Ace...take it from Dr. Poopstain...clean those foul bowels - take a dump.
WASHINGTON - Following an important meeting on Iraq (news - web sites) war planning in late 2001, President Bush (news - web sites) told the public that the discussions was about Afghanistan (news - web sites). He made no mention afterward about Iraq even though that was the real focus of the session at his ranch.
"I'm right now focused on the military operations in Afghanistan," Bush told reporters after talks on Dec. 28, 2001, with top aides and generals.
A "war update" was the White House description of the news conference Bush held with Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Afghan war as head of U.S. Central Command.
Details of the meeting's focus on Iraq have since emerged in a recent speech by Franks, who now is retired, and in a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.
The book says Franks summarized Afghan operations before turning to planning for war in Iraq — the point of the gathering.
In a Washington speech last month, Franks said he discussed with the president on that day the "growing storm" and the need to revise a long-standing military contingency plan for Iraq
Countless Thousands Died for Bush Approval Ratings
KISS MY FAGGOT ASS AL D....buy me dinner next time.
"WASHINGTON - Following an important meeting on Iraq (news - web sites) war planning in late 2001, President Bush (news - web sites) told the public that the discussions was about Afghanistan (news - web sites). He made no mention afterward about Iraq even though that was the real focus of the session at his ranch."
I've got no complaint with this kind of lie, concealing the real subject of a military contingency planning session. It's like Eisenhower and the U-2.
Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. The vice president, for his part, believed Powell was mainly concerned with his own popularity and told friends at a dinner he hosted a year ago celebrating the outcome of the war that Powell was a problem and "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do."
Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "you're going to be owning this place." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called "the Pottery Barn rule" on Iraq: "You break it, you own it," according to Woodward.
But, when asked personally by the president, Powell agreed to make the U.S. case against Hussein at the United Nations in February 2003, a presentation described by White House communications director Dan Bartlett as "the Powell buy-in." Bush wanted someone with Powell's credibility to present the evidence that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction
Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta There was a Buffalo Soldier, In the heart of America Stolen from Africa, brought to America Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival....
In the arms of America Trodding through Jamaica, a Buffalo Soldier Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival Buffalo Soldier, Dreadlock Rasta
April 16, 2004 New Lows in Support for Bush Policies on Iraq and the War on Terror The really significant political development in the recent period is the undercutting of support for Bush's war in Iraq and for his handling of the war on terror. Here are some findings from recent polls that show just how seriously his standing in this area--once his ticket to sure re-election--has eroded.
The latest Annenberg Election Survey includes this question: "Has the war in Iraq reduced the risk of terrorism against the United States or increased the risk of terrorism against the United States?" Very straightforward. By about 2:1 (57-29), the public says the Iraq war has increased the risk of terrorism against the US. Wow.
The poll also asks another very straightforward question: "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not?". Note that there's no specific mention in this question of the war's costs--casualties, money, etc.--which has tended to produce negative responses for quite a while (e.g., the CBS News question). But, even with no mention of costs, this question still returns a negative response: 51-43 saying the Iraq situation wasn't worth going to war about. That could represent some kind of a turning point in public evaluations of the Iraq war.
Another noteworthy recent finding comes from a recent Ipsos-AP poll. In that poll, Bush's approval rating on "handling the war on terrorism" clocks in at just 51 percent.
These new lows suggest just how difficult it may be for Bush to run--and win--as a "war president", as he likes to describe himself. And for further indications on this score, check out this excellent Los Angeles Times article on how reactions to the Iraq quagmire (if I may use that term) may sink his chances to carry Minnesota, very high on the Bush campaign's list of blue states they hope to pick off in November.
That from Ruy, vK further illustrates why I post 2 DiFi pics...to illustrate just that point!
Multi-media communication of razor sharp insight you do understand?
Mr. Woodward, who is clearly channeling Mr. Powell, as he has done to present Mr. Powell's side of the story in past books, recreates his innermost thoughts: "He saw in Cheney a sad transformation. The cool operator from the first gulf war just would not let go. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to Al Qaeda and trying to nail the connection with Iraq. He would often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that Cheney took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. It was about the worst charge that Powell could make about the vice president. But there it was."
But Mr. Powell shared his dread, Cassandra-like, with Mr. Woodward: "The more Powell dug, the more he realized that the human sources were few and far between on Iraq's W.M.D. It was not a pretty picture."
The pseudoconservative dogma is a grab-bag of popular delusions which seem almost anarchic in their contradictoriness. Anti-state rhetoric sits adjacent to authoritarian ukase, free market dogma jostles with corporate state plutocracy, and so on: religious devotion with militarist fervor, rugged individualism with leader worship, "family values" with plutocratic decadence, America first with global messianism.
How did it arise at the particular time and place as it did, and why has it metastasized after 11 September 2001?
Perhaps the myth of American exceptionalism, when combined with the semi-permanent military mobilization of the Cold War, provided a particularly fertile seed-bed for the syndrome. Given the concomitant decay of education and popular culture (5), it would seem that the only additional ingredient necessary was a healthy dose of fear. Nine-eleven provided that.
Pseudoconservatism's worship of force in human affairs is a particularly troubling and dangerous trait at this time, given that international terrorism has evolved into a self-organizing network that feeds off violence to gain more recruits. (6) For all his neurotic love of hierarchy and authoritarianism, the pseudoconservative has the potential to unleash the very chaos and anarchy he fears. We can only hope pseudoconservatism dies of its own contradictions before it consumes our peace of mind, our wallets, and our sons. Dr. Werther
John Kerry, Meet the Potato: "The internal war in this Administration over who gets what and over what is done is unlike anything I've seen in modern times."
The contrast between Bush's fumbling, piss ignorance and Kerry on the Potato Hour could not be more clear.
Kerry: "I wish I had one of those buttons you have to put what YOU said up on the screen. In 1997 YOU said to President CLinton that SS would be bankrupt by 2001. Well it wasn't it was solvent and we had a lockbox that the Thief stole"
A terrorist attack between now and November would be the best thing that could happen for the Bush campaign. The campaign ads and talking points write themselves:
Democrat John Kerry on Sunday accused President Bush of a "stunningly ineffective" foreign policy and stuck by his argument that the war against terrorism isn't primarily a military struggle.
First we're gonna cut it off, then we're gonna kill it.
Democrat John Kerry on Sunday accused President Bush of a "stunningly ineffective" foreign policy and stuck by his argument that the war against terrorism isn't primarily a military struggle.
And he's right.
Richard Clarke says the same thing and so will the9/11 Commission.
That's why the Bushie don't know whether to shit or go brown.
That's why you don't see the D Boiz blatherin no mo.
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.
Saw kerry on russert. While he faired well, i struggled to get past his face. He musta been so botoxed up that the only thing he could move were his lips and his eyelids. Further, he was so "tan" with makeup that his white ears didn't match his face color.
He kept saying he has a plan, but the only clear plan that came across was trash the admin at every turn.
Q. Sen. Kerry, what did you have for breakfast this a.m.? A. Unlike the current administration, Tim....
Thoughtful, you do realize that Kerry had no sayso about the makeup...he doesn't wear that stuff all the time. The show's makeup people are the ones who should be shot over that job.
As far as him using botox, I really don't care what his face looks like but obviously, others do. I'd much rather have a guy use botox but be able to speak intelligently than look like a good ole boy and talk like a hick.
Judithah, I agree about the importance of being able to express oneself verbally. The contrast with the current pres is stunning, especially since speaking is stock in trade for a politician...a core competence if you will.
However, the botox issue is a critical one as only a small percentage of communication is actually verbal. Much communication in terms of sincerity, honesty, believability, trustworthiness, etc. all come through with facial expressions. Look at the impact the famous w smirk had on his campaign and how hard his handlers tried to get him to stop smirking...and how telling it is that the smirk shows up when he's on the hook with no answer. Or consider the classic example of people listening to the nixon-jfk debate on the radio vs watching on TV...the listeners thought nixon won vs. the viewers who thought jfk won. Certainly gore's stiffness worked against him in his failed campaign, despite his many attempts to make fun of it and defuse it.
So in my view, certainly the presidential campaign shouldn't be a beauty contest, how a candidate carries and expresses himself is an important element. Using botox to paralyze one's face is, imo, telling that he's willing to sacrifice credibility for vanity. Not a good thing.
Bush has an astonishingly detailed list of drawbacks, but on the plus side is that he looks pretty decent as a cowboy slash sheriff slash commonsense reg'lar guy.
Kerry, to put it mildly, looks like a blueblooded, patrician, escargot-eating, deeply snobbish, French-loving, elistist.
Of course, he happens to be all of those things which is why I've liked him from the start. But, very very sadly, those things are looked at as somehow negative when Yanks choose Presidents. Apparently (shudder) Yanks want to vote in a guy they'de be happy to slurp back budweisers with at the local bar.
Kerry can't be that guy, particularly. But he can be orange! And he can erase the lines on his face and solder on a permanent smile, so that at least the guys at the corner bar won't be intimidated too much.
If we're going to get into looks, Bush looks like he uses extra shoulder pads, swaggers, and has put on weight, no doubt from eating at those pricey Texan restauants that the common man can't afford.
Yeah, Kerry needs a new makeup person, and I suspect, after this appearance he'll get one. But I hope people will start listening to him and stop looking at him. I think it's the "April frenzy." Both Bush and Kerry are worried about pulling ahead in the polls and Kerry is trying to deal with GOP created canards.
For instance, Rumors are flying about how his wife is in control of the Heinz corporation, responsible for decisions of out soucing, etc. None of it's true, of course. See Heinz Facts
Go to meet the press home page and see two shots of kerry...the difference is striking. Maybe it wasn't his shoulder he had worked on, but went to greta van susteren's plastic surgeon instead?
Exposing previous White House denials as lies, journalist Bob Woodward this weekend revealed parts of his new book which provide evidence the Bush Administration began plans for an Iraq invasion immediately after 9/11; overhyped intelligence; and appeared to circumvent the Constitution to pursue its goals. In Woodward's account, which includes a three-and-a-half hour interview with President Bush, it is revealed that the President personally ordered plans for the Iraq war to be drawn up in November of 2001.
While the White House has called such statements "revisionist history," Woodward's account is consistent with accounts given by Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former Bush State Department officialRichard Haass, former British Ambassador Christopher Meyer, and an earlier CBS News report. Woodward's book explores the depth of White House cover-up efforts, showing how the Administration persuaded even top military officials to lie. For instance, at the same time General Tommy Franks was secretly developing the President's Iraq war plan, he was "simultaneously publicly denying that he was ever asked to do any plan." For instance, at the same time General Tommy Franks was secretly developing the President's Iraq war plan, he was "publicly denying that he was ever been asked to do any plan." Just as troubling, Woodward points out that the decision to go to war with Iraq was shared with Saudi Prince Bandar (who has milked his ties to the Bush Administration despite being under the microscope for money laundering) and RNC consultant Karen Hughes before it was shared with Secretary of State Colin Powell.
We have a vice-president whose only support is from the whacko segment of the Bush base. This is reflected in his 28 per cent approval rating. I don't know how he describes himself but he certainly is not a compassionate conservative. After all, he did a job on the Halliburon retirees and was paid well by the company for that swindle. He certainly isn't a warrior as he sought and fought for several consecutive deferments to avoid service in Vietnam. He certainly isn't a war planner as evidenced by the present disaster in Iraq which he has presided over. Then what is he to be described as? I think an apt description would be as leader of the Radical wing of the Republican party.
I have another question to pose. What percentage of the American electorate could tolerate this individual as President of the United States for four years? The point is that as low as the probability is, something could happen to George Bush and it could happen through accident, disease, or assassination. This man Cheney, if the Bush ticket is re-elected, stands one heart-beat away from the presidency.
I just wonder in view of Bush's lust for the presidency whether Cheney will develop a medical problem in the not too distant future and will be replaced by an Hispanic.
Saudi Arabia said Monday it will not use oil prices to try to sway the U.S. presidential election, denying an allegation that the kingdom would cut petroleum prices before November to boost President Bush's re-election bid
We all know how honest and forthright these people are, too. I'm so relieved.
I don't see this Cheney toast thing frankly. Yes he will be a major liability in this campaign but after what Woodward and O'Neill have confirmed about how this Regime works (or doesn't) and why, the question:
When was the last time the organ grinder's monkey fired his organ grinder?
How could Bush fire Cheney? The very idea is absurd, the bad bad man in VP clothing supllies most of the brain and all the balls for Dubya. Bush Jr. owes him, big time.
According to one expert ""since March 4 — just after Kerry in effect wrapped up his party's nomination — Bush has bought about as much television advertising as past presidential candidates purchased for the entire general election campaign."
Anderson Cooper just did a video comparison of Bush's hair from last week and then today: he's dying his hair. It is decidedly "browner" today than in the video from last week. This can mean only one of two things. He is vain and trying to look younger, a la Kerry and his botox, or he is so full of shit it is altering his hair follicles.
"For each press conference, the White House press secretary asks the reporters for their questions, selects six or seven of the questions to answer and those reporters are the only ones called upon to ask their questions during the press conference, Suskind said.
"This system makes it so that the president has answers already prepared for questions that he knows will be asked, Suskind said."
I'd like to have this confirmed by an actual White House correspondent before I believe it. But it would explain why several reporters asked basically the same question ("What mistakes do you think you made in connection with 9/11?" and variants thereof); if each said that was the question he/she was going to ask, and if he/she ever wanted to be called on again, they went ahead and asked it. And it is clear that the White House has a preselected list of at least some of the reporters who are called upon.
On the other hand, if the White House had foreknowledge of the questions, surely even a dimwit like Bush could have been coached to answer them better.
Hah! I agree, Ohio, but maybe Bush thinks his answers are brilliant as is. I'd like more confirmation too. I'd hate to think the press corps would go along with such a practice but I have read about certain reporters being totally ignored because they put Bush on the spot in previous news conferences. I think I'd be tempted to change my question once I'd been chosen but that would guarantee being excilled to Siberia press hell.
As far as Bush coloring his hair, I don't care, although it's funny. I saw him on tv today and swear his tailor messed up. His right shoulder was lower than his left one. It's all petty, but more refreshing than listening to the junk that pours out of his mouth.
Unfortunately, we have to live with his policies, errors and ommissions, mistakes and disasters, unless, imo, Kerry, botox or not, wins the election.
Bush read from a list of names at the last press conference, bristled when he got a question he was unprepared for, bristled even more noticeably when a reporter didn't take his prepared answer seriously and actually stated out loud that he wished he could have had the 'mistake' question in advance.
IMO, the young buy into the achievement memes of the republicans. They've worked very hard to get into college, been drilled with the idea that success is tied to effort. They infer from that they would prefer a government that does not deprive them of the fruits of their effort.
This may actually be a flipside generation. The usual pattern is that you start off committed to liberal ideals, and then as you accumulate experience (and money), you move to the right. In the case of this generation, the ideal is meritocracy, and the rewards that come from diligence.
When they discover that it doesn't really work that way (although it doesn't entirely not work that way), they may move to the left.
One thing that young people are extremely skeptical of, in contrast to their elders, is Social Security. They have bought into GOP privatization propaganda.
Old age and death are just rumors to the young. Repug's under-the-radar appeal to petty resentments and The Club For Greed will always hold sway with weak-minded adolescents of every age group.
These days, on the radio especially, we are told that our pension funds are not going to see us retire in the style we might have expected, the government is urging people to look at their retirement schemes and check that the figures add up. There are new state sponsored pension schemes for those who would not ordinarily get a scheme as part of their employment.
I'm not sure what you all are talking about re Bush's approval ratings, but according to the latest gallup poll:
Despite a spate of high-profile political events in the past week and a half -- President George W. Bush's nationally televised press conference, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission, and media appearances by Richard Clarke, the author of a new book criticizing the Bush administration for its handling of the war on terrorism -- a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey finds little change in the presidential contest. Among likely voters, Bush continues to enjoy a slight lead over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, as he has since the end of March. Also, Bush's job approval rating as well as the favorable ratings of both Bush and Kerry are all essentially the same as they were three weeks ago.
The poll, conducted April 16-18, shows Bush leading Kerry among likely voters, 51% to 46%. In an April 5-8 poll, Bush's lead was three points, while he had a four-point lead in a March 26-28 poll. In the past three weeks, the figures have fluctuated within a small range, suggesting no real change in the preferences of American voters over that time.
Add Nader to the mix and bush is leading. Not that I understand why, but there it is. Of course, Bush has been spending a lot on advertising and it seems as if kerry may be hoarding his cash for later in the race, so it may make sense at this point.
But russert on imus this a.m. made the point that only 18 states are up in the air at this point and of those only about 10% of voters in each state are undecided so the results rest in the hands of very few people...and much can happen between now and nov. to help them decide including the economy, gas prices, terrorism, scandal, etc.
Controversial. The standard line is that once the boomer generation starts hitting the pension system in large numbers, the current pay as you go plan is certain to fail. The government, under this line, should be building up surpluses to be used to cover the costs when the pig hits that particular point in the python. There is much handwringing among the purveyors of this line over the huge Bush deficit. It is doing the opposite of accumulating surplus to handle the surge in retirees.
Bush has proposed a privatization scheme, which gives some people (over some age) their current benefits, and converts people under that age to a privitization scheme. That's a non-starter. The people who are in the transitional years in the privatization scheme are going to have to provide the money for the people who retained their benefits, and for themselves.
The trouble with all these things is that if you just jiggle the growth numbers a little (or the immigration numbers), you change the picture.
What will happen, imo, is a repeat of the 1986 reforms. Retirement ages will be raised again (In 1985, my full benefit retirement age was 65. Now it's 67 and five months.) Right now the payroll tax is applied to a capped earning level for SS, while the Medicare portion is uncapped. The 86 reforms raised the SS cap year by year. The next reform will drop the cap entirely. Also, the cost of living adjustment will be reduced, by using a different index.
There's a bigger problem with Medicare, which reflects the general problems with health care provision in the US. Incredibly expensive procedures, like heart transplants, can save lives, but make the system very expensive. The drug companies have been successful developing compounds that are both very expensive and are taken every day for the rest of your life. When someone lives or dies in old age is increasingly a matter of choice--trading off quality of life for life itself. Keeping people who are on the brink of death alive is very expensive.
Some cost reduction measures are also good health care measures, like reducing the time in hospital. But there aren't many of those available. Currently, the government sets reimbursement rates for Medicare procedures, and there is no copay. So there is an incentive for patients to seek excessive treatment. The reimbursement rates are too low to maintain doctors at their preferred lifestyles, so other patients pay higher rates for procedures. And woe to ye who has no insurance. If you have to see a doctor, you pay the full bore price that the the doc can't get from an HMO, Medicaid, or Medicare.
All this stuff makes Medicare a ticking bomb. The only long term solution is some kind of socialized medicine, either through compulsory insurance or some kind of single payer plan. Industry, especially rust belt industry, is increasingly realizing this.
In terms of pension, the situation is grim. Not only are there fewer workers covered by pensions through their employers but there has also been a dramatic shift in the nature of those pensions, from defined benefits (you are guaranteed a certain payout upon retirement and the company bears the risk of making that happen) to defined contribution (you make a fixed payment in and the amount you receive is based on how well your investments have done over that time.)
Further US savings rates are very low (2% or less) and US debt burdens are at or near record highs so very little is being done on a personal level to pay for retirement for most workers.
This is not a good situation.
That's why a fixed benefit plan like social security is so important and it is NOT in crisis. Currently it is running a surplus and the Ball Commission years ago came up with a few tweeks to the system that would easily keep it funded through 2075. It doesn't need breaking to "fix" it, but this admin seems hell-bent on doing so.
Or there's just the more mundane things that people take for granted now, like kidney dialysis. My father goes to a clinic three times a week, where a couple dozen people spend half a day three times a weeek getting the toxins taken out of their blood. It's a small, cramped place with underpaid staffers, but it is still damned expensive. He'll be doing this for the rest of his life.
That's why a fixed benefit plan like social security is so important and it is NOT in crisis. Currently it is running a surplus and the Ball Commission years ago came up with a few tweeks to the system that would easily keep it funded through 2075.
As I said, macnas, this is controversial. The tweaks thoughtful is talking about are like the ones I mentioned. There's certainly an argument independent of the purely financial for raising the retirement age. People do live longer than they did when the system was created, and they are more active. Overall, of course. If you get that stroke at 62, and can't retire or get medicare until 70, you're in trouble.
It's not a problem particular to the U.S., the same basic problems exist for us too.
It always seems to be that a state/government, will do anything and everything other than pony up, regardless of whether it can afford it or not. It would seem to me to be a big voter concern, what with the older population rising, and being the portion of the population most likely to vote.
Well, a lot of it is just the nature of the system. The working population foots the bill for the retired population works fine especially when the working population is larger than the retired one. When the reverse is true, it gets very very difficult.
In terms of the tweaks, one not mentioned but one that was critical to the ball commission results was including govt workers in soc sec. Currently while they work for the gov they are not included, retire from gov after 20 years with full pension then work a few years as private employees to receive full soc sec benefits...double dipping. If they are included in soc sec from the beginning, they'd pay in for much longer periods of time which would add solvency.
thoughtful: Add Nader to the mix and bush is leading. Not that I understand why, but there it is.
A number of historical election commentators have noted that when the government comes under pressure from foreigners, there's a rally around the flag reaction. This could be a factor, who knows? There has been some speculation that the Nader run will be used by Nader to extract commitments from Kerry and then he drops out and endorses the Democratic ticket. There's another theory being floated that the Nader poll number reflects people unwilling to be on record opposing Bush. They believe a fear factor has developed in respect to elements within the Bush strike force which could affect them, their jobs or their businesses.
The government, under this line, should be building up surpluses to be used to cover the costs when the pig hits that particular point in the python.
Perhaps I'm just naive, but I have a problem with the idea that a whole nation (in fact, practically the whole of the OECD countries) can just put money in the bank, then spend it in twenty years time. On an individual level, that works fine; but as a collective strategy? The macroeconomic implications are surely non-trivial. It looks like voodoo economics to me.
The aggregate standard of living is function of the production of goods and services. Either there will be less production when the boomers all retire, in which case, we will inevitably be poorer; or the same quantity will be produced, by fewer workers.
If equivalent quantities of goods and services are produced by fewer workers, but those workers do not get a correspondingly increased share of wealth (as we currently observe), that means that capital is increasing its share of wealth over labour, and it means that those workers will be ill disposed to increasing their contributions to funding the retirement of their elders.
The logical solution, therefore, to funding retirement, is to tax profits.
The macroeconomic implications are surely non-trivial. It looks like voodoo economics to me.
In practical terms, in the US, what it meant was simply retiring debt, in order to be able to incur it again when the boomers hit. There would have been a virtuous cycle involved as well--reducing debt reduces interest payments which in turn speeds debt reduction.
If equivalent quantities of goods and services are produced by fewer workers, but those workers do not get a correspondingly increased share of wealth
"Hold it! Hold it!" Adelman interjected. "Let's talk about this Gulf war. It's so wonderful to celebrate." He said he was just an outside adviser, someone who turned up the pressure in the public forum. "It's so easy for me to write an article saying, 'Do this.' It's much tougher for Paul to advocate it. Paul and Scooter, you give advice inside and the president listens. Dick, your advice is the most important, the Cadillac. It's much more serious for you to advocate it. But in the end, all of what we said was still only advice. The president is the one who had to decide. I have been blown away by how determined he is." The war has been awesome, Adelman said.
"So I just want to make a toast, without getting too cheesy. To the president of the United States."
"People say, how can I help this war on terror? How can I fight EVIL? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going to a shut in and say 'I love you' " George of the Talking Bass
Jex, We had an interesting discussion going, admittedly off topic. You've just jumped in with five posts, the entire substance of which is an excerpt from the Woodward book. You don't mention that it's a WaPo excerpt from the Woodward book.
Not only have you not discussed anything, but you've put a buncha junk in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Much more of that, and the people who have been talking about an issue are going to lose the thread.
I think you are correct. I've had similar thoughts about the effect of a growing number of retirees relative to workers and concluded there are only two possible sources of support for the retirees--increasing productivity, as you said, and savings and investment in other countries--drawing on (exploiting?) the production of workers in other countries. Another factor that has been helping in industrialized countries is the entry of more women into the workforce outside the home. But that has pretty well maxed out. Also, the younger end of the population can be augmented by opening the country to more imigrants.
Otherwise, putting money away in government bonds or even equities doesn't solve the problem of the shrinking proportion of active workers in the population. Seems to me investing the money in government bonds or in the equities of U.S. companies would merely transfer income from one sector of the population to another without increasing the overall output sufficiently to provide for the retirees?? On the other hand, increasing the savings and investment rate does help improve productivity.
Least its on topic...off topic posts should go to the Mote Cafe don't you think or perhaps AP or perhaps terrorism or fuck do you think I give a flyin fuck Jay?
Do you?
This is on topic...
Rove argued that the politics of the Cheney-is-in-charge thesis worked in their favor. First, anyone who believed that was long lost to them anyway. Second, Rove wanted them to keep talking about it, throw the campaign into that briar patch. He believed the ordinary person wouldn't buy it. Here 67 percent were saying Bush was a strong leader and that included a third of the people who disapproved of his performance in office. A strong leader would not kowtow to his vice president, and Bush did not look meek in public.
Actually paying down debt with payroll tax receipts reduces the transfer of taxpayer dollars to rich people (and, these days, foreigners) who hold the debt.
The division of gains from productivity between worker and capitalist is a fluctuating thing. Right now, capitalists are in the driver's seat. And as long as Americans want their 79 dollar dvd players there they will stay.
Jexster is right. Any further discussion of this topic, from me anyway, will take place in the slow thread.
No, jex, you're missing the point. YOU discuss. What do YOU find interesting about that quotation? Do you think things have changed that affect Bush's chances of re-election--that is, the charge may have been harmless then, but is not harmless now? (Where did the quote come from, by the way?)
Then, see, people can respond to your opinion, noting nuances you may have missed, pointing to countervailing evidence and so forth. Then we all have a richer understanding of the issue you've raised. But posting a quotation raises no issue, and starts no discussion.
Further, why should healthy workers expect to retire at age 60 or 65 and be supported by the active workforce for 30 years? As life expectancy and health improve people should be expected to retire later and work longer. Moreover, more years spent in school has been reducing the number of productive years. Retirement is a relatively new concept (since the industrial revolution)--farmers used to continue to work until they died--which is still evolving. Encouraging or enabling early retirement is not good public policy. People should be encouraged to work as long as they can in their original occupation and/or move on to a second or third phase of their working life. That makes economic sense and contributes to the physical and mental health of the population.
I cut and pasted from a search result. I guess you can't trust the web. I've posted a copy of your and AListair's message and a response in the slow thread.
Now what do you think about the Blood for Bandar thing?
I think its true. I think Powell is a snake and he pumped Woodward with it. I think its a great issue for Kerry. I think it opens the door to a hornet's nest of problems for Bush from the relations between the Royal Family of Texas and the House of Saud to the Great OBL Family escape.
Number of participants: At least three
What players will need: Oodles of laughter
Length of time: Five minutes to forever
Rules of the game: It seems ironic that a song that was originally about victims of the bubonic plague has turned into a fun game for young children. But whatever its origins, Ring Around the Rosey is an all-time favorite among young kids. To play, children join hands and walk or run in a circle singing:
Ring around the rosey A pocket full of posies Ashes, ashes, We all fall down.
After singing the last line, "We all fall down," children collapse on the floor. Then they get up and begin the song all over again. There are no winners or losers in this game; it ends when the kids get tired of playing it.
On NPR this morning they had a piece on John Kerry speaking to a retiree, a LOL(little old lady),and she said (paraphrasing) that she has worked all her life and she didn't want to work any more--she just wanted to enjoy a couple of years in retirement before she died. No actions by BushCo will keep this poor woman from some lousy menial low-paying job. This is the reality for countless so called retirees across the land.
Presently in my watercolor class at a community college, I have an eighty two year old widow who gets paid minimum wage to help a paraplegic student. I'm not saying it's wrong for people who want to work but I'm talking about the people who are forced to work regardless of their situation.
Fuck The Club For Greed and all the weasels and worms who exploit them!
And those aren't windmills out there, they're oil wells!
I think its a great issue for Kerry. I think it opens the door to a hornet's nest of problems for Bush from the relations between the Royal Family of Texas and the House of Saud to the Great OBL Family escape.
I also think it's true, but it' unclear what game the Saudis are playing.
Yes, Bandar is practically Bush I's half-caste son, but the Saudis cannot be happy with the endless neocon rhetoric about them, their state, their "way of life". As I recall, that nincompoop Woolsey threatened them openly.
Wiz, it's happening all over. At my local grocery store a 70 year old lady bags my groceries and offers to take them out to my car for me. At another grocery store, their "box boy" is an elderly gentleman. I've gotten to know them both. They are working only to make ends meet, not too keep busy.
Thanks, marj. The Chene-Bushian propensity for back room oil deals is where I'll place my bet--it's a form of Reagan's behind-the-scenes arms-for-hostages kind of ploy to win the election--only Kerry isn't as naive as Carter--I hope!
"Presently in my watercolor class at a community college, I have an eighty two year old widow who gets paid minimum wage to help a paraplegic student. I'm not saying it's wrong for people who want to work but I'm talking about the people who are forced to work regardless of their situation."
Stories such as these can indeed be heartwrenching. However, almost always they are taken entirely out of context.
What has this person done with the money he/she earned up to this point in time? Did he/she waste it frivolously in the early years, and now is bitching and moaning about the government not doing enough? Is the current "poverty" a result of their past stupidity and foolishness when it came to their money? I mean, honestly, how many people do you know who waste hundreds of dollars a year on lottery cards and other forms of gambling, yet complain that they don't have enough money to make ends meet?
Again, I'm not asking specifically about WoW's widow, but more general questions. Often, people look for the government to make up for the mistakes these people have made. So many people waste so much money, and then are so quick to look to blame others when they don't have enough.
Yesterday in Sam's Club one of their sample servers was a woman pushing eighty and using a walker to stand and deliver her wares...some kind of pizza snack.
Made me sad.
Better than sitting on a grimy sidewalk selling matchbooks, but I fesr it shows where we're headed.
It is certainly true that people should take charge of their retirement, should save for it, and so forth.
But it is also true that people have been led by the government (and, for that matter, AARP) to believe that they would be able to retire. And it is also true that the pension systems that were in place for my grandparents' generation are no longer in force to the same degree as my parents' and is disappearing in my generation.
And, btw, who sells those lottery tickets? Who runs commercials promoting those lottery tickets as a way to get rich?
Stories such as these can indeed be heartwrenching. However, almost always they are taken entirely out of context.
Only heart wrenching if you acknowledge having that organ. I can't abide the so called tough-minded "love" that is really exploitation disguised as "compassionate conservatism"
The "context" is that her husband died fairly young and she spent her time bringing up kids (who eventually moved away), that is when people could stay home and bring up kids.
At least this woman is ambulatory and able to work, but she is one of hundreds of thousands whom this culture deems roadkill by virtue of its predatory behaviors.
Hey, you're an ignorant retired janitor and you lost your house because we rewrote the regulations for the loan industry? Tough, Dummy--this is the new United Corporations of Amerika.
I wonder when retarded people will be indentured to pay off there parasitical drain on our economy?
Not all of the elderly had pensions to run through, gambling, buying lottery tickets, going on luxurious cruises and the like. Many worked in jobs that had few if any bennies and struggled to just to make it. They may have used their scant savings to help put their kids through college, and all the while, watched inflation take away the value of their dollars. They worked hard and thought social security benefits, that they paid into each month, would support them in their old age.
The husband may have had a minimal insurance policy. It may have been a traditional marriage with the wife staying at home. The bread winner may have been laid off, had a devestating injury, or one of them suffered from a horrid illness, all of which could have easily eaten all their salaries. There are many things that could have happened.
But maybe they did handle their money foolishly. So what? Should they now kill themselves and not be a blight on society because they are old and can't entirely support themselves? Do we, as a society, say "tough, you blew it and now you get what you deserve"?
It isn't a question of blame. It's a question of how do we treat our elderly who now are often infirm and often can barely scrape by and are far below the published poverty level.
You know, wiz, if those folks would stop voting republican, they might have a shot at those some reform.
If I point to the moon, don't dwell on my finger. It isn't about voting, it's about misrepresentation, exploitation and allowing the shell game we call politics to deceive good people under the guise of "Buyer beware!"
The regulatory function of good government has been rigged by the weasel-class and the issues are, unfortunately, about Kerry's secret botox injections vs. Condi's clandestine husband.
Our fundamental structures are eroding and we are chasing a bunch of paranoid's delusions of power and security.
It isn't about voting, it's about misrepresentation, exploitation and allowing the shell game we call politics to deceive good people under the guise of "Buyer beware!"
Well, it is about voting, but I agree that the problems lie in politics--and, frankly, the congression democratic delegation are as much to blame as anybody.
(April 20, 2004 -- 11:20 AM EDT) There's a lot of hand-wringing from Democrats and a lot of satisfaction from Republicans over the two new polls out this morning showing a small, but measurable lead for the president over John Kerry.
...
Another opinion is that of Charlie Cook, in the "Off to the Races" analysis out this morning, who points to the president's ad campaign.
Cook gives a rather downcast view of the state of the Kerry campaign and suggests that the massive Bush ad campaign against Kerry is finally bearing fruit. Nevertheless, measures of public opinion on Iraq keep heading south, as does the all-important 'is the country headed in the right direction/wrong direction' question. He concludes by saying that "Kerry's rising negative ratings and an increase in Bush's own problems create a wash -- a race that remains a dead heat in this evenly divided country."
A contrary reading of these polls might suggest that the president gains as national security and war issues become more salient, even if they are becoming more salient because of what seem to be objectively bad news about his policies. But I suspect Cook's read is closer to the mark.
Maybe that 82 year old woman had a broken leg and needed the money to pay her part of the co-pay for the electronic bone stimulator prescribed by her doctor...the one that stuck her with a $500 co-pay on a $4,000 item.
Yes, that has happened to us and luckily, we have the wherewithal to pay our part but it certainly made me wonder what people without insurance do when they break their legs.
If some of you idiots could read properly, you'd see that I was making general comments, not attempting to go into specifics about a woman I do not know.
I recognize the importance of personal responsibility and I recognize the risk of what economists call "moral hazard".
But to take a woman who is 82 and working (she can be a woman in general since neither of us know anything about her) and suggest that if she's in this circumstance because of past mistakes she's made or somehow identify the cause of her situation as "her own fault" suggests that only those who are in circumstances completely beyond their control (and I'm not sure how that is defined...lose your house to a tornado...it's your fault for living in oklahoma in the first place) deserve "assistance" which further suggests that someone somehow must be set up as moral arbitor to judge who is and isn't worthy.
I think Milton Friedman's solution deserves airing...the negative income tax. Create the tax structure such that those who work are always better off than those who don't but set a minimum floor so no one, regardless of cause, lives below poverty. Incentives built in and moral hazard is eliminated. Plus it's cost effective and efficient.
Again, I was only making general comments. I made that clear from the start, but some people don't read too closely and immediately start painting me to be some widow-hating insensitive type. Thus my "idiot" remark.
Okay, here's my point. Often, all we is the 80 year old and we think, "Oh, poor baby. If only our government could do something better for people like that." And then, if we are real idiots about it, as some here seem to be, we pin it all on a Repub administration.
But that is ENTIRELY out of context. We have NO CLUE what this person has done up to this point, whether or not this person has squandered all their money, been fiscally irresponsible, etc. etc.
I am absolutely sick and tired of the attitude which pervades our society today, the one which never takes responsibility for oneself and is always quick to find a scapegoat for problems which I aggravated if I didn't in fact create them myself.
So we look for quick fixes and of course, it is always the government that must be doing it for us. Thus my GENERAL comments.
"Create the tax structure such that those who work are always better off than those who don't but set a minimum floor so no one, regardless of cause, lives below poverty."
Of course, how one defines "poverty" is quite tricky. When I became a missionary, I took a 75% pay cut. Yes, it was my own choice and hence my own fault, as was having five children. And as I noted, I currently have a salary which falls under the poverty line.
However, I am clearly not poor, nor could I complain about being so. And if I am 80 and still find myself in need of work to make ends meet, I don't think I will be blaming the government for that. I've made my own choices, and at the age of 39, I can think of thousands of dollars that, had I decided more wisely in how to spend it, could have helped me in my retirement years.
In other words, my retirement will be what I have made it to be. And I think that can be said generally about most people. Not all, but most.
How I live in my retirement can be directly correlated to how I live my life now. Do I waste? Am I foolish in how I currently spend my money?
It's my life and my responsibility, not the government's.
I am absolutely sick and tired of the attitude which pervades our society today, the one which never takes responsibility for oneself and is always quick to find a scapegoat for problems which I aggravated if I didn't in fact create them myself.
Faith, hope, and charity...what's the rest of that line? And the greatest of these is charity?
I don't think most older people run around blaming the government for their problems nor do they look to the government to solve them. Most are simply trying to make ends meet and doing the best they can.
The people who work the hardest get screwed the most. It's gotten far worse under this administration and if Bush is reelected that trend will continue.
I was kidding with the "redneck" remark, btw. In my area of AR, young people tend to be much more opposed to Bush. I imagine social conservatism elsewhere in the state is responsible for the numbers. What surprised me more was the elderly's strong opposition to Bush. That would worry me, and I wonder what the age ranges are in the latest CNN et al poll. I'll look at it when I get more time.
Yes, and if he wins in November, he won't even have to make a pretense of doing anything but screw the middle and under classes because his re-elction won't depend on it.
If Dems lose this election I blame them to a large degree. On the state level, the lack of effectiveness and teamwork and ability to broaden its appeal is really frustrating. Most AR politicians still run as Dems, but they have no sense of party like the Republicans do, and right now the Republicans in the state are split and it would be a great opportunity for Dems to regroup and gain some ground, but it's simply not happening that I can see.
Ark-I don't know if you listen to Air America, but I've been listening of late and I'm encouraged. I think Dems are learning to beat the right at their own game.
We're seeing more and more hypocrites self-destruct because their tricks are starting to get old. Don't be glum because we're gonna win.
I hope so. I just posted a rather depressing rant in the Slow thread. I need to step back from our situation here to get some perspective.
Some people have asked in here whether Bush opponents want him to fail in the economy and Iraq. I think he has failed, and a few weeks of good news doesn't negate a four year disaster of a presidency. I don't want to fail in either area, and that's why I think it's important he get defeated. I wish the Democrats had stronger candidates, but they just didn't. There's a lot of difference between so-so and disastrous, though. In fact, that's how I would compare Bush Sr and Bush Jr. I truly believe he's horrible for the country, and for the traditional values of the Republican Party. I would like to see Republicans wrench the party back from the monied forces that have come to dominate it, and I hope people like McCain can help accomplish that.
Bush is a breath of fresh air, especially after eight years of Clinton pointing his finger in the air, testing opinion polls for his own bloody opinions. "What do you believe, Mr. Clinton?" "Well, uh, what do YOU believe?" And so on.
Bush knows what he wants, isn't afraid to say it and go for it. He isn't spineless like Clinton, and that to me is a real positive. He has geniune convictions and says it like he means it.
As for Kerry, well, Kerry is the exact opposite. More like Clinton, actually, in that respect.
"The people who work the hardest get screwed the most."
And this is just utter bullshit rhetoric. It is so entirely generally as to be effectively meaningless.
Intense combat in Iraq (news - web sites) is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate -- depleting military coffers, straining defense contractors and putting pressure on Bush administration officials to seek a major boost in war funding long before they had hoped.
Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.
Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.
"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this."
Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record) (D-Tex.), who returned from Iraq on March 23, said senior Army officers and contractors told him "serious problems" will surface this summer if Congress does not approve more spending by June. Without the additional funding, food concession contracts will have to be renegotiated and operations and training bases in the United States will have to be cannibalized to finance operations in Iraq.
"If one American soldier in Iraq loses his life because Congress and the administration were afraid of the political consequences of another supplemental appropriations bill, shame on everyone who should be a part of that process," Edwards said.
Hitler knew what he wanted too. In and of itself it's at minimum a useless trait, because he's our president, not his own--nor corporate America's, for that matter. At worst it's evil at its purest.
In Message # 5065 I linked to an accusation by author Ron Suskind that at President Bush's recent press conference reporters submitted their questions in advance.
Ark- All you need is a Real Player browser plugin. I highly recommend "Morning Sedition" 6am -9am, and "The O'Franken Factor" Noon - 3pm & 11pm-2am.
On "Morning Sedition" there is a comedian, Mark Maron, who has wonderful wit and on Al Franken's show they have great guest callers. Another interesting element of his show is that, unlike Limbaugh, Franken encourages Dittoheads to call and debate. Some very funny moments--often.
Two polls released today--Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post--give small leads to Bush over Kerry in presidential trial heat questions. The Gallup poll (using RVs and the Kerry-Bush not Kerry-Bush-Nader trial heat) shows Bush with a 4 point lead (50-46), while the ABC News poll gives Bush a 1 point lead (49-48). (Note that this latter result is not from a standard Kerry-Bush trial heat question, which ABC News chose not to ask, but rather from combining a Kerry-Bush-Nader trial heat question with a followup to Nader supporters/undecideds on who they would support if Nader doesn't run or isn't on the ballot. Guess they just wanted to be different.)
So: two polls, two RV leads, one taken April 16-18 (Gallup), the other taken April 15-18 (ABC News).
Here are other RV Kerry-Bush results for April:
Newsweek, April 8-9....................Kerry, 50-43 ARG, April 6-9.............................Kerry, 50-44 Gallup, April 5-8..........................Kerry, 48-45 Fox, April 6-7..............................Kerry, 44-43 CBS News, March 30-April 1.........Kerry, 48-43
Note that each of these polls has Kerry ahead.
This is probably as good a time as any for the Kerry campaign to start that push-back, including especially defining Kerry positively for voters. Bush, as the data clearly show, has been massively undermined in his core area of strength, and, despite his much-vaunted advertisements and (probably more important) having the field to himself for six weeks, has Kerry breathing down his neck.
If the Kerry campaign can kick their game up a notch, they should really start to make the Bushies sweat.
Thanks for the link, Wiz. Mom has satellite radio and gets the Franken show, but I forget RealPlayer. I'll try to remember to tune in this summer, especially.
The Bush 2005 Budget has ZERO NADA not a fuckin dime for Iraq.
Curt Weldon, a republican, yesterday blasted Bush for not coming forth with a supplemental FOR THIS YEAR stating that we needed TEN BILLION just to keep the troops going thru Oct when the new year starts.
Chuck Hagel, agreeing "absolutely" with Joe Biden, pointedly said on Today that "it was time for the Admin to be honest"
"Every ground squirrel knows that it will take between 50 and 75 BILLION just to maintain US forces in Iraq in FY 2005 and they haven't come forth because its an election year"
Is this any way to run a democracy????
All these lies? Internal wars? Culture wars? Character assassinations?
Jex, did you notice that Katherine Roberts of Trees Not Cars called yesterday for a phone blitz to Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Supervisors on the Golden Gate Park garage? She alleges irreparable damage to the cherry trees.
Ken Pollack huge (and now embarrassed) war supporter from Brookings:
- we need to take over all security and policing ops in Iraq - we need 40-60,000 more US troops, troops that we do not have - we need foreign troops (coalition crumbling) - we need a legitimate Iraqi govt
KtheH, "Bush is a breath of fresh air, especially after eight years of Clinton pointing his finger in the air, testing opinion polls for his own bloody opinions."
President George W. Bush pledged repeatedly throughout his presidential campaign that his administration would have no use for polls and focus groups: "I really don't care what polls and focus groups say. What I care about is doing what I think is right." Shackled by that promise, President Bush and his staff have shrouded his polling apparatus, minimizing the relevance of polls and denying their impact. But public records available from the Federal Election Commission, documents from presidential libraries, and interviews with key players paint a fairly clear picture of the Bush polling operation. The picture, which turns out to be a familiar one, calls into question the administration's purported "anti-polling" ethos and shows an administration closely in keeping with historical precedent.
