for President, I think the GOP wins again in '08

0

homedawgbridger

Veteran

Joined: Oct, 2006

Posts: 1462

Posted: May. 24, 2007 - 11:06 AM ET #40

Fine Points. However I could have predicted that the answer to my questions would have been that it was the democrats fault that Bush was reelected. This answer is a cop out in my opinion. This does not answer the question of why does arguably the worst president in history get reelected? The odds that Kerry would have been worse than Bush is reelected is reaching at best. Also, I do believe that Kerry was a "semi likable" candidate. He would have won the election if he had taken Ohio. That means that many many Americans supported him, and did not vote for Bush. However, why do the people who voted for Bush the second time around not take responsibility for their mistake?? It was not like it was a mystery how bad and incompetent a president G.W. was after his first term in office...Blaming the Democrats in this situation is not what is going to help our country avoid electing such a terrible president again to two terms. I believe there are non-partisan issues such as religion and the media or fear mongering that are very relevant to this discussion. Why stick to partisan lines in the sand???

0

SarasotaSlim

Covers Rehab

Joined: Jan, 2007

Posts: 35125

Posted: May. 24, 2007 - 3:57 PM ET #41

I think John Kerry's wife ( was not semi-likable) and cost him 2 million votes. You just didn't want her as your 1st.lady.

0

homedawgbridger

Veteran

Joined: Oct, 2006

Posts: 1462

Posted: May. 24, 2007 - 6:33 PM ET #42

Quote Originally Posted by homedawgbridger:

Fine Points. However I could have predicted that the answer to my questions would have been that it was the democrats fault that Bush was reelected. This answer is a cop out in my opinion. This does not answer the question of why does arguably the worst president in history get reelected? The odds that Kerry would have been worse than Bush is reelected is reaching at best. Also, I do believe that Kerry was a "semi likable" candidate. He would have won the election if he had taken Ohio. That means that many many Americans supported him, and did not vote for Bush. However, why do the people who voted for Bush the second time around not take responsibility for their mistake?? It was not like it was a mystery how bad and incompetent a president G.W. was after his first term in office...Blaming the Democrats in this situation is not what is going to help our country avoid electing such a terrible president again to two terms. I believe there are non-partisan issues such as religion and the media or fear mongering that are very relevant to this discussion. Why stick to partisan lines in the sand???

waiting for some sort of discussion....???

0

homedawgbridger

Veteran

Joined: Oct, 2006

Posts: 1462

Posted: May. 26, 2007 - 9:18 PM ET #43

Sad that no one wants to discuss this matter. Is it just a coincidence that 90% of the people in here are conservatives and probably dont want to discuss this subject???

0

SarasotaSlim

Covers Rehab

Joined: Jan, 2007

Posts: 35125

Posted: May. 27, 2007 - 12:14 AM ET #44

I wont try not to make you feel nauseous, if you don't tell me to commit Kari Kari!!.........................OK?

[Quote homedawgbridger]

"However I could have predicted that the answer to my questions would have been that it was the democrats fault that Bush was reelected."

Well it was,wasn't it? They ran a weak and unconvincing campaign, (without solid PLANS) Pres.Bush was on the ropes, and to my surprise the Democratic party,which started to un-ravel after Pres.Clintons exit never completely re-grouped.

They were out smarted by the Republican re-elect committee. althought a larger percent of the voting public wanted a clear and better direction,none was offered. People were ready for a different plan,but a better one never came. Too much time spent trying to defame Pres. Bushes service record and defending Kerry's actions in Vietnam, and just before the election (not to smart). they should have went for NEW ideas instead of wasting time in attacks and defense. Kerry should have won, and now no one knows if we would have been better off.

Just attacks on the President, without a new path or a clear identity,and it was a poor gamble that did not work..,period. The Democrat's need to blame theirselfs..it was their's for the taking.

"However, why do the people who voted for Bush the second time around not take responsibility for their mistake??"

I voted for Pres. Bush both times and his 2nd term is a disaster so far (e.g.medicare,S.S,.border security and the two wars) to name a just few head liners. But his term still has 19 mths. to go (like early 4th quarter in a game, anything, as you know can happen) for example and not out of the question.

Osama bin Laden is captured, Iraq is manageable with large troop with draws next year ect,etc.............

The Democratic party better re-group quick ,find an identity and come up with a plan,that's better that the one they have now or maybe it will be another close loss in "08".

I don't vote along any party lines,and at this time I can't see anything that makes me want to vote for any Democrats that's are in the race at this time. ............... Can you say Al Gore?