Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Easy Mac
Given the Bush's horrid job record, and Edward's ability to campaign, I think Edwards could pull some of the South, so long as Kerry shuts the fuck up about it. Kerry can't keep saying he can ignore the South (regardless of the truth to the statement), because a good part of the South is having a hell of a time in the job market, and many of them see it as Bush's fault (whether rightly or not). He's shooting himself in the foot with that. I could see Edwards giving Bush a better run at this point because he can pull a good bit of the South, even if he has a short political record.
And on Kerry running as a centrist: Bush also ran as a centrist when he ran, and the people sure as hell didn't see through that.
|
I just don't believe it is the federal govt's role to create jobs. All it should do is to get out of the way of entrepreneurship. Things will go in cycles (witness of the PC revolution of the 1980s and the Internet/telecom revolution of the 1990s) and the South with its
relative lack of educated workforce seems always lag behind in the revolutions. You cannot keep making buggy-whips if it is not profitable to do so and the govt should not force that.
The answer is not why the govt didn't force jobs elsewhere into the South (outside of Atlanta) but why is it so hard for a critical mass of companies (esp. well-paying ones) to want to move there - as oppose to the Bay Area, Puget Sound, Front Range Colorado, Las Vegas, Texas, Northern Virginia and other high growth/high paying areas.
Additionally, I think you missed my argument that Bush's record is much more of a centrist (re: liberal Republican) than it is perceived to be.