Like much else in the administration, it's not that they don't do these things, they just do them in secret and then deny they do it at all.
I was looking for a reference but couldn't find it...that bush actually polled on whether or not he should admit to any mistakes.
Good coordination here...CNN just carried statement from Terry McAuliffe blasting GOP for attacking his service record (BALLS!)
At the same moment I got this in my email:
Dear John,
The Bush Campaign has violated every standard of decency by attacking John Kerry's military service. When it comes down to it, this is an attack on all veterans, soldiers and their families. And so we're asking for help from all Americans to hit back now:
https://contribute.johnkerry.com
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and Bush Campaign Manager Ken Melhman are running an ugly smear campaign on John Kerry's service in Vietnam. We've seen this before. In 2000 they ran a "whisper campaign" against John McCain, suggesting his time as a POW made him unfit for the Presidency. Then in this campaign, their surrogates have even questioned Max Cleland's war heroism -- a man who received a Silver Star and lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.
The fact is they're terrified of running against John Kerry's war record. And so they're desperately doing everything they can to try to tear it down.
We need to hit back, and hit back hard to get out the truth. We've learned that the Bush Campaign will say and do anything in the attack ads they're running in key swings states.
As a young man, John Kerry volunteered for two tours of duty in Vietnam. He risked his life while trying to save the lives of others. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star for going above and beyond the call of duty. He was injured three times in battle and received three Purple Hearts. The story Melhman and Gillespie are desperately trying to push is that John Kerry was not injured badly enough to receive one of his Purple Hearts. It sounds incredible, but that's the attack they're pushing: Not injured badly enough. Mary Beth Cahill Campaign Manager, John Kerry for President
and KtheH, I have another question for you about this administration. You, and many others seem to be very big on personal responsibility...the importance of admitting one's mistakes, taking responsibility for one's choices.
How do you feel about the fact that neither bush nor anyone else close to him has admitted to making any mistakes about WMD or reasons for attacking iraq or taking responsibility for 9/11 or any of those things?
Jon Stewart had a great clip of condi's testimony where he parsed together all the various phrases in which she said or implied it wasn't her responsibility, it wasn't the administration's responsibility or it was someone else's responsibility.
I remember during the lewinsky thing, so many conservatives said, if he'd only come out and admit the truth of what he'd done....if only he'd take responsibility. Was wondering if there's any comparable feeling about bush&co. and their unwillingness to take responsibility.
I remember how the Bushies proudly displayed proof that Bush in fact showed up for his Alabama National Guard duty: records of his visit to the DENTIST.
The Repubs must be wondering why they thought it was a good idea to demand release of Kerry's war records.
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie, grasping for some face-saving straws:
"Sen. Kerry served from 1966 to 1978. If he did not intend to release all his officer evaluations, records of attendance including reserve duty attendance, medical records and all other military records held by him or the government, he should not have pledged to do so. He and his campaign should stop the word games and keep the pledge he made on national television."
Uh-huh. As President Bush is alleged to have said to George Tenet, nice try.
Even a commander who, 36 years after the fact, questioned a Purple Heart awarded to Mr. Kerry in 1968, recorded no reservations at the time. The officer, Grant W. Hibbard, a lieutenant commander during Mr. Kerry's five-month tour in Vietnam, told The Boston Globe last week that the wound for which Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart was no more than a small scratch.
But there was nothing negative about Mr. Kerry in an evaluation that Mr. Hibbard wrote two weeks after that incident.
For the most part, Mr. Hibbard wrote, Mr. Kerry was under his command for too short a time to evaluate him fully. Of 16 categories for rating, including professional knowledge, moral courage and loyalty, Mr. Hibbard checked "not observed" in 12. Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of "one of the top few" in three categories — initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, "above the majority," in military bearing. Reached Wednesday at his retirement home in Florida, Mr. Hibbard said he had no comment.
Most crucially, Kerry must undermine the bedrock premise of the president's case for re-election: that George W. Bush is the embodiment of the war on terror, and the indispensable man for keeping America safe. Kerry's ability and willingness to do just that are his best potential weapons as the campaign unfolds.
It is an uncommon day when the nation's second-largest provider of voting systems concedes that its flagship products in California have significant security flaws and that it supplied hundreds of poorly designed electronic-voting devices that disenfranchised voters in the March presidential primary.
Diebold Election Services Inc. president Bob Urosevichadmitted this and more, and apologized "for any embarrassment."
"We were caught. We apologize for that," Urosevich said of the mass failures of devices needed to call up digital ballots. Poll-workers in Alameda and San Diego counties hadn't been trained on ways around their failure, and San Diego County chose not to supply polls with backup paper ballots, crippling the largest rollout of e-voting in the nation on March 2. Unknown thousands of voters were turned away at the polls.
They better fix all their machines before the national elections.
I posted several days ago about this administration's lack of belief in objective reality. This is a huge issue in my book, and if you accept it, it explains a lot about why they do what they do. For example, start with the belief that democrats can't be patriots, then do foolish things like demand kerry's military record be published on the certain belief that it will demonstrate cowardice. When it doesn't, it becomes irrelevant. Facts are malleable, designed to serve one's own purpose.
Principles apparently are as well. In a few short years bushies have gone from no nation building, to preemptive strikes to protect the nation, to making it a personal mission endorsed by god to bring freedom to the world. That's more than one giant leap for mankind...that's into the next universe!
There was a controversy a few months ago about whether Diebold's systems were deliberately insecure and apparently bug-ridden, in order to leave open "backdoors" to enable tampering on election days.
My instinct is to never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity and incompetence; and I know how things work in the IT industry...
On the other hand, I would not want this instinct to be put to the test in a close election;
AC - I agree, but Mr. Urosevich's apology gives me pause. The man apologized for causing embarrassment and for being caught. It may well be that he's a tongue tied geek who simply spoke in a very awkward way, or it may be that he is a tongue tied geek who mispoke the truth in a big way.
Anyone know if anyone outside of Diebold/FEC is testing this system?
The problem doesn't really lie with the vendors; ATM machines have a paper record. Banks demand them. Voting machines should have a method for recounting the votes. Purely electronic solutions are inherently broken.
You know, jex, the polls so far are supporting the win-win scenario. TPM:
I have a newspaper column out tomorrow which pursues the hypothesis I mentioned a few days ago that an escalating crisis in Iraq might actually help President Bush, even though the crisis is demonstrably of his own making.
Meanwhile, Ruy Teixeira has a post on his blog DonkeyRising which says Bush's recent rise in the polls reflects his bulking up on support in the bright red states without making much if any headway in the battleground states where the race will be won or lost.
... Bush's recent rise in the polls reflects his bulking up on support in the bright red states without making much if any headway in the battleground states where the race will be won or lost.
I heard a report that Bush had already spent a hundred-million dollars. Could it be that if his poll numbers did not improve at this early stage, it might become more difficult to raise money? It's hard for me to understandhis money being spent in the red States, except from a sense of fear that if he goes down too far early, he might not be able to come back. I recall Andrea Mitchell suggesting this about a week or ten days ago.
It will not be hard for Bush to continue raising money. Just look at all the pork the Republicans are getting...they will continue to support the sausage machine, no matter what.
I agree with you completely, Juds, but the corporate sector if they see Bush remaining down in the polls might send insurance money to Kerry. I think that's the main reason why the polls are so important to the Bush crowd. It probably is not so much that they can't continue to raise money but more that they want to cut Kerry off from funding. Putting that money into their states and activating the true believers does the poll job for them.
I don't think Kerry can count on insurance, oil n gas, or pharmaceuticals even if he's 20 points ahead....He's not gonna get more than 1 in 4 dollars if that...
A President Kerry v. a Republican Congress with a chance of a Dem Senate is about what they are looking at...they'll be looking to circle wagons around the Hill.
Iraq: The Mideast HQ for Bush-Cheney ’04 Six months ago, when I first reported on the political makeup of the Coalition Provisional Authority, I kept hearing a quip about its Baghdad headquarters: “They don’t call it the Republican Palace for nuthin’.”
To anyone who’s been reporting on the CPA for the past eight months, those claims of rampant politicization won’t come as any surprise. Consider Dan Senor, who, as Bremer’s chief spokesman, has become the virtual face of the occupation in recent days.
Before getting an MBA from Harvard in 2001, Senor served as press secretary for then-Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.) before Abraham became secretary of energy.
After Harvard, Senor went to the Bush-family-affiliated Carlyle Group, where he worked as a venture capitalist before becoming a deputy to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Senor had barely cooled his heels at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. when he shipped off to Iraq,
“Everything is seen in the context of the election, and how they will screw the Democrats,” one CPA official said last winter. “It was really pretty shocking to hear them talk.”
But Senor’s flagrant spin-doctoring has apparently proved counterproductive.
Yesterday, I spoke to a highly credible source who recently returned from Baghdad, where he works with the U.S. and international media.
“Senor lies so often and so easily most media just stopped trying to use him as a source, unless forced to,” he said.
The shorter Bush/Kerry comparison by kos Wed Apr 21st, 2004 at 19:02:16 EDT
Kerry: "Intelligent, mature and rich in educational background and experience, Ens Kerry is one of the finest young officers I have ever met and without question one of the most promising."
Bush: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report."
There could scarcely be a less impressive, more lying-looking, spokesman for America in Iraq than Senor. No feel for the region, no historical perspective, no language skills.
It's appalling that he is the US face on the ground.
Oh it's bad, and the insistence on politicizing every element of the communication about Iraq is horribly bad news for this democracy. Incompetent Senor being exhibit 1000, only.
The thing is, the freaking polls seem to show that a solid half (or slightly more) of Americans don't care. They don't want accountability. They don't want someone to pay for the lies, the manipulations.
Subject: The Dots are connected... To: "Joshua Marshal"
Josh,
HeadlineNEws is reporting that Sharon has all but decided to assassinate Arafat and raised the subject in his meeting with Bush.. [Sharon No Longer Bound by Pledge Not to Harm Arafat Reuters via Yahoo! News - 7 minutes ago]
Couple this with the announcement that the State Dept wanted Spain to mediate the PAL/Israeli conflict and
The recent provocations by the US in Iraq including the threatened attacks on Fallujah and Iraq
The Dots are connected...
Bush is going to try to win his election just as Sharon won his...by provoking unimaginable turmoil and violence
The Push for War Anatol Lieven considers what the US Administration hopes to gain
I have a newspaper column out tomorrow which pursues the hypothesis I mentioned a few days ago that an escalating crisis in Iraq might actually help President Bush, even though the crisis is demonstrably of his own making.
Meanwhile, Ruy Teixeira has a post on his blog DonkeyRising which says Bush's recent rise in the polls reflects his bulking up on support in the bright red states without making much if any headway in the battleground states where the race will be won or lost.
For what it's worth, I remain fundamentally optimistic about this race.
Why is is that every time that Bush says "We aren't going to cut and run!" it occurs to me that what he's really thinking is "How can we get the hell out of Iraq without anyone realizing we are cutting and running?"?
I've been arguing lately that, while the horse race may have been dancing around a bit, the most politically salient change has been the huge doubts that have been raised about Bush's approach to Iraq in particular and to the war on terror in general. Here are some findings from Ipsos-AP that suggest just how serious this damage has been.
First, consider the question of whether the Iraq war was a mistake. You know when more people than not starting thinking a war was a mistake (remember Vietnam!), the incumbent administration is in real trouble. And Ipsos now has the first example of this. They asked the question: "All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war in Iraq or made a mistake in going to war in Iraq?" The response: 49 percent mistake/48 percent right decision. When Ipsos asked the same question four months ago, however, they got a lopsidedly positive reply: 67 percent right decision/29 percent mistake. Quite a change.
But here's the real mind-blower. Given a straight-up choice between whether "in the long term.....there will be more or less terrorism in the United States because the U.S. went to war in Iraq?", the public believes, by 54 percent to 37 percent, that the war will produce more, not less, terrrorism in our country.
In other words, not only has the war in Iraq become a big mess which gets more US soldiers killed every day, but we're actually less safe at home now because of it. No wonder more and more of the public thinks the war was a mistake. And I wouldn't be suprised if that thought has crossed Karl Rove's mind as well.
Went to the county Democratic convention today. Quite chaotic. Heard Will Rogers once said he 'wouldn't belong to any organized party, which is why I am a Democrat'. Very diverse group. Wound up sending delegates to state for Kerry, Dean and Kucinich(?). Many were there for first time, or back after many years absence. Maybe there will be a large voter turnout this fall, for a change.
Later this morning Bush and Kerry spokespeople Marc Racicot and Jeanne Shaheen are going to appear on Fox News Sunday. If it goes like the last time I saw them together (with Candy Crowley on CNN), Racicot will walk all over her, interrupting her as she politely tries to make her points (but indignantly saying "Let me finish!" if she tries to interject a correction to anything he says). Racicot will also be granted the last word by the friendly-to-GOP host.
Last night I saw a high school production of "Mister Roberts."
While watching a scene between cabinmates Lieutenant Roberts (intelligent, conscientious Navy Lieutenant J. G.) and Ensign Pulver (shallow but likeable slacker), I thought "Hmmm. Who do these guys remind me of?"
The Washington Post begins a three-part series on political division in the America:
Political scientists and practitioners often speak of "Red-Blue America," evoking maps of the 2000 election returns; indeed, the phrase is used so loosely that it has spawned a competing pundit class devoted to knocking down oversimplifications of the idea. In articles Monday and Tuesday, The Washington Post will publish portraits of Americans from the reddest of red zones, the home district of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), and the bluest of blues, the San Francisco neighborhood of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
But first, it's useful to examine the Red-Blue division -- what it is, where it came from, how it has deepened and what it might mean.
Magoseph - The Boondocks cartoon seems to me to be on-topic to this thread.
However, bin Laden's capture isn't going to be announced in October. Rather, it'll be happen just before the Republican convention. This way President Bush's acceptance speech - delivered from Ground Zero - will have some extra punch.
It's Ronald Reagan's death that's going to be announced in October.
The BIG issue today: In 1971, John Kerry told a reporter that he had thrown his "medals" over the wall at the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest some months earlier. In fact, he threw combat ribbons, not his metal medals ("Metal medals"? That can't be right.)
Kerry says "medals" is a term that includes ribbons, but that's not good enough for me, nosirree. And I don't care if Kerry's statement was over 30 years ago.
I'm voting for George W. Bush, whom I can confidently say was as honest 30 years ago as he is today.
The big issue last week was that John Kerry said he didn't own an SUV. He thought he could get away with saying that merely because, well, he doesn't own an SUV. What a slippery bastard!
They're not talking about those issues, Ohio. They're trying to define his image as a waffler and a liar--untrustworthy, not a straight shooter like the president.
straight shooter like the president...does that mean he doesn't shoot gays? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
straight shooter like the president...from no nation building, to pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation, to god-given directive to free the peoples of the world. I guess he can shoot straight, but keeps changing what he's aiming at....DUCK!!!!
Despite his rapid policy shifts, his willingness to say one thing and do the other, his commitment to a certain plan until it stops working, he has managed to build and retain that image. I don't understand it. I assume the people who believe it just get cognitive dissonance when contrary evidence shows up.
Ask your husband, thoughtful. Does he think Bush is a straight shooter? Remind him of the "We're going to make them show their cards. We don't care what the whip count is." line Does that change his mind? Why not?
no i don't think he does think bush is a straight shooter, but then again, by comparison neither is kerry...that dissembling about he not owning an suv, but his family does is just nonsense. As I said, he would much rather a miracle happens at the RNC and mccain becomes the candidate.
imus had joe biden on the other day and he and i both liked what biden had to say...our dream ticket biden/mccain...or rather mccain/biden for him. but these guys who are thoughtful and sincere with a huge dose of common sense don't ever seem to have a rats chance of getting in.
and in looking at the kerry economic team, i was disappointed. clinton seemed to select economists who happened to be democrats....looks to me like kerry selected democrats who happened to be economists. not a good thing.
i think the other way the pres comes across as a straight shooter is that he talks in simple terms. given the average educational attainment level of the us populace (not how far they went in school, but what they really learned...y'know all those stats on high schoolers graduating with a 6th grade reading level) he speaks to them at their level.
well, i was wrong. I just asked my husband and he said he believes bush is a straight shooter. he believes however that he's surrounded by a bunch of manipulators and he doesn't know whether bush is too weak or too dumb to manage them. I asked about the weapons of mass destruction and he says he was just wrong, but didn't lie. I asked about his saying clinton's budget went up so much and his didn't and he said bush just made a mistake with the numbers. i asked about his going from no nation building to a god-given directive to free peoples around the world and he said there's nothing wrong with changing your mind. i asked about his national guard record and he said, he didn't lie about it...just didn't tell the whole truth, but what he said was correct. he did get an honorable discharge.
so there you have it...a straight shooter...confused, weak, surrounded by manipulators...but not a liar.
How about Bush's portrayal of himself as an environmentalist and as a friend of minorities? He seems to me to be somebody who thinks that if he says something often enough most people will believe it, whatever the truth.
It's easy to sell when you believe it yourself, as I'm sure W does...that's the part about him being surrounded by manipulators who assure him that the environment will improve by rolling back these burdensome govt regs.
As it said in suskind's book, bush seriously thought the enron problem was a function of overreaching by the SEC! Right up there with reagan's trees cause more pollution than cars!
That's funny, because, while there is plenty I don't like about Kerry, I don't think he's dishonest. I do think that when he has made policy shifts, it has been in reaction to events. Some of those shifts were no doubt political rather than policy driven, but I'm sure some of them were policy driven.
My definition of honesty includes some semblance of personal integrity. Kerry was charged with being "too french". Utter nonsense. The fact remains he and his wife are both fluent in french. If he was honest with himself, he would be true to that and be honest enough to i.d. this french nonsense for the lunacy it is. Think truman. Earlier in the campaign he would even respond to questions in french. Now suddenly, when asked questions in french he ignores them, pretends he can't understand them, until they are repeated in english. That in my book is a form of dishonesty. Inklings of a lack of personal integrity which i find disconcerting.
In my book, one need not utter a fact-checkable lie to be "dishonest". In fact, clinton's lies about lewinsky were understandable as he was just trying to protect his butt. That was far less troubling to me than the crap they pulled about adopting a child while they were in the white house. One was a white lie about a private matter that was between consenting adults that was nobody's business to start out with. The other is using (abusing) an innocent child for political gain.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm in the ABB camp (anybody but bush), but that doesn't mean I won't need the clothespin to hold my nose when i pull that lever.
That's probably the difference with bush my husband responds to. Bush is a "take me as I am" kinda guy, smirks and misunderestimations and swagger and all. Kerry is clearly a phoney up, botox, not my suv, kind of politician.
A certain amount of dishonesty seems to be inherent in being a successful politician, especially in the age of television. (As well in many other careers and lives. Few people are completely honest."
I am actually proud of my Columbus Dispatch this morning. Here's a front page story on Cheney's speech and the latest Bush/Cheney ad attacking Kerry's record on defense:
Kerry Put on Defense in Ad, but Facts Iffy
Records say Democrat didn't specifically vote against some weapons
by Jack Torry The Columbus Dispatch
WASHINGTON - A new commercial being aired in Ohio by President Bush's campaign relies on a selective use of votes cast by Sen. John Kerry to try to persuade voters that [Kerry] has opposed critical weapons systems . . .
But the commercial . . . delivers its broadside through the use of speeches from two decades ago as well as a handful of floor votes . . .
But Kerry . . . has never voted specifically to cancel any of those programs. Instead, money for the weapons was part of wide-ranging defense bills that Kerry voted against in 1990, 1995 and 1996. Because he cast a vote against the entire bill, the Bush campaign argues, Kerry oposed the actual programs.
What the commercial does not say is that from 1997 through 2002, Kerry supported every defense bull, each of which included money for all major U.S. weapons systems. . . .
I'm as astounded as I am pleased. Finally someone is exploring and reporting the alleged factual justification for misleading Republican statements like "Kerry opposed every weapons program." This of course should have been well-discussed in the media already, but better late than never.
(You'll need to register to read the story online at www.dispatch.com when it's posted there - peculiarly, it isn't yet. However, I think that online registration might only be free to home delivery subscribers - I hope I'm wrong.)
Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute you It is sweet and proper to die for ones country With wrath and tears The dead silently, cry out I retire with dignity
I watched Kerry throw his war decorations By Thomas Oliphant | April 27, 2004
WASHINGTON ON THE WAY to the fence where he threw some of his military decorations 33 years ago, I was 4 or 5 feet behind John Kerry. . . .
As he neared the spot from which members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were parting with a few of the trappings of their difficult past to help them face their future more squarely, I watched Kerry reach with his right hand into the breast pocket of his fatigue shirt. The hand emerged with several of the ribbons that most of the vets had been wearing that unique week of protest, much as they are worn on a uniform blouse.
There couldn't have been all that many decorations in his hand --six or seven -- because he made a closed fist around his collection with ease as he waited his turn.
It was clear to me that Kerry had arrived here with only the ribbons he wore on his shirt -- which, by the way, were referred to as "medals" by the late Stuart Symington of Missouri, one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members present for his famous antiwar statement. . . .
It was clear from our conversations back then and ever since that Kerry made no distinction among his various decorations, though others have. Some in the military don't either. I remember once asking my father (who was awarded a Bronze Star in the Pacific during World War II), what he called the ribbon and lapel ornament he received in addition to the star; he said they were all the Bronze Star.
I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be undignified as well as largely inaccurate.
I write now because the political junk is much higher profile now, though no less misleading -- and not, by the way, because in her fourth job in the public arena, my daughter just joined Kerry's staff. I just happened to be there that long-ago day. I saw what happened and heard what Kerry said and know what he meant. The truth happens to be with him."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House aides coached President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday for their appearance before a panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that they agreed to under pressure and only if they could appear together and behind closed doors.
"I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life.
"And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions.
"And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life.
"It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own."
The Republican party should be in a state of shock today. The radical wing of the party had nominated someone who could hardly be described as anything but an outright fascist. In spite of the introduction of the heavy weights of the party, including President Bush into the race, Specter barely survived. This is a clear message to orthodox Republicans that the fascist elements within the party are determined to rule it at any cost, including the loss of a senate seat and possible control.
In past Republican campaigns, state and county organizations were free to assemble their local efforts any way they liked, the assumption being that they knew more about their own communities than someone in Washington. But now the Bush campaign was sending an altogether different message; word had come down from the national headquarters that Ohio's 88 county chairmen were to form full steering committees in each county by February, and then they needed to show proof that they were busy recruiting a statewide total of 51,000 volunteers, including captains for each of the state's 12,000 voting precincts.
....''That's the difference between 2000 and 2004,'' DeWine said. ''In 2000, they said, 'Yeah, sure, we'll use your local headquarters, whenever you can get it up and running, great.' This year, it's, 'Yeah, we'll use your headquarters, and we need it open right now, and we want phone banks and mailing lists, da-dah, da-dah, da-dah. . . . ' '' He ticked off imaginary demands on his fingers. ''I think it's because the president could lose, and they're nervous. And they should be.''
That's probably the difference with bush my husband responds to. Bush is a "take me as I am" kinda guy, smirks and misunderestimations and swagger and all. Kerry is clearly a phoney up, botox, not my suv, kind of politician.
I've been surprised that Bush has been able to pull this off, because he strikes me as incredibly phony. He's a third generation blue-blood politician who summered in Maine as a kid, belonged to Skull and Bones, and acquired his "ranch" as a symbol for his presidential run. He talks a lot about the kind of guy he is, but, other than being verbally awkward, he doesn't really seem to be that guy.
It happens that I'm attending an event with Mrs. Kerry tonight. I'll let you know what she's like, in person, if I happen to find out.
Medals of Honor Senator John Kerry's military records are compelling because they measure the man before his critics or supporters saw him through a political lens.
Medals of HonorIn the heat of a political campaign, attacks come from all directions. That's why John Kerry's military records are so compelling; they measure the man before his critics or his supporters saw him through a political lens. These military records show that John Kerry served his country with valor, and that those who served with him and above him held him in high regard. That's honor enough for any veteran.
Yet the Republican attack machine follows a pattern we've seen before, whether the target is Senator John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 or Senator Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002. The latest manifestation of these tactics is the controversy over Mr. Kerry's medals. .
I can see Gephardt as a sensible choice for Kerry's VP. I've never been particularly excited by him, but he'll draw votes in important swing states: his home state of Missouri, and the organized-labor-heavy (relatively) states of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
jay, maybe it's the 'smart enough to know better' factor. clinton took the heat for his mistakes as he was smart enough to know better. bush is not responsible for the mistakes on his watch as he isn't smart enough to know better...blame his handlers. Though I don't understand how people can buy that he's not involved in these attack ads since they all start with, I'm george w bush and i approved this ad.
Like nilson said in the point, you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear.
I can see Gephardt as a sensible choice for Kerry's VP.
Oh God, please no, I may have to simply give up on the Dems entirely if Kerry committs this piece of banal idiocy. Kerry's candidacy really does not need to charisma challenged waffling apparatchiks on the ticket. To my mind the only viable choices are Gov. Richardson, who has said he will not accept, and Edwards.
Edwards is intensely charismatic. He is probably the best orator since at least Jesse Jackson's best days. He connects with the American electorate in the way that Clinton and Reagan did, and this is the single most important attribute for winning the election. He will simply flay Cheney in the VP debate, could conceivably have "You can't handle the truth!" moment in which Cheney indicts himself under Edwards examination; in fact the Kerry campaign would do well to suggest that, since Bush required Cheney by his side in his 9/11 commission testimony, at least one of the Presidential debates should be a full ticket debate. Remember, Edwards thumped Gephardt in Iowa! Edwards just took the meaningless NC caucus.
Former Republican Congressman John LeBoutillier, now with the internet fishwrap "Newsmax", writes:
"Kerry’s Vietnam War record: like everything to do with Kerry - and most liberals - things are never quite as they appear to be. Yes, Kerry went to Vietnam (when he could have avoided it) and yes he saw combat. And yes he got injured and he received 3 Purple Hearts and some other medals. But there is even controversy over all of that.
"A few years later he threw those medals over the White House fence to protest the Vietnam War. Or did he? Were they his medals? Or were they the medals of his Yale pal [Richard "Dick" Pershing] - and grandson of WWI hero General Black Jack Pershing - who was killed in Vietnam?
"Again, controversy, switched explanations, intentional confusion, ambiguity - and sometimes just outright lies.
"This is the Kerry Way."
No, it's the Republican way. This is a complete fabrication, made up out of thin air by the Republican ex-Congressman.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg on Wednesday called Vice President Dick Cheney "the lead chickenhawk" against Sen. John Kerry and criticized other Republicans for questioning the Democratic presidential contender's military credentials.
But Sen. John McCain, a decorated war hero and former prisoner of war, scolded Lautenberg for attacking the Bush administration during the Iraq conflict and said it was time to "declare that the Vietnam War is over."
In a scathing speech on the Senate floor, Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, said that he did not think politicians should be judged by whether they had military service but added that "when those who didn't serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive."
"We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others," he said. "When it was their turn to serve where were they? AWOL, that's where they were."
NEW YORK, April 28, 2004 There are growing concerns about the long-term impact of the war. 41 percent now think the war increased the threat of terrorism against the U.S.
(CBS) One year after the declared end of major combat in Iraq, Americans have new doubts about the war and doubts about what the Bush Administration has said about it.
Just 32 percent, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action a year ago.
Less than half, 47 percent, now say the U.S. did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times Polls since the war began.
There are growing concerns about the long-term impact of the war. 41 percent now think the war increased the threat of terrorism against the U.S. 71 percent say the Administration’s policies have worsened the U.S.’s image in the Arab world.
The continued intensity of the fighting in Iraq surprised many Americans, and Americans believe it also surprised the Bush Administration. 44 percent say the fighting there has been harder than they personally expected, but 67 percent say it has been harder than the Administration expected. Nearly half say the war in Iraq was a mistake -- a finding similar to the public’s assessment of the Vietnam War as measured by the Gallup Poll in 1968.
The public’s assessments of the Bush Administration’s decision-making before (and after) the war are also negative.
Seven in ten don’t believe the Administration claims that the decision to go to war was made in March 2003, and say the Bush Administration had decided to go to war earlier than that.
Abs-It's a pixelated composite of Bush, where each cell is made from a dead soldier killed in Iraq. It isn't difficult to do, in Photoshop. You scan a photo and use the mosaic filter to determine the cell size of each pixel element and then you reduce the photo of eaca dead soldier to that cell size--then colorize and increase or diminish the value of it to fit the same tonal range of the cell your replacing on the original scan. It's a tedious and repetitive process.
I didn't do this one--wish I had--but it's a wonderful example of irony using this technique. It was done at the NYC independent media center.
Mago....Bill Schneider talking about the CBS Poll and the CNN Poll of Iraqis
"Most Americans think the war wasn't worth it and most Iraqis don't want us there (57%). When those two poll numbers get publicity pressure for US withdrawal will accelerate dramatically"
#5923 Wiz, that's what I assumed. It is an incredibly powerful statement.
As for the Bush and Cheney dance recital in front of the commission today, I'm waiting to hear from the "unnamed sources." Bush said he answered every question, so we know that's a lie. He also said he enjoyed the process. "Spin, spin, spin."
MSNBC is reporting that Rumsfeld told Mathews on Hardball than Bush had never discussed the decision to go to war with either him or Powell...just Cheney and Harry the Talking Bass
jex, the story was a cbs news story, dan rather and all, and they showed some of the photos, appropriately blurred of course, on TV. I saw them on TV the other morning.
I missed em been running around too much..but only the LAT has picked it up thus far...this is just the tip of the iceberg..the fascist Bush regime has shamelessly cowed the US media ever since 9/11...this isn't the only issue but this is why GWB is still a viable candidate.
If there is any honor or independence left in the US media, he won't be for long.
jex, you're right about that. From ignatius in the wash post:
"In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn't create a debate on our own. "
Hello? Say what? Isn't it the JOB of the press to create debate and bring to light issues that the government would rather keep secret? Isn't that why the constitution guarantees freedom of the press...so they can investigate?
If being a mouthpiece for the govt is being "professional" thank goodness woodward and bernstein were so "unprofessional" about nixon's dealings!
We can now safely disregard the theory that bad news somehow doesn't hurt Bush politically. He may be able to delay or slightly mitigate that harm but, as common sense would suggest, he cannot escape it.
Consider the results of the just-released CBS News/New York Times poll, conducted April 23-27. Bush's approval rating is down to 46 percent approve/47 percent disapprove (40/47 among independents), the lowest of his presidency and the first net negative rating in this poll. Bush's approval rating on foreign policy is now 40/51 (36/52 among independents), also the lowest of his presidency, as is his rating on Iraq at 41/52 (independents: 37/53). And his rating on the economy remains below 40 at 39/54 (36/57 among independents).
But the worst news for Bush is the extent to which public support for the Iraq war is declining. How about the key question of whether the war a mistake or not, an indicator I've discussed several times lately? In the CBS News poll, the public says yes, 48-46 (49-44 among independents). Last April, sentiment was overwhelming (70-24) that the war was not a mistake.
On a closely-related question, whether the US "did the right thing" in taking military action against Iraq or should have stayed out, the public is now almost evenly-split (47 right thing/46 stayed out; independents are 44/47). Just four months ago, it was 64 right thing/28 stayed out.
On whether the result of the war was worth the loss of life and other costs, the public now believes, by 25 points, that the result wasn't worth the cost (58-33; 61-31 among independents).
"This anniversary is not a time to shout. It is not a time for blame. It is a time for a new direction in Iraq and for America to work together so that once again this nation leads in a way that brings the world to us and with us in our efforts." – John Kerry at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri
Masterful
Bush will not do what Kerry says and The Mission is already a failure.
From the very spot that Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech, the contrast between Kerry and Cheney/Bush will not go unnoticed.
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born.** On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.
**Wow! What a coincidence, huh? Especially for such a calculating fellow.
Let us not forget that this is one of the sons-of-bitches now trying to repair the bungling in Iraq by extending combat tours.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — In a daring escape, American hostage Thomas Hamill pried open the doors of the house where he was being held late Sunday morning and ran a half-mile to a military convoy that was passing by, officials and his wife said. Insurgents attacked U.S. forces across Iraq, killing 11 Americans.
But why isn't Mr Kerry doing better? After all, the past few weeks have been among the worst of Mr Bush's presidency. The September 11th commission has aired all manner of accusations, and the news from Iraq has been grim. This week saw yet another embarrassing landmark—the anniversary of Mr Bush's disastrous “Mission Accomplished” speech.
Conventional wisdom in Washington has an explanation for Mr Bush's lead: there must be something profoundly wrong with Mr Kerry. He was not properly tested in the primaries; he appeals only to dyed-in-the-wool Democrats; the more you know him, the less you like him; he is another Al Gore, a lacklustre Washington insider unable to inspire swing voters.
These fears may yet come true, but there are two more direct explanations for Mr Kerry's dismal performance. First, Mr Bush has been the beneficiary of a rally-round-the-flag response to news from Iraq. Two weeks ago, he gave a televised prime-time press conference. In Washington, he was derided for failing to answer detailed questions. But beyond the Beltway, voters reacted more positively. Mr Bush sounded resolute, said he was determined to stay the course—and they responded. Twice as many now think he “takes a position and sticks with it” than think that of Mr Kerry. Two-thirds see him as a strong leader, while only half say it of his challenger. In other words, the “bad news”, this time, has helped Mr Bush.
Kerry is in a no win situation. The press cover Bush as though he were a God who can do no wrong and cover Kerry as though he is a man who can do no right.
Bush's comments are always cleaned up by the time people see him on the news...there is no "scream" speech as with Hoard Dean. If the press would honestly show Bush's faux pas and play them over and over, and if they would show Kerry in more realistic light, the polls might more honestly reflect what people are thinking.
But then again, Americans have a tendency to stick with what works or with what they perceive to be working.
Clinton was down 15 points at this time in 1992. Kerry is even. There is plenty of bad news to come, and Kerry has yet to start, but is about to start, his image campaign.
There's plenty of cracking in the center and the right among influential and informed participants, like Howard Stern and Imus. It's hard to see good news in the near future for the president, other than a steadily improving economy. At the event I attended last Wednesday, Teresa Kerry claimed that they are ahead in all 17 battleground states.
Their decision to do ad buys in two other states, LA and someplace else I can't recall, provides evidence that she wasn't just blowing smoke. Kerry has always been a slow starter and a strong finisher. I'm not impressed, to date. But he already has my vote. With this opponent, the bar is very low.
I take little comfort from the fact that Clinton was down 15 points to Bush the Elder; I know Bill Clinton and Kerry is no Bill Clinton. I would feel much much better if Kerry brings Edwards on has his VP candidate because Edward is very much a Clintonian figure, only without the slime factor.
I hope Kerry has the confidence to bring someone like Edwards on the ticket, a running mate who may overshadow him in some respects. Or even a republican. Bill Cohen would be a good running mate.
A sitting president in a statistical dead heat in May is in trouble--even if he didn't have plenty of other troubles in the offing.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry highlighted his Vietnam War service in a $25 million wave of biographical ads introduced on Monday to counter President Bush's barrage of television spots portraying him as a liberal waffler.
The new effort to introduce the four-term senator from Massachusetts comes as some Democrats have grumbled that their presumptive presidential nominee has not been quick enough to answer Bush's effort to define him or to articulate a clear campaign message.
The two 60-second ads included photographs of the young Navy lieutenant aboard the Swift boat he commanded in Vietnam's Mekong Delta as well as shots of Kerry ashore in jungle fatigues and toting an M-16 rifle.
Historically it is true that a sitting President should be ahead in the polls at this point, but if one views Bush the Elder as a sitting President in '88, and I think that is a fair comparison, Bush was as much as 17 points behind Dukakis at about this point in the '88 race, and we all know what happened there. I'm afraid that Kerry is far more like Dukakis than he is like Clinton. Dukakis also had a reputation as a tough campaigner and a strong finisher, but all but rolled over and played dead in the actual event.
Positive news....kerry finally figured out that business is where the $$ is and you don't make money becoming an enemy of business. He's courted and won steve jobs and warren buffet, and is trying to become more clinton-esque including mentioning robert rubin as a greenspan replacement upon his retirement.
Kerry needs sharper focus on a few key themes such as
1. My first priority will be creating a healthy economy with plenty of jobs for Americans.
2. I will balance the budget with a fairer distribution of the tax burden including income tax, payroll taxes and corporation profits taxes.
3. I will put Social Security on a sound financial footing as a Federal government program, not a privatized one designed to benefit private financial institutions.
4. I will make prescription drug coverage an integral part of Medicare and put the program on a sound financial footing.
5. I will work toward the goal of single payer, universal health care.
6. I will work toward a fairer distribution of taxes, including both income, payroll and corporate profits taxes.
7. I will clean up the mess Bush and Cheney have made in Iraq which has led to needless casualties, hurt our image around the world, alienated our allies and swelled the ranks of Anti-American terrorists. This will require mending our fences with our European allies and the United Nations.
8. I promise more effective measures to combat and prevent terrorism such as better coordination within the federal government and with our allies. I will work harder to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people in other countries.
9. I will make certain NCLB is properly funded and that its goals are realistically achievable with reasonable timelines and targeted assistance to those districts most in need of improvement, rather than punishing their poverty by removing crucial funding and funneling the best students and teachers into other districts or charter schools, leaving behind all the poor children who can't go elsewhere. And I will rebuild a relationship with the nation's teachers who are the most important factor in improving schools and without whom NCLB has no prayer of success.
George Bush is, fundamentally, a mediocre CEO, the kind of insulated leader who's convinced that his instincts are all he needs. Unfortunately, like many failed CEOs before him, he's about to learn that being sure you're right isn't the same thing as actually being right.
So sure: George Bush is genuinely committed to winning in Iraq. He just doesn't know how to do it and doesn't have the skills, experience, or personality to look beyond his own instincts in order to figure it out. America is about to pay a heavy price for that.
I dunno. dubya's history is failing upward...Probably he's counting on it happening again.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq (news - web sites), said he regrets a statement he made more than six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism.
I was stunned this a.m. listening to the right-wing laura ingraham on imus. Normally the sun shines only on the bushies and yet this a.m. she sounded critical of them...or at least certainly not positive toward them. She was still knocking kerry, of course, but this was the first break with her usual "the bushies are wonderful" shtick.
May 3, 2004--President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry are tied in Arkansas. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey in that state found both men earning 45% of the vote. Adding Ralph Nader's name to the poll has absolutely no impact in this key Southern state.
Just 49% of Arkansas voters believe the U.S. is winning the War on Terror. Thirty percent (30%) believe the terrorists are winning.
OHIO: Bush Blows in the Buckeye State President Bush is headed to Ohio today to trumpet his economic policies. Unfortunately, his policies have not been music to the ears of many of the state's residents. From taxes to jobs to health care, many of the administration's programs have had an adverse effect on the Buckeye State.
THE JOB DRAIN: Ohio's unemployment rate "has risen from 3.9 percent to 5.7 percent since Bush took office. More than 222,000 jobs have been lost in the state." more than seven out of every ten jobs Ohio lost were manufacturing jobs (169,700). In passing his most recent tax cut for the wealthy, President Bush promised his plan would create 60,400 jobs in Ohio. Instead, from June 2003-December 2003, the state actually lost 67,000 jobs
SCHOOL FUNDING WOES: The Ohio Department of Education estimates it will cost $1.4 billion to meet the criteria of President Bush's No Child Left Behind plan. Unfortunately, only $105 million is available .
HIGHER EDUCATION, HIGHER COSTS: Meanwhile, college costs for students in Ohio have skyrocketed while the administration has frozen Pell Grant funding and pushed to cut 84,000 students from the grants, while proposing making it more expensive to borrow through the student loan program by eliminating the student borrower's ability to consolidate at a low fixed interest rate. .
RAMPANT BANKRUPTCYIn Ohio, 21,593 people have declared bankruptcy, up 76 percent since 2000."
CHOPPING HEALTH CARE: The White House is proposing a 3 percent cut in grants to states while also "proposing to save $1.5 billion in Medicaid money" given to states.
BOGUS TAX RELIEF: The Bush administration's latest tax cuts have offered very little benefit to average Ohio citizens. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, by 2006, "89 percent of all state residents will receive less than $100 in tax cuts as a result of the latest Bush tax cut."
Appearing Friday in the Rose Garden with Canada's prime minister, President Bush was answering a reporter's question about Canada's role in Iraq when suddenly he swerved into this extraneous thought:
"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern."
What does such careless talk say about the mind of this administration?
The blind lead the deaf who lead the disengaged - The Cackle of the Clueless ChickenHawks
Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.
In "On Liberty" (1859), John Stuart Mill said, "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say" that the doctrine of limited, democratic government "is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties." One hundred forty-five years later it obviously is necessary to say that.
Ron Chernow's magnificent new biography of Alexander Hamilton begins with these of his subject's words: "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be." That is the core of conservatism.
Traditional conservatism. Nothing "neo" about it. This administration needs a dose of conservatism without the prefix.
RoboPoll notwithstanding, dead heat today means 5% goin away, ceteris paribus of course!
Iraq War Veteran Asks Bush: 'When Will You Take Responsibility'?
In his powerful Democratic Radio Address on Saturday, OIF veteran Paul Rieckhoff said,
"I am not angry with our President, but I am disappointed. I don't expect an easy solution to the situation in Iraq, I do expect an admission that there are serious problems that need serious solutions. I don't expect our leaders to be free of mistakes, I expect our leaders to own up to them. In Iraq, I was responsible for the lives of 38 other Americans. We laughed together, we cried together, we won together, and we fought together. And when we failed, it was my job as their leader to take responsibility for the decisions I made-no matter what the outcome.
My question for President Bush - who led the planning of this war so long ago - is this: When will you take responsibility for the decisions you've made in Iraq and realize that something is wrong with the way things are going? Mr. President, our mission is not accomplished."
Has anybody else noticed that Ralph is having a lot trouble getting on ballots, as solo operator?
He certainly won't be on all fifty states' ballots. There's no way he's making Texas or New York with no party affiliation. What is ballot access like in the battleground states? Does anyone know?
As much as I love Clark I don't think he's the right guy for the VP slot. He did not develop into a very effective stump speaker or debater; he's not bad, just not electrifying. He's got more charisma than Kerry, but not a whole lot more. His military resume would tend to overshadow or even put in a diminishing light Kerry's military resume. I'd love to see Clark as Sec. of State in a Kerry administration.
As much as I love Clark I don't think he's the right guy for the VP slot. He did not develop into a very effective stump speaker or debater; he's not bad, just not electrifying. He's got more charisma than Kerry, but not a whole lot more. His military resume would tend to overshadow or even put in a diminishing light Kerry's military resume. I'd love to see Clark as Sec. of State in a Kerry administration.
Hey, I'm working on it! The Republican governor's low popularity ranking, especially among normally solid, mostly white rural Republicans, is helping. And he can't encourage and persuade, no matter how important it is to issues he supports. Scolding flows from him as uncontrollably as it does from Church Lady.
And I don't think Cheney helped by coming to visit Bentonville Wal-Mart the other day.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) Tuesday called President Bush (news - web sites) "all rhetoric" on his hand-picked issue of education and accused the White House of shortchanging its own sweeping changes enacted by Congress in 2001.
Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts who voted for the administration's No Child Left Behind education policy, criticized Bush for underfunding his own initiative and failing to enforce key provisions of the law.
"It's all rhetoric," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said. "They say one thing and do another. They are $26 billion behind on NCLB ... We've got 40 and 50 percent dropout rates in some cities and that's unacceptable."
