|
Edited on Thu Sep-23-04 08:58 PM by tedoll78
I think a big part of that is the deficit.
We saw how powerful that issue was in 1992; it gave Ross Perot 19% of the popular vote back then.. and he was a one-issue candidate on that issue.
I suspect that this deficit is hanging in the back of everyone's minds. I suspect that there are a number of fiscal conservatives who are privately horrified at the fact that a Republican president & a Republican Congress ran-up these deficits. Ask any classic conservatives you know: Would they have tolerated this from Clinton? the hemming and hawing on their answer tells you everything you need to know.
Ordinary people know that a deficit will need to be paid-back at some point in the future. The main question then becomes: do we do the responsible thing - do we pay it off now? Or do we do the other thing - pay it off later, but with interest and even higher tax rates?
I think it's a whopper of an issue, and I wish the Dems would hammer this point a bit more.
-------------
You Scalia comment: AMEN.
Right now, the average term served on the U.S. Supreme Court is approximately 18 years. Assuming that only two justices retire from 2005-2009, we'd be looking at an average of 36 years of court votes. If Stevens were to drop-dead, or if Ginsberg were to have a recurrence of her cancer.. we'd be in for some scaaaary times.
Should Bush end-up back in for the next four years, all Democratic senators will be getting a call from me on the first day of their session in 2005. A simple message from me: "You filibuster Scalia clones, or I don't show-up to the polls ever again. You need me. I am your party's archetypical core voter."
|