"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000 new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3 million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop, whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000
new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3
million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there
was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop,
whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not
check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.'

You're right. My mistake.

Bush: 6.3% (January 2004)
Clinton: 6.3% (January 1996)

NOYB wrote:

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000
new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3
million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey, there
was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop,
whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not
check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.'

You're right. My mistake.

Bush: 6.3% (January 2004)
Clinton: 6.3% (January 1996)



Bush isn't playing well in Ohio. You realize that if Bush carries all
the states he carried in 2000 but one, and Kerry carries all the states
Gore carried in 2000, and Kerry carries Ohio, Bush is...gone.

The same can be said of New Mexico, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa,
Pennsylvania...and your own state of Maryland. All of those went to Gore in
2000, and any one of those could swing towards Bush this time.

Kerry didn't have a particularly strong showing several of those states.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:28:25 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


What is Kerry or Edwards going to do to get 2,000,000-3,000,000
new
jobs?

Why set the bar so high? Bush lost 3,000,000 jobs on his watch.

No he didn't. That number is a lie. First of all, if you use the
flawed
Payroll Data Survey, that number is only 2.4 million...not 3
million.
However, if you use the more accurate Household Data survey,
there
was
a
net
*GAIN* in jobs under Bush.


Ahhh...time for the NewsMax bullship alert again...whoop, whoop,
whoop!

Bull****, eh? Let's look at facts from bls.gov:

Average unemployment rate (1st three years of Presidency):

Clinton: 6.2%
Bush: 5.5%

Unemployment rate on January of each President's fourth year in
office:

Clinton: 7.3% in January 1994
Bush: 6.3% in January 2004



4 years in office would be 1996 for Clinton and I believe (I did not
check)
the unemployment rate was 6.6%.'

You're right. My mistake.

Bush: 6.3% (January 2004)
Clinton: 6.3% (January 1996)



Bush isn't playing well in Ohio. You realize that if Bush carries all
the states he carried in 2000 but one, and Kerry carries all the states
Gore carried in 2000, and Kerry carries Ohio, Bush is...gone.

NOYB wrote:

The same can be said of New Mexico, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa,
Pennsylvania...and your own state of Maryland. All of those went to Gore in
2000, and any one of those could swing towards Bush this time.

Kerry didn't have a particularly strong showing several of those states.


Hehehe. Your boy Bush is in deep doo-doo. Kerry will carry every state
Gore carried, and he's going to pick up Ohio and a couple of other
states that went for Bush but have suffered massive job losses.

Bush can try to b.s. about jobs, about health care, about education,
about Social Security and Medicare, about the environment, but he has
feet of clay in those areas, and he has been an absolute disaster in the
international area. All your dumb boy Bush has are wedge issues (gay
marriage, for example), and fear. Perhaps he should start a new website
called FearBush.COM, as fear and divisiveness are the Republican
stocks-in-trade.

And then there is Cheney, a real anchor around Bush's dirty neck. Bush
would be better served if Cheney had a fatal heart attack before the GOP
convention, or decided to step down so someone less slimey could fill in
for him.

I expect the dirtiest campaign ever from the Repubicans. Bush cannot run
on his record, because his record as president is horrible. He has to go
on the the attack.

In article , Harry Krause wrote:

I expect the dirtiest campaign ever from the Repubicans. Bush cannot run
on his record, because his record as president is horrible. He has to go
on the the attack.

Maybe the Bush camp can hire some Demorat experts in the dirty department?
There isn't any shortage of em'. Many would sell out for good money....

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
hlink.net...
In article , Harry Krause
wrote:

I expect the dirtiest campaign ever from the Repubicans. Bush cannot run
on his record, because his record as president is horrible. He has to go
on the the attack.

Maybe the Bush camp can hire some Demorat experts in the dirty department?
There isn't any shortage of em'. Many would sell out for good money....

....a la Dick Morris.