Kerry, who has not held a news conference with the national media for almost three weeks, took questions from a group of about 20 kindergarten children who seemed more intrigued by his physical appearance than his presidential race. "Oh my god," shrieked one little girl when the 6-foot-4-inch Kerry entered the room. "Can you touch the roof?"
Deep into his reading of "Animals Should Definitely Not Wear Clothing" and "Green Eggs and Ham," another 6-year-old blurted: "You've got blue eyes."
Kerry effortlessly fielded questions ranging from "How do you stop planes from flying into tall buildings?" to "How can you make sure we learn our ABCs?"
But he was stumped when one boy asked: "Can you make sure dogs don't get run over by cars?"
"That's a hard thing for a president, but I'll try," Kerry promised.
Last night I was calling for Dan Rather's head for caving in to bushie requests to delay broadcasts of the prison torture in Iraq. It was a mistake, no doubt about it.
But tonight CBS did a very good job of filling in the background of the gang of thugs currently mauling Kerry's Vietnam record. Tied them back to the slanders of John McCain and the triple-amputee senator whose name (dammit) I cannot recall at the moment.
Cleland! Cleland! That's it. Max Cleland.
This is the same gang of pseudo-patriots that slimed Max Cleland.
You can start ignoring the polls with Nader. I've done some analysis of the state's ballot access requirements. There is no way that he is going to be on a majority of states' ballots. Of the ten states with the most electoral votes, seven require over ten thousand signatures. He's not gonna get that, with no party apparatus, no organization and pleas at his website for volunteers. More on this later.
It is to laugh. Bush's "Bus tour" through the midwest entails airplane flights. Tuesday's bus tour, about 60 miles through western Ohio, actually includes two airplane flights — one from Detroit to Toledo and another from Toledo to Dayton. His first two stops — Maumee and Dayton — are in counties Al Gore won in 2000. The last two stops — Lebanon and Cincinnati — are in counties that Bush won easily.
And when he is on the bus, it's a bus made in Canada by Volvo--as he tours Michigan. Is anyone awake at the switch on his campaign staff?
And he had the gall to say this:Because -- because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers are closed. on Monday.
I haven't heard that, Jex, but I'm a bit blinded where Wal-Mart is concerned. As far as NW AR, which is one of the richest parts of the country, there is nothing else to AR but them, and I think voter turnout will be higher for Bush opponents than usual as people vote over what happened wrt education. We'll see, but we're working as hard on the local and state stuff as we can, and it's my assumption--my main working partner is a very active Republican--that this will hurt Bush.
I think voter turnout will be higher for Bush opponents than usual as people vote over what happened wrt education
I meant to add "in the rest of the state." Democrats have done very well in AR lately. Huckabee was not elected by a good margin and his opponent was not that strong. Other than that, Republicans only have one Representative of our four, in the northwestern part of the state which has been traditionally Republican. He's not terribly strong and is being challenged by a fairly popular northwestern Democrat.
I have it on good authority by way of DEEP BACKGROUND that
During the 9/11 Commission interveiw of the Emperor of Armadillos and Assorted Morons, All Highest Warlord & Culture Warrior and Krusty the Kardiac Klown, Imperial Puppeteer, that a certain commissioner asked for a pad and pen to take notes...
Upon being informed that this was verboten (done during Clinton and Gore seperate interviews), this commissioner calmly whipped out his own paper and pen and took many many pages of notes which notes were confiscated on leaving the Imperial Presence to check for "secret shit" you understand...with a promise of unredacted return
The incompetence of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz at the top of the chain of command has cost this country hundreds of billions and hundreds of lives. The latest fiasco has finally brought the issue to a head. If Bush does not have it within himself to can them both, that should hurt him in November. (won't hold my breath, though...)
I don't know where you read that, Ali, but I think that now that Rumsfeld is taking the blame for the prison scandal, no one will be on the way out soon or ever.
Did you hear disney is pulling release of michael moore's film critical of the bush admin, highlighting connections with the saudis? Apparently there's some favorable legislation afoot and disney doesn't want the film to interfere.
So glad money doesn't rule politics in the good ol' usa.
This is not good. I'm getting too bitter, too angry. This is not good.
Did you hear that petulant puss bag, being interviewed by Steve Inskeep on NPR this morning? The hubris and the evasion of the facts were jaw-dropping.
Whiz, when I listen to Rumsfeld, what I hear over and over again is the standards of the United States armed forces and that the miscreants did not follow them. I hear nothing about the Geneva Convention of which the US is a long time signatory. Nor do I hear that he or others, within the command structure, were directed to make certain that all US forces were familiar with the requirements of the Geneva Convention and were duty bound to follow them to the letter.
The arrogance of this man confounds me. His defiance of anything of an international nature is almost unbelievable. It demonstrates in a most vivid fashion the utter disdain that this admistrition and its leaders hold for anything resembling standards incorporated by the world as a whole.
My position is rather simple: The facts are that Rumsfeld is absolutely and positively responsible in the chain of command for his officers and men not respecting and following the Geneva Convention. standards. If he was half a man, he would have already tendered his resignation, rather than force Bush to demand it.
My wife's cousin was the White House Office Manager under Clinton and very politically savvy; she thinks it's going to take a miracle for Kerry to win. When I ask her to explain why, she can't. A cousin of mine, who is a high up senior foreign service officer intimates the same sentiments.
What's going on? What the hell am I missing here? Why do these people feel this way when it seems so obvious that the level of failure in the Bush Administration has sunk to new historical lows?
Are Americans that complacent and that much in denial of the facts?
It's the nice-guy factor. The most telling anectode I have read about W was from the Woodward book : the episode of the mints during the terrorism briefing. A lot of people like that sort of guy.
Whiz, I have only one explanation--the people who go to church every week and are sincerely religious types, believe that Bush is in contact with the Father above and are unlikely to abandon him under any circunstances. Now you add the Nader factor and the continuous flow of corporate money. For most political observers, that spells victory.
I'm not so certain. The deteriorating situation that now exists, tends to get worse, not better. My only hope is that even the most steadfast can falter under the conditions that may prevail.
The only positive that could possibly comes from a Bush second term, from my point of view, is that their renewed confidence would breed a degree of excesses that prove to be intolerable and lead to a fracturing and reconstitution of the Republican party away from a fascist direction and back to a genuine conservative posture.
I might add that I personally see another benefit from a Bush disaster, either now or later from another point of view. If it is bad enough, it could make the religious electorate less prone to follow a politician who claims to have credentials with the Father above.
The only positive that could possibly comes from a Bush second term, from my point of view, is that their renewed confidence would breed a degree of excesses that prove to be intolerable and lead to a fracturing and reconstitution of the Republican party away from a fascist direction and back to a genuine conservative posture.
Of course, history proved that in both the case of Claudius and Lenin worse was simply worse.
On why WoW's politically astute relatives intuition about the election; Kerry is a terrible candidate. He has yet to really hit a note that he reaches for, and has often been badly out of tune. The economy is, finally, turning around. And as much of a clusterfuck as Bush has made of Iraq, he still projects the image of a man of resolute certainty and focus in protecting the US from all those terrorists who hate us because we are free and brave and prosperous and the shining city on the hill, a light onto Mankind against the evil.... Well, Americans just love that story about how we are the bestest people that ever were and 9/11 pushed a lot of fear buttons that the administration is doing a decent job of re-pushing as needed.
I'm starting to think that Kerry's running mate is going to be a much more crucial decision than I thought. I predicted he'd choose Gov. Bill Richardson, but that looks more remote now. I wonder why Richardson has been passed over, if in fact he has?
Feith per that article Salon..linked in Conflicts..Feith then Wolfowitz who is to come back...this from the FT correspendent about mid way through the long article...
I hate it when that happens...i read something very telling and then can't find it when I want to refer to it.
Anyway, the person was making the point that bush's success is his ability to connect with real people. How can that be? He and his compadres have managed to paint the dems into the intellectual elite snob corner, the ivory tower types who have no connection with us "common sense, down to earth" types, and certainly no connection to god. Kerry unfortunately fits that to a T with his fancy haircuts and wealthy 2nd wife and snowboarding trips, botoxed face, looking "too french" etc. Not to mention the fact that he's a catholic who supports abortion rights.
Further there is a strong geographic difference in how middle (geographically) people view coasters (ca and ny). They really believe that new york is the den of iniquity portrayed in law and order. That's why 9/11 was such a wakeup call to so much of the nation...to learn that nyc isn't all hookers, gangs, drug dealers and mob bosses. In the same way, coasters tend to believe that everyone in the bible belt marries their sister at 14 and spends their day drinking moonshine or bible thumping.
contd W with his swagger and bromides and blue jeans and his ranch and his ability to come across with (IMO a boatload of) human frailties appeals more to joe 6-pack.
You have to understand that while many of us here read and hear and learn about all these negatives on the bushies, the majority of americans don't read newspapers or magazines and get just snippets of news, a lot of it local, from watching tv, and listening to rush. We tend toward those sources that support our point of view. The impact of the internet is only to increase partisanship as we concentrate more on those sites that tell us more about what we want to hear. If we want to understand, we have to spend time with sources supporting the other point of view. But I suspect there are few that follow sites from both sides.
"I take all of this as additional strong evidence supporting the points that I made last week, before the new compromise solution in Fallujah was proposed:
3. This means that the US Army will probably be obliged to leave Iraq before Bush, Rumsfeld & Company are prepared to manage the retreat as if it were a triumphant event for freedom; the Americans will therefore be seen by the rest of the world, and particularly the Muslim world, in much the same light as were the Israelis when they departed from Southern Lebanon ---as a frustrated and defeated occupation force expelled by victorious nationalists; this will make many Americans who supported the "liberation" of Iraq extremely angry and resentful; the British and other members of the glorious "coalition of the willing" will effectively have to make the best of a bad situation --- if they haven't wisely removed themselves from the scene in the meanwhile; "
Ray Close is the former CIA Station Chief for Saudi Arabi
How will this anger and resentment play out in the Election?
FOX is really clever...last night on the doomsday series 24 they showed a candidate for president named John Keeler. This guy is plotting dirty deeds against the sitting president, a good guy, and is shown as scheming and crooked. When his campaign signs were shown in the background, they looked exactly like John Kerry's signs; many times during the show, the only parts of the signs showing were "John Ke...." Very clever indeed.
WASHINGTON - (AP) - A computer science expert criticized electronic voting systems planned for the November election as highly vulnerable and flawed, saying on Wednesday a backup paper system is the only short-term solution to avoid another disputed presidential election.
"On a spectrum of terrible to very good, we are sitting at terrible," Aviel D. Rubin, a computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University, told the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. "Not only have the vendors not implemented security safeguards that are possible, they have not even correctly implemented the ones that are easy."
American voters give President George W. Bush a split 46 -- 47 percent approval rating, his lowest ever measured, and give key members of the Bush Administration their lowest marks ever, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
But President Bush still leads Democratic challenger John Kerry 43 -- 40 percent, with 6 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, compared to the 46 -- 40 percent lead in a March 24 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
In this latest expanded survey, which allows for closer examination for subgroups, white women, a key voting block, back Bush 48 -- 35 percent, with 6 percent for Nader.
"Even a ground squirrel knows the number is 50-75 billion" Chuck Hagel
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will ask Congress for an additional $25 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), a House Republican aide said Wednesday, a change from the White House's earlier plans to not request such money until after the November elections
How many more lies will the American people stand for from these snake oil hucksters?
I had the privilege of meeting you during the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries earlier in the year, and like the other listeners, I too thought that you then looked and sounded sharp. You had a message, a simple but captivating message, and you had a background and a biography that backed you up.
Then you fell down.
Because now three months later I'm skeptical: What do you want to do? What is your vision?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration asked Congress Wednesday for an additional $25 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, congressional Republicans said, a retreat from the White House's earlier plans not to seek such money until after the November elections.
White House budget chief Joshua Bolten and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz went to the Capitol to present the proposal to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and other top Republicans.
So far, Bush ``has not been told that there is a resource problem,'' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
What a SHOCK!
Kerry shouldn't even have to sneeze hard to blow this house of cards away
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Even so called "intelligent" people are getting their info from t.v. news snippets and those who post here, imo, are an exception to 90% of those who vote.
Democrats need to get over expecting either perfection or resigning themselves to the status quo. Clinton's about ruined them, and it's silly. Thoughtful's post in the Middle East thread was great and right on target. Anyone whose expectations of an individual's personal behavior are that high lives to be disappointed. We need to go back to not giving a rip as long as the job gets done instead of letting Republican strategists yank our chains so easily while they let their own get by with murder while we only manage to splutter and gasp and wag about it.
I want a good president. Period. The one we have is supremely awful. Many of our best presidents had major personal flaws. Thank goodness people weren't as informed or sober (or whatever the perspective that allowed them to support those men) about them as they are now. And ironically, they aren't on the Republican side. Those guys can do anyting and it just bounces off because their party is smartly hitting the other side, not their own. I am sick of the personally judgmental sanctimony of the "liberal" side that is going to make it impossible to get anything but a milquetoast candidate on the Democratic ticket, especially when it's followed by a whine-fest about what a bore the candidate is.
There's nothing that wrong with Kerry, especially when measured against Bush, and I don't know that people should expect much more than what they're seeing at this stage of the campaign. Let Bush spend his huge stash down just to keep in distant sight of a 50% approval rating and not let Kerry get painted any certain way too early and/or risk overexposure.
Who was it that wrote about the way Republicans stick to their candidate no matter what, that someone linked a while back?
Even so called "intelligent" people are getting their info from t.v. news snippets and those who post here, imo, are an exception to 90% of those who vote.
We hit that on the state level something awful. I was talking to a friend who's been involved in ed reform but not focusing on rural schools, and she was complaining about some "woman on the street" a local station had interviewed who said something stupid about why she wanted rural schools to stay open. When I explained that we didn't support whatever it was she had said I asked my friend how far you have to go to find an idiot in Arkansas. She said "throw a rock." Which is, of course, how far you have to go anywhere to find one. But the idiot comments are the ones aired and the ones that stick with people.
As far as the details on education reforms, hardly anyone knew anything, and you can't really fault them. The only way to get information was to go to the bills, to the legislature, to the districts and meetings and everything else. Literally NO media source carried relevant information that was comprehensive enough to allow people the chance to make informed decisions.
Thanks. Computers at work made me mad today, so I was primed for T'ful's view. I told my students that if I got as mad at people as I did at computers I'd be dangerous.
I strongly suspect that Iraq: A Strategy for Progress will wind up being the detailed version of the plan Kerry sketched out in the "Moment of Truth" speech last week.
WASHINGTON - More voters now say the removal of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was not worth the cost financially or in casualties caused by the war in Iraq (news - web sites), according to a poll released Wednesday night. The NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 42 percent of registered voters say it was worth the cost to get rid of Saddam and 47 percent felt it was not worth it. An NBC-WSJ poll as recently as March found 50 percent of adults felt it was worth the cost to remove the Iraqi leader.
The poll appeared to show a drop in support since the last poll, but comparing results about registered voters with results measuring the attitudes of all adults should be viewed cautiously.
More than half, 55 percent, said they favor withdrawing U.S. troops within 18 months. The number willing to say troops should stay as long as necessary has fallen to 44 percent from 56 percent in January.
The poll of 1,012 adults was taken Saturday through Monday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, slightly larger for registered voters.
What clearly is lacking is leadership from the dem party. Taking pages out of the rep book should be easy enough. For example the rep attack dogs do the dirty work so bush can stay above the fray. Where are the dem attack dogs? I mean the bushies are handing out so much fodder, it's a no-brainer to make hay. Instead they are sitting back and waiting for kerry to do it. That's exactly the wrong strategy.
And I agree that kerry needs to tighten up his message. For example, today they struggled to get a soundbite out of him to fit the radio format about the torture in iraq. Instead of sounding pensive and measured, he sounds halting and unsure. He needs to come out and say, "Torturing prisoners is wrong. The fault clearly lies with this administration who chose this war in the first place. They need to do more than fix it. They need to accept responsibility for it and put adequate controls in place to see it never happens again."
Maybe we need howard dean back. not only was he a better attack dog, but he seemed to inspire kerry to hone his message as well. Now without dean, the whole party has crumbled again. Just as with gore, if they lose this one against bush, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
"This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides" George F. WIll
Well better late than never...better now than next year
WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's soaring federal budget deficits represent a major obstacle to the country's long-term economic stability, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned on Thursday.
Greenspan told a banking conference that the federal budget deficit was a bigger worry to him than America's soaring trade deficit or the high level of household debt because those two problems can be corrected by market forces.
``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances,'' he said in remarks to a banking conference.
Greenspan noted that the federal deficit, estimated to climb above $500 billion this year, will amount to 4.25 percent of the total economy after being in surplus just a few years ago.
"The Arab world knows that Bush is more interested in winning the White House than the war. Now I am not questioning their patriotism. Let's not play that sorry little game. I am questioning their judgement and ability to lead" Senator Tom Harkin
It doesn't matter. The public believes everthing Bush manages to read off his notecards. It will take more than this to get the War President dumped. Like a miracle from God.
In terms of whether people are satisfied or dissatisfied with way things in the country are going, 36 percent say satisfied and 62 percent say dissatisfied--the worst rating of his presidency.
overall approval rating is now 49 percent approve/48 percent disapprove, tied for the worst of his presidency.
the economy, 41 approve/56 disapprove;
foreign affairs, 42/53;
the situation in Iraq, 42/55;
terrorism, 52/45 (!)
But you are right JAH...we need to get those Liar, Liar numbers up...just like they are in CA..
At that point, maybe even your vote will count for then Tejas will be in play
Come gather round people wherever you roam, and admit that the waters around you have grown and accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you is worth saving then you’d better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone; For the times they are a changin’
Come writers and critics who prophesy with your pen, and keep your eyes wide, the chance won’t come again. And don’t speak too soon, for the wheel’s still in spin and there’s no tellin’ who that it’s naming, for the loser now will be later to win; For the times they are a changin’.
Come senators and congressmen, please heed the call. Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall, for he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled. There’s a battle outside and it’s raging; it’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls; for the times they are a changin’.
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land and don’t criticize what you can’t understand. Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command, your old road is rapidly aging’ please get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand; for the times they are a changin’.
The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast. The slow one now will later be fast as the present now will later be past the order is rapidly fadin’. The first one now will later be last; for the times they are a changin’.
What clearly is lacking is leadership from the dem party. Taking pages out of the rep book should be easy enough. For example the rep attack dogs do the dirty work so bush can stay above the fray. Where are the dem attack dogs? I mean the bushies are handing out so much fodder, it's a no-brainer to make hay. Instead they are sitting back and waiting for kerry to do it. That's exactly the wrong strategy.
I totally agree with this. Kerry can't do that, and Bush has people doing it for him. I think Bush's numbers would be much worse than they are without them, and the fact that they're so low and Democrats--not just Kerry, but DEMOCRATS--who might get back at least one house if they'd get in gear--aren't on the national radar. We're watching a grand opportunity go to waste, but I think Kerry's done as he should, though I agree with his need to hone his message. I've been saying for a while now that at the very least Terry McAuliffe needs to go. They need to get organized and mobilized in the individual states, too.
That's right....and because you don't get rid of the National Chairman in an election year..at least not before the nomination and then you kick him into the campaign or somethin...
and also because McAuliffe is the good friend of the brother of a good friend of mine.
He can raise the Big Bucks and we need the Big bucks..they shoulda canned him when the dumped Gephardt...we don't need a "Leadership" DNC chair now...we have a leader
COLTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) on Thursday challenged President Bush (news - web sites)'s performance as commander-in-chief and called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
Kerry said he had called on Rumsfeld to quit "months ago" because of miscalculations on Iraq (news - web sites) and the new revelations only "compounds" the evidence for him to step down.
"I think he should have and I think he should have now," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) told his Democratic colleagues Tuesday that he feared the war in Iraq is unwinnable if the U.S. military does not dramatically increase troop levels, provide more ground support and seek significant international involvement.
But Murtha — a Vietnam veteran, an early Democratic advocate of President Bush’s authority to invade Iraq and one of Congress’s staunchest supporters of the military — expressed serious doubts that those remedies are even faint possibilities, given current military deployments, a lack of support from NATO allies and widespread outrage over the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war.
Coming from a senior appropriator with close ties to the Pentagon, Murtha’s bleak analysis led many colleagues to surmise that he believes a democratic Iraq is a lost cause.
Even senior Republicans conceded that an assessment from Murtha had heft because of his bipartisan and pro-military reputation. However, Republicans cautioned that any discussion of Iraq needs to be put into the context of election-year politics.
Another Democratic lawmaker said that Murtha’s presentation changed the calculus for many Democrats. ‘This is going to force the Democrats’ hand. The Democrats are finally developing a political strategy on Iraq, and this will help.”
From a late article out from USA Today: "Shortly before Bush administration officials presented Republican congressional leaders with a request for $25 billion in Iraq funding this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell was telling members of the Congressional Black Caucus that no such request would be forthcoming ... Powell's associates tried to downplay the mix-up. But it underscores the continuing rift between President Bush's departments of State and Defense and deepens the impression that the nation's top diplomat is being cut out of the decision-making process."
Can the president apologize for humiliating this guy too?
"It was bizarre yesterday to hear John Kerry criticize President Bush over the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal, considering Kerry publicly confessed to committing war "atrocities" when he served in Vietnam.
"'Yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers,' Kerry told "Meet the Press" in 1971, ticking off 'free-fire zones' and burning villages in violation of the Geneva Convention."
I heard Sean Hannity make a similar point (using the term loosely) yesterday, asking how Democrats could be upsent about Abu Ghraib when their chose candidate has admitted to such "atrocities."
Surely Orin and Hannity aren't too dense to think there's no distinction between actions taken in the field, while at risk of enemy fire, and actions taken against naked, unarmed, no-threat prisoners. But they apparently think their fans are.
Of course they think their fans are dunces...how else could they say the stuff they do and expect people to buy it outright, with no critical thinking required?
If you heard Dumbsfeld's opening statement...they knew and are trying to set up the "But we got rid of Saddam/you are undermining the War President" defense
Kerry should keep his mouth shut on the torture matter. Just because the old cliché about not interfering when your enemy is destroying himself is a cliché does not mean it contains no wisdom.
Abu Ghraib may have legs like pedophilia in the priesthood. Like that situation I predict that the problem is more pervasive than many believe and everyone hopes.
The principle unique feature of this scandal is the fact that the perpetrators documented their crimes with photos and videos. Somebody deserves a Darwin award.
I, like many, have wavered in my initial extremely positive reaction to Powell. On the one hand, you have the fact that he is -even with this administration backing him up - easily the most internationally popular and respected Secretary of State in at least a generation. And he is fantastically competent, witness that UN Res 1441 which he singlehandedly got passed with unanimous support. No 1441, no war. And then, you watch the "town hall" type meetings he runs in campuses overseas, and you marevel because this country can have no better public face.
And then you have the tremendous, calamitous, disasters that have befallen American foreign policy even as he's the titular head. The isolation, the pissing on reopened old wounds, the barefaced lies issued in international fora. And the sticking by Pres, even as all this happens.
But when you see even only as much as we have about what goes on behind the scenes, and read only the current level of revelations of the fights which Powell has fought ceaselessly with the VP and the Pentagon, and start to imagine just how fucking bad it would be without him....I'd say Powell starts to look more than a bit heroic. He and his fireplug buddy, Armitrage, have fought the good fight for the US all along, and while they have gone along with the neocons rather than break away in protest - they have done a great deal to alleviate the messes, ensure that the US is not looked at as a total wash.
Yeah, I think a lot of the abuse aimed at Powell here has been misplaced. Imagine what shit this country would be in, internationally, without him.
Democracy is about more than elections. Most Middle Eastern countries already have elections. Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, all of them hold regular elections. They have parliaments, parties, campaigns. Two things make them nevertheless not democracies. The first is that their presidents manipulate the elections so that there is never any doubt that they will win the election and that their party will dominate parliament (even if space is made for minority parties to win a few seats). Second, their regimes have no accountability to the public. No one in Hosni Mubarak's government has ever had to resign because he performed his duties poorly. He might have to resign because he fell out with the president. But if he is buddy buddy with the head of state, then he can do no wrong.
You really wonder whether the Bush plan to Americanize the Middle East isn't being turned on its head. We now have an unaccountable government not elected in accordance with the will of the majority of Americans, which victimizes critics like Joe Wilson and engages in torture. Bush and Co. are emulating the worst aspects of the military governments of Egypt and Yemen. They have no credibility to push the latter toward democracy.
Hello...just about one year ago..you heard it here first
"We are now seeing an administration unraveling...the strongest case that can be made against the Bush/Cheney Administration is not ideological, its a case against their incompetence." Walter Shapiro, USA Today on "Hardball."
Yeah, I think a lot of the abuse aimed at Powell here has been misplaced. Imagine what shit this country would be in, internationally, without him
Not one bit of difference.
An intriguing insight from inside the beltway...from a woman friend with 30 years top level experience on Capitol Hill...
Colin Powell was a witting porch monkey...he has no credibility at home or abroad and inside the Administration never had any credibility except as the compassionate conservative window dressing for the real powers in the Regime ie Cheney...
I have seen similar up close and personal on domestic issues....makes sense..
But in any event, it doesn't matter whether Powell was wittingly ineffective or no...
"It is time now for Mr. Rumsfeld to go, and not only because he bears personal responsibility for the scandal of Abu Ghraib. That would certainly have been enough... The reputation of its brave soldiers has been tarred, and the job of its diplomats made immeasurably harder because members of the American military tortured and humiliated Arab prisoners in ways guaranteed to inflame Muslim hearts everywhere. And this abuse was not an isolated event, as we know now and as Mr. Rumsfeld should have known, given the flood of complaints and reports directed to his office over the last year. The world is waiting now for a sign that Bush understands the seriousness of what has happened. It needs to be more than his repeated statements that he is sorry the rest of the world does not 'understand the true nature and heart of America.' Mr. Bush should start showing the state of his own heart by demanding the resignation of his secretary of defense."
The Iraqi people are now free. And they do not have to worry about the secret police coming after them in the middle of the night, and they don't have to worry about their husbands and brothers being taken off and shot, or their wives being taken to rape rooms. Those days are over."—Paul Bremer, Administrator, [Iraq] Coalition Provisional Authority, Sept. 2, 2003
"Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."—President Bush, remarks to 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003
"There was an announcement by the Iraqi Governing Council earlier this week about the tribunal that they have set up to hold accountable members of the former regime who were responsible for three decades of brutality and atrocities. … We know about the mass graves and the rape rooms and the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein's regime. … We welcome their decision to move forward on a tribunal to hold people accountable for those atrocities."—Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, White House press briefing, Dec. 10, 2003
One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."—Bush, press availability in Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 12, 2004
WASHINGTON - In one of the darkest weeks of his administration, President Bush (news - web sites) saw America's reputation sullied, the U.S. effort in Iraq (news - web sites) damaged and his own campaign for re-election clouded. And more bad news may be on the way.
While the world already has been horrified by pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the Pentagon (news - web sites) warns there are many more photos and videos that have not been disclosed.
From the White House to Capitol Hill, policy-makers are worried that the United States faces lasting damage abroad — particularly in the Middle East — from the pictures of naked Arab men being tortured and humiliated by American soldiers, the same forces sent to Iraq to liberate the country from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s torture and repression.
Analysts describe the pictures as great recruiting tools for al-Qaida and other extremist groups and said they undermine America's claims to a moral high ground.
Six months from the November elections, Iraq weighs heavily on the president.
April was the deadliest month yet for American soldiers in Iraq and May is off to a bloody start.
On the diplomatic front, the administration does not know who will take power in Iraq from the United States in a June 30 handover.
Costs are soaring. The administration has sent Congress an unexpected $25 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites).
Day after day, the extraordinary apologies from the president and his top deputies dominated the news.
Pollsters and presidential experts are scratching their heads over how the prisoner scandal will affect Bush's re-election hopes.
"There's such a big question mark there, it's unlike anything we've seen before," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.
"The public is very critical of (Bush's) management of Iraq. They don't think he has a clear plan for bringing it to a successful conclusion, but a thin majority of the public has been hanging in with that it was the right decision to go to war," Kohut said. "This could be the event which makes people say 'Oh, we did make a mistake.'" EDITOR'S NOTE: Terence Hunt has covered every president since Ronald Reagan
And our Emperor of Morons and Armadillos, 6 months away from his return ticket to Texas is only 3 away from the Covention Among the Ruins where he can tell us all about his great leadership as
WAR PRESIDENT
As some of those quotes Saletan compiled scroll across the screen of Iraq in flames and prisoner torture.
The current job recovery is unlikely to last through the remainder of this year according to a study released on May 5 by the Center for American Progress. The study, entitled Current Job Recovery is Without Precedent in Post World War II Era, documents the difference between the economic downturn which began in April of 2001 and the eight other economic downturns during the post World War II era. It concludes the period of job loss was much longer than during any other downturn, the period of job creation much weaker and the cyclical economic forces that have brought about past economic recoveries have largely run their course are likely to place a downward pressure on employment growth before the end of the current calendar year.
We are witnessing a political unraveling the likes of which none of us has seen in our lifetimes...
Ps.118 [1] O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his steadfast love endures for ever! [2] Let Israel say, "His steadfast love endures for ever." [3] Let the house of Aaron say, "His steadfast love endures for ever." [4] Let those who fear the LORD say, "His steadfast love endures for ever."
[20] This is the gate of the LORD; the righteous shall enter through it. [21] I thank thee that thou hast answered me and hast become my salvation. [22] The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.
[23] This is the LORD's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.
Song: In The Bush ~~ 1979 ~~ Artist: Musiqué Push, push in the bush Push, push in the bush Push, push in the bush
I like to do the things you like to do too I like to do it, do it I want to do the things you want to do too So baby, let’s get to it, do it
Sometimes no fun for peace of mind Peace of mind If you must do a peace, peace, peace of mind Come on and do it, do it
Are you ready, are you ready for this Do you like it, do you like it like this Are you ready, are you ready for this Do you like it, do you like it like this
Sometimes no fun a peace, peace, peace of mind Peace of mind If you must do a peace, peace, peace of mind Come on and do it, do it Push, push in the bush (Say are you ready too) Push, push in the bush (You know I like to jump) Push, push in the bush (You know I want to get down)
In the bush, in the bush (I like it) In the bush, in the bush (Yeah, yeah, I like it, I like it) In the bush, in the bush (I like it) In the bush, in the bush [Get down, get down] In the bush, in the bush [Oh...get down, get down] In the bush, in the bush (I like it) [Yeah...hea...] In the bush, in the bush (I said I like this, yeah) In the bush, in the bush [Oh...ho...ho...] In the bush, in the bush [I said I want it] In the bush, in the bush In the bush, in the bush (Are you ready for this) [You like it] In the bush, in the bush (Ooh) In the bush, in the bush (Are you ready for this) In the bush, in the bush (Sock it to me, sock it to me)
What's more, calling the president a cretin absolves him of responsibility (a moral question that keeps me up at night)
Let's face it: A man who cannot talk about education without making a humiliating grammatical mistake ("The illiteracy level of our children are appalling"); who cannot keep straight the three branches of government ("It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"); who coins ridiculous words ("Hispanos," "arbolist," "subliminable," "resignate," "transformationed"); who habitually says the opposite of what he intends ("the death tax is good for people from all walks of life!") sounds like a grade-A imbecile.
And if you don't care to pursue the matter any further, that view will suffice. George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.
And let's give credit where credit is due...I am the first person I know of to dub Duhbya "Moron di tutti Morons" way back in 2000..or maybe even in the last century.
Margaret Carlson on Capitol Gang: "Was Iraq the way it was because of Saddam or Saddam the way he was because of Iraq? Iraq is ungovernable and may be even if we internationalize"
To which Hunt followed quickly: "the Neocon fantasy that Iraq will be a democratic friend of Israel and the US with US bases is finished. It is not going to happen".
To which the RepublicanRobot and that cretin from the National Review, were dumbfounded, rocking back and forth and giggling like clowns..
I have been saying this for two years..
From Lt. Gen Odom, to Ray Close, to Rep Murtha we are hearing the truth more and more and more and more loudly.
Department of Scoundrels looking for that last refuge. This from Kate O'Beirne ...
The most recent images of abuse concerning Iraqi detainees will inevitably fuel the anti-Americanism that endangers American lives — not at the hands of sadistic young misfits but at the hands of our elected representatives. Members of Congress elbowing their way into camera range to question, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, whether abuses were widespread and senior commanders were implicated and accusing the military of engaging in some cover-up are abusing the Abu Ghraib scandal and recklessly putting our troops at risk. Stab-in-the-back bake mix. Limited assembly required. Do-it-yourself. Off-the-Shelf.
Linked in Conflicts, the CIA doesn't think so and Company's coming for Cheney's ass...
Jeff Smith, a former general counsel of the CIA (news - web sites) who has close ties to many senior officers, said, "Some of my friends in the military are exceedingly angry." In the Army, he said, "It's pretty bitter."
Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a frequent Pentagon consultant, said, "The people in the military are mad as hell." He said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, should be fired. A spokesman for Myers declined to comment.
A Special Forces officer aimed higher, saying that "Rumsfeld needs to go, as does Wolfowitz."
More on Economic Pessimism On Friday, I pointed out that the good jobs report for April seemed unlikely to turn voters' negative views of Bush's economic management around. Here's some more evidence supporting that judgement.
First, note that both the new ARG poll and the new AP poll have Bush's approval rating on the economy down to the lowest levels recorded by these polls (38 percent and 43 percent, respectively). Guess voters haven't yet absorbed the good news about how the economy is "strong and getting stronger" and about how "tax relief is working".
All right, this is just ridiculous. But if the Repubs are insisting on making a campaign issue of it and lying about it, I'll waste some Mote space on "SUV-gate."
Here are remarks by Republican chairman Ed Gillespie a couple of days ago:
"It’s not unusual for Sen. Kerry to have different answers for different audiences.
"Even when it comes to answering what car he uses to get there.
"Let’s watch this exchange from Sen. Kerry campaigning in New Hampshire in January.
"ON TAPE: Question: “[S]econdly, what you have done in the past personally or professionally to reduce dependence on oil in your own life?”
"Kerry: “Well, I sold my gas-guzzler and got a van and downgraded. That’s what I did personally, in my own life. Also got an economical car in Washington and so forth so that I was trying to live up to that standard.”
"Now, there’s nothing wrong with selling your gas-guzzler to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
"But only a month later, in February, in Michigan-where they make lots of SUVs-Senator Kerry said, “We have some SUV’s. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate…We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban.”
"Two months later, in April, on Earth Day—where they have lots of environmentalists—Sen. Kerry said, “I don’t own an SUV.”
"Hmm, maybe he was wrong in February, and he was right in January when he said he had sold it.
"But wait! When pressed about the Suburban still sitting in his driveway, Senator Kerry said, “The family has it. I don’t have it.”
"Only 6 days later, back in Michigan, Sen. Kerry was asked what cars he owns. Here’s what John Kerry said:
"ON TAPE: Kerry: “I own a Dodge 600 that I have had for about 20 years. I own a Chrysler 300 M. … We have a Chrysler van - a minivan. A Chrysler PT Cruiser - I guess Chrysler is making out here. A Suburban, Chevy, big Suburban. And she has a Landrover Defender.”
"If it’s Michigan, I must own an SUV!"
This is just a lie. Read what Kerry said. He never said he owned an SUV - he always distinguished between what he personally owned and what he and Teresa own between them.
Did Kerry tell Michigan voters that he and his wife were consumers of Michigan-built cars? Oh my God, yes. I'm SHOCKED that a politician would refer to his wife's actions to ingratiate himself to a group of voters. But Kerry didn't contradict himself, nor did he say what the lying Gillespie falsely says he said.
Wait til you read about bicycle-gate...they don't like what Kerry wore to ride bikes! They see it as proof that he is running for office out of some sort of mid-life crisis!
Like Bush and his excessive vacations doing brush cutting and waging war are just the normal things guys do when they reach mid-life. Yeah.
With troop commitments growing, the cost of the war in Iraq could top $150 billion through the next fiscal year — as much as three times what the White House had originally estimated. And, according to congressional researchers and outside budget experts, the war and continuing occupation could total $300 billion over the next decade, making this one of the costliest military campaigns in modern times.
No wonder the emerging line from the Bushies is "don't see, don't talk, don't think"
They are dying for the Time of National Coma...
That was yesterday...
America is waking up and smelling the bullshit: THE COST OF WAR The Iraq war is proving to be far costlier than initial Bush administration estimates. Adjusting for nflation, the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated the cost of major U.S. wars of the previous half-century:
Korean War, 1950-1953 $418 billion Vietnam War, 1964-1975 $597 billion Persian Gulf War*, 1990-1991 $84 billion War in Iraq (March 2003 projected to Sept. 30, 2004) $100 billion (March 2003 projected to Sept. 30, 2005) $150 billion *About 90 percent of these costs were paid by U.S. allies.
I heard on CNN, I think, that the Bush Bus, was made in Canada. Maybe it was mentioned above. But with all the SUV hoopla about Kerry, why hasn't there been more bus-gate?
Because the republicans are better at this kind of thing. Bush is not actually traveling on the bus; he is flying site to site. The bus is a more of a stretch limo than a bus, but it's being covered as a bus. Why? Because the republican leadership had done a good job of managing the story, and the media have fallen in line.
Correction: Kerry's current campaign bus is American-made, but the bus used during the primaries, although leased from a U.S. firm, was Canadian-made:
"Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign had to deal with an awkward situation. After criticizing Bush on Tuesday for riding in a Canadian-made bus on his tour of the Midwest, it turns out that during the primaries, Kerry's Real Deal Express bus was made in Canada.
"'Once again, John Kerry's campaign saying one thing and doing another. They have launched a political attack while they themselves chartered the same exact bus,' Schmidt said.
"Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade said the campaign was unaware it was using a Canadian-made bus because it was renting from U.S. charter companies. Wade added that since Kerry all but clinched the nomination, the campaign is certain it has been riding in only U.S.-made buses."
Judith: That article linked in your Message # 5488 is a stupid waste of paper and ink, isn't it?
It's another aspect of my theory of how conservatism rots your brain: Any snotty insult against a liberal will be considered witty by the hordes of slavish, brainless dittoheads, and so eventually conservative writers (and their editors) will think so too.
5497. arkymalarky - 5/9/2004 5:10:21 PM ? 5498. wonkers2 - 5/9/2004 6:00:41 PM The Bush-Cheney truth list would be very short. 5499. judithathome - 5/9/2004 7:02:29 PM If Kerry doesn't pick Bill Richardson, I think he'll pick Dick Durbin. If he picks either one, he'll lose for sure. They both sounded good on MTP but he needs a draw...they are bores compared to Edwards. I think they have something on Richardson so don't hold out much hope for him to be the one, Wiz. 5500. jayackroyd - 5/9/2004 7:04:23 PM I agree that he should have the cojones to pick Edwards.
Cojones? Why would it take cojones, Jay?
And why, Judith, would Kerry lose if he picked Richardson or Durbin? And what do they have on Richardson--anything substantiated ?
I doubt that Kerry would select a VP who might outshine him.
That was a drive-by, but while I'm here for a minute I want to note that I haven't paid much attention to the V-P choices. Hopefully it will be smart, but I don't have a specific favorite. I have some I hope Kerry doesn't pick. I'm working with a national group on rural issues here in AR, and last year I attended a national conference on strategies, issues, etc. The best piece of advice I heard in three days of workshops was "move the middle." If whoever Kerry picks doesn't help do that it will be a detriment to his campaign, imo. If it's not an asset for him it's a liability.
I really believe the election is Kerry's and the Democratic Party's to win or lose right now. Moderate Republicans and independents will vote for his ticket if they don't feel like it's shifting too far leftward. It's what made Clinton gain some bad labels and caused him to be unpopular among pure Democrats, but it's a huge part of what helped him win two terms while under constant attack.
I'm actually more than a little interested in what it looks like for congress. Do the Democrats have a chance of regaining either or both Houses? I haven't kept up with things nationally as much as I should.
Speaking from Michigan, I doubt that the GOP will put up anybody to threaten Carl Levin. And Debbie Stabenow isn't up for reelection. Not sure what the situation in the House is. My representative, Joe Below Zero Knollenberg, is safe. A Dem hasn't won in my district in the past 35 years, although Bill Clinton and Al Gore both did, at least in the county and state.
BERLIN (Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to NATO (news - web sites) said Monday a scandal surrounding the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops had plunged President Bush (news - web sites)'s government into crisis
We are witnessing something I believe unprecedented in US politics...the complete unraveling of a presidency in an election year.
A friend thinks Taft/TR Bull Moose 1912 is apposite but I don't...that was a third party situation because Taft proved too conservative and TR too ambitious....
After three years of sweeping actions in both foreign and domestic affairs, the Bush administration is facing complaints from the conservative intelligentsia(sic) that it has lost its ability to produce fresh policies.
The centerpiece of President Bush (news - web sites)'s foreign policy -- the effort to transform Iraq (news - web sites) into a peaceful democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side, conservatives and former administration officials say the White House policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise.
Conservatives have become unusually restive. Last Tuesday, columnist George F. Will sharply criticized the administration's Iraq policy, writing: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts." Two days earlier, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq war, wrote: "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."
Michael Franc, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, said the criticism by O'Neill, Will and Kagan has a common thread: a concern that the administration is "using an old playbook" and not coming up with bold enough ideas, whether the subject is entitlement reform or pacifying Iraq.
Regarding the VP, watched Clark on MTP yesterday and I remain unfortunately unimpressed with Clark's ability has a campaigner. This is really a shame because I love him on policy issues. The two or three times that Clark tried to "stay on message" he fumbled badly and was taken to school by Repub Lindsey Graham (more on him later). When Clark spoke to what to actually do in Iraq he became clear, eloquent and compelling, but this is not enough IMO.
Graham shocked me. My wife and I found ourselves applauding his clear and statesmenlike contributions to the discussion. He appeared genuinely distressed by the situation that we are in, and told Cheney in no uncertain terms that Cheney's "Get of his [Rumsfeld] back." statement was inappropriate. Graham may be the Repub Edwards.
Levin was great, kept the focus not on Rumsfeld but on the policies. "If I thought that Rumsfeld's resignation would change the policies I'd be in favor."
Bill Nelson is the junior senator from Florida.."an AIRHEAD" according to an old Hill friend but all I know is that he has been making lots of surrogate cameos lately..is a member of the Armed Services Committee..has a razor sharp tongue with a hardscrabble North FL/S. Georgia twang...who could slice and dice Cheney Bush six ways from Sunday much like Edwards except that Edwards has more polish
Edwards voted for the War Resolution, but he does a much better job than Kerry in explaining the ways that the administration lied, scammed the Congress, and were ultimately more incompetent than anyone imagined. Edwards turns his vote into a campaign positive.
Clark also has problems wrt the war, though he consistently defined the war as a war of choice, and elective war, he did in the last month or so before the start of the war state that strategically we were now committed and it would be worse to not invade. This is a true statement, and he also said that what mattered at that point is how we handled the post-war situation, also true, but you can bet that the Repubs would put his statement up out of context to show him as a fellow flip-flopper. Edwards can handle that and turn it on the Repubs, Clark has not shown that abiltiy; neither has Kerry for that matter.
Judy Woodruff CNN Inside Politics: "People are beginning to ask the question, 'Bush promised democratic revolution in the ME beginning in Iraq, so where's the evidence?'"
The military and intelligence professionals are stepping up their revolt against the ideologues; Bush's 6/30 sovereignty is a farce; torture his policy; WMD a sick joke; and his gambit to delay debate on appropriations in 2005 a shambles because he's running out of money...
Iraq is gonna sink him..I think it already has Pelle
That's fine, but somebody has to figure how to make people like Kerry. He needs to get Meryl Streep to teach him how to talk like a reglar guy. He has a tin ear for American English. This leads me to Edwards for a running mate. He has the common vernacular down pat. Clark is not as good at this as Edwards but his delivery is more convincing than Kerry's.
