beardown,
In all seriousness, how old are you? 19-20? Have you ever served in the military, or better yet, been honorably discharged from the military. Do you have a career or a job? There is a difference.
You don't like Bush which is fine, but the rationale you offer is absolutely assinine. You assert that Bush destroyed the economy. Really, How? I mean, when I drove to work this morning I failed to notice any economic devastation. No bread lines, no masses of the suddenly impoverished. Could it be that the reason I didn't see it is because its not there. The economy was static all through 1999 and had nosed-over by March 2000.
Here's two little political truisms for you: (1) The President does not control the economy--the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and a cabal of essentially anonymous Wall Street powerbrokers do. (2)The effects of any President's economic policy don't manifest themselves during his administration. In short, every president deals with an economy created by his predecessor.
A president sets the pace, the tone and the example whether he wants to or not. His lead gets followed so he has a grave responsibility to act accordingly. Clinton failed on all accounts. Billy-Boy in(and by) all his vacuous, ammoral glory created an environment where people were free to do what they wanted because thats what the president was doing, whatever he wanted.
Enron, Adelphia, Tyco, all those companies and others were dismantled by their leadership because their officers were confident, based on the example in the White House, that there wouldn't be any real consequences. That there were consequences is a reflection of a Bush Administration not burdened by worries of moral hypocrisy.
Look, the hemmorage of manufacturing jobs to the third world began in the 70's and really picked up speed after NAFTA. GW did not "destroy" the "economy" no more than WJC "built" it up. The only real job growth during the Clinton years was in the service sector(oooh I wanna be a Motel-6 maid too), retail (Wal-Mart 39.5 hours a week wage slave anyone?), and of course the infamous dot.com's (boom-bust). New home construction was on the up for a while but that was mostly in the west and mostly driven by the exodus of Californians to the Rockies.
The state of the so-called "economy" as reported on the evening news is really a reflection of how well Wall Street is doing. Big companies take jobs oversees, or automate, or merge, get bought out and broken up--either way Americans lose jobs BUT next fiscal quarter profits go up--share holders are happy and the Board gets a big bonus.
That is (and has been) the state of the American economy.
Osama goes down this year
Bush will be handily re-elected(12 point margin)
Nader, who is a damn fine consumer advocate but out of his depth, won't be a factor.
Kerry's continued assault on Bush's service record will back fire as it will eventually alienate America's 27 million National Guard veterans.
