:laugh: :laugh:

Dean is a Republican now? Dude, you're losing the thread a little bit. But enough about Dean. Clark can't beat Bush!!?? I submit to you he is the only one who can beat Bush if Dean self-destructs, which looks entirely possible.

Who was the last senator to get elected to the White House? Quick.

I agree with you to an extent in that the economy is the sum of many parts. I actually think the Fed. via Greenspan has the most control/power in one person because it controls two very important things the money supply (all of the definitions of that) and the Fed Fund rate, which is an effective tool in controling inflation and deflation. But, I do think W's policies have stimulated growth via the tax cuts (not meaning to start an argument over them :cool: ) because they put spending money in every taxpayers' pocket (albeit in different amounts), although I certainly agree the tax cuts certainly were not the only thing.

Interestingly, I read an article awhile back perhaps in The Economist that suggested the tools govt's use are helpful only to a limited extent and the economy traditionally just goes in cycles. So who knows.

Finally, I think the last boom economy fell so hard because it was built on stock prices which in no way even closely resembled the value of the company as traditionally calculated (future earning in present day value divided by number of shares). The nasty deeds of Enron, MCI, and others, which cost the taxpayers about a trillion dollars overall and brought many related and unrealted companies and people to financial ruin, certainly did not help once the recession was started.

Food For Thought :cool:

Yes, but who were the last gov.'s - Carter, Regean, Clinton, W. Hmm - I see a trend :laugh: I, too, think Dean is a little out there and has the chance of self destructing. Only time will tell and the next two weeks will be very interesting.

Richard Milhous Nixon.:)

To a certain extent, yes they are. Case in point: the Carter administration.:)

Wasn't Bush I a senator. I know he was an ambassador.

No that was his father. Bush lost to Yarborough in '64 & 70 but did serve in the House.

Thanks - I knew one of the Bushes was a Senator somewhere!!!!

When it comes to the war, he shares the sentiment most liberals do. But on most other issues? He's quite conservative.

Who was the last general?

Eisenhower?

If so, that's even longer than the last Senator. :)

Prescott was the Senator from Connecticut, I believe.

Nixon wasn't a senator when he ran, though. I was thinking of JFK. And true, Eisenhower was the last general elected president--on the heels of WWII. I can totally see a general getting elected on the heels of Sept. 11, especially one who distinguished himself during a military operation that was deemed quite successful at a time when a current military operation is an shambles.

As for who is a Republican or Democrat, I maintain that most times it doesn't matter all that much. Dubya is an aberration, albeit a dangerous one. His father and even Nixon were more liberal than Clinton in some ways.

John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the War on Iraq, No Child Left Behind. When has he actually voted against Dubya?

You've got me. :nod: :laugh: When you put in those terms, he's f*cked up quite a bit, actually.

However, unlike Clark, he never bombed a Chinese embassy and he never bombed a civilian convoy and lied about it. When he was caught lying about the convoy bombing, he blamed it on a US pilot, as confirmed by his staff. Then Clinton fired him. And Clark should be the last person complaining about Iraq when he led the invasion of Yugoslavia. Talk about hypocrites.