Also, the election's a long way off in terms of what might happen between now and then.
The Richmond Times Dispatch has been disgusting for the last couple of days -- making excuses for our military prison "guards" while publishing every negative thing on Kerry that the Republican's can dream up. This is going to be a VERY VERY ugly campaign.
Nader is now 0 for 2--not on the ballot in Texas or Oregon. While in some sense these are symbolic candidacies, Oregon is a battleground state, and he invested substantial resources in Texas and got nowhere. It's time to remove Nader from the polling numbers.
Bubba's absolutely right. Kerry's not going to be firmly defined until the convention. Also, the more he stands and lets Republicans flail and sling mud the less he's going to have to try to moderate later. Let Bush continue to look bad and shape your image when you have the media and money to do it during and after the convention. People won't remember squat of what's going on now come November, and they're right to focus energy and money closer to that date while Republicans are having to spend up just to try to slow the bleeding.
Whatever happens with Kerry now (if he doesn't screw up), as things stand with Bush, if the Republicans don't hit a home run in their convention in NYC, Bush is done.
1. Bush didn't go to the ERing to play GI Joe with Rummy...He usually plays in the Situation Room or the Oval Office..he went with the puppeteer Cheney because the military rank-in-file is near open revolt
2. Sharon didn't cancel his trip because of Gaza...Sharon is the 800 pound gorilla pulling the neocon strings of the Empire...Sharon cancled on Bush because George W. Bush is now radioactive.
My fellow Amuruhkuns, I come to you with a heavy heart...
We really do need some conservative voices around here because I think what everyone is underestimating is the public. Many of them are going to believe everything BushCo puts out about Kerry...facts don't matter. BushCo is made of oil and everything Kerry can come up with about BushCo will slide right off...he's more slippery than teflon.
Just don't be surprised when BushCo wins...though it makes me sick, I fear the American Public will vote for him in droves.
My grim outlook may be hampered by living in Texas. Keoni put a Kerry bumper sticker on his truck and has had fists shaken at him a lot in recent days by people on the road. And he's a good driver so it's not that.
Now I am sure they are sayin "Oh at least we got rid of Saddam and all that....Just git offen his case...he's a grayte feller"
That's what the man from Sugar Land said in that Red/Blue article the other day....well Texas isn't California but its not Ohio either...and God know it isn't Louisiana!
Speaking of that red/blue piece..the reporter recounts how the Sugar Lander logged on to Freeper first thing one morning and got his rocks off looking at a video from an Apache gun camera wiping out three defenseless Iraqis in a pick up truck...
I remember that video myself ...how disgusting I thought it was ....in fact I emailed it around...
Totally opposite reaction...like they're from another Planet...and they are...Fresno
But what he enjoyed about the video from what he said....went something like this...
Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."—President Bush, remarks to 2003 Republican National Committee Presidential Gala, Oct. 8, 2003
Statements like that or like yesterday's "Our mighty army is conducting hundreds of missions each day in Iraq (over a year after Mission Accomplished)"...
But will Texas be in play now that Nader won't be on that ballot either...
Oh please...like Nader would have received any votes from Texas. Only the Republicans' votes matter here...all the electoral votes from Texas are Bush's and nothing else matters. I'm amazed Perry hasn't suggested saving the money on election day to beef up the education funds he's squandered...just send the electoral votes in and forget about the entire voting thing.
Nader is 0 for 2 on ballot access. Seven of the ten largest states require over 10,000 signatures. The deadlines cluster in August. Of the first 27 states in alphabetical order, Nader has a coordinator working in 7. None in Florida, the purplest of states, which has a July deadline and requires 94,000 signature.
Polls are still sticking Nader in. But he is not going to be on most ballots. In fact, I believe he will be on so few as to completely marginalize his candidacy. The polls are substantially different without Nader, and he won't be a factor.
I do think being in Texas makes a difference. The attitude in AR toward him is pretty negative, and we're not hearing AR Republicans promote him. They have their own races to worry about, and if they didn't consider him a liability they'd be looking for all kinds of ways to connect to him.
I think he's going to lose, and I'm not claiming to be prescient, because I'm not. I've never heard this much negative talk from people (not the press or political enemies, as with Clinton) about an incumbent that I can recall, especially from quarters that often vote Republican, at least for president.
It's also telling that he and Cheney have spent most of what AR time they've had here (with the exception of Bush's visit to oil-town ElDorado) has been in Walton country in the northwest where they're least likely to see any opposition. Kerry is coming to Little Rock (or is already here) and appearing with Wesley Clark. Wish I could go.
He's DA MAN for #2...conduit for the growing disgruntled mass of soldiers, officers, and intelligence professionals who know that Bush was snortin fairy dust again when he came up with his Big Iraq Adventure..
If Bush is to fall in a landslide it will be real conservatives who bury him
Meanwhile back in the trenches, this from MoveOn..
PS...JAH I also wish that the pseudo conservative riff raff had REAL cojones..or at least one cojone...enuf to come here and defend their sorry asses...
Dear MoveOn member, Together, we did something remarkable on Saturday. Working with a coalition of grassroots groups, we registered tens of thousands of voters and made over 300,000 phone calls in a single afternoon.
In Philadelphia, a huge crowd gathered to see speakers before fanning out across the city to register voters. In Seattle, WA and Reno, NV and Lewiston, ME and 90 other cities in all 17 of the key "battleground" states, 7,500 folks walked door-to-door, talking to their neighbors and registering tens of thousands of them to vote. And at more than a thousand phone banking parties, MoveOn members made more than 300,000 phone calls to swing state voters in a single afternoon --a staggering and wholly unprecedented feat.
And Saturday was just the beginning. Over the coming weeks and months, we're going to build a field campaign that will help MoveOn members across the country register and mobilize voters every day between now and Nov. 2nd.... Can you help us raise $1 million to start hiring local organizers and build on our tremendous success on Saturday?
Please contribute now at: https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/field.html?id=2830-1460238-FEiIlqjZaquCdxC2QjdA4g
This is the first time we will have MoveOn staff on the ground. They'll work in some of the most important states for the election, contacting and training MoveOn members for election work and acting as a local point of contact. ...
Studies have repeatedly shown that person-to-person contact is much more important in convincing someone to vote than advertising. So the power of our time and energy really is greater than Bush's hundreds of millions of dollars. Help harness that energy effectively, and together we'll take back our country and the White House.
Sincerely, --Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, and Wes The MoveOn PAC team May 11th, 2004
"Being in Texas, I feel very much like an alien because of my political views so it was invigorating to meet with people who are of the same mind-set. I now realize that I am not alone. We had some great discussions regarding MoveOn's goals, and how we can defeat Bush and the Republican Party in November and hereafter." -- Billye, Carrollton, TX
Faced with a scarcity of letters praising the president, a newspaper in a Republican-leaning district appealed for pro-Bush letters, then backed off the request Tuesday amid complaints of blatant politics.
Last week in an editorial, The Post-Crescent said most of its letters had been coming from one side and asked readers "to help us 'balance' things out."
"We've been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him," the editorial said. "We're not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today's increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance."
On Tuesday, the newspaper located in Appleton, Wis., with a daily circulation of just over 56,000 ran a second editorial stepping back from the appeal. Executive editor Andrew Oppmann said the paper's intentions in the May 4 editorial had been misinterpreted.
"Hindsight being 20/20, I can see how invoking the candidate's name read like 'Hey, let's all jump on the Bush bandwagon,"' said Oppmann, who pointed out that the paper endorsed Democrat Al Gore in 2000. "But our intent was just to get more readers participating and telling people, 'Hey, if you don't like what you read, just write a letter and we'll run it."'
The newspaper is located in a congressional district that Bush won handily in 2000, beating Gore, 52 percent to 43 percent.
The GOP just published an outline of some events at the upcoming Republican Convention in NYC . . .
SUGGESTED AFTER-EVENT -- GET WRECKED WITH RUSH "Kicker" LIMBAUGH (sponsored by Eli Lilly)
SEPTEMBER 2 (nomination night)
6 p.m. -- OPENING PRAYER by ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, who will then sing "Let the Eagle Soar" and light the ceremonial "TORCH OF FREEDOM(tm) with the (actual) Bill of Rights.
TOM RIDGE raises National Alert Level to Fire Engine Red, and
ANNOUNCES CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN.
CONVENTION SHIFTS TO "GROUND ZERO" - DICK CHENEY will introduce and personally re-nominate PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, who WILL IMPALE OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH DAVY CROCKETT'S KENTUCKY LONG RIFLE donated by Wayne LaPierre (Sponsored by NRA)
PRESIDENT BUSH WILL GIVE ACCEPTANCE SPEECH, standing on Osama's dead body.
FIRST PEEK - Here is the proposed text for President Bush's speech: "Hey, Freedom-Lovers! 9-11 Democracy Freedom Stay The Course Evil-doers trust my gut 9-11 Freedom Evil-doers Stay The Course Democracy 9-11 Evil-doers trust my gut 9-11 Democracy Freedom Stay the course Trust my gut Tax cuts Who cares what you think Evil-doers Things are great Jesus speaks to me 9-11 Democracy Freedom Stay The Course Evil-doers 9-11 Freedom Evil-doers Stay The Course Democracy 9-11 Evil-doers trust my gut 9-11 Democracy Freedom Stay the course Trust my gut Tax cuts Who cares what you think Evil-doers Things are great Jesus speaks to me. G'night everybody!
"GET MAXED with RUSH "ROCKET CAP" LIMBAUGH!" (Sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline)
RICK SANTORUM 'DOG ON DOG' PETTING ZOO (adults only, please)
BILL O'REILLY SHOWS OFF PULITZER PRIZE, ACADEMY AWARD, AND NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
SPECIAL BUFFET - JOHN ASHCROFT will PERSONALLY EXORCISE A KINDLE OF CALICO KITTENS, BARBECUE THEM, AND SERVE THEM ON CANAPES (sponsored by KRAFT "Thick N' Spicy" BBQ Sauce)
Excerpt--The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger. We saw the same dynamic in the 1980 race. President Jimmy Carter's favorable rating in the Gallup surveys sank from 56 percent in January to 38 percent in June, yet he still led Ronald Reagan in Gallup's horse-race measures. For much of the rest of the campaign, voters who disapproved of Mr. Carter couldn't decide whether Mr. Reagan was an acceptable alternative. Through the summer and early fall, the lead changed back and forth, and CBS/New York Times and Gallup polls showed conflicting results — at one point in August, Gallup found Mr. Reagan ahead of President Carter by 16 percentage points, yet just two weeks later it registered a dead heat. It was not until the two men held a televised debate eight days before the election that Ronald Reagan gained legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.
Similarly, in May 1992 President George H. W. Bush had only a 37 percent approval rating according to a Times Mirror Center survey, but the same poll showed him with a modest lead, 46 percent to 43 percent, over Bill Clinton. Only the Democratic convention and the debates brought about an acceptance of Mr. Clinton (even though his negative ratings were higher than Mr. Kerry's are now). It took a long time for him to be seen as an acceptable alternative to Mr. Bush.
Actually, Bush's back was broken way before that. His fundamentals were heading for the toilet in the Spring of 1992. Bush's water broke when he and Ross Perot got into it in late June, 1992.
Clinton's convention sealed his fate.
But the point is still a good one...namely 1) the referendum on the incumbet is the first thing 2) once that is more or less decided by the electorate, attention turns to the challenger at or about the time of the Convention
With just months to go in an election that ought to be a referendum on President Bush, the New York Times runs a front-page story: The Democrats are in serious trouble. Although Bush's approval ratings are low, the presumptive Democratic nominee can't get any traction. His campaign "continues to confront a cloud of doubts and reservations," the Times says, and voters are complaining that he hasn't offered the country a clear vision for the future.
It may sound like the Times on John Kerry in 2004. In fact, it's the Times on Bill Clinton in 1992.
Now the Weed hasn't got a Perot doggin him...he has his record and shitload of enemies from the Pentagon, to Democrats, to the French, to the shamed media and now even the Germans who are calling for Dumsfeld's head...
LONDON (AFP) - Britain's influential Financial Times newspaper demanded the resignation of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners and issued a stinging criticism of his boss, George W. Bush.
"Donald Rumsfeld professes to take responsability for the outrages at Abu Ghraib prison (near Baghdad). But nobody will believe it until he and others at the top of the command chain are fired," the FT said in an editorial.
The paper gave a damning assessment of the US-led occupation of Iraq (news - web sites), which it called "a seamless catalogue of errors and misjudgements, of arrogance and ignorance", and said Bush should take the blame for the failure.
"If he cannot take the essential minimum of measures to restore his country's reputation, he does not deserve to stay in the White House," the daily said.
"He (Bush) is not up to the job. This is not a moral judgment, but a practical one. The world is too complex and dangerous for the pious simplicities and arrogant unilateralism of George W. Bush," the FT said in a separate article.
When you, I and other John Kerry supporters look in the mirror, that's what we should tell ourselves. Should we be proud of the extraordinary grassroots accomplishments of John Kerry's campaign so far? Of course, we should. But, if we're serious about winning, we've got to realize that the true test of our commitment is ahead of us, not behind us.
In fact, it's staring us right in the face. We knew that the Republican attack machine was going to come after John Kerry hard. But, I have to say, even I have been surprised by how vicious they've been. They've even tried to attack the military record of a Vietnam war hero. It's painfully clear they will stop at nothing.
Let's fight back.
Let's do it again. Please click here to make a secure contribution:
https://contribute.johnkerry.com
The amazing energy and commitment of hundreds of thousands of people helped John Kerry raise $55 million in the first quarter of 2004. That's more money in one quarter than any campaign in history, including the incumbent's. The Republicans thought we would let our presidential candidate be rolled over by their massively-funded attack machine. We said, "Think again."
But here's why we can't rest, not even for a moment.
The Republicans think they have absorbed an early unexpected burst of energy from our side. And now they're planning on taking the initiative back, counting on us to lose steam and settle back down.
In March, John's campaign could rely on the energy and excitement of his primary victory and, in the fall, he'll be able to count on the enthusiasm and pressure of a fast-approaching Election Day. But right now, he is relying on you and me. Let's stand shoulder-to-shoulder with John Kerry -- and let's win.
Judy Woodruff reports that BUsh is planning several foreign trips over the next months..
Considering that every one of his trips thus far have been a disasters and consdering that most world leaders want him back at his fake ranch YESTERDAY..
Bill Schnieder - CNN Chief Political Analyst: "Most Americans now think that the Iraq war was not worth the costl. The disaffection with the war and the growing sense that America cannot win it will doom Bush's presidency"
a senior military intelligence officer experienced in Middle Eastern affairs said he thinks the administration needs to rethink its approach to Iraq and to the region. "The idea that Iraq can be miraculously and quickly turned into a shining example of democracy that will 'transform' the Middle East requires way too much fairy dust and cultural arrogance to believe," he said.
WASHINGTON - (AP) - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) has been endorsed by the national Reform Party, giving him ballot access in seven states, including Florida and Michigan, party leaders announced Wednesday.
Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said Nader welcomes the support but plans to continue running as an independent. He said Nader would decide on a case-by-case basis whether to accept the ballot lines in each state.
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush's job approval rating fell to 44 percent from 48 percent in April, following revelations that U.S. soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners, a poll by the Pew Center for the People and the Press shows.
The percentage of Americans who think the nation is headed in the right direction is at 33 percent, an eight-year low, and 61 percent said they are dissatisfied with ``the way things are going in this country,'' the Pew survey said. In an election match-up, Democratic presidential rival John Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, leads Bush by 50 percent to 45 percent.
Voter Anxiety
``Economic growth in 2004 cannot undo the anxiety from health care coverage and costs, low wage growth, a soft labor market over the last three years, and exploding budget deficits,'' Mann said. ``And it's hard to see how Iraq can be stabilized by November.''
``The current international environment is bad for Bush, and the poll numbers reflect growing pessimism and concerns,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. ``He'd likely lose if the election were held today. But we are still five months out, and circumstances could be very different then.''
CPA says Berg refused to leave Iraq...
He believed Bush.
Was he looking for the Village of Hope, AceOfSpades Mayor?
"Still getting panic attacks, even after looking at my two posts below on the latest Gallup and Pew data? And despite everything I've been saying for weeks about all the damage Bush is sustaining, remember it's a referendum on the incumbent, it's too early to expect Kerry to have a big lead, etc?
Sounds like some stronger medicine may be required. You need to immediately check out the two columns mentioned below and then resume your deep breathing exercises.
The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger."
We saw the same dynamic in the 1980 race. President Jimmy Carter's favorable rating in the Gallup surveys sank from 56 percent in January to 38 percent in June, yet he still led Ronald Reagan in Gallup's horse-race measures. For much of the rest of the campaign, voters who disapproved of Mr. Carter couldn't decide whether Mr. Reagan was an acceptable alternative. Through the summer and early fall, the lead changed back and forth, and CBS/New York Times and Gallup polls showed conflicting results — at one point in August, Gallup found Mr. Reagan ahead of President Carter by 16 percentage points, yet just two weeks later it registered a dead heat. It was not until the two men held a televised debate eight days before the election that Ronald Reagan gained legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.
from brad delong's web site, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times has had it:
I am a huge admirer of the US.... neither hostile to Republican administrations nor opposed to the use of force.... I preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern, in 1972, and George H.W. Bush to Michael Dukakis, in 1988.... But if I find the Bush administration's foreign policy disturbing, so must the vast majority of humanity....
So what is wrong with this administration? Put simply, it fails to understand the basis of US power, mis-specifies US objectives and is incompetent.
Another article in this week's nyer was highlighting the success an exgoper is having raising money for kerry from gopers. Still small, but growing.
I think the gopers thought by electing bush that the "grownups" would be in charge...instead they got the spoiled brat.
McCain is on Diane Rehm, quite eloquent, as usual. How pitiful and inarticulate is Bush by comparison. If I were a Republican I would be starting a dump Bush/nominate McCain movement. McCain HAS been appearing quite a lot in the media lately.???
My wife says that Kerry suggested that McCain would be the SecDef in a Kerry admin. I've only seen Kerry suggesting that McCain should be considered to replace Rumsfeld. Are any of you aware of Kerry hinting at a place for McCain in Kerry's cabinet?
Yeah, on several levels of smart. It would appeal to McCain Repubs and conservative swing voters. It would take a Repub incumbent out of the Senate, though I doubt that this would actually give a Dem a chance at the Arizona seat it's worth the shot. It would give Kerry a chance to turn Bush's ludicrous "I'm a uniter not a divider" sound bite around to bite Bush.
I wish that Kerry would announce several likely Cabinet members when he announces his VP selection.
A: As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool. Jake Weisberg
Bush's War on Iraq is a failure...His last desperate gambit is a forlorn hope that he can distract the American public with blood and circuses through November.
I believe this is the first time I've seen this in a public poll: Bush's approval rating on Iraq has been measured below 40 percent. In tThe latest CBS News poll, conducted May 11, his rating on Iraq clocks in at 39 percent approval/58 percent disapproval (only 37 percent among independents).
Also in the poll, his overall approval rating is down to 44/49 (42/46 among independents) and his approval rating on the economy is now just 34/60 (30/62--more than 2:1 disapproval--among independents). And even his rating on handling the campaign against terrorism is a less than stellar 51 percent.
So, let's see, his overall rating is 44 percent and his average rating in what are probably the top three issue areas--the economy, Iraq and terrorism--is now a dismal 41 percent. Lo how the mighty have fallen.
And, wait, there's more. For the first time, less than 30 percent (29 percent) say the result of the Iraq war was worth the loss of American life and other costs, compared to 64 percent who say it wasn't worth the costs. And among independents, it's now an amazing 3:1 against the war being worth it (69/23).
The poll has a similarly lop-sided result on whether US is in control of the Iraq situation. By 57-31, the public says the US is not in control of events in Iraq, a margin that rises to 59/25 among independents--almost 2:1. The increasing sense of lack of control is probably an important reason for the increasing willingness to turn over control to the Iraqis as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable, rather than keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary (now 55-38 for turning over control, up from dead-even at 46-46 in late April).
John Kerry leads George W. Bush among likely voters in Ohio according to a survey by the American Research Group. A total of 49% of likely voters say they would vote for Kerry if the presidential election were being held today and 42% say they would vote for Bush. A total of 2% of likely voters say they would vote for Ralph Nader and 7% of likely voters are undecided.
In a race between just Kerry and Bush, Kerry is at 50%, Bush is at 43%, and 7% are undecided.
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'. We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drummin'. Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it. Soldiers are gunning us down. Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her and Found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?
Gotta get down to it. Soldiers are cutting us down. Should have been done long ago. What if you knew her and Found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'. We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drummin'. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio. Four dead in Ohio.
Lunatic Fringe I know you're out there You're in hiding And you hold your meetings We can hear you coming We know what you're after We're wise to you this time We won't let you kill the laughter
Lunatic Fringe In the twilight's last gleaming This is open season But you won't get too far We know you've got to blame someone For your own confusion But we're on guard this time Against your final solution
We can hear you coming (We can hear you coming) No you're not going to win this time We can hear the footsteps (We can hear the footsteps) Way out along the walkway Lunatic Fringe We know you're out there But in these new dark ages There will still be light
An eye for an eye Well, before you go under Can you feel the resistance Can you feel the....thunder
Senate Democrats and Republicans attacked Bush administration officials on Thursday for submitting a vaguely worded request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning on Oct. 1. The new money would be added to the more than $400 billion already sought for military uses worldwide in fiscal 2005. Lawmakers complained that the new request lacked specific details and sought to circumvent the Senate's oversight role.
Bush and Kerry are tied in Oregon, according to a poll out Friday.
Kerry was at 47 percent, Bush at 45 percent and independent Ralph Nader at 3 percent, the Research 2000 poll found. In a two-way race, Kerry was at 50 percent and Bush at 46 percent
The poll of 603 likely voters was conducted for the Portland Tribune-KOIN-TV from May 6-10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Both say electing Kerry is their top political priority this year and are trying to tamp down Ralph Nader's popularity among disaffected voters who have not yet warmed to Kerry's message.
"I tell my Green Party and Naderite friends that when the house is on fire, it's not time to talk about remodeling," Huffington said. "You put the fire out first."
If Independent Ralph Nader is among the choices, Kerry gets 49 percent, Bush 44 percent and Nader 6 percent.
Bush's overall job approval rating fell from 49 percent to 46 percent since the last CNN/Time poll on April 8, while his disapproval rating rose from 47 percent to 49 percent -- the first time that more people disapproved of Bush's job performance than approved.
2 T chili powder 1 T garlic salt 1 T paprika 1 T pepper 1 t cayenne pepper DIRECTIONS Mix all ingredients together in bowl. Rub well into DEAD meat and let stand 2 hrs or overnight in fridge. Cook as usual with BBQ sauce.
The International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) endorsed John Kerry on Friday. The union endorsed George Bush in 2000.
But IBPO President David Holway said that "after three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a President with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement."
It's amazing, by the way, how Colin Powell seems to have scuttled his good-soldier routine altogether, criticizing his president at first quasi-anonymously (through Bob Woodward's new book), then through close aides (Wil Hylton's GQ article), and now straight up in the Baltimore Sun. One wonders when he'll go all the way and start making campaign appearances for John Kerry.
Describing Miller and Kerry as "fellow Democrats" will mislead the uninformed, casual reader into taking "Democrat" Miller's criticism of Kerry seriously, not realizing that Miller has left the party to vote with Republicans on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. Miller's statements regarding John Kerry are no more unbiased, credible or significant than Tom Delay's would be.
Zell has obviously noted that a good living can be made on Fox News (sic) and like-minded outlets as a "Democrat" or "former Democrat" who shits upon real Democrats. He's spending his last year in politics applying for the job.
The latest Bush TV ad airing here in Ohio cites some newspaper criticisms of John Kerry. The first is a quote from Rupert Murdoch's tabloid Boston Herald; of course, this right-wing fishwrap bashes Kerry.
But the ad tries to give the Herald credibility by identifying it as "Kerry's hometown newspaper." I guess Karl Rove thinks we ignorant midwesterners won't know the difference.
PHOENIX (AP) -- President Bush's job approval ratings are hitting the lowest levels of his tenure as problems in Iraq crowd out other issues for voters, public opinion specialists say.
A Newsweek poll released Saturday put Bush's overall job approval at 42 percent, the lowest yet in that poll. Other recent survey have rated Bush in the mid-40s. .................................................
Bush's approval on how he has handled Iraq has dipped to 35 percent in the Newsweek poll, compared with 44 percent in April. Some 57 percent of respondents said they disapprove.
Despite the doubts about the president's Iraq policy, Bush and his rival, Democrat John Kerry, are essentially tied in a two-way matchup -- Kerry at 46 percent and Bush at 45 percent. They are also tied when independent Ralph Nader is included in the race.
What's happened down here is the wind has changed clouds move in from the nowth an it stawted to rain...
PHOENIX - President Bush (news - web sites)'s job approval ratings are hitting the lowest levels of his tenure as problems in Iraq (news -web sites) crowd out other issues for voters, public opinion specialists say.
AP Photo
A Newsweek poll released Saturday put Bush's overall job approval at 42 percent, the lowest yet in that poll. Other recent survey have rated Bush in the mid-40s.
It appears you welfare lovers in Taxeorgia are sucking at the federal government's teat! Taxeorgia gets more from the federal government than it sends in taxes! For every buck you freeloaders send to DC you get $1.01 back! What of Massachusetts? Well, suprise surprise! Massachusetts is supporting layabouts like Taxeorgia! A whopping $.25 of every dollar Massachusetts sends to the Feds is stolen from them and redistributed to states which can't manage to take care of themselves, like Taxeorgia.
In Message # 5641 I complained about the unwarranted significance given to Zell Miller's criticism of John Kerry because Miller is (nominally) a Democrat.
This morning the opening teasers on Fox News (sic) Channel's "Fox and Friends" included the headline, "Prominent Democrat Rips Kerry." My blood pressure rose.
But when the Fox chuckleheads got to the Miller clip, they discounted his remarks because of his well-known Republican affilation and even noted that in 2001 Miller had complimented Kerry and said he was strong on defense! (FYI, the subject quotes are included here.)
Zell Miller is such a whore even Fox News takes note? Now THAT'S a whore.
Wow! Powell’s press aide pushed Russert’s cameraman off Powell’s head when Russert asked if he (Powell) regrets his testimony at the UN (that helped start the Iraq War), now that it is known that Powell’s information was based on false intelligence from a secret agent named, “Curveball.“
Powell admonished his press aide and told the cameraman to refocus on him. Powell then told Russert to restate his question. Russert did and Powell said he did regret his testimony in light of the new information.
Powell's little MTP gaffe is being shown all over the gabfest shows this morning...I'd bet the aide that shoved the camera is looking for a job by tonight.
President Bush sought to soothe his conservative base in a speech before the American Conservative Union last night, invoking the names Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
But Knight-Ridder reports that Bush faces sharp dissent from conservatives "that could force him to change course on the war in Iraq and other issues or risk losing critical support for his re-election campaign."
"The complaints are rising from the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party — including such influential voices as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and columnist George Will, who are challenging the 'neo-conservative' doctrine that the United States can remake the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein and nurturing a democracy.
"...If dissatisfaction over the war and other hot-button issues --such as soaring federal-budget deficits, an expensive new Medicare drug entitlement and a proposed near-amnesty for illegal immigrants --spreads through conservative ranks, it could force Bush to change course or face the prospect that some conservatives might sit out what's expected to be another close election. Bush tried to rally his base last night, addressing the 40th annual meeting of the American Conservative Union in Washington. He stuck to his Middle East vision of a new democracy in Iraq."
" ... Days earlier, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested Bush's vision of America's role may be unrealistic and unwise. 'We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering"
The most important and most effective part of any political campaign is Field Ops one on one contact. Studies have shown that face to face contact is as much as three times more effective than TV advertising and 10 times more than mailings or emailings
This is particularly the case for democrats in general and this year in particular inasmuch as Kerry polls very well among usually low turnout groups, kids and independents....
You can join the Kerry Field Operation in your area by clicking here .
Even if you think pavement pounding and face-to-face with strangers isn't your thing, try it! Too shy or unable, sign up anyway..you will see a box for on line work
The Russert Potato was still fuming on the Today Show
"Emily, get out of the way" - Salon
Powell's newsworthy admission about the WMD "evidence" wasn't even the most exciting part of Meet the Press yesterday.
From Howard Kurtz: "Anyone who saw 'Meet the Press' yesterday witnessed quite a moment: A State Department staffer tried to pull the plug on Tim Russert yesterday. Toward the end of a 'Meet the Press' interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jordan, the camera suddenly moved off Powell to a shot of trees in front of the water.
"You're off," State Department press aide Emily Miller was heard saying.
"I am not off," Powell insisted.
"No, they can't use it, they're editing it," Miller said.
"He's still asking the questions," Powell said.
Miller, a onetime NBC staffer who recently worked for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also told Powell: "He was going to go for another five minutes."
Undeterred, Russert complained from Washington: "I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that." He later said, "I think that was one of your staff Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate."
As the delay dragged on, Powell ordered: "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please." Powell's image returned to the screen, and Russert asked his last question.
What happened was that both NBC and Fox News were using Jordanian television facilities for back-to-back Powell interviews. Russert was allotted 10 minutes, and was asked to wrap when he went over by about two minutes. He said "Finally, Mr. Secretary," but abruptly lost his guest.
Consumer Alert: This longish and scary piece dated 2001 appears to be on the site of a political opponent but it rings true to me (Sorry, I'm too lazy at the moment to scour Washington Post archives for confirmation).
In it Emily Miller (Colin's wannabe censor) is revealed as a former spokesperson for DeLay and Tom is outed by his brother as a dry-drunk for Jesus.
He (Randy Delay) believes his brother's fiery aggressive side is driven largely by unresolved anger. "Tom's compulsive behavior, it's a way of life," he says. All four of the DeLay siblings have become deeply religious, and Randy thinks that is not a coincidence. "Through alcoholism, I believe God has made us dependent on Him. I believe the pain of alcoholism brought us all to Christ. That's the way God works."
Fifty years ago today, nine judges announced that they had looked at the Constitution and saw no justification for the segregation and humiliation of an entire race," Bush said at the opening of a national historic site at Monroe Elementary, a former all-black school in the heartland of the school desegregation effort.
"Here on the corner of 15th and Monroe, and in schools like it across America, that was a day of justice, and it was a long time coming," the president said.
Judges at the constitution and finding things that no one had before..
Sound familiar? It should
That's the very argument Bush used in his 2002 campaigning..and again in his culture war against gay and lesbian marriage (he and NitWit Romney)...
Gotta get rid of those judges that invent laws..that see things in the constution that none had seen before.
I wanted to give our top Democratic activists (AHEM! :) ] an update on where our campaign stands, and the grassroots way you can help the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee on our road to victory.
George Bush and Dick Cheney have spent $70 million on misleading ads. That's almost double what John Kerry has spent taking his positive message directly to the American people. Yet in nearly every poll, we're ahead.....
Hang in there and keep working. Together, we'll win.
Thank you, Mary Beth Cahill Campaign Manager, John Kerry for President
P.S. Here's the national polling data I mentioned earlier:
National Polls Show Kerry Well Positioned to Beat Bush Poll after poll conducted in May show John Kerry more than holding his ground as the race remains extremely tight, despite huge Bush spending on ads. This shows our me
Once A Politician's Trust Scores Go...You Can Stick a Fork in Him
A Question of Trust Here's a result from that recent Time/CNN poll that I never got around to flagging but it's an important one: Bush's status as "a leader you can trust" as opposed to one about whom "you have some doubts and reservations" continues to decline. For the first time, he's under 40 percent on this one, with 39 percent saying he's a leader they can trust, compared to 59 percent who have doubts and reservations (37/61 among independents).
Also dipping below 40 percent for the first time in this poll is the number who say the war against Iraq was "was worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs". That's now down to 37 percent, as against 56 percent who say the war hasn't been worth those costs (35/60 among independents).
In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called "Curve Ball" had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological chemical weapons.
How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?
Today on Crossfire...and not bad questions for this thread, either:
In the Crossfire… surging gas prices are fueling a new round of debate as the presidential candidates play pocketbook politics. As the summer travel season starts for millions of Americans, the thought of paying more than two dollars for a gallon gas may have families tightening their belts. But the possibility that an increase in consumer prices will put the brakes on an otherwise zooming economic recovery has government leaders racing to find a solution.
Did Democrats green-light higher prices when they killed the president's plan to drill in the arctic reserve? Is Bush's energy plan really just a giveaway to oil executives as John Kerry suggests? Should Bush release some of the nation's oil reserve? Would increased supply really lower your price at the pump? Does the summer hike in prices threaten the economic recovery? Does Kerry have an energy plan of his own? And will higher prices at the pump affect votes at the polls?
A week or two ago a motion to amend Senate legislation to provide an extension to existing unemployment benefits failed by a 59-40 vote (60 votes being needed for procedural reasons). The only Senator to miss the vote was John Kerry, who was off campaigning.
Right-wing commentators have had sport with decrying Kerry's selfishness and irresponsibility in missing this vote, which they say would have passed had Kerry only shown up for the vote. An example is this story in Rupert Murdoch's right-wing Boston Herald (i.e., as the Bush-Cheney campaign calls it, "John Kerry's hometown newspaper").
However, it would have been an easy matter for one or more of the twelve Republicans who voted for the amendment to change his or her vote if Kerry had been there to vote. And in fact, as reported in "The Hill", Republican Elizabeth Dole was prepared to switch her vote if necessary:
"The one-vote defeat of an extension of unemployment benefits last week has sparked fear among Democrats that Republicans have developed a legislative model that will cast Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) repeatedly in a bad light before the election.
"The extension needed 60 votes to pass in the Senate, and 12 Republicans made sure the final tally was 59-40, with only one absentee, presidential candidate Kerry.
"At least one Republican senator, Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), was prepared to switch to a “no” vote to make sure the measure was defeated even if Kerry returned to cast his vote, a Democrat charged.
"Even if Dole had stood firm, observers on both sides believe the GOP leadership would have been able to turn other Republicans to ensure defeat.
"But by calculating the vote to a nicety, the GOP managed to make Kerry appear to be responsible for the defeat because he was a no-show.. . .
"Asked whether Republicans manipulated the outcome of the vote, Eric Ueland, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) deputy chief of staff, flashed a smile and replied: 'I have no comment — and that’s on the record.' . . ."
I'm sure we'll hear the tale about "Kerry's no-show" again before the election is over, but only the uninformed, naive or willfully disingenous will spread it.
Alexandra Kerry, 30-year-old daughter of US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, walked up Cannes' celebrated red-carpet for the premiere of Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill 2" wearing an off-shoulder black number that turned transparent under the flashes.
Kerry, who is showing a short film at the festival, was tailed by the press during her stay at Cannes but French newspapers reported that her staff had warned journalists off questions concerning her famous father.
Her film entitled "The Last Full Measure" is being presented in the Short Film Corner section and describes the ravage wreaked on a US family by the Vietnam war.
"The characters are fictional", she said. "I wasn't born when my father came back from Vietnam."
Kerry has also been seen about town with her French cousin, Brice Lalonde, a former environment minister and Greens leader.
I had a sweater that showed up transparent under a flash like that...of course, I had more on under it than she did but still, you can't always tell how things will look under flash bulbs.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With turbulence in Iraq (news - web sites) pushing down President Bush (news - web sites)'s approval ratings to their lowest level ever, worried Republicans are taking consolation that the presidential election is 5 1/2 months away.
"I'm glad the election is not being held today. But you know what? It's not being held today," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.
Republicans said the key to Bush's rebounding is to bring a sense of stability in Iraq. The Bush administration is hoping that process will be aided by the scheduled June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government.
"They need to have a successful handoff of the government and show the American people that there's an end game," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative "Weekly Standard" magazine, told Fox News Sunday it appears people have doubts about Bush they did not have a few months ago because "they're not confident we have a credible strategy for winning in Iraq."
"If they believe we can win in Iraq, I think they'll re-elect Bush. If they think we just have to get out of there, well, why not make the change to (Democrat John) Kerry? 'Bush is the guy who got us in the mess,"' he said.
A Newsweek poll of registered voters said Kerry was favored by 43 percent, while Bush took 42 percent and independent candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) polled at 5 percent. A CNN/Time poll of likely voters showed Kerry with 49 percent, Bush with 44 percent and Nader with 6 percent.
The polls could signal trouble for Bush, because recent history shows incumbents running for re-election with numbers in the mid-40s at this point have been defeated.
j@h, re the gas prices, it's not at all clear to me that bush needs any saudi help to manipulate the gas prices. Data from the EIA (energy info admin) suggests that part of the demand for oil has been a buildup in the US strategic petroleum reserve. They only need to stop building the reserve to drop US oil demand. I don't follow these numbers closely to know if the calculation is correct, but it's something like from q4 to q1 us oil demand was 20 mbd of which 13mbd went into the reserve. If correct, it would suggest that that alone can have a nontrivial impact on oil price. Be interesting to see if the additions to the petrol reserve stop, say around sept.
I don't think that works, thoughtful The reserve is supposed to top out at 700 million barrels, and is currently at 659. From the strategic reserve web site, the scheduled purchases, as of today:
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Inventory for May 18, 2004
Year Month Scheduled(MB) 2004 Apr 6073 2004 May 3248 2004 Jun 1000 2004 Jul 3965 2004 Aug 3235 2004 Sep 2000 2004 Oct 5600
Consumption of oil is about 20 mbd in the US. Cancelling all these deliveries would add about one and one quarter days worth of oil to the US supply.
A lot of Bush's supporters live in wide open spaces and drive great big cars hundreds of miles a month. A spring and summer of prices to the north of 2 dollars is not going to send them enthusiastically to the polls in support of the president.
Moreover, if these prices hold, then we're gonna dip back into recession. Real consumer spending will have to fall as the effects of more expensive energy works its way through the various sectors. During the embargo, Nixon and the Fed accomodated the price rises--that is, they pursued policies to raise the general price level in an attempt to disguise the fall in real income stemming from the increase in energy prices. This was the policy that led Nixon to say "We are all Keynsians now." The effects of that policy were not wrung out of the system until Volcker held steady, and Reagan took the 1982 recession.
This little morality tale is the heart of the new classical economics attacks on the neo-classicists. The policy rested on a critical Keynesian assumption--a thing called "money illusion." Keynes believed that if people saw their wages rising, they would keep spending, even though they were getting less stuff for their higher wages. The new classical guys mantra is "People aren't stupid." They eventually notice that prices are rising faster than wages, and build inflation into their various economic arrangements.
In short, if these prices hold, real incomes will fall, and consumers will buy less stuff. Aside from releasing oil from the reserve, there is little the administration can do about this.
Ok, Jay, got it. Look here and, for example, last apr the spr was 599 and this feb it's 647 or an addition of 48 million barrels in 10 mos or nearly 5 mb per month. So they have been building the spr but not that quickly. I remember reading an analyst report about it though that suggested adding to the spr was a factor in us oil demand...but clearly not as much as that analyst suggested. Thanks for checking it out for me.
Alistair, no you cannot tell. I wore a black sweater when I went to meet Irving Snodgrass in Dallas a few years ago. He had a digital camera with him and took pictures...we were all surprised to see my black bra clearly visible through my sweater.
So she may not have know that would happen. It might have looked opaquely black in the mirror at the hotel...just as my sweater did in my mirror at home.
It was an e-mail we weren't meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that "the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level"—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we're not supposed to know the National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.
But now we know.
"Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice. The Jesus Landing Pad, Village Voice
Yes vK, the unified Democratic party is alive, well and extremely relevant....from John Edwards to John Dean both working their asses off as surrogates and fundraisers
We've not seen anything like it, not seen anything yet.
BURBANK, Calif. (Reuters) - U.S. First lady Laura Bush was warned by her mother-in-law never to criticize George W. Bush's speeches, and the one time she did, he drove the car into the garage wall, she said on Wednesday.
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is slightly ahead of President Bush among registered voters in New Jersey polled by Quinnipiac University.
Forty-six percent of the respondents support Kerry, 43 percent back Bush, and 5 percent would vote for independent candidate Ralph Nader. The poll, released Thursday, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Among independent voters polled, Kerry and Bush are about even in the race for New Jersey's 15 electoral votes.
You see, I find those numbers interesting. If you listen to the Bush detractors in The Mote, you'd think the sky was falling. Fact is, though, the numbers just don't reflect that.
Let me put this another way. There is all this negative stuff coming out, and still Bush is right in there in the polls. It is almost as if people are dying to vote against him, but just can't bring themselves to do it.
Could it be because the Democratic Party has Kerry in the seat? I gather that if it were, say, Clinton or someone like him, the numbers right now would be incredibly in his favor, given all the negative publicity here.
What this tells me is that things are no where near final. Just a few good, positive reports in the months if not weeks before the election, and Kerry will probably be toast, especially if all he can do is muster paltry leads now, with all the anti-Bush reports going on.
In his analysis, Kuligan omits the failure of the Republican's extensive--and expensive--advertising campaign over the last few months to better Bush's standing against Kerry.
Talk about a not-so-fun meeting. President Bush was up on the Hill this morning meeting with Congressional Republicans to quell their growing anxiety that their job security may be only marginally greater than that of the Iraq Interim Governing Council.
The tenor of the event can probably be judged by the fact that the 'rallying cry' coming out of the event seems to have been that things are really bad and almost certain to get worse.
"We are quite simply witnessing the greatest political decomposition in US political history"
See, more exaggeration from you jexster. Can't you stand on facts at least? This isn't true period, let alone in recent political history. Bush Jr. never had the positive numbers that his father had, and Bush Sr. lost an election only a year after having over 90% approval ratings.
This thing is far from over. Anybody who thinks otherwise is naive at best.
But Jex is right in #5722, and viewed in light of Wombat's point, Bush is in real trouble. They're making a lot of money, but they're spending it earlier than they should have had to and it's not having much if any impact.
Wish we'd had time and energy to get more broadly involved. Not many people wanted to run this time, and I don't blame them after watching what legislators have gone through the last two years.
"Liar and incompetents" Came up with that campaign theme about a year ago
So imagine my pride ...
Washington -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco offered her strongest condemnation yet of President Bush on Wednesday, assailing him as incompetent and declaring that the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief.
"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.'' "It's a dangerous situation,'' Kerry said on his campaign plane earlier in the week. "You have to give the president some room to get things done, but if he doesn't do what he has to do ..."
Kerry did not finish the sentence.
"He's gone,'' Pelosi said of Bush. "He's so gone.''
I posted this in the Religion Thread in response to a comment made there, but think it appropriate for this thread as well:
"Of course Bush does stand for other things such as depriving the poor to the benefit of the rich"
I feel the need to comment on this example from wonkers of mindless, parroted Democratic rhetoric concerning Bush (and, in fact, every Repub that ever runs for office).
I am poor. By the characterization of the government, my salary falls well below the poverty level. For example, my 3-year old son may need speech therapy. My salary is HALF of the minimum level the State requires before I begin to pay anything toward that therapy.
So my 2002 tax return involves a substantial payment back to me, all thanks for the tax cuts of the current president. I can't say the same thing at all about Clinton.
What wonkers said above (and arky said the same thing elsewhere) is just bullshit, nothing less. I know because I am living proof that it isn't true. The Bush tax credits and cuts have helped me substantially, and I am "the poor."
What wonkers said above (and arky said the same thing elsewhere) is just bullshit, nothing less. I know because I am living proof that it isn't true. The Bush tax credits and cuts have helped me substantially, and I am "the poor."
Yeah right, “the poor” I know can’t spend all their time arguing about Christian dogma and defending a feckless surrogate for the opulent.
