I don't like Bush, obviously, but I think the economy is what will get him re-elected, since it's now poised to recover. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic trends, and is showing signs of stabilizing, if not improving. The tax cuts and defense spending are kicking in and will provide stimulus.

Bush critics suffer from a "gloom and doom" mentality. One of the reasons Bush's advisors are so cocky is that they know the economy is primed to recover and that the huge deficits will prevent any movement towards social programs. The poor are screwed and middle class is stressed but racial scapegoating at home and military adventurism abroad will insure a docile and dutiful populace.

(1) It's not poised to recover.

(2) Spin is only believed for a short period of time; and

(3) Unemployment causes less consumer spending, which deflates the economy (which could be the cause for massive deflation in the U.S.), and deflation causes lower capital earning, resulting in fewer capital expenditures (such as employment of new employees).

Three things are causing this:

1. The trade deficit (see jobs leaving the U.S. for India for details...)

2. The massive and bludgeoning deficit, which, in contributing to the national debt, isn't good, economically.

3. The lack of free trade agreements benefitting American workers and companies (they're hard to negotiate when the rest of the world is mad at us).

I'm an optimist at heart, but numbers and news stories don't lie. News stories may take things out of context, sometimes, but if you read as many newspapers as I do, you will get the truth, peace by peace.

If you more closely look at the numbers and the facts, you will discover that only select industries benefitted from the Bush presidency, while other industries greatly suffered.

I am not a "Bush hater" per se. After all, I did vote for him and did speak for him and bash Al Gore live on MSNBC for him in 2000.

I am simply disgusted that he campaigned as a conservative, then governed as an oligarchich liberal, and has virtually become the hypocrite that he said Clinton was and promised us he would not become.

If he changes his ways, I will vote for him in 2004, but I doubt that if he does change them, that they will be real. He has broken the trust I had in him. There are other conservatives who feel this way, as well, and then there are the false or desparate conservatives (like Ann Coulter, et al) who take up for him. I'm principled. I just won't do that.

According to economic statistics, demand is rising and inventories are falling; that's a clear cut sign businesses will have to rev up production.

What we're seeing is a cyclical upturn within a downward or stagnant economic trend.

In 1982, liberals said the economy was doomed and would never recover. It recovered. In 1992, people said jobless recoveries and stagnant growth were the future. They weren't.

Doom and gloom is the norm among hard core idealogues, and consistently underestimates American capitalism's ability to rejuvenate itself.

A major reason for this ability is the huge role the state sector plays in the economy. The state's role is hidden through defense spending, which provides the economy with tremendous technological innovation. Despite views to the contrary, the U.S. is one of the most centrally planned economies on earth.

Why is it that whenever 'murricans talk about "free trade" they mean tarriffs which favour USAians? If it's "free trade" it means no tarriffs. Assholes.

"Free Trade" means that foreign countries trade equally with their foreign counterparts. The U.S. currently imports more foreign goods than it exports. This created and maintains the growing trade deficit we have with other countries around the world.

So, if the USAians arbritarily impose duties without any rationale that is fair?

Give your head a shake.

You're setting protectionist tarriffs against Canada and whine to the WTO about your barrifs and tarriers.