And you only did well from the tax cut because you’re a breeder—discounting the fact, that your kids are adorable.
"Yeah right, “the poor” I know can’t spend all their time arguing about Christian dogma and defending a feckless surrogate for the opulent."
Whatever WoW. I know what my salary is and what is reported on my tax return, and it squarely falls in line with "the poor" definition of the State, regardless of what you might think to the contrary. Fortunately, your opinion doesn't mean squat.
The Black Op - "Regime Change" is now in full swing. "
Sometimes we have to plug our own stuff" right?
He is SOOOO gone! note from a reader who is a former US government official ... OK, the press has now understood that Chalabi was providing US intelligence to the Iranian intelligence service. That's a start. Here are some questions you might want to ask.
Where did he get the intelligence to leak? Who gave Chalabi the leaked classified information? Was it lawful to provide Chalabi with classified USG military information that included such things as where our troops were and what they were doing? Who is under investigation as a result of the intercepts of the Iranians discussing the intelligence provided by Chalabi? Who are the investigators? Has this been referred to the Department of Justice? Did his provision of that information to Iran result in the death of US soldiers in Shi'ia areas? Are the intel leaks the reason for the raids of Chalabi's home? Are the intel leaks the reason they cut off his income? Why did the USG say that Chalabi was not a "target" of the raids on his home? (It's possible other members of his family are the ones who are being used directly to provide the intel to Iran.)
Hmmmm. Who were Chalabi's US government interlocutors? What a mystery ...
The diplomat who quit over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia asks Americans on the front lines of foreign service to resign from the "worst regime by far in the history of the republic"
There are reports that Kerry may delay accepting the nomination for a month after the convention, in order to be able to match the Bush campaign's spending.
The AP says John Kerry may delay acceptance of the demo nomination in order to continue raising and spending private money. Wow! The sly fellow. How Rovian...How DeLayish...
If Kerry's ploy will hasten the inevitable demise of the national convention as consumer of an inordinate amount of time and resources, I'm strongly in favor.
Ohio has an EMBARRASMENT of riches in the Buckeye State I am sure..
I have found precisely TWO..one is chairman of the county republican party but because he's on the Homeless plan council and we're supposed to "check our partisanship at the door"...the best I can do I did yesterday at the Council meeting...
"Alioto says we have to check partisanship at the door. She didn't say anything about wearing under clothing" Unbutton shirt - A KERRY T!
KARBALA, Iraq (AFP) - Coalition troops and the militia of Moqtada Sadr withdrew from the centre of the holy city of Karbala, more than a month after the radical Shiite cleric launched an uprising in Iraq (news - web sites), an AFP reporter saw.
AFP Photo
Ali al-Kazali, a high-ranking member of Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, told AFP, "We have decided to remove all the (Mehdi) army presence from the centre of the city as we are waiting for the agreement with the other side to be finalised this afternoon," .
A new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll has Kerry up by 5 in Pennsylvania among RVs (48-43). The poll shows PA voters turning against the Iraq war, undoubtedly a factor in Kerry's current lead.
Speaking of swing states, here's some useful weekend reading. First, check out a new feature on The American Prospect website, "Purple People Watch", which they say they will post weekly. It's a roundup of political developments, polls, etc., from the swing, sometimes termed "purple", states. It looks like it should be quite useful, though it seems oddly hard to find on their website. I also noticed that, in a state or two, the poll they cite is not actually the latest one. Still, a very useful feature and I recommend it.
And, if you haven't already, you should scoot over to the DLC's website and check out Mark Gersh's article on "The New Battleground". Gersh, the data guru to countless Democrats, has an interesting take on which of the swing states are most truly in play and, commendably, figures into his assessments how a given state has changed demographically since the last election. I don't agree with everything he says, but it's food for thought in all cases.
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) suffered minor abrasions after falling off a mountain bike while cycling on his Texas ranch on Saturday, the White House said
His findings support the hypothesis that Bush's slide in the polls has little to do with Clarke, the 9/11 commission hearings, the April Insurgency, the Bush Gulag of Torture and Death, the defeat in the War on Iraq, rising gas prices or anything else..
The analysis suggests that most of the electorate, though certainly not unaware, has not paid that much attention. At the same time however the electorate along with the Media HAS come out of our collective 9/11 Coma. Events and the perceptible change in opinion elites and the media point to an accelleration of the downhill slide of an inexorable trend - or in Nancy's words "The emperor has no clothes".
They also suggest opportunity for Bush in national disaster...that's a risky throw of the dice...will he play the come?
Eleanor Clift writes, "The Bush juggernaut looks like the Keystone Cops. What's going on would be pure farce, except it's tragedy because so many people are dying. Missiles slam into what Iraqis said was a wedding ceremony, leaving women and children among the dead. Israel is going crazy in the Gaza Strip, bulldozing Palestinian homes and shooting into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators. At home, gas prices are rising to an all-time high and in Canton, Ohio, a steel plant that Bush touted as a model last year announced it was closing, costing another 1,300 jobs in a state that has already lost 170,000 in the manufacturing sector.
Surveying the wreckage, an aide to a prominent Senate Republican termed it a 'perfect storm of bad events.' It came home to Republicans this week in a way it hasn't before that Bush could lose in November...
There is panic on the Hill among Republicans because if the bottom falls out of the Bush campaign, they could lose the Senate."
"With Bush's political strength eroding, Democrats face improved electoral prospects this fall in the House and Senate -- political terrain that not long ago seemed firmly in the GOP's grip. Recent polls indicate that problems in Iraq and continuing lack of confidence in the economy are not only hurting Bush but undercutting voters' assessment of Republicans in Congress... Democrats were encouraged by recent polls showing their party had gained an edge over the GOP when people were asked how they would vote in congressional elections.
A Time/CNN poll found that 53% said they would vote for a Democratic candidate for Congress in their district, compared with 40% who said they would back the Republican. A survey for the Associated Press reported that that 50% wanted Democrats to win control of Congress, compared with 41% favoring the Republicans."
Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader," Pelosi told the San Francisco Chronicle in a 45-minute interview Wednesday in her Capitol office. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon."
"There's a terrible sense of dread filtering across America at the moment and it's not simply because of the continuing fear of terrorism and the fact that the nation is at war. It grows out of the suspicion that we all may be passengers in a vehicle that has made a radically wrong turn and is barreling along a dark road, with its headlights off and with someone behind the wheel who may not know how to drive."
Bush Approval Slides as 65% Cite `Wrong Direction,' Poll Says
May 24 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush's job approval rating fell to the lowest level of his presidency and 65 percent of Americans -- the highest since 1994 -- say the country is on the ``wrong track,'' according to a CBS News poll.
Concern about the situation in Iraq contributed to Bush's job approval rating of 41 percent, down from 44 percent two weeks ago and 66 percent a year ago, the poll said.
As concern about the situation in Iraq grows, 65 percent now say the country is on the wrong track — matching the highest number ever recorded in CBS News Polls, which began asking this question in the mid-1980's. Only 30 percent currently say things in this country are headed in the right direction. One year ago, in April 2003, 56 percent of Americans said the country was headed in the right direction.
The last time the percentage that said the country was on the wrong track was as high as it is now was back in November 1994. Then, Republicans swept into control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades.
Majorities disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is handling foreign policy and the economy. Terrorism remains the only positive area for the president — a majority of 51 percent approve of the way he is handling the campaign against terrorism. But that number matches his lowest rating ever on terrorism.
I'm reminding myself to be cautious of premature exhilaration...but I do believe I'll toast this news with a glass of Tito's handmade vodka.
Public approval of President Bush's handling of the conflict in Iraq has hit its lowest point in the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll, with growing fears that the United States is bogged down, rising criticism of Bush's handling of the prison abuse scandal and slippage in support for keeping U.S. troops there until order is restored.
Support for Bush on virtually every aspect of the Iraq conflict has declined in the past month as the administration has battled insurgents on the ground and grappled with the expanding investigation into the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.
NEW YORK -- ABC, CBS and NBC decided not to offer live coverage of President Bush's speech about Iraq Monday, although the cable news networks planned to pre-empt their regular programming for the address.
Bush was to deliver the first in a series of speeches about the future of Iraq at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC all said they would carry the speech live.
Bush won't allow any other sort in the TV media pool...the boy's gotta do what a boy's gotta do
May 24, 2004
Bush's Approval Rating Now Net Negative on War on Terrorism! Wow! Not only has Bush's approval rating on handling the war on terrorism been dropping like a stone, the Annenberg Election Survey has now measured it in net negative territory: 46 percent approval/50 percent disapproval (May 17-23). That's a first and a very significant first. It means Bush's area of greatest strength is rapidly turning into political liability.
And check out the internals on this question: 41/53 among independents; 41/56 among 18-29 year olds; 41/56 among Hispanics and 40/54 among moderates.
The poll also finds the public now saying that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib followed orders (48 percent), rather than acted on their own (30 percent). That's a switch from two weeks ago when it was 47-31 the other way.
The poll has Bush's approval rating on Iraq at 39/57, including just 33/61 among independents and 30/66 among Hispanics. And, on whether "the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, or not", the poll finds just 40 percent saying it was worth it, compared to 54 percent who say it wasn't. Among independents, the split is slightly more negative at 39/55, much more negative among moderates (30/64) and stunningly more negative among Hispanics (22/75).
These numbers are bad enough, but the numbers in the new CBS News poll (May 20-23) are, if anything, even worse.
As the CBS News polling analysis puts it:
The last time the percentage that said the country was on the wrong track was as high as it is now was back in November 1994. Then, Republicans swept into control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades.
The poll also finds Bush's overall approval rating down at 41 percent, with 52 percent disapproval. I believe that's the lowest of any public poll during Bush's presidency. In addition, Bush's job rating on foreign policy is 37/56 and his rating on the economy is 36/57.
Speaking of the economy, only 20 percent believe Bush administration policies have increased the number of jobs in the US and more people now believe the economy is getting worse (32 percent) than getting better (23 percent). Last month, the figures were roughly reversed at 30 percent better/26 percent worse.
Guess that better be a hell of a speech tonight! The public does not seem, shall we say, to be in a particularly receptive mood for the president.
The 41% approval for President Bush in the CBS poll is pretty bad. But I hear the internals -- the details of the poll -- are even worse.
-- Josh Marshall (May 24, 2004 -- 10:31 AM EDT // link // print) Down into Daddy territory. The president's approval rating is down to 41%, according to a just released CBS News poll.
WWLD: What would Lyndon do?
Lloyd Bentsen, bringing it all together with full Texasosity and history, could probably answer the above best.
Now, will someone please explain why they bother to lie about something so insignificant? Seems to me at some point lying just becomes pathological. From the daily kos:
Here's the official story line from Crawford: President Bush took a spill during a Saturday afternoon bike ride on his ranch, suffering bruises and cuts that were visible later on his face....
"It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose," Duffy said. "You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
So it's been raining a lot in Crawford, we are told. So here's the recent precipitation levels from Crawford: May 22: 0" May 21: 0" May 20: 0" May 19: 0" May 18: 0" May 17: 0" May 16: 0" May 15: 0" May 14: 0.03" May 13: 2.79" May 12: 0" May 11: 0.15" May 10: 0" May 9: 0" May 13th saw some serious rain, but other than some sprinkles on the 14th, Crawford saw nothing but sun. In the last week alone, the temperature was in the high 80s the entire time. So rain on the 13th and (barely) 14th was blamed for a Bush fall on the 22nd. As everything else, it wasn't Bush's fault. Nothing is Bush's fault.
What is this kerry idiocy about whether or not he'll accept the nomination at the convention. Can he look any more waffle-y? I understand the whole bit about spending the $$ but didn't the dems understand the campaign laws before they picked the convention date? But to even consider it just makes him look like a total, i hate to say it, dick-head.
I mean it was bad enough with gore being handed the gift of running against this inarticulate radical and blowing it. But now for kerry to be doing the exact same thing? If the dems offered up even a modicum of an alternative, he'd win hands down, but this is ridiculous. Even my radical rw xtian rightest friend (who thinks the Wall St Journal is kinda leftist) had unpleasant things to say about the bush budget and the iraq mess. I mean the dems are being handed an incredible gift, and they're probably going to blow it.
But who knew Bush was going to raise $300 million? I didn't think the idea sounded that far out in left field, and if it gets much negative noise, surely they will drop it. I haven't heard anything about it since the first time it came out.
This just in from Candice Cacciopi (recent graduate of the University of Alabama andone of the most beautiful women I have ever seen)..
Laissez les bon temps roulez!
RACELAND, LA. – Charmaine Degruise Caccioppi, Candidate for Congress, D-LA3, is proud to announce three additions to her Campaign Management team.
Taunton Melville, a graduate of Louisiana Tech University in Ruston, LA, will serve as Caccioppi’s Campaign Manager. Melville, the nephew of former La. Governor Buddy Roemer, has a long history of campaign activity and management, including, most recently, managing two State Senate campaigns in Gonzales and Donaldsonville, LA.
Mary Johnston Catallo will serve as Treasurer. Catallo, who works for Crescent Technology, Inc., is also daughter to former U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, with whom Caccioppi worked for 20 years.
Beth James, the former Director of Economic Development for New Orleans’ Mayor C. Ray Nagin, is set to spearhead the Caccioppi campaign as the Campaign Director. James worked closely with Caccioppi throughout Cacioppi’s tenure with Greater New Orleans, Inc. (formerly New Orleans Regional Chamber of Commerce). Their partnership produced a wide range of Economic Development initiatives important to the 3rd Congressional District.
“I am honored to have such experienced and enthusiastic people on board,” Caccioppi said in a statement. “With them, I will continue to wage a campaign that listens and responds to the needs of the hard-working citizens throughout our community.”
For more information, visit www.Charmaine2004.com.
Once a candidate is nominated...Federal spending caps apply.
Bush, seeking to capitalize on the death and destruction of thousands in NYC pushed the Convention back as close as he could to 9/11....we will make him EAT that..
Stay the course ...PLEASE
Now to the significance...for 5-6 weeks Kerry will be operating under spending cap..BUSH WILL NOT
Get it?
The Convention will probably delegate nomination to the DNC so that he is nominated at or about the time Bush is ...if he has not done the honorable thing..
Lyndon Baines Johnson...a dumb Texan with honor..
Give Bush NO Quarter...nowhere to run...nowhere to hide
Judy Woodruff (CNN) said yesterday "the onus is on John Kerry" to come up with a plan for Iraq that is different than President Bush's. I've heard one version or another of this theme several times over the last few weeks, including one smirking Republican stating that people might as well vote for Bush if Kerry doesn't have a better plan for getting us out of the Iraq situation.
Why? As Kerry has said to critics of his stay-the-course position, although we wish we hadn't invaded Iraq, the reality is that we are there now and need to make the best choice from this point forward. Just because Bush says "A", his opponent is not compelled to advocate "not A". (And, even though Bush and Kerry agree on the general features of the best plan, Kerry is much more likely to be able to successfully execute it since he has not alienated the world bodies from whom we will be seeking assistance._
To analogize Iraq to one of Bush's real-life misadventures, Bush has driven the car into a ditch. The best choice is to try to get the car out of the ditch (rather than abandoning it there), and try to get help from the U.N. Towing Company. The fact that Bush and Kerry agree on this doesn't mean we should give the keys back to Bush when we get the car back on the road.
To pursue the analogy : Bush denies that he's in a ditch, he keeps revving his engine and spinning his wheels, which digs him in deeper... he calls this "staying the course".
Evidently, a change of strategy is required to get out of the ditch. Bush is not the man to do that...
Personally it seems to me that Kerry is doing the smart thing by saying as little as possible about Iraq at this point.
Things are going badly. Americans feel bad about that. Some of them feel angry at the president, others rally behind him. Criticism by Kerry will be seen by some as making things worse, and felt by others as siding with America's enemies.
Closer to the election, he should propose a plan for Iraq, but any plan he proposes now will quickly be overtaken by events that he has no influence over.
but any plan he proposes now will quickly be overtaken...
Yeah, overtaken by the bushies who have not a clue as to how to extricate themselves from this mess. Op-eds in today's NYT about the similarity of approaches offered by bush and kerry, including nato involvement, un support, etc. All those things that bush so dissed with his cowboy attitude going into iraq about we don't need no help from anyone. What hubris. What arrogance. What idiocy.
Judithah, perhaps the reason you haven't heard kerry say anything about the plan is that it's impossible to fit what he says into anything resembling a sound bite. He needs to develop that skill, come up with pithy phrases (if it doesn't fit, you must acquit) kinds of things that joe 6-pack can latch onto. Pat Schroeder, where are you?
I wish there was organization among the dems to sic attack dogs on bush as the gopers do to dems and leave kerry above the fray. Instead, kerry is above the fray...a fray of silence. Not good.
Bush and Kerry's positions on Iraq are similar because Bush has moved toward where Kerry has been for a long time--greater internationalization, better diplomacy, more UN involvement. But now it may be too late. Too bad for USA, too bad for Bush.
Its hard to get the press amidst so much disaster befalling the burnt Bush thoughtful but the "attack" dogs are out there Thoughtful..
Dean, Biden, Pelosi,Rubin, Holbrooke, Clark, Graham to name 7.
Problem is Demo "attack" dogs are chihuahuaha's...GOPers are dobermans...
Reasoned, fact based, persistent I think that is shrewd strategery...for if you accept what your senses report..that Bush is in a world of shit and that the media and the public are beginning to move toward that perception too...it makes sense to encourage not snarl..You don't want to polarize any more than necessary.
Credible and purposeful.
Independents remember are not as partisan as you or I and while we thirst for Bush blood the swingers do not.....
Timing is everything .
Besides there is plenty of blood to go around about now.
It's lose-lose for him, thoughtful. He's already presented a "plan" as detailed and specific as Bush's. As long as the media continues to treat Bush's "plan" as coherent and credible (He said "five steps" so therefore there is a plan), there is no point in Kerry trying to counter it any more than he has.
For example, Bush uses the phrase "full sovereignty" more than once in his speech. Now nobody who is paying any attention at all believes this. There's no way that there is going to be a free and democratic Iraq, in anything like the time frame the president is suggesting. There's no way that the Iraqi people will be making their own decisions after June 30th. Bush doesn't care about whether these statements are true. He only cares about whether enough voters in enough states buy the statements.
Unless the media starts calling Bush on these issues, which they are starting to do, Kerry can't win by engaging these issues. Bush has gone from calling the UN "irrelevant" to having an unelected by anybody Algerian make up the list of the new Iraqi leaders--while running ads calling Kerry a flipflopper. He has stayed no course, yet calls himself a strong and steady leader.
When Kerry says we need to internationalize this, they say we are doing so, so there's no difference between us, and besides, you voted for the war.
As long as they are permitted to simply lie about their positions, Kerry is at a disadvantage. Even worse, when they are permitted to set the terms of the discussion, the disadvantage is increased. Like Alistair said, they drove the car into the ditch.
On the CBS News result, their internals show Kerry leading by 16 points (!) among independents (51-35). My my. Considering that Kerry only needs to win independents by a few points to pretty much guarantee himself an election victory, that's quite a result.
Maybe people want statesman-like, above the fray, rational, intelligent, compentent, courageous, collected, and of course THOUGTFUL!
I only wish Kerry would shut the fuck up about Israel. Telling Israelis, and Sharon in particular, that he would continue Bush's blind support for everything Israel does -- now that is disastrous.
While I quite agree, THAT unfortunately is the reality of US electoral politics.
A president has to carefully lay the groundwork to dump on Sharon. The intelligentsia and talking heads are doing that but one has to be a fairly sophisticated consumer to pick up on it.
Sharon knows it and is playing Bush like a fiddle.
now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.
Re bush's plan, here's a letter to the ed of nytimes that puts it very well:
To the Editor:
On Monday night, President Bush explained his policy for Iraq in the first of a series of prime-time campaign ads. It was a lovely story.
On June 30, "the occupation will end"! (But our troops will stay.) Iraq will be given "full sovereignty"! (But the new Iraqi government will have no control over American military decisions for Iraq.) The Coalition Provisional Authority will end! (But its hand-picked ministers will continue following the authority's policies.) Iraq will have "democracy"! (But Iraqi citizens will not initially choose their own president, vice presidents or any member of their government.) And Abu Ghraib will be torn down! (And a new high-security prison will be built in its place.)
And they lived happily ever after.
ERICA VERRILLO Williamsburg, Mass., May 25, 2004
The fact that they expect us and the iraqi people to buy this charade is simply insulting.
It bugs me that Michael Moore would get any credit if I choose not to vote for Bush. I fucking hate this guy more than Bush.
I punished myself by also watching a 1+ hr c-span presentation of BookTV where Rob Reiner and Adriana Huffington discuss "Winning back America".
I've got few problems with Adriana... I think she is quite smart and I appreciate her take on things... Rob Reiner pisses me off too. I think what pissed me off about a lot of liberal intellegencia is their penchant for pointing out how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is.
While republican bastards might think they're smarter than the rest of us, they know better than to go onto TV and say it.
I am probably not going to vote for Bush... but I fear that liberals are going to take as many liberties as Bush has... justifying it by saying that it's the way Bush acted.
Jay's basically got it I think. If Bush "internationalizes" ie adds $$$ and boots on the ground Kerry says "why didn't he do this two years ago as I urged"
If in the more likely event that he fails "why didn't he do this two years ago as I urged"
If he internationalizes and chaos does not abate "why didn't he do this two years ago as I urged"
If he says much more, he is accused of undermining the USofA
Bidding his time...he has said as much "It may be too late. I have to give the President room to lead. I am in no position to do it myself"
I think Kerry shouldn’t allow the press to goad him into showing his hand.
I was just polled by MoveOn.org wrt Iraq and I was in the minority in that I thought we should pull out of Iraq completely. The majority of MoveOn supporters elected to stay in Iraq which I think is more in line with what Kerry wants.
However, I still think it’s a dumb folly. We should give the keys to the UN and pay them to get the car out of the ditch—which is what they were designed to do. You don’t play tow-truck mechanic when you all you know is demolition.
Besides, there are bigger diseases looming for this sad little planet that make Iraq look like a skin rash.
Bush isn't exploiting it.... I get annoyed by it without Bush having to point it out to me.
I swear I am tempted to vote for him just to piss those people off. It's not like Kerry is much different in a fundamental sense... different policies, same gomph stick.
check that... hypocracy rubs me wrong... anyone's...
this is the main reason I'm probably going to vote against Bush... over his hypocracy, not because I think Kerry is so great... I think he's a hypocrite too. I am disappointed with Bush on the environment, about Social Security, about his handling of the war (not necessarily starting it), and about the refusal to take responsibility for particularly out of line events (such as telling Rumsfield about the steller job he's doing right after the prison scandal)... some heads should be rolling... and since they're not... Bush's will.
Pundits have very little to do with my opinion about most things... I listen to both sides.
Funny how annoying i always found arianna when she was in the middle of the rw camp...now that she's flipped to being a real lwer, she's much more interesting. ;-)
I've always liked her... I've always felt she thinks things through and can explain her position. What she frequently offers are insights, rather than "you're stoopid"
what i find most perplexing about her is how the heck she got to be any kind of spokesperson when as far as i know, her only claim to fame is that she married michael.
A curiosity: Last weekend President Bush fell off of his bicycle at his ranch (sic) in Crawford, Texas. White House spokesman Trent Duffy explained the fall by stating, "It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose."
Bush's pattern of lying about even the smallest things is hard to understand. For example, the Sunday before last Karen Hughes book about the president was reviewed. It included this little revelatory nugget:
Karen Hughes quotes George W. Bush on playing rugby at Yale: '' 'I played for a year,' the president corrected me, 'and it was the varsity.' ''
There is no varsity rugby in the Ivy League. It's a club sport. Why lie about that?
During lunch I caught last night’s Charlie Rose with Gen. Zinni & Tom Clancy.
Zinni was astonishing in his prescient assessments of everything—absolutely everything regarding terrorism, the Middle East and strategies for dealing with the world. He‘s a registered Republican and Kerry should make him VP or Secretary of Defense.
I've thought Zinni would be a good VP selection for some time. But he has been adamant in refusing to take a political stance. He did it once, he said, in 2000 and he got burned. He's not doing it again.
Strange, he seems like a real patriot who would come to the aid of his country in time of need . . . and if this ain’t a time of need, there ain’t never been one.
think he blamed a secret serviceman... at least that's what Drudge said.
Well, I trust what Drudge says about as much as I trust what Bush says. I know Kerry blamed the SS man but hell, maybe the guy was in the way.
And maybe Bush WAS on loose topsoil from dry dirt where there had been no rain for a week but hey, who's quibbling, right? I've lived in Texas almost all my life and believe me, topsoil is rather predictable with rain and without. But he might have sprinkler systems installed out there, who knows.
Drudge over the weekend cited a quote from Kerry that, evidently, no one else in the world could back up and he took it off the site later in the day. Not before the Washington Times printed it almost verbatum from....Drudge.
I went to the post office this morning before it opened and an older black man (probably in his mid-70s) was waiting, and by way of striking up a conversation he said "What do you think about marriage of those homosexuals?"
I said (conscious of being very polite) that I really didn't give it much thought (which I don't) because I'm concerned about Iraq and public education and other issues like that. We continued to visit and he seemed thrilled to visit with me, but I can't believe that was the issue that entered his mind on politics. Why would anyone care, especially when issues that directly affect them, like Medicare and Social Security, need attention? Yet there's a strong move to make sure there's no homosexual marriage in AR right now, like that would happen here in the next century without a pre-emptive law. Homophobia is a very apt term, and as easy to use politically as all the other booga-bears Right Wingers have cooked up to keep their base in line when they look ready to bolt with their votes over real issues.
Before this afternoon's 10 Yr Planning Council hearings proudly showed me this looking for my APROVAL! Pelosi and Bush
IF NANCY PELOSI were in charge of the Revolutionary War, America would be ruled by England.
The price of victory is always perseverance. Pelosi's attack on President Bush shows she would not have permitted a battered colonial army to persevere. The imperfections of war do not make war less necessary. America has one choice: It must defeat terrorism. Victory will require blood, treasure and leadership. It will not be French, German or Russian blood or treasure, and it will not be Nancy Pelosi's leadership.
Mike DeNunzio Chairman, San Francisco Republican Party San Francisco
"Damn Chairman Mike, I saw you on television and you appeared to be the soul of reason"
[Glancing toward an onlooker}
Get Mike behind a key board and he becomes a wild beast!"
Why does this guy, only one of two Republicans on the 33 Member Council look to ME for approval?
I suspect part of it is his age. My grandmother was a sweet old woman, but her views on blacks seemed completely out of place (and she's from Connetticutt). So when you consider that the vast preponderance of their experiences are from less tolerant times, it is a rare older person that has an open mind. Add to that that old people are rarely delicate about things they disapprove of... perhaps even oblivious that other viewpoints exist.
I think a lot of people (especially older folks) are nervous about gay marriage and what it all means. Personally, I think it's a fine compromise to call it a civil union and just give it all the same rights and whatnot... of course that's not an acceptable compromise to many, but I don't care. I think people expect social change too fast.
My granddad was like that, and my grandmother too, for that matter. On the other side they weren't at all, but they did have a similar approach with their beliefs. In fact, this man sort of reminded me of my granddad in some ways. To me it's taking advantage of their feelings to manipulate their votes with an issue that's not even real for them, and won't ever be.
Not that I think anything should be done to prevent that, I just think it's low.
What's really fun is when they get very old and senile and you're with them in the hospital or nursing home and they're "being themselves."
I've quoted this before, but one of my favorite comments from Flannery O'Connor about her writing was her response to a professor who was trying to paint the grandmother in "A Good Man is Hard to Find" as representing an evil witch. He'd written her to complain that his Southern students, especially, didn't want to accept the witch symbolism, and she replied that of course they didn't, because most of them had grandmothers or great-aunts just like her at home.
age is a big factor. My mother's condo, full of seniors, were sitting around one evening and gay marriage came up. She has no problem with it, but to these other seniors, you would've thought gays had just burned their soc sec checks!
My attitude, with all the war, violence, child abuse, crime, poverty, hunger, depression, disease and despair in this world, why on earth would we waste a second worrying about how people want to love and care for each other. Sheesh!
The Bush administration has been laying a foundation the last few days. U.S. News and World Report quotes "a Bush administration official" as saying "Since Spain [the Madrid bombing in March], al Qaeda has had the feeling of 'We can do this. We can affect an election.'" Today John Ashcroft contended that any al Qaeda attack this summer would be for the purpose of affecting the election, all but saying (in the words of Timothy Noah of Slate) that "Osama bin Laden wants you to vote for John Kerry."
The Bush administration will of course try to prevent any attack on Americans. But if an attack nevertheless is successful, you know that the Bush campaign will play it to the hilt. Anyone even thinking of voting for John Kerry will be accused of carrying out bin Laden's wishes.
Welcome to politics, Ohio. Of course, it may in fact be true, that Al Qaida would like to confuse the election in the US, would like to see Bush removed, etc. I see nothing even remotely earthshattering or shocking in such considerations.
They'll hit us when they can, I imagine, like most terrorists. But if it happens on Bush's watch, especially if, as Marj stated, at least one of those men has been sought for two years, it doesn't look good for his handling of terrorism that they are able to make such a political statement.
that Al Qaida would like to confuse the election in the US, would like to see Bush removed, etc. I see nothing even remotely earthshattering or shocking in such considerations.
So would I but why would AlQ want to be rid of Bush?
I also find it a bit bizarre that it is being implied that Al Qaeda "wants Kerry."
In fact, Bush is the guy who diverted the American impetus against that organization, let Pakistan off the hook when it came to Bin Laden himself, and has crippled American ability to lead international efforts against Al Qaeda.
Plus the Bush regime has removed an implacable enemy of the Islamists in Hussein, plus it has galvanized the Arabs with unflinching support of an extremist Likud, plus it has threatened other strong foes of the Islamists (Mubarak, the Sauds), etc.
Tom Clancy and Gen. Anthony Zinni discuss "Battle Ready." Ret. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and best-selling author Tom Clancy join us for more on their new book, "Battle Ready."
When asked if he'd vote for Bush, Zinni said that he was a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 but would have an "exceedingly difficult time" doing so gain
That would be civil war in the ranks, a divorce of the party from the extremely powerful religious Right, and a guaranteed two-three terms in power for the Dems.
Of course, I happen to believe that Texeira guy and have also predicted (over years, here) that there is an emerging strong Democratic majority in this country anyway. But democracy is better with a strident opposition, and for that reason I'd prefer not to see the Republicans self-destruct.
Finally, I do wish a cohesive third party would start to emerge. On the lines of the Lib Dems in the UK, a force to keep both poles honest.
"I also find it a bit bizarre that it is being implied that Al Qaeda "wants Kerry."
Well, not so much wants Kerry as doesn't want Bush. Plus, I'd say that the remainder of your post, marjoribanks, is to be contested. For example, how many attacks against American interests by Al Qaida have occurred post-9/11? How many occurred before?
Here is my take. Those guys hate us, and nothing we do can change that (short of, I suppose, bombing Israel). And if they could drop terrorist attacks on American interests they'd do it EVERY day.
But they don't.
Further, it must be remembered that 9/11 didn't happen over night, and that much if not the majority of the careful planning and strategizing for those attacks occurred under Clinton's regime.
I just don't buy the argument that Bush has made things easier for bin Laden et al. The facts do not prove that to be the case.
We've collectively gnashed our teeth about the lack of "conservative" voices in this forum, and the host of this thread has particularly shed copious tears about this tragic vacuum.
But I don't really see how "conservatives" can possibly have too different a take on Bush than is regularly voiced here. Republican partisans obviously do, but it's a dereliction of language to label the vast majority of these fellows "conservative."
True American conservatives, of the type I recognize and admire, seem to be just as outraged by the devastation that the Bushites have wrought on American military, diplomatic and economic strength.
One issue that I refuse to see in partisan terms is environment, and the safeguards that have been hard-won in a bipartisan manner over decades in this country. In this arena, the Bushites have - if anything - been even worse than they have in other areas.
Al qaida doesn't want Bush? Bush has played into bin Laden's hands perfectly by attacking and deposing his secularist enemy, Sadaam Hussein and by inflaming Muslims throughout the world with hatred of the United States. Also, Bush has made life much more difficult for moderate Arab states to remain allies of the United States. Moreover, by allowing the U.S. to become a tool of Ariel Sharon, Bush has failed to do the most important thing that would have helped curb terrorism--be an honest and fair broker for peace in Palesting. Bush has been the best possible recruiting tool Bin Laden could have hoped for.
For more than three years now, day after day and week after week, a small circle of political appointees at the EPA, the Forest Service, the Interior Department, and the Department of Agriculture have proceeded methodically to wreck the system of environmental oversight that dates back to the Nixon administration. Apart from their silence on global warming, they have overturned rule after regulation, largely ceased enforcement actions concerning pollution of the atmosphere and water, and reined in inspectors. Their work is not inspired by a grand ideological vision—it's not like Bush's foreign policy, say, with its idea of America dominating the world. Instead it's institutionalized corruption: a steady payback to the logging, mining, corporate farming, fossil fuel, and other industries that contributed heavily to put Bush in power.
The scale of this assault on the environment is so large as to be numbing. With a hundred battles occurring simultaneously and without a majority in either chamber of Congress to hold hearings or issue subpoenas, the environmental movement has been almost paralyzed. In Congress and the administration, loss has followed loss in such steady succession that even the most conventional environmentalists, usually bipartisan to a fault and reluctant to jump into electoral politics, now find themselves with a single goal: defeating Bush in November.
For example, how many attacks against American interests by Al Qaida have occurred post-9/11? How many occurred before?
Hooligan,
Al Qaeda's spread and ability to hit at Western targets appears to be far greater than before 9/11. Since 9/11, multiple attacks in the following countries (all at Westerners, often including Americans) have been attributed to Al Qaeda -
Tunisia Pakistan Indonesia Kenya Saudi Arabia Morocco Turkey Spain Iraq
Horrifically scaled plots have been thwarted in the UK and Jordan (so far as we know).
Today's news carried a report that the group has (potentially) 18,000 "troops" available for action, and its fundraising and organizational capabilities are largely unhindered. It's not a pretty picture, and there is no evidence that the Bushites have done anything since the early part of the Afghanistan campaign to improve matters.
Even in Afghanistan, the Bushites have (quite criminally) failed to complete the job required, and have diverted American resources on a harebrained scheme dreamed up by ideologues.
I suggest that everyone read Ahmed Rashid's commentary on this matter. No reporter for the Western media knows more about the country than him, and his indictment is quite total.
since September 11 there has been a far bigger blunder by the Bush administration: its failure to sustain momentum in the efforts to make Afghanistan more secure and more stable and to catch bin Laden. No hindsight is required in order to make this judgment. What needed to be done after the defeat of the Taliban should have been obvious. What successive US administrations could have done to prevent September 11 will always be debatable; perhaps the failure of intelligence to anticipate it is ultimately understandable, in view of the ponderous workings of bureaucracies. What is unforgivable is the failure of the current US administration to maintain the resources and manpower needed to rebuild Afghanistan and to arrest bin Laden after September 11, and its decision to go to war in Iraq instead.
The Bush tax cuts have limited our ability to put the money into Afghanistan that we promised, let alone what is needed to get the country on the right track. Ditto for education, ditto for Medicare drug benefits and a host of other programs.
Umm... I'm pretty sure they want us dead... and I don't think they favor or disfavor any particular regime because their ultimate goals are pretty similar to their goals for Isreal.... gone.... this is why they seek to kill whatever Americans they can.
Whatever their views, the issue before us is how best can we deal with the threat that everyone agrees they pose to us and other civilized countries around the world. It's pretty clear that Bush is not on the right track.
It's not like Al Queda popped up in response to Bush... they'd been planning for many years before Bush. Even before that there have been ample representatives of the "islamist" movement to attack western civilization. This is one problem Bush didn't cause... perhaps didn't pick the best course, but he sure didn't cause it.
True, but he played into Bin Laden's hands by not following through in Afghanistan, by siding with Sharon and by invading Iraq and deposing a secularist enemy of Al Qaida. Bush's Palestine policy and his attack on the hornet's nest in Iraq has created thousands of converts to Al Qaida dedicated to visiting terror on the USA, Europe and on moderate Arab countries.
I don't think they care either way... the attack on the World Trade Centers would have occurred whether Bush or Gore were in office. They don't care who's in office... no preference... they probably feel that the windfall of manpower and money were inevitable... Jihad man.
Well, we could argue all night about what's in Bin Laden's mind. But it's clear that we haven't come close to completing our task in Afghanistan and that Iraq has been a distraction and a failure thusfar. Also, Bush's complete tilt toward the hard line right in Israel has made converts for Al Qaida. Of course Bin Laden was plotting to blow up the World Trade Center long before Bush was elected. But it's also clear that if the FBI and CIA had been playing heads up ball and cooperating with each other it's just possible that the attack could have been prevented. I blame the FBI and CIA for this, not Bush.
"the attack on the World Trade Centers would have occurred whether Bush or Gore were in office"
I concur wholeheartedly with this. In fact, the majority of the attacks were planned and worked through during the administration which had Gore as VP.
marjoribanks, I see a difference between attacks on "Westerners" and attacks on "American interests." All I mean is, we can't be held responsible because Al Qaida attacked Bali. We weren't the ones over there overseeing the place. That is why I consistently said "American interests" like the embassy bombings in Africa, or the Navy ship in Yemen, etc.
But back to my original argument. Let me ask you a question: If you think that Al Qaida could attack on American soil TOMORROW, don't you think they'd have done it? Put another way, I'm just shocked that there haven't been more attacks on American soil since 9/11.
So then I ask myself, "Why haven't there been?" And I am left with few options, the most powerful being, "Because they have been prohibited, somehow, someway, from doing so."
Part of it might be disruption on our part... I think the other part of it is simply patience on their part... and maybe a little incompitance on their part.
Also, any talk that we have somehow "made it worse" or that Bush has made "Al Qaida hate us more" is just utter nonsense and doesn't understand at all what is motivating bin Laden and his ilk, or with the underpinnings of Islam for that matter. This hatred was here long before Bush took office and will be here long afterward.
Former Vice President Al Gore blasts George W. Bush for dangerously inept leadership and a foreign policy that has "brought deep dishonor" to the country
In its annual strategic survey, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) says al-Qaeda's financial network has survived largely intact, and that the war in Iraq has brought new recruits to its ranks.
The network's "middle managers" provide expertise to Islamic militants worldwide, the IISS adds, warning that al-Qaeda can be expected to plan further attacks in North America and Europe, and has the intention of using weapons of mass destruction. Basing its assessment on intelligence reports, the IISS's figure of 18,000 potential operatives is calculated by deducting the 2,000 suspects killed or captured since the September 11 2001 attacks from the estimated 20,000 recruits thought to have passed through al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001.
The IISS estimates that around 1,000 foreign Islamists are in Iraq and have established links with former members of the ousted Ba'athist regime to fight the US-led coalition.
The report says al-Qaeda is thought be providing planning, logistical advice, material and financing to smaller groups in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, and probably Indonesia and Kenya.
IISS interprets the Madrid train bombings as evidence that al-Qaeda has "fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the US and its closest Western allies in Europe, and established a new and effective modus operandi".
The report goes on to say that America's global image has "hit rock bottom" since its intervention in Iraq, and can only be salvaged with "an efficiently executed plan for the full handover of sovereignty" to an Iraqi government.
The US was having to realise "the awful truth that the first law of peacekeeping is the same as the first law of forensics: 'every contact leaves a trace'," John Chipman, IISS director, said yesterday. "Unfortunately, too many bad traces have been left recently, and many good ones will be needed for the US to recover its reputation, its prestige and therefore effective power."
The report says the main problem facing Iraq's forthcoming interim government is the proliferation of armed Iraqi militia groups. While these private armies may not be that strong or popular among Iraqis, the US-led forces cannot crush them, and these militias are likely to "develop increasing influence on, and a potential veto over, any decisions made by a transitional government that threatens their interests", Mr Chipman said. Strategic Survey 2003/4, published by Oxford University Press for IISS, 13-15 Arundel Street, London WC2R 3DX
So then I ask myself, "Why haven't there been?" And I am left with few options, the most powerful being, "Because they have been prohibited, somehow, someway, from doing so."
Rumsfeld was directly asked this question--had we stopped anything on American soil, and he answered that we had not.
It's my opinion that it's hard to keep suicide bombers indoctrinated in this society. The preventative detention and the disruption of command and control internationally also has to have helped.
But nobody, other than the president, who talks about this stuff seriously believes that Iraq advanced the war on terror unless, of course, he is in the administration.
A new Democracy Corps strategy memo from Stan Greenberg and James Carville.
The intro ... "Six months out from the election, the race for president has entered a new and distinct phase with Bush not only endangered, as we suggested earlier, but now with the odds against him. He is more likely to lose than win. Public confidence has collapsed on Iraq, but there is a lot of collateral damage, producing a strong desire for change. Whether it is the vote or job approval or personal favorability, Bush has become a 47 percent president at best. In almost every area, he is being dragged down by even stronger negative trends. Put simply by the voters themselves: just 42 percent want the country to continue in Bush’s direction."
Sorry vK..I figgered one passive aggressive insult deserved a few direct ones.
I do not like passive aggressives.
My weakness..one of em
And here's another!
Commentary No. 86, Apr. 1, 2002
"Iraq: How Great Powers Bring Themselves Down"
George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position, an invasion of Iraq, from which he cannot extract himself and which will have nothing but negative consequences, for everyone but first of all for the United States. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. He will diminish rather rapidly the already declining power of the United States in the world. He will contribute dramatically to the destruction of the state of Israel by furthering the suicidal madness of the Israeli hawks. Of course, there will be many persons in the world who will be happy to see such negative consequences. The trouble is that, in the process, Bush will conduct warfare that will destroy many lives immediately, lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world of a kind and at a level hitherto unimagined, and perhaps unleash the use of nuclear weapons which, once unleashed now, will be hard to make illegitimate after that. How have we all gotten into such a disastrous cul-de-sac
Kerry is delivering a magnificent speech on the WOT covered live on CNN...not slash and burn..positive in tone, substantive, calm, cool, courageous, statesman like, with an unmistakable target..
It's not even novel anymore when the Bush-Cheney campaign puts out a new campaign ad that's full of lies. But (yawn) anyway, here is discussion by "Factcheck.org":
"A Bush ad released May 25 accuses Kerry of "playing politics with national security" and implies he would repeal "wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance" against terrorists under the USA Patriot Act.. . .the ad goes too far when it says Kerry "would now repeal the Patriot Act's use" of "wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance against terrorists. . . " . . .
"Kerry's position on those matters is spelled out in some detail on his website, and it simply does not support what the Bush ad claims. .. ."
So we have more utterly shameless lies.
Maybe a TV station will stand up for the truth and refuse to run an advertisement that so misleads its viewers . . . . Nah, dream on.
Related to the subject of dirty lies, I have a correction of sorts about a lie about dirt.
In Message # 5832 I posted a link that exposed a lie by Bush spokesman Trent Duffy regarding Bush's bicycle spill this weekend. Duffy said "It's been raining a lot", when in fact it had not rained for over a week.
However, I just noticed that Thoughtful had already spotted this lie and posted about it back in Message # 5791. Way ahead of me, T'ful!
-Karl Rove has claimed that there were four million evangelicals who didn’t go to the polls in 2000, but who can be turned out in 2004. This is an urban legend.*
- Not all evangelicals are conservative Republicans. Far from it.
- Most progressives are religious.
- Conservatives and the GOP have made aggressive efforts to target Catholics. But there is no evidence that this targeting is actually working
- The GOP has also targeted Jews. Again, there is no evidence their appeals are working. In the 2004 NSRP, Jews favor Kerry by 46 points (70-24).
Moral for the GOP: Don't count your (religious) chickens before they've hatched.
May 28, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hypothetical pairing of Democrat John Kerry and Republican Sen. John McCain holds a double-digit lead over the Republican ticket of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, a new poll finds.
Kerry-McCain has a 14-point advantage over Bush-Cheney among registered voters, 53 percent to 39 percent, in the latest CBS News poll. The results were released Thursday
In a Salon interview, John Kerry talks about Iraq, his "personal" decision on a running mate and the "craven, petty, childish and destructive" politics of his opponents.
Over the last year, we've heard from the president that our policy should be to simply stay the course. Well, one thing I learned in the Navy is that when the course you're on is heading for the shoals, it's pretty smart to shift the rudder. Staying the course -- (interrupted by applause) -- staying the course is important. But staying the wrong course is not a sign of strength; it is a mark of stubbornness, and it ultimately weakens this nation and the world. (Applause.) Advertisement
If president Bush does not secure new support from our allies, we will once again feel the consequences of a foreign policy that has divided the world instead of uniting it. Our troops will be in greater peril. The mission in Iraq will be harder to accomplish, if not impossible, and our country will be less secure.
I have spoken today about the architecture of a new national security policy. But at issue here is not just a set of prescriptions; at stake is a vision of an America that's truly stronger, truly respected in the world. This is not a partisan cause. Patriotism doesn't belong to any one party or to any president or to any ideology. And if I am president -- (interrupted by applause) -- if I am president, I will enlist the best among us, regardless of party, to protect the security of this nation.
"I agree with what Gen Zinni said the other night, 'when your boat's going over Niagara Falls, you don't stay the course, you change the course" Max Cleland, Senator and War Hero
"I want to thank my friend, Sen. Bill Frist, for joining us today. … He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. (Laughter.) Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."—Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004
Bush Says U.S. Must Persevere in Iraq, Evokes WWII
At the risk of sounding like a smartie pants and losing i3b3's vote..
BOB SCHIEFER: "The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight"
Here you have the Attorney General of the US with the FBI director at his side delivering warnings and we find out not only that he had not told the Director of Homeland Security or local FBI offices but that some of the information was totally bogus. You have to wonder where in the world the President [sic] was in all this.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A handgun that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was clutching when U.S. forces captured him in a hole in Iraq (news - web sites) last December is now kept by President Bush (news -web sites) at the White House, a spokesman confirmed on Sunday.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Reuters) - Democrats hope to capture a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and gain momentum toward retaking control of the chamber when South Dakotans vote Tuesday in a special election.
Democrat Stephanie Herseth's lead over Republican Larry Diedrich has narrowed to a range of nine to 11 percentage points in recent polls. Diedrich's backers say their internal surveys show a closer contest that could be decided by 1,000 votes or fewer.
At stake is South Dakota's lone House seat, vacant since first-term Republican Rep. Bill Janklow resigned in January following a vehicular manslaughter conviction
It has now become close to a commonplace that John Kerry's policies differ little from President Bush's. Where is the difference, we hear, since both candidates are for an openness to greater troop deployment, a fuller role for the United Nations and the country's traditional allies, and dropping support for the exilic hucksters who helped scam the country in the first place.
This is a weak argument on several grounds. But the most glaring is that what we see now isn't the president's policy. It's the president's triage -- his team's ad hoc reaction to the collapse of his policy, the rapid, near-total, but still incomplete and uncoordinated abandonment of his policy.
The president's actions, if not his words, concede that Iraq has become the geopolitical equivalent of a botched surgery -- botched through some mix of the misdiagnosis of the original malady and the incompetence of the surgeon. Achieving the original goal of the surgery is now close to an afterthought. The effort is confined to closing up as quickly as possible and preventing the patient from dying on the table. And now the 'doctor', pressed for time and desperate for insight, stands over the patient with a scalpal in one hand and the other hurriedly leafing through a first year anatomy text book.
They cower like the miserable whipped bitch dogs they are!
May a thousand camels shit in their beds.
But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition. al-Qur'an 47:2
"Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts 'promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office.'"
"On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
"The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
"On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
"The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
"Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. . . ."
The actual title of this Washington Post article (although I prefer mine) is "For Bush, Unprecendented Negativity." This is typical of the media's denunciation of "negative" political advertising. However, what troubles me are not "negative" ads, but untruthful ones. At least this article addresses the false substance of the Bush ads, and not merely their tone.
Here's a thought...how about Honest George...you know in the shoes of Abe, his party founder, and his namesake George, our country's father (who was the mother BTW???)
Cheney 'Coordinated' Corrupt Multi-Billion Dollar Halliburton Deal in Iraq
Last week The Washington Post got hold of an Office of Management and Budget memo that directed federal agencies to prepare for post-election cuts in programs that George Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. These include nutrition for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeland security. The numbers match those on a computer printout leaked earlier this year — one that administration officials claimed did not reflect policy.
Beyond the routine mendacity, the case of the leaked memo points us to a larger truth: whatever they may say in public, administration officials know that sustaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes.
Jexter, are you blind or do you just not bother with other links at all? I just linked and quoted that column in the post above.
I at least try to discern if you have linked something before linking anything in and I think we could avoid a lot of overlap if you would do the same..
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — (The Hill) - Republican congressional hopeful Larry Diedrich is effectively conceding defeat in today’s South Dakota special House election before the polling booths even open.
The former state senator dramatically ratcheted down expectations during an interview with The Hill at his campaign headquarters, saying he would be happy to lose to Democrat Stephanie Herseth by only five percentage points.
I won't have an opinion on Kerry's handling of things until after the convention. Before that the #1 rule is don't screw up, and he's following it very well so far, imo.
But we need more Democratic attack dogs! Someone needs to be worming his/her way into the talking heads shows to point out fallacies in Bush ads and other things that it wouldn't do for Kerry to address himself, but that someone needs to. I do not like the Democratic Party workings at all and I hope after the elections, however they turn out, Democrats will actively address that and shake things up.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE People To Elect Charmaine Degruise Caccioppi To Congress Contact: Candice Caccioppi 504.235.8176 Candice@charmaine2004.com June 1, 2004
Caccioppi Champions 3rd District Agenda in Washington
Raceland, LA - Charmaine Degruise Caccioppi, Congressional Candidate, D-LA3, heads to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, June 1, to meet with some of the Nation’s top leaders.
Caccioppi has meetings scheduled with influential Senators and Representatives including Senators John Breaux and Mary Landrieu, Congressmen William Jefferson, Bob Matsui, Adam Smith, Steny Hoyer, and Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro and Nancy Pelosi. Caccioppi will also attend a “Meet and Greet” hosted in her honor by former U. S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, with whom she worked with for twenty years.
“I am excited to be meeting with national leaders, colleagues and friends to discuss my vision for Louisiana and the 3rd Congressional District,” said Caccioppi.
Among the items that Caccioppi will discuss are: Coastal Restoration, improving Education, strengthening Healthcare, and increasing Job Creation with Economic Development.
“I look forward to discussing these vital concerns of the hard-working people of Louisiana’s 3rd Congressional district with these respected and influential leaders. To make progress in our community, we must communicate with those crafting important legislation and laws.”
For more information about Charmaine Caccioppi, visit www.charmaine2004.com.
One seat at a time...ready to take Tauzin's seat...Charmaine - She's Good to Geaux
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Reuters) - Democrat Stephanie Herseth won an open U.S. House of Representatives seat in South Dakota on Tuesday, scoring a narrow victory in a contest her party hopes will help energize its drive to retake the Republican-controlled chamber in November.
With 777 of the state's 798 precincts reporting, she had a lead of 3,687 votes over Republican Larry Diedrich, out of more than a quarter million ballots cast Tuesday for the state's lone House seat.
Herseth's victory didn't become apparent until early Wednesday. It marked the second time in as many years the state produced a cliff-hanger election -- in 2002, Democrat Sen. Tom Johnson was re-elected by a 524-vote margin.
The win was the second House pickup for the Democrats this year and was the last House contest scheduled before November's general election, when all 435 seats along with the presidency and a third of the U.S. Senate are up.
In February Democratic Rep. Ben Chandler won a special election for an open Kentucky seat.
This article reports on the large flow of political contributions from major Wall Street financial firms to President Bush's re-lection campaign. The article notes that these firms could earn substantial profits if President Bush carries through with his plans to privatize Social Security... ECONOMIC REPORTING REVIEW By Dean Baker - June 1, 2004]
"Democratic senator - and certain presidential nominee - John F. Kerry gave the middle finger to a Vietnam veteran at the Vietnam Memorial Wall on Memorial Day morning, NewsMax.com has learned."
The story is attributed to Republican former Congressman John Leboutillier. (Back in Message # 5286 I linked another Leboutillier creation, a vicious lie about how Kerry threw away the Vietnam medals of his killed-in-action college friend Richard Pershing. That one didn't catch on, so the Republican talespinner is evidently back for another try.)
The allegedly fingered Vietnam vet was Ted Sampley of "Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry", a professional asshole who has previously spread venom against John McCain, and on one occasion even beat up a McCain staffer. (Newsmax's headline and opening paragraph merely says Kerry flipped off a "Vietnam veteran.") If Kerry ever does give Sampley the finger, it will be well deserved. But this story is unconfirmed and almost certainly false, especially since there has been no confirmation from the hardly media-shy Sampley.
as well as miscellaneous others (including some former Moties now posting at "The Perfect World"). Often the predictable lament that the liberalbiasedmainstreammedia isn't covering this story is whined.
So this implausible story, invented by one person, has been disseminated to literally millions of readers and listeners via the right-wing echo machine. And because this activity is occurring on the underside of disgusting rocks that respectable media outlets rarely look under, everybody who "heard somewhere" that John Kerry gave the finger to a Vietnam veteran will never hear or read a correction. Just another day's work for right-wing "journalists".
i can't make a working link but here's part of what cbsnews.com has on the Enron traders:
Enron Traders Caught On Tape
LOS ANGELES, June 1, 2004
When a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California, cutting power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders celebrated, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports.
"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing," a trader sang about the massive fire.
Four years after California's disastrous experiment with energy deregulation, Enron energy traders can be heard – on audiotapes obtained by CBS News – gloating and praising each other as they helped bring on, and cash-in on, the Western power crisis.
"He just f---s California," says one Enron employee. "He steals money from California to the tune of about a million."
"Will you rephrase that?" asks a second employee.
"OK, he, um, he arbitrages the California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day," replies the first.
The tapes, from Enron's West Coast trading desk, also confirm what CBS reported years ago: that in secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down.
"If you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?" an Enron worker is heard saying.
"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another says.
"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tonight's Evening News will have more of the shocking Enron tapes, plus the outraged reaction from Capitol Hill. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials with the Snohomish Public Utility District near Seattle received the tapes from the Justice Department.
"This is the evidence we've all been waiting for. This proves they manipulated the market," said Eric Christensen, a spokesman for the utility.
That utility, like many others, is trying to get its money back from Enron.
"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"
"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"
"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."
And the tapes appear to link top Enron officials Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling to schemes that fueled the crisis.
"Government Affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," says one trader.
"Ok."
"Do you know when you started over-scheduling load and making buckets of money on that?
Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.
"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.
That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.
"When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap b------t."
Crude, but true.
"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.
Both the Justice Department and Enron tried to prevent the release of these tapes. Enron's lawyers argued they merely prove "that people at Enron sometimes talked like Barnacle Bill the Sailor."
Crawford may be the heart of Bush country, but the town's mayor says John Kerry is the best choice for president.
"I don't see where I'm better off than I was four years ago," Robert Campbell said Tuesday. "I don't see where the city is any better off."
The Kerry campaign recently listed Mr. Campbell as one of 100 black mayors around the country – seven of them Texans – who support the Massachusetts senator over President Bush. But the campaign has not focused particular attention on the endorsement.
Robertjayb - Those purported Enron tapes must be forgeries. I distinctly remember 109109 and AceofSpades explaining to us that California's energy problems were caused by Democrats, not Enron.
Kerry Opens Big Lead over Bush in Critical State of Ohio: 49% to 42%!
American Research Group: "John Kerry leads George W. Bush among likely voters in Ohio according to a survey by the American Research Group. A total of 49% of likely voters say they would vote for Kerry if the presidential election were being held today and 42% say they would vote for Bush. In a race between just Kerry and Bush, Kerry is at 50%, Bush is at 43%, and 7% are undecided." Zogby also recently showed Kerry ahead in OH.
I WENT BACK TO OHIO BUT MY PRETTY COUNTRYSIDE HAD BEEN PAVED DOWN THE MIDDLE BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD NO PRIDE THE FARMS OF OHIO HAD BEEN REPLACED BY SHOPPING MALLS AND MUZAK FILLED THE AIR FROM SENECA TO CUYAHOGA FALLS SAID, A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO
-- It helped Bush change the subject off Iraq and onto terrorism.
-- It went so far into appealing to moderate Republicans that it could well give many Democrats despair that if elected Kerry won't try to undo most of the Patriot act.
Is it too much to ask that we have a choice this November?
Condo Rice was on CNN now with Judy Woodruff. I can't stand the sight of her, She disgusts me. She repeats the same packaged rhetoric over and over again. Of course she is fed the questions she wants by neocon Judy.
Chalabi denies any shenigans with Iranian intelligence ahd has "fired off a letter" to Trashcroft, Bush and the GOP "leadership" demanding the opportunity to confront his CIA accusers under oath before Congress and the Great & Noble People of the USA.
Give Glory to ALLAH! Allahu akbar..His Name Be PRAISED! Amen.
"For want of a small change to the Illinois election law, President Bush's name is not supposed to be on the state's November ballot, but officials said one way or another, it will be there.
"The glitch arose because the Illinois legislature adjourned earlier this week without extending the Aug. 30 deadline for presidential candidates to be certified by the state elections board and qualify for the Nov. 2 ballot.
"The relatively late dates [Note: I would say "the UNPRECENDENTED late dates"]of this year's Republican Party convention, running Aug. 30 to Sept. 2, mean that Bush will not be the official nominee until after the deadline set in state law. Eight other states had the same problem but fixed the date. ["fixed"? Was something broken? I don't think so. Sheesh! Some liberal biased media this is!]"
The Republicans knew what these dates were when they selected their unprecedentedly late convention date in order to obtain an advantage in the presidential election. This isn't a "glitch" that needs to be "fixed".
This will get worked out and Bush will be on the ballot, and he should be. But it's fun to see the GOP squirm a little first. Sorry, buddy - it's not MY petard!
SACRAMENTO — An initiative that would have state taxpayers underwrite $3 billion worth of research into using embryonic stem cells to develop cures for Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases qualified for the Nov. 2 ballot Thursday, propelling California to the forefront of a national battle at the intersection of science and morality.
The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative is one of 14 propositions that will face the state's voters in this presidential election year, officials said. Advocates contend that stem cell research, which would be financed by a state bond issue over 10 years, could lead to breakthroughs in curing numerous diseases.
The American Prospect's weblog "Tapped" notes a remark by Republican Congressman Tom Davis regarding the South Dakota special election win by Democrat Stephanie Herseth over Republican opponent Diedrich. As reported in The Hill:
"Republicans downplayed Diedrich’s 2,981-vote loss . . .
“If you take out the Indian reservation, we would have won,” said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.)"
??!? Maybe there's some context I'm missing here, but this seems to be a belittling of non-White voters.
"Tapped" notes something Josh Marshall wrote regarding a similar subject:
" . . . one often hears in TV commentary about Democrats and their 'dependence' on the African-American vote. It's only the African-American vote, the argument goes, that keeps the Democratic party from becoming a permanent minority party.
"That's true of course. But what's the point exactly? Presumably if you scratch out all the votes of a major constituency of any political party that would put a bit of a dent in their electoral fortunes, right?
"If you wanted to be a little nasty you might, with equal merit, note that the Republican party's goose would be cooked if we disenfranchised everyone who doesn't believe in evolution. . . .
"I don't want to overstate the point. But nestled down deep in this argument is some sort of perhaps unconscious notion that the Dems are just hopelessly sucking wind among real voters and thus have to resort to padding their totals with blacks."
President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind. In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”
Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.
“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”
After John Kerry eliminated his serious competition for the Democratic presidential nomination in March 2004, speculation began on possible running mates. A number of people have emerged as the top contenders, coming from a variety of backgrounds, regions and political viewpoints, all potentially bringing positives and negatives to the Democratic ticket.
I copied these latest polls from Salon. I can't give the link because I used the day pass. Rasmussen Reports' latest state polls, from Political Wire Oregon: Bush 46% Kerry 45% Missouri: Bush 44% Kerry 43% Georgia: Bush 51% Kerry 39% Illinois: Kerry 54% Bush 38% Ohio: Bush 46% Kerry 44% California: Kerry 49% Bush 41% Texas: Bush 55% Kerry 38% New York: Kerry 57% Bush 34%
More State Polls Michigan: Kerry 47% Bush 43% (Survey USA) Connecticut: Kerry 46% Bush 36% (Quinnipiac) North Carolina Bush 48% Kerry 44% (Rasmussen)
A CBS News poll shows Kerry is ahead of Bush among registered voters, 49 to 41 percent. CBS also surveyed veterans and says they favor Bush 54 to 40 percent, but the sample is so small --170 veterans -- the margin of error would be much higher for the subset than for the entire sample of 1,000-plus voters. Unfortunately, the CBS poll explanation doesn't say how much higher. [Update: Of course, War Room's readers are not as statistically challenged as I. A few have written to point out how really quite easy it is to calculate a margin of error (If my statistics professor from grad school is reading this, forgive me.) One reader explains: "Assuming that the sample was chosen randomly, there will always be an uncertainty that is n^(-1/2) [in other words, one over the square root of n], where "n" is the number of samples taken. ... Since there were 170 veteran respondents in this case, the square root is around 13. The reciprocal of that is about 0.077, which is 7.7%. So the margin of error for the veteran subsample is ± 7.7%." Thanks everyone. Now, moving on.
I don't know who to believe lately. Rasmussen would have us believe that the race is neck and neck. CBS and other polls indicate a strong lead for Kerry.
Historically, re-election campaigns like this are either a landslide for one side or the other, they are almost never close. So I'm inclined to believe the Kerry leading Bush polls, over the neck and neck polls.
Rasmussen is a robo poll....They're not as accurate as real ones for all sorts of reasons which I won't bore anyone with unless asked. Better than other robo polls because they're done daily. But at this point robo tracking polls are less reliable than bi-weekly real polls
I think you are right that this election won't be close. Not a popular landslide but most probably an electoral one.
Here's one reason why
June 4, 2004
The Annenberg Election Survey has just released some new data on "persuadable voters" in the battleground states (about 11 percent of the nation's public) and it is very interesting data indeed. (Annenberg defines persuadable voters as those that say they are undecided or who have a preference but say there's a "good chance" they could change their minds;}
Probably the most striking thing about the data is how little these voters like George Bush and where he's led the country.
Swing voters in swing states give Bush an overall approval rating of just 44 percent. But that's good compared to how they feel about Bush's handling of the economy and Iraq. In both cases, Bush's approval rating is a stunningly low 30 percent, with 60 percent disapproval.
That's confirmed by their responses to th right direction/wrong track question: 2:1 wrong track over right direction (59/25). In addition, 85 percent of these voters believe the current state of the economy is only fair or poor and only 14 percent believe Bush's economic policies have made the economy better.
Gallup has put out an interesting new analysis discussing the high levels of partisan polarization in views of Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, 89 percent of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, compared to just 12 percent of Democrats who approve. That 77 point gap is the highest of Bush's presidency.
Moreover, the strength of partisan approval and disapproval is striking. Among Republicans, 64 percent strongly approve of Bush's performance and, among Democrats, 66 percent strongly disapprove.
These are impressive figures, but for my money the most interesting data in the Gallup analysis are actually about independents. The analysis includes a chart of Bush approval by Democrat, Republican and independent which shows that, starting in early May, Bush's approval rating among independents dropped to 40 percent and stayed there.
That drop, if not reversed, may well prove to be the death knell of Bush's presidency. ..
Alas for Bush, this may turn out to be the election where everyone shows up. And, if that's the case, it'll be the Republican base that gets swamped, not the other way around.
The road-rage Republicans are out early this year in Ohio.
It's only June, but already the John Kerry bumper sticker on my car gets me cut off on I-71 by obese white males in their pickups and Camaros who upon seeing my Kerry sticker, roar past, swerve into my lane, and flip me the bird out their window.
Such folks form the backbone of the George W. Bush "Amway"-model campaign detailed recently in the New York Times Sunday Magazine....
At the same time, Ohio is experiencing a level of organic political activity in 2004 that I've never seen in my entire career in Ohio politics. It's happening earlier, with more intensity, and it involves more new people than ever. It's both planned and spontaneous. It is everywhere.
And every ounce of its energy is directed against George W. Bush.
A perfect storm is brewing in Ohio. The Bush road-rage bird-flippers know it's coming.
But it's worse than they think.
Mr. Rove, feel free to flip us off as you drive your U-Haul through Ohio on your way back to Texas in November.
Literary License ...actually the route home to the Grayte Stayte:
Directions Show Turn by Turn Maps 1. Start at 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON on a local road - go < 0.1 mi 2. Turn on PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW - go 0.1 mi 3. Turn on 17TH ST NW - go 0.2 mi 4. Turn on NEW YORK AVE NW - go 0.1 mi 5. Continue on E ST NW - go 0.2 mi 6. Continue on ramp - go 0.1 mi 7. ramp becomes E ST EXPY - go 0.2 mi 8. Take I-66 WEST towards DULLES AIRPORT/FRONT ROYAL - go 0.4 mi 9. Merge on I-66 WEST - go 74.8 mi 10. Take the I-81 SOUTH exit towards ROANOKE, exit #1A - go 0.3 mi 11. Continue on ramp - go 0.7 mi
12. Merge on I-81 SOUTH - go 78.7 mi 13. Continue on I-64 WEST/I-81 SOUTH - go 29.7 mi 14. Continue on I-81 SOUTH - go 110.5 mi 15. Continue on I-77 NORTH/I-81 SOUTH - go 7.7 mi 16. Continue on I-81 SOUTH - go 148.0 mi 17. Take the I-40 WEST exit towards KNOXVILLE, exit #1B - go 36.6 mi 18. Continue on I-40 WEST/I-75 SOUTH - go 16.7 mi 19. Continue on I-40 WEST towards NASHVILLE - go 154.4 mi 20. Continue on I-24 EAST towards CHATTANOOGA/MEMPHIS, exit #213A - go 0.9 mi 21. Take the I-440 WEST exit towards MEMPHIS, exit #53 - go 0.4 mi 22. Continue on ramp - go 0.1 mi 23. Merge on I-440 WEST - go 7.1 mi 24. Take the I-40 WEST exit towards MEMPHIS - go 194.8 mi 25. Take the I-40 WEST exit, exit #10B - go 11.7 mi 26. Take the I-40 WEST exit towards LITTLE ROCK, exit #1E - go 0.2 mi 27. Continue towards I-40 WEST/LITTLE ROCK - go 0.3 mi 28. Merge on I-40 WEST - go 7.0 mi 29. Continue on I-40 WEST/I-55 NORTH - go 2.5 mi 30. Continue on I-40 WEST - go 117.7 mi 31. Take the AR-440/I-440 exit towards TEXARKANA, exit #159 - go 0.8 mi 32. Continue on ramp - go 0.2 mi 33. Merge on I-440 WEST - go 9.0 mi 34. Take the I-30 WEST exit towards HOT SPRINGS/TEXARKANA - go 0.8 mi 35. Take the I-30 WEST exit towards HOT SPRINGS/TEXARKANA - go 303.6 mi 36. Take the I-635 SOUTH exit, exit #56B - go 9.4 mi 37. Continue on I-20 WEST - go 11.9 mi 38. Take the I-35E SOUTH exit towards WACO, exit #467B - go 47.6 mi 39. Take the I-35 SOUTH exit - go 136.8 mi 40. Take the 8TH - 3RD STS exit, exit #234B - go 0.1 mi 41. Continue on N I-35 - go 0.3 mi 42. Turn on E 4TH ST - go 0.4 mi 43. Turn on BRAZOS ST - go 0.1 mi 44. Arrive at the center of AUSTIN, TX
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft told Congress yesterday that he would not release a 2002 policy memo on the degree of pain and suffering legally permitted during enemy interrogations, but said he knows of no presidential order that would allow al Qaeda suspects to be tortured by U.S. personnel.
Angry Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) called on Ashcroft to provide the document. They said portions that have appeared in news reports suggest the Bush administration is reinterpreting U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.) said the memo on interrogation techniques permissible for the CIA (news -web sites) to use on suspected al Qaeda operatives "appears to be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions against it." The document was prepared by the Justice Department (news - web sites)'s office of legal counsel for the CIA and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales.
"Mr. Attorney General, your statement lists accomplishments of the Department of Justice (news - web sites) since 9/11. But you leave out a number of things. For example, of course, the obvious: Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) remains at large," Leahy said. He said that Ashcroft's "practices seem to be built on secret detentions and overblown press releases
National Poll Gives Kerry Solid Lead - LA Times WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) has a solid lead over President Bush (news - web sites) among voters nationwide, according to a Los Angeles Times poll on Thursday that cited widespread unease over the country's direction, Iraq (news - web sites) policies and the economy.
Kerry, the U.S. senator from Massachusetts, led Bush by 51 percent to 44 percent nationally in a two-way match-up, according to the poll of 1,230 registered voters taken from Saturday to Tuesday.
The figures dropped with independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) in the mix: Kerry drew 48 percent in a three-way race and Bush 42 percent, the poll showed.
Majorities disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy and Iraq, despite encouraging news on both recently, the poll said. Fifty-six percent of respondents said America "needs to move in a new direction" because Bush's policies have not improved the country.
However, in an indication of the race's volatility, the newspaper's polling in three fiercely contested states shows the Republican president with a double-digit advantage over Kerry in Missouri, with Nader included, and running even with the presumed Democratic rival in Ohio and Wisconsin.
However, majorities in each state say the country should change direction, the survey said.
Nationally, 55 percent of respondents disapproved of how Bush was handling Iraq, while 44 percent approved of his performance. On the economy, 54 percent didn't approve of the job Bush was doing while 43 percent did, the survey showed.
FIRST IN WAR FIRST IN PEACE FIRST IN THE PANTS OF SWEET BILLY, eh Pelle?
If anything,I'dthink reagan's death would work against bush. I know even I found myself longing for the days when a president had the ability to communicate clearly and inspire people, even if I disagreed with what he said. Reagan was affable if nothing else. He's also probably one of the luckiest men to have lived, having been only a b actor but managing to eke out a hollywood career, being largely unscathed by ww2, becoming a millionaire, governor, and then president of the US, coated in teflon so that even the scandals and convictions of members of his administration had little impact. He managed to create an untarnished image despite the very public facts to the contrary. He was a true xtian man, who made excuses for not going to church, and never had to explain why his wife consulted astrologists before setting up critical government meetings. The first divorced/remarried president. He was a real family man, though he spent years denying the existence of his daughter and not on speaking terms with his other children. He had the common touch though his administration increased taxes to the low income earners and cut taxes for the wealthy and his economic policies raised unemployment rates, and dealt a strong blow to unions in america.
Thoughtful - Good point. Dubya suffers in comparision to Reagan. The attention to Reagan this week may have the effect of diminishing Bush, who's playing the same con game but not nearly as well as the Gipper.
Not to mention the effects of severe overkill. I'm wondering when Saturday Night Live is going to pick back up with "Former President Reagan is Still Dead."
Not just your view Arky its now being picked up on the endless cable news blather "Raygun couldn't have lived in this poisoned political environment....etc"
Makes Kerry's overture to McCain look very very statesmanlike ...ahead by 7 points etc...
While Bush continues to slime and slur and poison...
His google indexes have change somewhat however...
My gag-reflex was about maxed out last night but I got up today grateful that the traveling circus funeral, political campaign and shamelessly excessive media extravaganza was about over. But there on page 4 of the local rag was a full-page memorial/testimonial for Saint Ronnie.
Big photo and "Thank you for your leadership and service, Mr. President." One of these deals where companies and individuals pay to get their name and logo on the ad and an association with presumed greatness. No big deal. Want to spend your money this way, be my guest.
But. But among the thirteen sponsors were four departments of our city. Well, I tell you...Snit, major snit occurred at the breakfast table. My towns tax dollars, collected from the likes of me, is being used for this partisan propaganda. I'm helping pay for this... Me who would rather rub shit in his hair than contribute to Saint Reagan mythology.
The advertising manager wouldn't tell me who in the city government okayed the ads or how much they cost. I didn't expect that he would. But he did say that advertising by the city is usually done through the public information officer.
Come Monday I shall darken that worthy's door.
If this isn't illegal it ought to be.
Someone should lose his/her head. Or at least have it slapped around pretty good.
BBC political analyst Tom Carver says Bush's effort to scoop up reflected light from Reagan -is a big mistake:
"Indeed, the Bush team faces a very real danger. The tidal wave of Reagan memories - his smiling image, his greatest hits, the feel-good associations - may end up overwhelming George W Bush to the point where the candidate is diminished not enhanced. The president's biggest problem is that he is no Ronald Reagan.
Though denounced at the time as inflammatory, Ronald Reagan's 'evil empire' remains an undeniably influential phrase, whilst George Bush's 'axis of evil' already seems like a cheap rip-off with no coherent logic."
Right now, Bush is trying so hard to wrap himself in Reagan's mantle that "there are more references to Reagan's phrase than those of Mr Bush on his own website." Most tellingly of all: "Out in front of the Capitol, more than one Republican said to me with a sigh: 'I wish we had a Ronald Reagan today.' "
Michael Ruppert and Wayne Madsen write, "Why did DCI George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?
The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence 'failures' before the upcoming presidential election. Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown."
On his recent trip to Rome Pres. Bush asked a top Vatican official to push U.S. bishops to meddle in American politics by speaking out more about political issues, including same-sex marriage. Here
Our leaders were saying the wrong things such as Rumsfeld calling the Geneva Convention "quaint" and White House lawyers writing memos explaining how to avoid responsibility for violating laws, treaties, Army regulations, etc, requiring the humane treatment of prisoners.
Jess indeed Wonk it surely do dat...and Kerry's just sittin back and throwin spitballs...
Yesterday he joined St. Nancy's call to unleash the stem cells...
Today, on Face the Nation, Sen Specter was debating with/being demonized & villified by Arch-Bushie Rev. Lou Dobson who all but called him a Dr. Mengele.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Touchscreen voting machines in 11 counties have a software flaw that could make manual recounts impossible in November's presidential election, state officials said.
A spokeswoman for the secretary of state called the problems ``minor technical hiccups'' that can be resolved, but critics allege voting officials wrongly certified a voting system they knew had a bug.
C-O-U-P A new article from Newsweek reveals some interesting cleavages in the internal administration debate ... The handling of al-Libi touched off a long-running battle over interrogation tactics inside the administration. It is a struggle that continued right up until the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April—and it extended into the White House, with Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council pitted against lawyers for the White House counsel and the vice president. Indeed, one reason the prison abuse scandal won't go away—two months after gruesome photos were published worldwide—is that a long paper trail of memos and directives from inside the administration has emerged, often leaked by those who disagreed with rougher means of questioning.
1. Sadism: ' the President has a ""lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions ... [and] pumping his fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad." '
2. Megalomania: ' The President suffers from "character pathology," including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable. '
3. Paranoia ' says President George W. Bush is a "paranoid meglomaniac" '
Dr. Frank reports that after long observations of Bush, he felt "he was disturbed."
' "I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote, and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank told Leiby. Bush, he said, "fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated."
Dr. Frank's expert recommendation? ""Our sole treatment option --for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office. . . before it is too late." '
Author Thomas Powers says the White House's corruption of intelligence has caused the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in modern U.S. history -- and sparked a civil war with the nation's intel agencies.
"Dr. Frank has been a psychiatrist for 35 years and is director of psychiatry at George Washington University. A Democrat, he once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility." CAPITOL HILL BLUE
WASHINGTON - Angered by Bush administration policies they contend endanger national security, 26 retired U.S. diplomats and military officers are urging Americans to vote President Bush (news - web sites) out of office in November.
Tomorrow afternoon yours truly is working the gate at the John Kerry rally in Columbus. Should be exciting - it'll be Kerry's first public appearance in Columbus (I think), and the first time I've seen him in person.
Just got back from the Alice B Toklas LGBTQWXRYZ Demo Club meet....lotsa stuff goin on in Cali...beginning with the first caravan to neighboring states - this one to Nevada..Arizona and Oregon also on the target list.
We're wising up...in 2000 didn't spend a freakin dime...the NoCali Gore Hdq was in an abandoned auto body repair shop..did nada...
Now we're mobilizing the State's considerable manpower and dollar resources to where they can be profitably engaged!
There's even an LGBT Kerry Site goin up on Thursday
Good to see that the Kerry Team is getting their organization up in Ohio..key state
The League of Women Voters rescinded its support of paperless voting machines on Monday after hundreds of angry members voiced concern that paper ballots were the only way to safeguard elections from fraud, hackers or computer malfunctions.
About 800 delegates who attended the nonpartisan league's biennial convention in Washington voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution that supports ``voting systems and procedures that are secure, accurate, recountable and accessible.''
Speaking of Ohio's fine work around Columbus, he'd better watch out. Ashcroft might arrest him.
I think the media is beginning to get smart...CBS spent most of its coverage discussing how the only evidence they had was the testimony of another "terrorist" the one whose BIG TERROR PLOT was ALLEGEDLY to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a pair of wire cutters.
Be careful Ohio...distributing Kerry literature in and around area malls might land you in preventive detention
The Kerry rally was a big success yesterday (except for a brief thunderstorm downpour when people were first arriving). If any Bushies got through the gate, they didn't do anything inside. The only attempted disruption was a pro-Bush homeowner across the street from the park blasting music through loudspeakers (the theme from "Flipper" - isn't that precious!). The next Kerry visit will be even bigger!
I'm off on a brief vacation this morning (Asheville, NC) - see you all next week!
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The Philadelphia Daily News on Wednesday backed Democrat John Kerry for president, saying it was endorsing a candidate early because Pennsylvania is a swing state and residents who didn't vote in 2000 must be pressed to action to defeat President Bush. ..................................................
The paper said that the Bush administration, though deserving of praise for its leadership immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has made poor economic decisions since then, been divisive, ideologically driven and has led the nation into a ``senseless war'' in Iraq.
The newspaper said Kerry, ``who fought in the swamps of Vietnam, can lead us out of the quagmire of the Bush administration'' and urged readers to register to vote and get others to do the same.
I visited my high school sweetheart in Brevard once when she was a counselor at the music camp there (by then she was in college). Such bittersweet memories of youth!
But if the Veep reports are right, then a good shot [Edwards #1 choice but for lack of natl security credential, in which case Nunn, Clark, Graham, Cohen) - to which I'd add Lousiana and Florida in the South.
Kerry will also take Oregon and either or both of Nevada, Arizona.
Our Republican governor is very unpopular and we only have one Republican Representative who's not very popular either. The party is somewhat divided at the state level. Even the Arkansas Democrat will have to hold its nose to endorse Bush. They've been pretty critical of him lately, from what I hear. I haven't read them since school was out. Part of my summer vacation for myself.
I know friends in the hills are hearing much more conservative rhetoric than we are in my part of the state and they've been pessimistic about the elections as a result. I think there will be a higher voter turnout than usual, particularly in the Delta and southwest, and that will help Kerry.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush got a boost from the public's recent focus on the funeral of Ronald Reagan and support for his Iraq policy spiked over the last month as the United States prepared to hand power over to Iraqis, according to a poll released Thursday. ..................................................
Bush's job approval rating in the poll was 48 percent, up slightly from 44 percent in May, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll of 1,806 adults was taken from June 3-13 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, slightly higher for the sample of registered voters.
Bush had a slight lead over Kerry in a three-way matchup, with the president at 46 percent, Kerry at 42 percent and independent Ralph Nader at 6 percent. Bush and Kerry were tied in a two-way race.
Confronted with the 9/11 Commission's report this week, which stated there was no collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam, the White House refuses to admit to misleading the public. President Bush said, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." But he is playing semantic games which distort undisputable facts. Top officials in the Bush administration – including the president and the vice president – have repeatedly cited a collaborative relationship - not just contacts - between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as a justification for invading Iraq. Now, after months of careful study, the bi-partisan commission investigating 9/11 says there is no credible evidence to support that claim. But instead of taking responsibility for their actions, the administration has continued to weave a web of deception. (See for yourself: Check out the American Progress Claim vs. Fact database for more statements the White House has made to push the misleading al Qaeda/Saddam theory.) .....
WHY THIS MATTERS: The Financial Times writes, "The evidence the administration produced to demonstrate the link was, at best, spurious, at worst, fabricated. This is not a small matter, especially in the context of the Bush team's case for its war of choice against Iraq." And the ramifications are huge. The Baltimore Sun writes,
"The war in Iraq is proving to be a colossal blunder. Al-Qaida had no meaningful connection to Iraq before the war, but Washington has played right into Osama bin Laden's hands by blindly sending troops into the seething desert nation."
The bombshell that Putin just dropped on the Presidential election establishes for all but the true believers, the depths to which Bush will go to perpetuate himself in power. My question is--what did the United States give up to obtain the absurd declaration advanced at this late date by Putin?
If there was any legitimacy whatsoever to what Putin disclosed today, does any rational observer believe that Bush wouldn't have used it long, long ago?
Bush and Cheney were both before the 9/11 commission. They say nothing about any Russian intelligence. Cheney is on TV constantly defending his position. Only an absolute moron would believe that he wouldn't use this information. If the American people buy this story, they deserve their fate.
Lies and Incompetence..Incompetence and Lies...Lying Incompetents Democratic Campaign Theme 2004
The key to the election is right there. It works in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in EuroRelations...it works in Asia..it works in Asia Minor...it works in red states and blue states...it works on fiscal policy..on foreign policy...on energy policy and on environmental policy...it works on corporate fraud and corporate outsourcing...it works on tax breaks for the rich and on crony capitalism
The White House's swift and sustained reaction last week to the preliminary findings of the Sept. 11, 2001, commission showed the potential threat the 10-member panel poses to President Bush's reelection prospects.
After the commission staff released its findings Wednesday that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- challenging an assertion Bush and Vice President Cheney have made for the past two years -- Bush declared again that there was, in fact, a relationship.
Democratic and Republican strategists agree that many details of the controversy do not pose a grave threat to Bush's reelection chances.
The significance, rather, is whether Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), can use the commission's findings to split the Iraq war from the war on terrorism in the public's mind, and, more broadly, raise doubts about Bush's credibility and competence by building on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the miscalculations about the Iraqi resistance.
MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - The Green Party holds its presidential convention in Milwaukee this week to decide whether to field a candidate or go without one and endorse the independent bid of Ralph Nader, who headed its White House ticket in 2000.
Nader is not seeking the Green nomination this time, and it is unlikely he will attend the June 23-28 meeting, but he is seeking the party's endorsement.
To win that, he will have to get past Green Party activist David Cobb, a California lawyer actively seeking the party's nomination. He leads its national delegate count by a clear margin and has spent the last eight years visiting 40 states, working at the grass-roots level to build ties between its environmental and labor wings.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader selected longtime Green Party activist Peter Camejo to be his running mate on Monday, a move sure to boost his chances of winning the Green Party's endorsement this week and its access to ballot lines in 22 states and the District of Columbia.
Any opinion of Clinton on Sixty Minutes? Will his blitz affect anything?
I enjoyed seeing familiar places in the interview, and thought the interview was good. Haven't seen and don't know if I will see (until it comes out on video) Hunting of a President.
I'm surprised by the way the book (my copy is coming as a dad's day gift; thank you, son) has mobilized the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: I would have advised silence. Clinton looks fine and is so graceful and so charming that neither Bush nor Kerry comes off well in comparison. I thought the interview went fine. Rather didn't cut him much slack, although the "wonderful son" video with mother Virginia was choice.
I hope they take "The Hunting of the President" to DVD fairly soon. Without seeing it, seems like it a natural fund raising tool. Demo ladies hereabouts are showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" at $25 a pop.
GEBE MARTINEZ, Houston Chronicle, Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are trying to block U.S. Rep. Chris Bell's ethics complaint against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, with Democrats saying the GOP is trying to silence any criticism of its chief.
Republicans denied they were trying to muzzle allegations against DeLay. But in the escalating partisan warfare touched off by investigations into DeLay's political dealings, Republicans' maneuvers may prevent Bell's complaint from being examined by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., took steps Thursday to throw out the complaint by Bell, a Democrat whose Houston-area district borders DeLay's.
LaHood said that because Bell is a lame-duck congressman, after losing the Democratic primary this year in his freshman term, he "has no stake in the institution" and should be disqualified from filing the charges. Bell's term expires at the end of the year.
A spokesman for House GOP leaders said the series of events in defense of DeLay was not a coordinated effort.
Republican lawmakers are closely monitoring Democrats' floor speeches and other public communications for possible rules violations. And there has been speculation that Republicans are looking into the fund-raising practices of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
In a twist, ethics Chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo., who has a cool relationship with DeLay, disagreed with LaHood's attempt to cripple Bell because of his lame-duck status.
"I don't think that's appropriate. Anybody who is here and is a legitimate member of Congress, whether this is their last term or not, if they think there have been some indiscretions, they have a right to bring it to our attention," Hefley said.
What hypocrites. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach President Clinton, using the votes of lame-duck Republicans (which I believe were necessary to pass one of the counts). Now they make up rules restricting lame ducks. It's like Calvin and Hobbes's "Calvinball."
"NANTUCKET, Mass. - After a week of campaigning for the less fortunate, John Kerry went on vacation with the fabulously wealthy.
"Kerry is a rich man who promotes the Democratic ideal that government should do more to help the poor. He moves between both worlds, spending the past week traveling to downtrodden places like South-side Columbus, Ohio ["Downtrodden?"], and the affluent island playground of Nantucket.
"Not since President Kennedy have Democrats been prepared to nominate a man of such riches. . . .
"Kerry was educated at boarding school in Europe [Gratuitously throwing in a favorite Republican sound bite. The fact is, Kerry went to school in Europe because his father was stationed in Europe.], prep school in New England and at Yale. He married two wealthy women and his second wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is heir to the $500 million Heinz food fortune. [Really? You'd think the Repubs would mention this once in a while.]
"Like Kerry, President Bush is a Yale graduate who has benefited from his wealth and family connections. But Bush spends his down time as more of an everyman, preferring to spend vacations at his Texas ranch clearing brush. [So if Kerry had any character, he'd stage some phony "everyman" photo-ops on a Potemkin "ranch".] . . .
Snark for snark's sake. What is her point? If it's that Kerry is somehow hypocritical for advocating policies that benefit the poor despite his wealth, it is of course the opposite. Kerry (and other rich liberals like Ted Kennedy) advocate policies that will COST them and their families tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. This is selflessness, not hypocrisy.
That Pew Poll spiel was junk..The reason Bush bumped was because Raygun bumped everything off Page 1..
He now no longer enjoys his Terror Warrior approval..good nite Georgie..don't let the door hit you on the way out
WaPo:The Collapse of the Crawford Clown Continues
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Public confidence in President Bush (news -web sites)'s ability to fight terrorism has significantly eroded, in a challenge to his re-election campaign as a "war president," according to a poll released on Monday.
The ABC News/Washington Post poll also found, for the first time, that more than half of Americans believe the Iraq (news - web sites) war was not worth fighting.
The poll's findings could spell trouble for Bush, whose ratings in the anti-terrorism fight have been one of his strongest suits as he seeks re-election on a national-security platform.
The poll said that approval of Bush's handling of the U.S. campaign against terrorism had fallen to 50 percent, down 8 points in the last month and 29 points below its post Iraq-war peak.
"Bush ... has weakened in his once-strongest area," ABC said in reporting the poll on its Web site. (http://abcnews.go.com)
In addition, Americans now rate Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) level with Bush in ability to combat terrorism. Bush had led Kerry by 13 percentage points on the issue a month ago, and by 21 points the month before, but the new poll showed Kerry with 48 points to Bush's 47 points.
Rating Bush's overall job performance, 47 percent of Americans approved while 51 percent disapproved, inching over the halfway-mark for the first time in ABC/Post polls going back to December 2001. An approval rating below 50 percent is considered a danger sign for presidents seeking re-election.
In match-ups among registered voters, Kerry had a narrow lead of 48 percent to Bush's 44 percent in a three-man race including Ralph Nader (news - web sites). Kerry had 53 percent to Bush's 45 percent in a two-man contest, the poll said.
The poll surveyed 1,201 adults and has an error margin of 3 points.
I would like to hide Nader in a subterranean bunker on the Bush ranch for the remainder of the election season. Nader could spend this time shining Bush's many commemorative belt buckles and learning to speak Texan.
"He married two wealthy women and his second wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is heir to the $500 million Heinz food fortune. [Really? You'd think the Repubs would mention this once in a while.]"
Ohio, you mean to tell me that you didn't know this?! Surprising. Very common knowledge.
Hey I reckon that if Kerry gets 60% or so (and if he doesn't, he's a worse bungler than Gore) then there ought to be room for 5% or so for poor old Ralph.
So which is more hypocritical? Being rich and advocating policies to help the poor or being rich and advocating policies that help the rich at the expense of the poor?
Front page of yesterday's times included an article on WJC's book. It has immediately reinvigorated the rantings of the clinton maniacs:
Citizens United — a conservative lobbying group whose president, David Bossie, Mr. Clinton writes, helped to foment the Whitewater scandal — bought advertising time in several markets during Mr. Clinton's interview on "60 minutes" to argue that the former president was responsible for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
These people are truly pathological. Don't they know when to let it go?
Nope. Pathological is the word and it was going on most of the time he was governor. Arkansas is very politically insular. Other states may be similar, but I've never noted it, even in TX. So some of it's local personal politics and a feud mentality that will never go away with those people, I think, and they fed their petty crap (mostly imagined) into the few with money and a Mission, like Scaife.
Clinton's very personally friendly but very oblivious at the same time. He steps on people's toes without noticing it and they don't forget it, especially the fact that he didn't notice it. Since he is so personable and constant with supporters he has a strong, large, loyal base in AR, some of whom really paid a price for just knowing him, however casually, like Susan McDougal and Web Hubbel. A lot of that was the approach of Ken Starr, but he had major AR enemies of Clinton's feeding him.
That's a very gentle description of "Citizens United" and David Bossie by the Times, isn't it? The Times makes it sound like Bill Clinton is the only one who ever had anything bad to say about Bossie, when Bossie's grubby fingerprints are all over any number of Clinton slanders. (Remember "The Clinton Chronicles" videotape, which accused Clinton of drug-running and murder?)
It's more "some Democrats say . . ." journalism, bending over backwards to avoid any possible accusation of "liberal bias."
Today's USA Today has a letter denouncing John Kerry from Burke Salsi of Greensboro, North Carolina. (Here is USA Today's homepage. The online edition apparently doesn't include letters to the editor. Maybe you can find it - I couldn't.)
The letter is entitled "Kerry's 'betrayal' matters, not medals." Mr. Salsi writes:
"I am a Vietnam veteran of swift-boat service. . . .
". . . I don't know of any swift-boat veterans who are concerned about Kerry's medals. If the U.S. Navy says he earned them, then he earned them.
"What we do care about is Kerry's betrayal of his shipmates by testifying before Congress that he witnessed atrocities committed regularly throughout Vietnam, essentially labeling us and all Vietnam veterans war criminals. . . ."
Here we go again. For the n-plus-oneth time, Kerry did NOT testify that he had WITNESSED atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry's statement to Congress merely related the well-known accounts of the "Winter Soldiers", testimony that was already a matter of Congressional record.
Accordingly, the primary factual (sic) leg of Mr. Salsi's letter is false. I don't blame Mr. Salsi - if he's read any right-wing websites or listened to Limbaugh or Hannity in the last few months, he's been told many times that John Kerry claimed to have witnessed regular atrocities.
The question is why, given this letter's false statement of alleged fact, USA Today would publish it??!?
The GRWC has been very adept at exploiting "balance" in the media, frequently repeating claims that are known to be false--and screaming "partisanship" when true claims are made by the other side.
Kerry Ahead on Handling the US Campaign Against Terrorism (!)
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll suggests rather strongly that President Bush has failed to generate much political benefit from a series of events that has included a good jobs report, some diplomatic progress on the Iraq situation and the funeral of Ronald Reagan. In the poll, conducted June 17-20, Kerry is ahead of Bush among RVs by 8 points (53-45).
Any more bounces like this one and John Kerry may not have to bother to campaign at all.
Doesn't the public approve of anything? Sure: Bill Clinton. His approval rating is up 7 points in the last year to a healthy 62 percent rating today. It would seem that the public's increased misgivings about Bush's performance are making the Clinton era, despite Clinton's personal foibles, look pretty good by comparison.
On June 19 we wrote that wage increases had kept pace with inflation in the year to May, and criticized Sen. John F. Kerry for suggesting that wages had fallen behind. We were wrong and Mr. Kerry was right: Hourly wages for non-supervisory workers rose 2.2 percent, while the consumer price index rose 3.1 percent.
THEN: "I signed into law some of the toughest patient-protection laws in the nation [and] I support a patient bill of rights for all patients, similar to those already enacted in Texas."
- George W. Bush, USA Today op-ed entitled "I Will Build On My Record," 8/17/00 (FYI - Bush didn't sign the law - he let it pass without his signature after the legislature forced him to accept it)
NOW:
"Before the Supreme Court, the Bush administration opposed the Texas law, instead joining two managed-care companies, Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna HealthCare of Texas Inc." Those two companies alone have given President Bush and the Republican Party more than $1.7 million since 2000.
- NY Times, 6/21/04; Center for Responsive Politics
I think most potential Nader voters will pull the lever for Kerry when it comes down to it but I hate having to factor Nader into the equation at all. The stakes are too high.
Funny how impressions differ. At a party with hubby's family (rightward leaning) last weekend and politics came up. They thought that, whatever you'd say about bush, he wasn't a flip-flopper...he stayed the course, no matter what. I guess that's bad news for kerry, but then again maybe not, as imbedded in their remark was the snicker, "even if he takes you straight over a cliff!" Bush has really only stayed the course on 2 issues, as I see it...attacking iraq and cutting taxes. The rest has been pretty flippy floppy: don't create homeland security, do create homeland security; put on steel tariffs, take off steel tariffs; etc.
Springsteen gets on my nerves. He can be Nader's v-p pick.
I don't get how staying the course is considered a positive. Lemmings stay the course. All kinds of political disasters (including the current ones) have come from staying the course. Seems like the Democrats could turn that around effectively--they're the Donkeys but Bush is a mule.
CHICAGO (AFP) - Star Trek actress Jeri Lynn Ryan has accused her ex-husband, a banker turned US Senate candidate, of asking her to perform sex acts in clubs, according to divorce court papers released.
The 36-year-old actress said Jack Ryan, who is a Republican candidate for Congress in the November 2 elections, dragged her to sex clubs during supposed "romantic" getaways to New York, New Orleans and Paris, according to the court papers.
Jeri Lynn Ryan said she refused to enter one New York club that had mattresses in cubicles, but later was persuaded to go to a club, which was decked out with cages, whips and other apparatuses hanging from the ceiling.
Has there been any talk of a Bush-McCain ticket? I know Bush has said that he will stick with Cheney. On the other hand, Dick's health is not that good ...
Interesting photo on the cover of today's times which unfortunately I don't know how to link....maybe someone else here does. Go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/politics/campaign/23BLOC.final.html and click the image "Top Addresses Giving to Presidential Campaigns".
Shows the top address for bush is in LA and lots of communities around LA including beverly hills are big bush donors. Perhaps it's time they stop dumping on "those hollywood types."
There has been talk of a Bush-Guiliani ticket. But that's a non-starter. It would be a more centrist ticket, and the base would scream. Guiliani lived with two gay guys for a couple of years, while mayor, for heavens' sake.
I didn't hear him name Kerry, but he said he'd vote for any viable candidate who could defeat Bush and he really trashed Bush, in what I thought was a "clear, cogent and convincing way."
I think he made it clear he's voting for Kerry and he pulled no punches, saying Bush et al lied to get us into war with Iraq and is still lying. One thing I didn't know is that he lives in Seattle. I'll have to pay more attention when I'm at a Starbucks' I guess.
[chuckle] He'd win. He might win New York, for heavens' sake. But that's as likely as McCain as Kerry's veep. Powell would actually be a better veep for Kerry, and would pay much bigger dividends. A Kerry-Powell ticket would be more ideologically coherent, and would win in a landslide.
That would also do much to heal the wounds that this administration has created--the combination of Powell resigning and going over the other side (as, btw, did Bush's counterterrorism chief) plus Powell's charisma--would be political dynamite.
One of the things bothering the republicans is they can't get people to believe that the economy is improving. This is especially frustating because, just as a change of pace, this one happens to be true. Their inability to get traction on this issue may be explained, in part, by this chart from Brad Delong:
Anecdotally, people feel at risk--for their jobs, for the existence of a career, for their benefits (medical and pension benefits have been dramatically eroded in the last decade) and, therefore, their futures. This chart illustrates why. The terms of trade between capital and labor are now strongly on capital's side. This is in no small part due to administration policies.
Interesting chart. If the economy is improving but not for individual working Americans it doesn't mean they don't believe it. In fact, what improves capital and is perceived to be at labor's expense (real or not, like outsourcing) is going to have a negative effect on the administration at the polls, but the administration will never get that because they're so tunnel-visioned. I've been wondering about that but hadn't seen anything to show it was actually the case until that post.
Sources tell Political Wire that Jack Ryan will announce his withdrawal from the Illinois Senate race later this afternoon.
Update: The Chicago Tribune confirms Ryan will drop out "within hours."
"Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support in the wake of the allegations made by his ex-wife in divorce records unsealed earlier this week. Aides said in advance his only options were to withdraw or to redouble his campaign efforts with a massive infusion of money from his personal wealth." Apparently, he chose the former.
A letter in today's Columbus Dispatch (www.dispatch.com - registration required) from a whining Republican complains about a recent series of articles by the Dispatch on the struggles of the working poor in rural Southeast Ohio:
"The recent Bureau of Labor statistics for May showed an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent in this country.
"In May 1996, when Democrat Bill Clinton was running for re-election, the unemployment rate in this country was 5.4 percent. With these statistics so close, I imagine there were just as many citizens struggling economically then as there are now.
"Yet, as a longtime reader of The Dispatch, I don’t remember the paper running several articles highlighting just how tough it was economically in 1996 for some citizens. Why is that? Is it because The Dispatch thinks people struggle economically only when a Republican administration is in charge? Or is The Dispatch, which doesn’t like the current administration, trying to sway an election by making things seem much more desperate now than they were back in 1996?"
Rick Lash Reynoldsburg
The short, and obvious, answer to Mr. Lash (although not the only one - this recent mini-recovery in fact lags in terms of wage growth compared to other recoveries) is that is that in 1996 a 5.4% unemployment rate was low because four years earlier it had been 7.8%. In 2004, 5.6% is high because four years earlier the rate had been 4.3%. C'mon now, Rick, is that REALLY so hard to understand?
(And, for what it's worth, the Dispatch endorsed Bob Dole in 1996.)
They've created an environment where they can't possibly defend him and they know their socially conservative base is hanging by a thread already. They'd vote a guy like that out in a heartbeat. Just ask Tim Hutchinson.
The guy has to be nutz—Jerri is a cosmically sexy babe and she was the only reason to watch the new (old) Star Trek—not being satisfied with her proves he’s sick.
I guess the economy really IS getting better...Dallas has just revived their Polo Club. It's a wonderful sport and if you have the money to own and stable a polo pony, you can spend time with your fellow richie pals and pass the afternoons.
NCLB's failure will only be fully addressed when people look at what it's doing to poor districts. Suburban Democrats are ok. Inner-city and poor rural kids aren't. They've got to have qualified teachers, adequate resources, fully-funded and implemented extra programs, and TIME. This is a program that needs to start at pre-K and have full support in poor communities--just like suburban schools have with their own resources--until those kids graduate. Only then can they truly say it's the school's fault or the teachers' or the parents' or anyone else's besides the government's if those schools fail.
AP courses, expanded curricula, extra programs, etc, are only window dressing if they aren't funded with proper equipment and qualified teachers. An AP Calculus class on paper can be anything in the classroom, depending on what's actually covered and by whom.
As it stands, the whole thing's a huge scam on a well-meaning but ignorant middle-class public, who don't understand, because they don't see it, that other schools must have much more state and federal support to achieve what they're expected to under NCLB.
This says nothing of the idiotic way in which the law has been implemented with varied state testing and requirements, inconsistencies and illogical goals, and AYP determinations. NEA has been very good in addressing this. I don't belong, but I get their alerts and they're very informative.
This sets poor schools up for failure and state takeovers, even corporate control in some states, creating certain "evidence" that the public school system isn't working, even with great government programs to improve it.
Education is the great equalizer and the foundation of real civil rights. If it's undermined for poor, mostly minority kids it can not be made up elsewhere and the damage done the families and communities affected by that is irreversible. It maintains an underclass while pretending to help it.
My bet is that his ex-wife played willingly and enthusiastically!
Frank..he's not a player
Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of The Gallup poll:
Based on historical patterns, Bush's job approval rating is thus underperforming the pattern of presidents who have won re-election. In the broadest sense, Bush's job approval rating has generally been remarkably stable this year, averaging about 50% (which is a symbolic dividing line for an incumbent seeking re-election) since mid-January. The current downtick in his ratings puts him below the pattern of successful presidents. Having a rating below 50% (as is the case with his last four ratings) is not a good sign for an incumbent. If Bush wins this November, he would be the first president since Harry Truman to come from a below 50% rating to win re-election.
The fact that Bush has been behind the likely Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, in several Gallup Poll re-election trial heat ballots this year, means that Bush's re-election probabilities are lower than those of his successful predecessors. None of the five presidents who won re-election were behind their eventual opponent in any trial heats after January in the year prior to their election. If Bush wins this year, he will become the first president to come from behind in election year spring polls to win.
The trial heat patterns of the three presidents who eventually lost were erratic enough, however, to suggest that fluidity is the norm rather than the exception in trial heat ballots at this point in the campaign.
MILWAUKEE, Wis. (Reuters) - The Green Party on Saturday refused to back Ralph Nader in his independent run for the White House, a move that could reduce his chances of being a factor in this year's election.
Delegates to the half-million-member party's presidential convention voted to nominate party activist David Cobb, a California lawyer who led the delegate count going into the meeting.
((AP via Kos)---WASHINGTON - A watchdog group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) against Ralph Nader (news - web sites) on Friday, saying the independent presidential candidate is violating federal campaign laws by accepting office space and telephone service from a public charity he created.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleges that Nader's campaign is renting valuable space at below-market prices from Citizen Works, an activist group that supports progressive causes.
The complaint also says Citizen Works and the Nader campaign share a common receptionist and several telephone lines.
(LATimes)---Teresa Heinz Kerry, through a network of investments in blue-chip corporations, venture capital funds and municipal bonds, controls a family fortune worth an estimated $1 billion, an examination of public records shows.
The $1-billion figure is double the estimates of her wealth that are widely cited in news stories about her husband, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
The couple would rank as the wealthiest to occupy the White House, far surpassing such storied presidential fortunes as the Kennedys'. Their assets are so vast and far-reaching that they mirror the U.S. economy, and will likely raise questions about conflicts of interest.
Their assets are so vast and far-reaching that they mirror the U.S. economy, and will likely raise questions about conflicts of interest.
That's an odd argument. If their holdings mirror the US economy then their incentive would be to grow the entire economy. Conflicts arise when your wealth is concentrated in one or a few sectors--like, er, well, the energy sector.
(CBS) Despite concerns about his handling of Iraq, and an overall approval rating of 42%, George W. Bush is still running neck and neck with Democrat John Kerry as the choice of registered voters. Growing public optimism about the nation’s economy has helped lift support for the President.
Kerry is the choice of 45% of registered voters, Bush the choice of 44%. This is a sharp turnaround for the Bush campaign in the span of just one month; in May, Kerry had opened up a wide 8-point lead over Bush. The race has been close since April.
The following sent this morning to a friend and prominent California republican
Whoda thunk it?
A campaign commercial that people pay to watch!
Ain't capitialism great Mike!!!!
Reuters: "Box-office fever for Michael Moore's searing anti-Bush documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11' climbed a bit higher on Monday as distributors touted record-breaking ticket sales about $2 million more than first reported." The film, already number one at the box office for last weekend, grossed $23.9 million, instead of the earlier estimate of $21.5 million. It is now the highest grossing documentary of all time, and number three for all openings for films for the year (after Shrek 2 and the Passion of Christ). Tom Ortenberg, Lions Gate distribution president, said the film played strongly in big cities and small towns, alike, and in Democratic as well as Republican states."
Excerpt--Where to begin with this despicable video? Six months ago, MoveOn.org held a contest to find the best amateur ad against President Bush. The group invited people to make ads and submit them to its Web site. Some idiot spliced images of Bush together with images of Adolf Hitler, evidently trying to make Bush look like a warmonger. His submissions, which arrived with 1,500 others—too many to be screened quickly—were posted on the contest Web site. As soon as MoveOn.org leaders realized what was in the ad, they removed and denounced it.
The Bush campaign, outraged by the mixture of Nazi images with images of an American politician, has decided that the best response to this offense is to repeat it.
The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry.
On the pretext of protesting a comparison of George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler, the president's re-election campaign has made an ad that implicitly compares John Kerry to Hitler. To be sure, it's disgusting, for all the reasons you say.
But the vileness of "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed" must not be allowed to obscure its essential hilarity. What moron came up with this idea? What are they smoking in Karl Rove's office? C'mon, Will. This ad is the campaign equivalent of The Producers—an idea so egregiously tasteless and stupid that it might just succeed as camp.
Footage of Hitler shouting in German is juxtaposed with footage of Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Dick Gephardt getting worked up while criticizing Bush, Michael Moore getting booed for criticizing the Iraq War at the Academy Awards, and John Kerry using the phrase "kick your ass" (which is bleeped out, possibly in an effort to imply he said something worse). I know I should be disgusted by the attempted association of Democrats and Nazis, but it's too funny to get upset about. Cue the goose-stepping mädchen of the Brookings Institution!
What exactly does the Bush-Cheney campaign think that these Democrats have in common with Hitler? Basically, it's that they're too darned excited about politics. They yell. They criticize harshly. They use bad language. The message here, to the extent there is one, is: "Don't be like Hitler—chill out!"
Developing its argument that Nazism was basically a failure to relax, the ad attempts to tie its grotesque libel to the Bush campaign's theme of the month, which is that the incumbent's "optimism" is better than Kerry's "pessimism."
Which party has been busy eroding our civil liberties in the name of national security? Which party has been busy pumping up defense spending and building military might? Which party has attacked another country without provocation? Which party has rolled out their propaganda machine to label anyone who challenges the administration's choices as "unpatriotic"? Which party has been trying to unite religion and government making outcasts out of nonbelievers? Which party has been denying civil rights to gays? Which party has been using national security as an excuse to do racial profiling and indefinite detentions without legal representation? Which party has been claiming executive privilege and not even claiming exec priv. and still refusing to abide by constitutional requirements of checks and balances with congress? Which party has flouted international treaties thinking it is above all laws, all contracts, all agreements?
President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry are locked in a 43 – 43 percent dead heat among Florida voters, with 5 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
With Nader out of the race, Sen. Kerry leads President Bush by a razor thin 46 – 44 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
Without Nader, Kerry leads among Democrats 83 – 12 percent and among independent voters 43 – 40 percent. With Nader in the race, Democrats go 78 – 10 percent for Kerry with 5 percent for Nader, and independents go 40 – 37 percent for Kerry, with 9 percent for Nader. ..............................................
From June 23 - 27, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,209 Florida registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.
DemocratUnderground puts it well in their weekly feature, Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
When MoveOn.org solicited entries for an anti-Bush ad competition and some random guy submitted an ad which compared Bush to Hitler, the right-wing had an absolute fit. Ed Gillespie called it "the worst and most vile form of political hate speech." Never mind that the ad was created by a private citizen, MoveOn had no intention of using it, and deleted it from their website. But now it seems that Team Bush are - in an extremely sneaky fashion - doing the exact same thing they lambasted MoveOn for doing. The official Bush/Cheney 2004 website put up a web ad last week that used part of the never-screened MoveOn ad in an effort to compare Democrats to Hitler. The ad begins with the teaser, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" and shows, in sequence, Al Gore, Adolf Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Adolf Hitler (again), Al Gore (again), and finally, John Kerry. (I guess we can deduce from this that Al Gore is as bad as Hitler, whereas the others are only half as bad.) Presumably Team Bush's excuse is that they are trying to show how mean and nasty MoveOn is. And in that context it's perfectly okay to run an official ad on their official campaign website labeling Hitler as one of the "Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party." Gee, whatever happened to "the worst and most vile form of political hate speech?"
The GOP would be well advised to dump Bush and Cheney and get a breath of fresh air by running John McCain and Chuck Hagel. I just watched Hagel on Hardball, and he impressed me as a solid citizen, more moderate than Cheney and most of the Bushies. He said he didn't think it's necessary to amend the Constitution in order to protect the institution of marriage. He also said Cheney should apologize for telling Leahy to fuck himself (or whatever he said).
As I am typing, Hagel is being followed up by John McCain. Does anybody suppose NBC is pushing McCain and/or Hagel?
The woman filling in for Chris Matthews made it pretty clear that NBC would be happy to see Bush dump Cheney and pick McCain as his running mate. She fawned all over McCain and fed him nothing but softball questions. Of course McCain said that he won't be a candidate for VP because of the close working relationship between Bush and Cheney. This could have been revealing because he didn't say that he would not accept the nomination for VP. He called for more comity and less partisanship in Washington and sounded very presidential.
And the Hardball lady is throwing fast ball questions at Howard Dean. It's amazing how the tone of the interview changed from McCain and Hagel to Dean.
The most troublesome thing for Bush in the latest CBS/NyT poll is not that his approval rating is the lowest of his presidency (42%).
It is not that a whopping 57% think that the country is headed in the wrong direction; that 60% disapproved of his Iraq policy, or that 60% say the war was not worth the cost.
The most troublesome thing is not even that 45% of the public do not have an unfavorable opinion of Bush personally.
The most troublesome thing for Bush and the key to this election is that 40% do not know anything about John Kerry.
That's an interesting point Jex. To my mind, Kerry has shown extraordinary discipline in not responding to the early attempts by Bush to frame him as a flipflopper.
I don't think it matters that Americans don't know who he is, at this point in time. That question will be settled between Labor Day and the election. I expect that over the summer 527s will point out Bush flipflops.
But that's neither here nor there. As you say, there are forty points to work with, and that's a lot, especially in the context of an unpopular incumbent.
I looked, but couldn't find a transcript of a audio "glimpse" i heard this a.m. on npr...interviewing someone in NM who supported pres bush. Her response was something like, "He's honest, he's steady, he's not a flip flopper, he a good christian man....what more do you want?"
It's all about image...and that image is created largely by tv ads.
The question is if anyone in the kerry campaign can come up with pithy, attractive images of kerry that will stick in voters' minds. Right now, the gopers have been successful in creating the image of a flip flopping massachusetts liberal.
I cannot begin to describe how much I would like to say more than that. And at some later point in some later post I will do my best to explain the hows and whys of why I can't. But, for the moment, I can't.
Let me, however, offer a hypothetical that might help make sense of all this.
The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission
My very right wing friend dismisses the whole plame affair as he's declared that she was not an undercover agent and that everyone knew she was with the CIA. FWIW
That's just on message, thoughtful, and ridiculous. The everybody knew line was Novak's defense. There may have been some people who knew without the right clearances and a need to know, especially in the administration, but that just makes the crime more widespread. Moreover, even if DC insiders knew, the people with whom she had contact certainly did not.
She was still under cover. But even if she had not been, she had been been under cover, and ongoing operations would necessarily have been affected. It wasn't only she who was outed--organizations that used her were also.
Jay, not that i disagree with you, but I only know what i read. I have no idea how "common knowledge" it was that she was with the cia and I have no idea how, from a legal point of view, one would go proving it. I can't say that i personally knew plame and thought she was a real estate agent or whatever. That's what's so unsatisfactory about this whole thing. I can quote articles at my rw friend and he can quote articles at me, but none of it constitutes proof of the truth. And it's not clear to me that even the fact that the bushies are theoretically investigating this thing constitutes proof, esp since they will probably never reach a conclusion. (Thus, IMO, abu graib and now anonymous...cia payback)
I think at most what one could say is novak didn't know for sure if her situation was common knowledge and that a prudent man would have kept his mouth shut as a number of other journalists did.
Maybe, if we're lucky, and kerry gets in, and he releases historical documents that this admin has sealed up, maybe some others will come forward, write books and the veil will lift a few more inches.
I think if kerry wants to win, he should have his attack dogs float the rumor that the bushies are planning on reinstituting the draft as soon as they're reelected.
You might want to pick up the July/August Atlantic. James Fallows has an interesting article comparing the Bush and Kerry debate styles. The Bush section has some interesting material on our ongoing "Bush is a moron"/"Bush is shrewd" discussion.
One thing he points out is when you compare debates in the 1994 governor's race to the 2000 presidential debates, you see a different guy. The Bush running for governor didn't stumble over big words, had a grasp of his policy positions, and was deft at staying on message.
Fallows offers two theories for the change. First, Bush is over his head. Texas is one thing. The US is another thing entirely. Second (echoing a Slate piece by Tim Noah) he's doing it on purpose. He's dumbing himself down to be more personally appealing, and to contrast with the "elite liberals" caricature that they like to run against.
When Ralph Reed was the boyish director of the Christian Coalition, he made opposition to gambling a major plank in his "family values" agenda, calling gambling "a cancer on the American body politic" that was "stealing food from the mouths of children." But now, a broad federal investigation into lobbying abuses connected to gambling on Indian reservations has unearthed evidence that Reed has been surreptitiously working for an Indian tribe with a large casino it sought to protect--and that Reed was paid with funds laundered through two firms to try to keep his lucrative involvement secret. Reed has always operated behind the scenes, and apparently he didn't want to risk becoming a humbled hypocrite like his right-wing cohorts William Bennett and Rush Limbaugh. News accounts of the emerging scandal have focused on the two main figures under investigation: lawyer/lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon, House GOP majority leader Tom DeLay's former spokesman and head of two campaign and public relations companies. But Reed has managed to slither below the media's radar--until now.
Neither he, Abramoff or Scanlon returned phone calls.
Sources say each networks will likely reduce coverage from four years ago, even though coverage in 2000 already was scaled back from historic levels. Networks could provide as little as an hour of live coverage on the penultimate nights (Wednesdays), with perhaps two hours for the Thursday finale.
It's impossible to say at this juncture who this helps, if either. Viewers who are actually interested can, of course, watch it on CSPAN or other outlets.
It's the parties' fault, of course. By choreographing the events so completely, they have become non-newsworthy.
jay, i suppose there's a third option....he's drinking again...or the drinking he did destroyed too many brain cells and it's starting to affect him. But I just don't buy the second that he's dumbing himself down on purpose. He's got too big an ego to purposely say "abu garreff". His misspeaks have been too consistent throughout his administration and his campaign. And all of it is consistent with his demeanor and his smirking. I remember everyone on pins and needles to see how he'd perform against gore. The "dumbing down" if anything is in expectations, so the fact that he didn't misspeak himself in the debate was a "win" for him.
I will check out the article tho if i get a chance.
magos, very interesting about reed. I always suspected there was a "666" on his scalp somewhere. I wonder if it will surface again how reed was on "kenny boy's" payroll while he was really "strategerizing" bush's 2000 campaign, done to avoid appearing as too beholden to the xtian right, not to mention an undisclosed campaign contribution.
IT CAME ON suddenly and without warning. Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the liberals. I hope Bush wins. I hope Bush steals another election and urinates into everyone's wounds…
"The most troublesome thing for Bush and the key to this election is that 40% do not know anything about John Kerry."
This is troubling? The more they learn, the more they will turn away from him. John Kerry is clearly nothing to write home about. Didn't you even say the same thing during the Dem primaries, jex? Kerry is no Al Gore, he's worse. That doesn't bode well for the Dem party.
All this negativity, and still Bush is neck and neck. That scares you, doesn't it jex? You know full well that Bush could very well pull this thing out in the end, don't you? The last election was just as close, and he did it.
As much as you hate to admit it, jexter, you know that Bush may very well win this thing.
The Bush campaign has thrown a good deal of negative commercials at Kerry over the last few months with no effect. I wouldn't be too confident either, Kuligin.
Wombat, that's the point. For all the negativity going on, jexter, et al, would have us believe it is a done deal. Rather, I think they are scared, and that's why they are so rabid about their constant negativity. They are just scared, and they should be.
Bush will win again, and again by the hair of his chinny chin chin.
All this negativity, and still Bush is neck and neck. That scares you, doesn't it jex? You know full well that Bush could very well pull this thing out in the end, don't you? The last election was just as close, and he did it.
As much as you hate to admit it, jexter, you know that Bush may very well win this thing.
Bush didn't pull it out, though. The Supreme Court did. That dog won't shoot twice.
The U.S. Supreme Court should have respected the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. Many minority voters were disenfranchised by Katherine Harris. The divided U.S. Supreme court was probably its worst since Plessy v. Ferguson.
It's a moot point now anyway, and just reveals the sour grapes of the losers. They would have lost regardless. They DID lose. No matter how you slice it, more Floridians voted for Bush, not Gore.
On a related topic, the Fed increased interest rates a quarter of a point today, in light of the strengthening economy. And let's all remember, "its the economy, stupid", that really matters when it comes to voters, right?
It's a moot point now anyway, and just reveals the sour grapes of the losers. They would have lost regardless. They DID lose. No matter how you slice it, more Floridians voted for Bush, not Gore
No, it's America that is the loser. I hope you live long enough to see what history has to say about this amoral administration, Kuligin. I probably won't be around but I want you to remember all of us who stood tall and tried to point out the truth to you.
You think that because Bush claims to be a Christian, that trumps all. You poor disillusioned little man.
"You think that because Bush claims to be a Christian, that trumps all. You poor disillusioned little man."
Now you are just being stupid, judith. Clinton claimed the very same thing. Be reasonable, for crying out loud.
You see, this is what you ALWAYS do, put words into my mouth and attribute beliefs to me that aren't true. Fact is, although I liked Carter as a man, and a Christian man, he was a lousy president and I was happy to see him lose to Reagan. However, all things being equal, I think in terms of Christianity and doctrine, Carter and I would probably see eye to eye more than Reagan and myself. But for President, I would have chosen Reagan.
You are just blowing hot air, judith, and don't know what you are talking about. So let me give you a brief lesson:
History will record George W. Bush as President, not Al Gore, no matter how much you wish it were different or claim the election was stolen. You lost. And you'll most likely lose again.
Oh, and also, while Reagan was President, much the same was being said by the naysayers as is today about Bush Jr. Learn from history, judith.
"You think that because Bush claims to be a Christian, that trumps all."
Also, just as a side note, when Pat Robertson ran for the office, I didn't vote for him either. You are just being a moron on this one, judith, but what else do you really have up your sleeve than to make up straw men?
Gore lost the vote in Florida, judith, and Bush won the presidency. All is as it should be. Any revisionist history you attempt to write about it falls flat on its face at the feet of the facts.
Well, if anyone should recognize hot air, Kuligin, yu're the man.
I'm the one who has been saying all along that Bush is going to win again. Unfortunately, wishing the country would come to their collective senses won't help make it so. I'm fairly certain he will win. And I'm fairly certain this will be very bad for the country, in a way that Reagan and Bush Sr. were not. This is a different sort of man...he is hollow and if you can't see that, it says more about you than any hot air I can blow.
Isn't it also true that not since Reagan's reelection has a president been elected while receiving the majority of votes cast? The only reason why I hesitate is because I can't recall Bush Sr. when he thumped Dukakis. But clearly Clinton never got over 50% of the votes cast. He only got 43% in the first election. Clearly, Perot cost Bush that second term in office.
I venture to say that we have seen the end of such times in America when the man elected President receives over 50% of the vote.
You are--I hope not deliberately--being obtuse. The Republican party and the Bush Administration are extremely worried about the coming election, ergo the slime machine operating against Kerry, and its apparent failure to open up any kind of lead against Kerry (who has done very little, so far).
A second Bush term would be disastrous for the United States. Continued embroilment in the Iraq, an insecure and underfunded homeland to face an increased terrorist threat, skyrocketing deficits that cripple the economy (note that the alleged recovery is only benefiting the wealthy--the wage gap is wider than it has ever been), policy-making based on ideological purity....
Fortunately, the Bush administration has been so utterly dishonest that even the independents are beginning to turn against Bush.
"You are--I hope not deliberately--being obtuse. The Republican party and the Bush Administration are extremely worried about the coming election"
And so are the Democrats. I mean, who isn't worried about an election? Both parties have every reason to be worried, especially after the last one. It will be tight, very, very tight.
"A second Bush term would be disastrous for the United States."
Let's see how you define this.
1) "Continued embroilment in the Iraq"
So you think we should just step out, Wombat?
2) "an insecure and underfunded homeland to face an increased terrorist threat"
Since 9/11, how many terrorist attacks have we had on American soil?
3) "skyrocketing deficits that cripple the economy (note that the alleged recovery is only benefiting the wealthy--the wage gap is wider than it has ever been)"
As I've said many times before, this is just bullshit. The tax cuts have benefitted me greatly, and I am hardly wealthy.
4) "policy-making based on ideological purity"
Hallelujah!! Finally, a president who knows what he wants and goes for it. Not the waffling of the previous eight year administration. Previous President: (wet finger and stick it in the hair, "Well, duh, let's see what I believe today."
Oh, yeah, just like that Kerry guy. Maybe Americans will be dumb enough to elect another waffle as president.
Was it an assessment of the political winds that drove President Clinton to push for the 1993 tax increase? This action, which ended the deficit and brought on years of growth and prosperity, was done in the teeth of "conventional wisdom" and indeed (with help from GOP mischaracterization of the action as a middle-class tax increase) cost the Democrats control of Congress.
Ohio, I don't think motivation matters. Clinton was forced into some things (welfare reform), led the way on some other things (Nafta), and followed advice from people like Rubin on others (bailout of Mexico). But when you add it all up, it was an extraordinarly effective presidency. The closing paragraph from the Bruce Bartlett op-ed linked above: The fact that Mr. Clinton accomplished conservative objectives against his will in some cases, and in others only because a Republican Congress prevented him from enacting more liberal reforms, is beside the point. What matters is what actually was accomplished while Mr. Clinton was in office. On that score, he did much that conservatives should approve of.
Every time you turn around, there seems to be another general for kerry:
Gen. [Tony] McPeak, who headed the 1996 Dole-Kemp campaign in Oregon and served as a veteran for Bush in 2000, was just as incendiary. "Troops are paying the price for arrogance," he said. He also labeled the troops stationed in Iraq an "in between force" -- too small to do the job, but too large to be serviced by the existing military support structure. "The Administration has managed to create…a situation where we are both ineffective and overextended." He added, "From the beginning, this administration has been determined not only to pursue bad policy, but to be as unpleasant about it as possible." Asked about the possibility of a draft, the general said that the Bush administration needs to either "double the force," which would require conscription, or "get out" and appeal to allies to provide a large, stable troop presence in Iraq. McPeak says he is now a registered independent and a foreign policy advisor for John Kerry.
"I just got a live phone-in from the Yankees vs. Boston game in NYC taking place right now. Dick Cheney just got booed by the crowd! Even as my friend Michael called me from his seats at the game, the national anthem was still playing in the background.
During the national anthem at Yankees Stadium, they show on the big screen pictures of anyone famous who's in the audience that night. Dick Cheney is apparently in the audience, and as soon as his face went up, the entire crowd started booing!
As my friend Michael tells it, this is the blue-collar Bronx we're talking about, and Cheney is still getting booed - not a good sign for the Bush-Cheney ticket. As soon as the camera guys realized Cheney was getting booed, they quickly switched the picture on the screen to someone else.
Michael's read of the situation, as a die-hard Yankees fan: The election is over."
Sportswriter Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News writes,
"You bet Cheney got booed while Ronan Tynan sang 'God Bless America.' Cheney - close to the action for a change - had been down in a box seat next to the Yankee dugout with Rudy Giuliani and Gov. George Pataki. Now Cheney was upstairs in George Steinbrenner's box, and when they put his face on the big screen in the outfield, there was plenty of booing. It was about the only thing that stopped the real cheers for the Yankees at Yankee Stadium as they kept pouring it on against the Red Sox. Real game story last night? Cheney got booed."
He's made a career of railing against corporate misdeeds. Yet he himself has abused his underlings, betrayed close friends and ruled his public-interest empire like a dictator.
**Don't know if they still offer day passes.
This is a longish article and worth reading... Maybe some citizen will pirate it out to the free world. ................................................
And the Corvair was a damn good car. Went like hell in the snow. A little tricky on the corners for a country-boy pickup driver. Had a few impromptu bootlegger turns early on but I would have had the same problem with a Porsche.
So another goper i work with stopped by and i mentioned the cheney thing to him. He immediately responded, "That's because he's a boston fan. That's the only reason they booed him."
One tiny problem - he's only got until 7/26 to spend it all!
MoveOn et al will have to bridge the gap between then and 9/2 during which Bush (215 million) will remain outside spending limits (about 70 million for the duration).
Symptoms of Lost in BushWorld Syndrome: Delusionally make things up as they go along, likely to believe that democracy is about to bloom in the Middle East; Osama and Saddam were blow buddies; that Bush won in 2004 and that WMD will be found any day now.
Treatment Protocol for Persons Trapped in BushWorld:
I personally recommend a swift hard kick in the ass. No sense enabling them.
Onward Christian Soldiers Marching as to WAR With the Cross of Jaysus Going on Before
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites), seeking to mobilize religious conservatives for his reelection campaign, has asked church-going volunteers to turn over church membership directories, campaign officials said on Thursday.
In a move sharply criticized both by religious leaders and civil libertarians, the Bush-Cheney campaign has issued a guide listing about two-dozen "duties" and a series of deadlines for organizing support among conservative church congregations.
A copy of the guide obtained by Reuters directs religious volunteers to send church directories to state campaign committees, identify new churches that can be organized by the Bush campaign and talk to clergy about holding voter registration drives.
The Corvair WAS a good car. It was GM's attempt to respond to critics' demands for a small American fuel efficient car like the Beetle. And all they got for the effort was a kick in the teeth by Nader who focused in his book on a few problems with the first edition of the car. Of course, GM blundered badly in its reaction to Nader and his book, and then provided him a financial shot in the arm. General Motors chairman, Jim Roche, reportedly never spoke again to his friend and neighbor, Al Power Legal Staff VP who sicked the dick on Nader and refused to apologize for it. So Roche hired Ted Sorensen to help with his testimony before the Senate committee in an effort to smooth things over. Apparently Al Power was trying to dig up evidence that Nader was gay or find some other dirt that he could use against him.
US lawmakers request UN observers for November 2 presidential election [ WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations (news - web sites) to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.
Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.
"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.
"Clinton means what he says when he says it, but tomorrow he will mean what he says when he says the opposite. He is the existential President, living with absolute sincerity in the passing moment."
Could replace Clinton with Kerry, calling him the "existential Senator," and the rest would perfectly fit.
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
Well, at least be consistent, jay. It is just the way the legislative process works in the UN, right?. You can't defend one person for changing his mind, and then turn right around IN THE SAME POST and ignore your reasons just because it involves a person you don't like. At least attempt to appear to give the semblance of consistency in your pov jay.
What are you talking about? Bush said that the US would call for a vote, period. And then when the time came, the US didn't call for a vote. It's got nothing to do with the legislative process at the UN. (In fact the statement was probably counter-productive; you shouldn't bluff when the table knows you have a busted flush.)
In the senate, bills get voted on repeatedly. Riders get attached that have nothing to do with the title of the bill. Issues, as with the Homeland Security bill, that have nothing to do with homeland security affect votes. (That's another one, just by the way. Bush opposed the homeland security bill, until it became clear that it was going to pass.) Moreover, riders are often attached expressly to force votes against the bill, so that the vote can be used against the legislator in the next election.
And, even with all that, the Bush campaign has distorted Kerry's record, repeatedly.
This is also an example of Bush mistaking bluster for firmness. Or, as Biden says he said to the President and Cheney when the president said that at least he was showing leadership, "Look behind you, Mr. President. There's nobody there. Nobody. Leaders have followers."
My confidence level in respect to Kerry is enhanced significantly by this decision. He obviously had a comfort level problem with Edwards. He could have easily made the safe choice. I believe he subordinated his own personal feelings for the good of the country and chose the running mate who gives him the best chance to oust the Bush regime.
But the Post is apparently as reliable as usual. Wire services are also reporting Edwards, and Salon has an email sent to supporters making the announcemnt.
now if only they can get howard dean involved again as he really lended voice to the campaign. fear is edwards will push the campaign too left-ish esp if he starts business bashing again and will scare the voters back to bush regardless of his level of incompetence.
The dilemma that Bush now faces is how to get rid of Cheney without outraging his base. If, as some expect, an individual within the Cheney office is indicted for the outing of Plame, it becomes possible with no damage. The attack ads now being floated in addition to last week's meeting of the special prosecutor with Bush add credibility to this theory.
The replacement, of course, would be McCain.
Assuming a Bush/McCain ticket, how does Kerry cope with such a development? The only realistic basis for Kerry having reached out to McCain was to create a coalition ticket that would be able to cope with the serious problems the US now faces--namely a war to the finish with radical Islam and a financial crisis of unprecedented severity.
Presuming McCain to be amiable, what will he or can he extract from Bush? Certainly, the present composition of the Bush administration is not acceptable to McCain, nor is it clear what a vice-president can legally control under our system of government. It could be a very interesting summer.
You're probably dead on in this assessment. I was wondering why McCain was appearing in support of Bush all of a sudden and now there are already ads out for Bush with McCain featured in them. What would make him do that? I've been wondering....
The possiblity of replacing Cheney might have been the "draw".
I dunno. Is the idea that McCain would take over Cheney's governance role?
I guess it could work the way it did with Reagan. First term with the wingnuts, second term with a more moderate cabinet. This turns on whether or not Bush actually has a role in making decisions.
Then there's the fact that they hate each other, and that McCain is friends with Kerry.
One of the appeals of Cheney is that he'll step aside for Jeb. McCain graduated from Annapolis in '58, so he's about 68. Is 72 too old for a presidential run, these days? I wouldn't think so.
Bush is NOT going to dump Crusty. Not a snowball's chance in Hades.
Now Jay has hit on something...remember back to 2000..how many times did you hear "So glad Bush has Cheney there to make decisions" And then again pos-9/11 "We all have to pull together behind Bush, and yes not a good time to have an idiot but thank God we have Cheney"
Now we are beginning to see what that mephitic old sack of shit has been up to and why they have so earnestly tried to hide him from public view.
He did run things..they hid that...now they can't. They'd like to I am sure but the CIA is already having something to say about that...
Edwards is an excellent choice. The VP will make a difference this time because the VP made a difference in the Regime.
This is the Cheney/Bush Regime. First we're gonna cut it off, then we are gonna kill it.
OTOH, is mccain so dumb as to not realize that EVERYONE who has been associated with the bush admin has either been marginalized within the administration or suffered a severe diminution in reputation? Just ask glenn hubbard, greg mankiew, paul o'neill, colin powell.... So far only Laura Bush has been left unscathed.
McCain also highlights Bush's lack of military service. I just can't see it. And, in case, who's gonna ask Dick to head up the search commitee this time? And why would you expect a different result?
I'd really love to know how that went down. Did Cheney go to Rove? When did Bush find out that the head of the search committee had selected himself?
Edwards fits perfectly here for other, related reasons. The age contrast is one but more important, he will cause major problems for the current strategery ieunleashing Cheney as an attack dog to make Bush look like a compassionate conservative.
That little country trial lawyer will slice, dice, and southern fry them...and not for a minute appear mean and vengeful but righteous..
I have seen many scores of litigators, many styles...Edward's is somewhat unique and impresses the hell out of me.
CNN keeps running that clip of him saying "President Bush claims the South is his backyard...well, its not, it's MY backyard!" and he sounds southern to the core.
Bush-Cheney '04 is providing some counterprogramming to the Kerry-Edwards show -- an ad featuring John McCain called "First Choice." It refers to talks between John Kerry and John McCain of forming a bipartisan ticket, which, according to reports, McCain ultimately rejected. This indeed is the main GOP talking point for the day, and it bears more than a whiff of desperation. When faced with a popular, youthful, persuasive, fresh Democratic voice in John Edwards -- who will offer quite a contrast to Dick Cheney when the debates roll around -- the Republicans are forced to resort to an ad featuring a leading Republican who has made news this year for his barely-veiled criticisms of Bush and his statements of support for his good friend John Kerry.
Judy Woodruff just reported on CNN that McCain's office confirmed they were notified that his campaign appearance for Bush last week would appear in a Bush-Cheney ad, but McCain also pointed out that he remains close friends with both Kerry and Edwards and doesn't plan to criticize either one of them. Meanwhile, a posting on the blog Eschaton unearths a quote from McCain saying Edwards has "the ambition, the talent and the brains to go very far, to be president of the United States." Is this the best spokesman/attack dog Bush-Cheney '04 can come up with on the first day of the newly-unveiled Democratic ticket?
It's fascinating to watch the Bush campaign use McCain now for its purposes when the Karl Rovian smear campaign against McCain in 2000 is still so fresh in many minds. It was Bush's fear that the popular, maverick Arizona senator was then "first choice" of many Republicans that led to dirty tricks against McCain. As McCain's former campaign manager remembered it:
In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear."
"It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin."
"Anonymous opponents used 'push polling' to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the 'pollster' determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator."
"Thus, the 'pollsters' asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign."
"Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to 'fellow South Carolinians' stating that McCain had 'chosen to sire children without marriage.' It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: 'Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock.' Hand replied, 'Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?'"
George W. Bush's birthday is coming up on July 6th — and we are going to make sure it is his last one in the White House! Help me celebrate by sending him a birthday haiku like this one:
Dick has Done You In It is back to Crawford for you Mission Accomplished
I wrote this haiku myself, but you can also pick one written by someone else — go to the Bush Birthday Haiku home page to choose a card design to go with your haiku.
All original haiku will be entered into a contest — the 10 best and the 10 worst will be featured on this site to provide inspiration to others. All the cards will be delivered to Bush/Cheney HQ on July 6th.
Thanks for the Salon reference, Judith. It got me to the Bush ad.
My first reaction was "how did they get McCain to do this?" There's nothing they can offer him; he'd know that any cabinet post he'd be offered would be frozen out. State would appeal, but only if he actually got to be secretary of state. But then I read the rest of the salon piece, and it clear that he didn't know, when he made the introduction, that it would be used as a full thirty second ad.
It also weirds me out that they feature the strut at the end, in the "I approved this message" bit. Do they really think that the strut is going to swing undecided voters?
The Bushies are so terrified they're launching attacks against our SOLDIERS. See Lies and Consequences....Unnamed Bush officials are blaming the military for the failure in Iraq
RIGHT WINGERS FOR KERRY--Charley Reese Orlando Sentinel
Vote For a Man Not a Puppet
Americans should realize if they vote for Bush they are voting for the architects of war--Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the necon ideologues and their corporate backers.
I've sadly concluded that Bush is merely a front man, an empty suit, manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in memory. (Reece must be reading the Mote of a year or two ago!)
No wonder Bush avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately n English than our own president at their joint press conference recently. (Not to mention Blair!)
John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his campaign.
But Jefferson said it well when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.
People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.
It is not conservative to baloon government spending, vastly increase the power of government, show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people shouldn't know what their government is doing. [More]
Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His admin. leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.
I't no wonder the Justice Dept has convicted a few Arab- Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a fed prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you plea-bargain or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?
This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons but because Bush's fgoreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated n the Middle East, but has few friends anywherre in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush admin. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.
I'll swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's website and read some of the magazine profiles on him You'll ind that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe.
Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, rides motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.
"When Republicans charge that Dems are out of touch with the "real America" they actually have a point. Dems poll well on issues like the economy, but Republicans triumph on values--and for wavering Missourians, vlaues trump issues.
"Thomas Frank has written a fasacinating new book about this distinction, 'What's the Matter With Kansas.' His point is that working class Americans have a strong economic interest in electing Democrats, but that cultural issues drive them to vote Republican. (K-Man?)
"'If you earn over $300,000 a year, you owe a great deal to this derangement,' Mr. Frank writes. 'Raise a glass sometime to those indigent High Plains Republicans as you contemplate your good fortune: It is thanks to their self-denying votes that you are no longer burdened by the estate tax, or troublesome labor unions, or meddling bank regulators...It is a working-class movement that has done incalculable, historic harm to working class people.'" More here
my husband calls cnn "al jazeera usa", but I was really laughing yesterday and thought msnbc should be msdnc when the talking head, completely unaware of what she said announced, "coming up, we expect an announcement of a running mate by Sen John Kennedy."
The lineup of primetime speakers at the Republican Convention predictably reflects its New York location by giving prominent spots to the hosts, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor George Pataki. But those enjoying the coveted spotlight also pay tribute to New York's former Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Joining the hosts will be other mavericks and dissidents who represent a minority in Ronald Reagan's GOP. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona's Senator John McCain, and California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will all be at the primetime podium. The only announced speaker who actually agrees with President Bush on major issues is Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georigia.
The decision to showcase rogue elephants as representatives of the modern Republican party is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment. If the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not. The Republican party seems to habitually internalize the criticisms of its opponents. When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party's convention is a Democrat, the GOP has a serious identity problem. The Kerry-Edwards ticket is liberal. The Boston convention will not be featuring Louisiana senator John Breaux in an attempt to pretend otherwise.
I have my popcorn and I'm ready for the big show . . . Zippy in a NASCAR driver's suit and Dickhead in a hunting outfit--what utter Republican hippness.
I suppose it's exciting when your constituents are either braindead or already stirred up from learning their corporate shares are increasing in value thanks to yet more “public” contracts in Iraq.
BREAKING NEWS: Homeland security officials in Washington will announce this morning that they have specific information about an Al Qaeda plot targeting the Democratic Convention in Boston and the Republican Convention in New York, CNN is reporting.
It's believed, the official said, al Qaeda will attempt to strike before the November presidential election, the official added.
No new specific intelligence exists, and Ridge will not announce that he is raising the national color-coded threat level beyond the yellow, or elevated, level,.It was not immediately clear how the assessment of existing intelligence has led Ridge to his planned remarks.
Ridge will outline measures the country has taken to ramp up security, the official said.
In other words, no substance at all. just another effort by Ridge to justify his budget.
An Al Qaeda attack during the conventions would suit the Bush people just fine. Voters might see it as justification of the whole "war on terrorism" debacle. It would be almost as welcome as capturing Osama on cue.
Or it could be seen as BushCo being so inept, they couldn't prevent it even with all the improvements they've made and the war on Tara they've waged thus far.
A number of polls were released today indicating a positive reaction to Kerry's selection of Edwards as his running mate and suggesting an immediate boost to the Democratic ticket. CBS News, for example, found the Kerry-Edwards ticket besting Bush-Cheney by 5 points (49-44) among RVs, while Kerry alone was leading Bush by only a point (45-44) 10 days ago.
That poll also finds Cheney with a heavily net negative (-20) favorability rating--only 27 percent favorable, compared to 47 percent unfavorable. Edwards is not rated by many respondents but those who do view him favorably by about the same margin ((38 percent favorable/9 percent unfavorable, for a +19 net rating) that Cheney is viewed unfavorably.
Even more impressive, in NBC News' overnight poll, Kerry-Edwards leads Bush-Cheney by 11 points (54-43). Moreover, 24 percent day Edwards' selection makes them more likely to vote for Kerry, compared to just 7 percent who say that selection makes them less likely.
They're in a dilemma. Sometimes they use the argument that the absence of any attacks in the US shows that they are combatting terroism successfully. Sometimes they say the threat is real, and something may happen at any time. They bounce between trying to keep people scared and trying to reassure people of their competence. As with many of their messages, they assume that we've forgotten the last one when they put out the next one.
There's gonna be a boy who cried wolf effect at some point.
They've haven't actually caught anybody doing anything. They've arrested a guy for thinking about taking down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch, another guy for thinking about making a dirty, a group of guys for going to Afghanistan. Passengers have stopped a couple of airline things, both of them nutters.
It's easy to think of operations that would be effective and unstoppable here. One has to wonder why nothing has happened.
Didn't someone post an article about the psychological effect of the "terror on, terror off", mixed message approach as being one to keep you feeling deeply insecure and at risk, and thus unlikely to want to change horses midstream....plays perfectly into their ad message of "steady leadership"....keep them fearful and they'll be sure to grasp for that steady liferaft in the storm.
Is it possible that they fear an attack on the US would weaken the Bush position and they prefer him to remain in power for recruiting purposes, which apparently are at an all-time high?
Bush has been very, very good for al qaeda. Al qaeda has been very, very good for Bush.
The political calculus of the effect of an attack is very hard to figure. There are already voices from the left pointing out that terrorism is a bigger world wide threat than it was before the Iraq war.
It partly depends on the nature of such an attack. Something out of the blue that nobody anticipated would probably help Bush. The 9/11 attack, which should have been anticipated (previous similar operations had taken place), but were surprising and dramatic enough that nobody really blames the administration for not preventing it.
Something that could have been prevented had there been sufficient security in place would probably hurt Bush.
The most likely thing--a suicide bomber in a shopping mall, or something like that--would have little effect either way. It would have be what the bin Laden experts call a "spectacular" to have an effect.
Did anyone see the jon stewart show where he showed michael moore on the cbs show where he completely took over the interview? Lotta fun.
Also had him interspersing film clips of the report justifying torture, w denying he approved torture, denying he read the memo, then stewart reading the memo and showing it signed by w.
In the months after the tragic attacks of 9/11, President Bush told the American people that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use [the War on Terror] as a political issue." But according to a new report, the Bush Administration is now demanding that international allies coordinate the arrest of al Qaeda terrorists to coincide with key U.S. political events, so as to maximize political benefits for the President.
According to the New Republic, top Pakistani intelligence officials have confirmed that the Bush Administration is demanding the Pakistani government find as many "high value" terrorist targets specifically before Americans go to the polls in November. By contrast, no similar urgent push or "timetable" was discussed in 2002 or 2003. Even more troubling, Pakistani sources admit White House aides told the Pakistani Director of Intelligence that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any high value terrorist target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July" - the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
The report calls into question whether key military decisions were affected by similar political motivations during the last three years. For instance, during 2002 and 2003 when al Qaeda was regrouping along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Bush administration refused calls to seriously increase operations there. Only in March of 2004 - once the Presidential election campaign had begun -- did the President finally announce "stepped up efforts" in Afghanistan to find bin Laden.
This will fail because none of the "high value targets" have name recognition except Bin Laden and Zarqawi. Contemplate a triumphant message that Hussein bin Shakr bin Ali known as Al Afghani "a top level Al Qaida executive" has been captured. Yawn. And Bin Laden may well be dead.
I don't care if they do it, the thing that is telling is that these assholes are asking for it to be done. BushCo have the arrogance to think they can control the tides and the moon...they are just that ego-driven.
Bush turns down offer to speak at NAACP convention although Kerry accepts the offer.
NAACP spokesman John White said Wednesday that Bush has declined invitations in each year of his presidency -- becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover not to attend an NAACP convention.
The NAACP received a letter from the White House three weeks ago declining the invitation because of scheduling conflicts and thanking them for understanding.
do you think americans need name recognition? The media can create it for them...just like the military did with the iraq deck of cards.
After all we are talking about the people who think new mexico is not part of the US, whose president adds an "f" to abu graib...abu gareff, and only 13% of those 18-24 can even find iraq on a map. Do you think they'll be able to distinguish who's who with all those very long foreign names? I don't. All they need is for fox to declare that we've captured the "right hand man" of bin laden or a "senior al qaeda operative" and they've gained cred.
oh absolutely, J@h. It's disgusting how they have taken the most serious attack on us soil, not to mention the ongoing threat of further attacks, and politicized the entire thing. It's worse than shameful. It's downright dangerous.
Bush has been very, very good for al qaeda. Al qaeda has been very, very good for Bush.
Yes, Jay, they have so much in common--rejection of their backgrounds and total submergence in religious fanaticism. This pair has really renewed the Islam vs Christian horrors of the past.
WASHINGTON (AP) Military payroll records that could more fully document President Bush's whereabouts during his service in the Texas Air National Guard were inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
In a letter responding to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press, the Defense Department said that microfilm containing the pertinent National Guard payroll records was damaged and could not be salvaged. The damaged material included payroll records for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972.
''President Bush's payroll records for those two quarters were among the records destroyed,'' wrote C.Y. Talbott, of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information and Security Review section. ''Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful.'' (continued)
Several people pointed to the secretive and exclusive Bilderberg conference of some 120 people that this year drew the likes of Henry A. Kissinger, Melinda Gates and Richard A. Perle to Stresa, Italy, in early June, as helping win Mr. Kerry's heart.
"His [Edward's] performance at Bilderberg was important," said a friend of Mr. Kerry who was there. "He reported back directly to Kerry.
The Bilderberg Group, eh?
Bilderberg --> The Illuminati --> World Government --> Black Helicopters.
Order your tinfoil hats now, folks, before the price increases.
It's spot on when it says "in speech after speech Kerry has laid the ground work for expanding and prolonging the US presence in Iraq." This is indeed the case, and though Kerry would presumably rely on a multilateral approach, the result will be not quite different from the neocon's initial vision of a US-backed bastion in the ME which would attempt to trigger positive change largely by fiat and "positive example."
Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for Kerry and have been a strong supporter all along. He is my kind of patrician American politician, self-groomed for serious political power from the start. I like him, I like his background, I really like his wife, and I admire the choice of Edwards as running mate.
But, the Dems have not impressed in foreign relations in the past decade. Clinton, frankly, sucked as a foreign policy President in many of the areas of my particular concern, and it is deeply unsatisfying to see incompetents like Holbrooke raise their ugly heads again as potential officers in the Kerry administration.
At the same time, if the US is going to go at this imperial-type adventure as seems likely whatever the results of November, I prefer a dyed-in-the-wool liberal internationalist at the helm. That's Kerry, not knee-jerk, not a wishy-washy half-multilateralist like Clinton. This is a senator who has made his bones stalking the UN and international fora for decades, who has internationalism in his bones, who is on the right side (read liberal, read popular international side) on every issue from global warming to family planning to the ICJ.
I once saw Kerry at a dinner held by an international family planning NGO, this was already into the era when the US was witholding funds to groups deemed insufficently "pro-life." He was, of course, the only US officeholder to attend and when he entered it was clear that he was an unapologetic champion of the cause. Embraces, genuine embraces, were exchanged with the leaders of the NGO and also with the head of the UN Family Planning association. It was an amazingly warm reception for someone clearly considered "one of us".
(It's a family thing, by the way, Kerry's sister is a honcho in the NY chapter of Planned Parenthood.)
Anyway, this person who stood outside the US mainstream at the time is now likely to win the Presidential election. A genuine liberal, a French-speaking pro-UN man at the helm of the US government. It's quite a phenomenon to observe, and it is a good omen for the future of American politics.
a longterm approach is the only realistic way to view us involvement in iraq if one has one's sights set on creating anything like a more democratic govt than hussein's.
Loved the letter to the ed in today's nyt:
During one of President Bush's rare press conferences, he told us over and over again that we would not cut and run. Isn't this exactly what American and Iraqi forces have done in Falluja?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) is losing support among the crucial Cuban-American constituency in Florida and new U.S. travel curbs to the island are stirring some division, a poll released on Friday showed.
Sixty-six percent of respondents said they would support Bush if the election was held today, down from 82 percent who voted for him in 2000, according to the poll of 800 Cuban-Americans, commissioned by the William C. Velasquez Institute.
The first time he begs to be removed from the ticket, you should show your loyalty and refuse. Only after he has sorrowfully insisted — absolutely insisted! — on retiring should you reluctantly consent. (This should happen well before the Republican convention so it doesn't look too desperate — or staged.) (continued)
Is it possible or even probable that, as we go into the Republican convention with the Democrats way ahead, the delegates will stampede to enact removal of Cheney in favor of McCain?
Excerpt--This year, once again, a huge number of Americans will experience their most tangible encounter with politics not at a campaign rally, debate, or meetup, or even on the evening news, but by being subjected to a televised political advertisement. And then, very likely, another and another and another ...
Election seasons flood the airwaves with ads. By a wide margin, campaigns are now spending more on advertising than on anything else, and with each cycle the amount they spend grows dramatically. The Campaign Media Analysis Group, a private firm that tracks televised political ads, counted a total of 1,497,386 spots aired in the nation's top 100 markets in 2002. And that year, even without a presidential election, the cost for the first time exceeded $1 billion. In the Boston market one station alone, WMUR, broadcast 17,328 ads. This year those numbers will easily be eclipsed.
Being on the receiving end of all this can feel more like punishment than politics: not only do these ads arrive at an unrelenting pace, but they are nearly indistinguishable from one another. Every year, like clockwork, the same shopworn phrases are intoned against a flow of stock footage in identical, shoddily produced attacks ("My opponent says he's against terrorism—so why did he cut funding for our troops?") and counterattacks ("We need progress, not divisive attacks"), all narrated with the same portent-of-doom voice-over implying that a miscast vote for first selectman could imperil the republic. Most people would agree that televised political ads, almost without exception, are remorselessly bad.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report (which I haven't read yet; it's 500 odd pages long and I've been a little busy) is said to target the CIA for providing the president with faulty intelligence. This leaves Bush in a difficult position. He can't have it both ways. He can't say that he embarked on the Iraq war in good faith based on erroneous intelligence and then also say that the war was nonetheless justified.
The Michigan poll showing Kerry ahead 50 to 43 over Bush matches my personal impression. I know two Republicans who are supporting Kerry over Iraq lies and the budget deficit.
Magoseph (#6340): Good article. In addition to the boring sameness of political ads (It seems like the same voice-of-doom announcer is doing EVERY campaign commercial in every race in the country), what frustrates me is that after a slew of campaign commercials, the voter is often WORSE-informed than he/she was to begin with. (Kind of like watching Fox News (sic).) Part of the problem is the media not doing its job to inform the public and correct misimpressions created by misleading ads.
"'Ski Patrol' [was a commercial that] was created with the Bush campaign in mind but never had a chance to air. It begins with a shot of blue sky and pristine alps. 'Howard Dean was granted a deferment from the military after showing up at a recruitment office with an x-ray indicating he had a bad back,' the voice-of-God narrator says. Suddenly a skier shoots off a snowy precipice and slaloms expertly down the mountain. 'That very same year, Dean went on to ski eighty times—eighty—helping him to become an expert skier and the perfect commander in chief ... if we ever go to war against Switzerland.'"
I'm SO glad Dean is not the nominee. The Bush/Cheney campaign would make sure we heard about nothing other than Dean's skiing trips all the way to November 2.
"This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. . ..
"This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. . . . The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. . . .
"A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." .. . according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.""
For any other administration, this would be unbelievable.
On "This Week" this morning, Fareed Zakaria said that a terrorist attack in the United States before the election would be a "godsend" for George W. Bush.
Well, then, we have nothing to worry about! Since Osama bin Laden wants John Kerry to be President (so we're told, not always impliedly, by the Repubs), Al Qaeda will surely leave us alone.
"QUESTION: Sir, once again you're saying that al-Qaeda wants to disrupt the democratic process. There are some, you know, who will interpret that as the Administration sending a subtle message that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Osama bin Laden. How do you address those concerns . . .?"
Ridge denied it, but I'm sure what he wanted to say was, "Sending a SUBTLE message? No."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda.
U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.
"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.
Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.
Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.
The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.
The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.
I have a lot of liberal friends who I respect a great deal. I was at dinner the other night and unfortunately the topic turned to F911 and the election in general. Now, while I am 90% likely to vote Bush out, some of the stuff they were saying implied a lot of conspiracies I just have a hard time believing.
One was that Diebold (a company making electronic voting machines) was refusing to create voting machines that generated a paper trail as a way to proof elections if there is another controvercy. They contend that this is just because big business wants to rig the election; however, if this were true, wouldn't the Democrats be all over this? It's also odd that we've gone from paper trails being the evil that got Bush into office, to electronic methods being the evil method by which he stays in office.
Their idea (which is good) they had was that you vote, and the machine tallies the vote. You then confirm your vote on a slip of paper the thing prints out, carry that paper, and it is locked in a box. If the vote is disputed, then the boxes are pulled out... otherwise they stay locked up forever.
Personally, I don't think this guarantees much as we say boxes go missing in Fla. anyway.
Second, while my friend's bumber sticker that says "Redefeat Bush" is pretty humorous... the reocunt studies months afterward indicate that Bush still would have legitimately won. I keep asking that if the rolls had been reversed would people who oppose Bush now, have insisted that he won the election? I tend to doubt this. In fact I beleive the Dems were just as guilty of trying to do influence the outcome by only recounting certain Fla counties as well as championing the "intent of the voter" unpunched chad stuff.
Personally, it was a clusterfuck, but the only reason the Supreme Court got involed was because the Fla Supreme Court got involved (and was trying to make up election law that was beyond their pervue).
In any outcome we would have had activist courts, and shenanegans on each party's side. So the only way I could come down was to go by what the rules were at the time of the election... and based on those rules, Bush won legitimately independent of the Supreme Court and the Fla Supreme Court.
It's not like the dems are totally clean. They're treading on thin ice in my eye by bypassing election law through 'independent' groups such as moveon.org
Anyway... some of the stuff that Liberal friends of mine seem willing to buy into seems pretty paranoid... and if you ask me there's plenty of factual information that this shouldn't even be necessary.
And then there's the offering of the Dems to the American public. Some of the most left-wing democrats they could find.... and so.... fake.
I dunno... I'm feeling about as disenfranchised as I have ever felt. There seems to be no sanity in politics anymore.
One was that Diebold (a company making electronic voting machines) was refusing to create voting machines that generated a paper trail as a way to proof elections if there is another controvercy. They contend that this is just because big business wants to rig the election;
One of the reasons your liberal friends might be paying attention to this "conspiracy" is because the head honcho of Diebold has made the statement in public that he "would do anything to see to it that Bush was reelected."
Statements like that by the man who is manufactruring the voting machines tend to make one antsy.
I keep asking that if the rolls had been reversed would people who oppose Bush now, have insisted that he won the election?
What do you mean...if Gore had won, would the people who oppose Bush (Gore supporters) have insisted Bush won? I seriously doubt they would be claiming Bush was the legitimate winner. Or do you mean Bush supporters wouldn't be insisting Gore was in office illegally and that Gore had stolen the election from their guy? Because I know for a fact they would have been rasing hell for the last three years and never letting a day go by without insisting their guy was really the winner.
It's not like the dems are totally clean. They're treading on thin ice in my eye by bypassing election law through 'independent' groups such as moveon.org
They are not bypassing election laws. They are upholding their right to free speech as protected by the constitution and verified by the supreme court. And expressing their desire to see w not reelected is a damn sight better than what scaife &co did to clinton where throughout his administration they actively tried to oust a duly-elected sitting president and nearly did so.
Let's not forget the goper actions like creating a website called "moveamericaforward.com". Gee, I wonder why they picked that name....
I agree with you tho that the dems certainly did not choose the best candidate for pres and while edwards may add umphf which the campaign clearly needs, it still suffers from a lack of a message. It's not enough to run as the anti-bush, especially since, if you read kerry on iraq, he's out bushing bush in terms of level of involvement for years to come, and with edwards on the ticket, they may out protection protectionist george which is also a bad thing for the country.
In my book the best dem for the job would've been colin powell...but he's now lost too much cred to his role as a bushie, as have so many others.
I don't think Bush is in the center... This administration is not going to get my vote.
OK so diebold's pres said he'd do anything to get Bush re-elected. It's not like there's no oversight... the Gov't could demand that a paper trail be part of the system. I think most people believe in fair's fair and this is the kind of thing that should be all over the headlines.
What I'm saying about the last election is that if rolls had been reversed (Bush won popular, Gore won Fla) most of the people would have the opposite opinion on every issue they had now. They Fla supreme court would have decided the other way. Dems in favor of "voter intent" would not be for interpretting chads. Republicans would have sued (just like Gore).
Beyond that, with the way it did pan out, if Gore had managed to get a recount in his favor it would have been at the hand of activist courts. It's just odd that everyone who's against an activist court that decided in Bush's favor, would have been all for it if it'd been in Gore's favor.
Everyone except it seems me. If Gore had won in identical situation as Bush, I would have supported Gore's win, because the rules (as they were at the time) are the rules.
One was that Diebold (a company making electronic voting machines) was refusing to create voting machines that generated a paper trail as a way to proof elections if there is another controvercy
This is in fact true. It's an appalling failure on the part of government officials that many electronic voting machines have no recount or auditing capability--in contrast to, for example, atm machines.
I keep asking that if the rolls had been reversed would people who oppose Bush now, have insisted that he won the election?
Actually if the roles had been reversed, the republicans were gearing up to illegitamize a popular loss, and electoral win by Gore. Their polling indicated that would be a strongly possible result--as in the Harrison over Cleveland election that features a similar urban vs rural candidate.
The point is that both sides would have fervently supported the opposite position if the roles had been reversed... particularly those who still claim that it was fixed.
That's as may be. I don't think so. At this point in time, I think the Republicans will do anything, say anything in pursuit of power. The image of Gingrich arguing for impeachment for the president's shtupping a staffer while he himself was shtupping a staffer has been seared indelibly on my brain.
I think Gore was an idiot to to not take a simple, clear position--recount the state.
I think Gore was a bigger idiot to not win Tennessee.
caught the tail end of a piece on the prison report on NPR this a.m. about the conditions being far worse on prisoners than just torture including the fact that the food provided to them by private contractors is inedible and causes prisoners to vomit leading to even more unrest and a more difficult time in managing the prison. Food said to include insects, rats, dirt...
Just another sign that you can't do "war-lite" as rummy keeps insisting, and just because privatization is a good idea in many instances doesn't mean it's a good idea in ALL instances.
An Austin-based advocacy group sent the House Ethics Committee a petition Monday with the signatures of 10,000 Texans demanding that the panel pursue an investigation into the activities of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.
Glenn Smith, director of DriveDemocracy.org, said he wanted the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee to act on the ethics complaint filed in June by Rep. Chris Bell, D-Houston. "We're going to make DeLay and the committee aware that everyone's watching this," said Smith, a Democratic activist....
sensible thing in my book would be to require congressional districts be drawn according to certain rules, one of which would minimize the ratio between perimeter length and area. That would put an end to gerrymandering.
All incumbents are in favor of gerrymandering. The dems sold their souls to the devil when they traded off gerrymandered safe seats for blacks and Latinos for safe seats for right wing republicans. For example, look at Congressman David Scott's 13th District in the Atlanta metro area.
One more point on electronic voting. There need be no nefarious motive more serious than trying to deliver as little as possible on a contract, as often happens when the government hires contractors. Not including an audit procedure, or a backup procedure increases the profit margin. As Mark Fiore's most recent animated political cartoon points out, electronic slot machines receive much greater scrutiny than voting machines do.
I grew up in the Land that invented voter fraud...Louisiana
When I was growing up and politiking I remember the security measures taken to protect the forerunners of EV machines - the mechanical voting machine...stored in a windowless concrete warehouse -ritually unlocked and loaded (so to speak) by the Parish Sheriff each Election Day
Seems like the same problem only geekier....I am happy with SF's scantrons...you have a paper ballot stored inside the unit so if something goes wrong with the electronics..
I had a conversation recently with a friend of my husband who had enjoyed the benefits of a preparatory/Yale type education. He pointed out that the relationships developed during that period, more often than not, are carried forward into life. He noted that Bush does not seem to have maintained these associations and certainly, they have not played any part in his political career. Our friend believes this to be very unusual and strange.
This individual has an extensive and lifetime experience in the Securities field. His position about the Bush sale of his stock in the small oil company he controlled is simple enough—it is a clear case of security fraud, and anyone other than the President’s son would have been prosecuted for it.
He also points out that in spite of all the reputable connections in the Bush background, George W. has managed to connect with questionable elements as a matter of practice, the Ken Lay association being a prime example. With all the respectable choices that he had in respect to those who had served with his father, whom does he pick? A four-time draft-dodger with a history of shady business practices.
"Bush opened a two-day tour of three Midwestern states he lost in 2000 - Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin - and carefully targeted his travels Tuesday around Lake Superior to appeal to conservative Democrats.
"Aides said they viewed the region as fertile ground for a pitch on values and felt Bush had to respond after Kerry visited earlier this month and declared himself the guardian of "conservative values."
"Bush's Michigan audience of political supporters groaned when Bush repeated Kerry's claim. "I know, I know. Those were his own words," the president said . . ."
Kerry volunteered for dangerous combat duty in Vietnam. Bush employed the privilege of family connections to get into the Air National Guard (and slacked off on his duties thereafter).
Kerry wants to balance the federal budget and pay for current expenditures out of current receipts. Bush wants to run big deficits so high-income Americans can enjoy big tax cuts.
Kerry thinks Presidents should tell the public the truth. Bush has lied whenever convenient ("no doubt" about WMD's; tax cuts titled towards middle class; "Kenny Who?"), on every possible subject.
You know, I have to agree with the President. By the standards of present-day Republican/conservatives, Bush, not Kerry, IS the one with conservative values.
I admit Bush's integrity is more or less diminished over avoiding VietNam... but is it any worse than Clinton?
In any case, people change... and although I doubt Bush has gained much in the way of integrity... Kerry certainly could have compromised his in the past 30 years.
I don't have a good read on Kerry yet, but conservative he ain't.
iiibbb, i don't see how you can focus on bush and integrity over vietnam but not mention the key issue. On going into iraq, he was either duped by his own people, or he outright lied to us. IAC, it doesn't really matter which. In either case he's proved unreliable and untrustworthy. In either case, hundreds of americans and thousands of iraqis have died for no good reason and as a result america is at greater risk from terrorism and less likely to get help from other nations for whatever reason.
Not to mention the impact he's had on fiscal deficit, environmental policy, energy policy, social security, trade policy, jobs, incomes, civil rights, government transparency, education, etc, etc
He outright lied. Don't forget that at the time the war was started, we knew there were no nukes. El Bahraedi had made that report to the UN. We knew that no CBW had been found, despite Blix having been given access to the places where Rumsfeld has said we knew there were weapons. The only al Qaeda presence in Iraq was in oppostion to Saddam, and in the northern no-fly zone. There was absolutely no chance that fighting on the streets of Baghdah would prevent fighting on the streets of NYC.
It was entirely clear at the of that speech in March 2003 that there the bases that he was claiming were all false--as I said at the time--and false on the basis of the public record--except for the claim that he was a tyrant preying on his own people.
What's even worse is Bush is continuing to say those things, even after they've been proven to be without a basis. It's time for the media to start following up his claims with the contents of the SSCI report.
It was clear to sentient beings, not long after he was elected, that Bush was a bigger liar than Richard Nixon. The truth was the opposite of whatever he said--on the environment, on minorities, on his tax program, on his foreign policy and of course his repeated lies and distortions on Iraq.
jay, fine, he lied. However many gopers do not believe he lied (like my spouse) because they believe he was lied to and manipulated by his surrounding and controlling neocons.
My point is that either way it's totally irrelevant. Either way he's incompetent and untrustworthy.
A husband and wife who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president’s Fourth of July appearance aren’t going down without a fight: They will be represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union as they contest the trespassing charges against them Thursday morning in Charleston Municipal Court.
Police took Nicole and Jeff Rank away in handcuffs from the event, which was billed as a presidential appearance, not a campaign rally. They were wearing T-shirts that read, “Love America, Hate Bush.”
Yes, and I agree with that. But the notion that all intelligence agencies around the world, democrats who voted for the war resolution, UN folks who voted fot the inspection and let's see resolution were all agreed that the war was justified is an irrelevant argument.
Evidence was gathered after those people reached those conclusions. The evidence was gathered by inspectors who found no support for the conclusions reached by those parties. The people gathering the evidence proposed a mechanism for proving the only negative that was not clearly proven, the presence of CBW. This administration rejected that process, and launched a war with clear knowledge that the justifications were, at best, dubious wrt CBW, and false wrt terrorism and nukes.
Jay, yes I agree they used a lot of excuses for attacking iraq, and even at that time, I said none of them were the genuine reason. I suggested it was all about oil but was trounced upon by many for saying that. F911 suggests it's all about business and $$. Rummy suggested it was all about "good targets". Wolfie suggested it's all about the domino theory in reverse...create democracy in iraq and the rest of the mideast will fall in line. Anatole whatshisface suggested it's all about israel. And Lehmann suggested that among these other reason's there's avenging "daddy's" murder attempt...which seems way out of line since w apparently didn't even consult with daddy on attacking iraq.
So what is it? Why Iraq? All of the above? or something else?
I guess my thinking is that lying to us is not sufficient if it turns out to be the right thing in the end. Like the argument about whether fdr let pearl harbor happen to get the us into the war...it becomes less important in light of how critical it was for the us to get involved.
If it turns out that it was all about $$ or personal gain for the bush cabal, that's a very different thing.
Problem is, it's very difficult to prove intent...
If by "it's very difficult to prove intent" you mean that it is difficult to prove what the actual reasons were for entering into the war wrt Bush and Cheney, that's right. They've chosen not to share their actual motiviations. We know what the neo-cons motivations were, though. Security for Israel. They're on the record on that issue.
My view is that the DoD wanted a secure base to replace the Saudi base, which was looking very dicey. I think that Rove saw the numbers of a wartime president and wanted another war. Iraq was the easiest prospect. I realize that sounds terribly cynical, but what has struck me about this administration is how cynical and dishonest it is in exploiting American ignorance and in its willingness to repeatedly say things that aren't true.
If by intent, you mean whether they knew they were lying when they started the war, there's no question that they did. It is sufficient to note that they phrased key statements in a way that they could, if called on it, claim to have been literally true, The only question I have is whether they started the war so soon after the inspectors' report because they feared that there were no wmd in Iraq, and wanted to get going before that became apparent to all.
The whole operation was cleaely predicated on an extremely naive belief in what the aftermath would be like. They told these lies because, imo, they believed that the mission would be accomplished by the summer, and that the only mission was military victory. They thought they'd be able to install Chalabi, and schedule elections for sometime later (if ever, but that's me being cyncial again--this administration is no friend of democracy). If that had bappened, then the success of the operation would have trumped the false justifications.
Oh I agree about the numbers and the war time pres...reagan went to grenada and got a bump; bush I went to panama and got a bump; so W had to do it bigger.
The reasons for going to war were probably a combination of those things...the base is a good one, oil is good, the lure of $$$ which the bushies certainly made after the first iraq war is good, helping israel is good even if it makes no sense, boosting the numbers is good. I'm sure they even believed ending a dictatorial regime was good.
But there are 2 flaws with their actions, both of which are unforgivable imv:
o the damage done to the us in terms of international rep by a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation
o pursuing iraq at the expense of pursuing terrorists who continue to be the real and growing threat to the US
Where these 2 come together is the enemy is not state based. That means the threat can come from within any nation, so the only way to fight it is with the help of the eyes and ears of the people in those nations. Post-9/11 the world was willing to support the us in its efforts to fight terrorism. That has all since evaporated, leaving the Us more vulnerable. This is aside from the 'recruiting poster' that iraq has become.
there's avenging "daddy's" murder attempt...which seems way out of line since w apparently didn't even consult with daddy on attacking iraq.
I don't think it was so much avenging daddy as one-upping daddy. He has never succeeded in doing that, not in school; certainly not in the military; not in business; not in anything, really.
It seems that Bush is developing some teflon qualities.
BOSTON Media coverage of President George W. Bush has been largely unflattering this campaign season, but there is little indication that the bad press has affected the country's view of him, a new survey shows.
"Neither of these guys is in control of their message, but it's probably not hurting Bush as much," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
"Bush has suffered a huge onslaught of news coverage, but it's generally not having any impact on people's perceptions," Rosenstiel said of its negative tone. "Meanwhile, Kerry has not made much of an impression because he's been absent."
"The news is probably, on balance, worse for Kerry," he said.
If the press would really let loose and do some decent investigative reporting and pound him over some of this stuff, maybe people would wake up. But I doubt it. It's much easier to ignore any bad news and just go with the flow.
NEW YORK (AP) - Cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who has skewered politicians for decades in his comic strip ``Doonesbury,'' tells Rolling Stone magazine he remembers Yale classmate George W. Bush as ``just another sarcastic preppy who gave people nicknames and arranged for keg deliveries.''
Trudeau attended Yale University with Bush in the late 1960s and served with him on a dormitory social committee.
``Even then he had clearly awesome social skills,'' Trudeau said. ``He could also make you feel extremely uncomfortable ... He was extremely skilled at controlling people and outcomes in that way. Little bits of perfectly placed humiliation.
Actually it suggests that the media is far less influential than they like to think themselves to be. As a recall, even in the middle of the lewinsky trial, wjc's approval rating was still very high.
Recent article which i can't unfortunately find in the ny times showed a chart on the not surprising fact that gopers trust the likes of fox and the wall st journal and dems trust the likes of cnn and the nytimes but that both parties level of trust of ANY media outlet has dropped sharply over the last several years.
Very surprising though in the data was the fact that dems trust the wall st journal more than reps do.
Darn! Wish i could find it. grumble grumble grumble
Gee, Wombat, was he really that bad? That's creepy. Is there a way to read it without subscribing (through a day pass, or is that just for certain stuff?) and do you have a link? I'm morbidly curious.
To dump, or not to dump: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?
To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub.
One recent contribution to the buzz about Mr. Cheney came Tuesday in a column by Charlie Cook, the editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "Stipulating that dumping a totally loyal, integral part of his inner circle is something that is absolutely not in George W. Bush's DNA, losing with plenty of notice does not appear to be part of his genetic makeup either," Mr. Cook wrote. He concluded that in an election year as close as this one, "the president badly needs something to shake this race up, and I can think of just one thing. Cheney may need to watch his back."
The Wisconsin State Journal made the point high up in its dubya coverage today that the LOFW got up this morning in downtown Milwaukee and made fast tracks for the suburbs and exurbs. No chance that he'll venture anywhere near the Peoples Republic of Madison. Gore won Wisconsin by 5,700 votes in 2000 and the bushies are fighting like hell here to prevent that from happening again. They did advertise an "Ask the President" session at Fond du Lac but that was for invited guests only. heh-heh.
You can't see the major when the major is in, don't you know...but you can see him when he's out...
Lovely weather here. Locals were bitching that it was 88 yesterday. High 70s today. Alas, come Monday it's home to Texas.
Look for me on I-35. I'll be in the left lane with the blinkers on...
Terry McAuliffe's latest email admonishes the Faithful to tune in and see "the most united Democratic Party in the history of the US".
Now I am not sufficiently well-versed in US History to back up that claim so I just more modestly claim 50 years...
Either way, the fact is inescapable and as I have said, DECISIVE...
Kerry isn't busy placating one wing or the other as Kennedy, Stevenson, Humphrey, Carter, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore or even Johnson did...
Bush is busy with his base and the Democrats are busy with Bush...
Over the past four months, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has raised more money than the Bush campaign and substantially eroded the president's once-huge cash advantage.
Now, President Bush and his GOP allies have suffered another serious setback: Independent pro-Republican groups that recently vowed to challenge pro-Democratic organizations for supremacy in spending unregulated or "soft" money on campaign ads and voter mobilization are getting their clocks cleaned by their rivals.
Anybody else remember former CIA director James Woolsey repeatedly appearing on TV talk shows on ALL the networks in sport of Bush's invasion of Iraq? Well, that wasn't all he was doing! Read more here
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - John Kerry (news - web sites) has asked Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) to introduce her husband, former President Clinton (news - web sites), on the first night of the Democratic National Convention, giving her a speaking role that Democrats had sought for the New York senator.
The Kerry campaign unveiled its first set of speakers for the convention early this week, including former Presidents Clinton and Gore, Al Gore (news - web sites) and others, but the absence of the former first lady drew criticism from Democrats, particularly women.
The senator herself said she was not disappointed, but a lobbying effort quickly got under way on her behalf.
Kerry, who was campaigning in Pennsylvania, reached out to Clinton and asked her to introduce her husband. She agreed to the request, according to an aide to Kerry.
On Wednesday, the former chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Party had called the slight of Clinton a "total outrage" and "very stupid."
"It's a slap in the face, not personally for Hillary Clinton (news - web sites), but for every woman in the Democratic Party and every woman in America," said Judith Hope.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., expressed disappointment Wednesday with the way the Kerry campaign handled the release of convention speakers, her campaign manager Mike Morrill said.
Mikulski told Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill that the strategy of releasing only a few names each day minimizes the importance of some speakers, Morrill said.
"The senator was very clear that the way they did this botched it," Morrill said. "By doing it as the One-A-Day vitamin strategy, they missed the picture that they have a whole shop of vitamins."
Jay's 6399 is spot on as far as I'm concerned. The evidence that this was a war sold in bad faith from the beginning is not only out there for everyone to see, but I find it astonishingly obvious.
A sitting president, especially one as willing to play nasty hardball as this one is, is never an easy target for outright accusations of criminality. The American people are pretty cynical when it comes to witch-hunts, as they've been suckered into several of them -- and it's also important to note that a majority of Americans were very supportive of Bush when the Iraq war was being planned and conducted, and Americans don't much like being wrong. There are one or two big stories which could break out there which would give people an excuse to turn on Bush, the way Watergate's revelations gave an American electorate that just a year earlier had elected Nixon in a landslide an out for hounding him out of office without having to say 'Welp, looks like were were dumb fucks for that 1972 election.'
It's just a matter of a) finding the right way to crack them, and b) not doing it at a time where it'll wear off before the election.
I like your post. It is one of the best analysis I have seen. I don't quite know how the public can affect Bush's demise. However, it seems to me that the pressure is generating mistakes by the Bush crowd, minor to date, but a number of things could happen--a federal indictment of De Lay or of someone in the Cheney entourage re-Plame outing for example. At any rate, pressure brings on mistakes and who knows what can happen.
I think Fahrenheit 911 is going to represent a turning point. I only know one person who has seen it who has not had their views affected. Everyone I've spoken to about the movie (maybe two dozen people, at this point) see it for what it is--polemicism, not a logically based, well proven argument--but nonetheless walked away shaken and upset. The scenes in the movie that have an impact vary. People like me who have followed this stuff closely didn't learn a lot (and did a fair amount of scoffing)--but I don't remember seeing scenes of the president's limo being egged by a very angry inaugural crowd. Nor did I know that the Saudi embassy is on the Secret Service's beat.
People who have been guided by major media news stories come away having learned considerably more. While the effect has mostly been to harden the position of people already opposed to the administration, a couple of formerly non-voters have registered, and a couple of Bush votes in 2000 are skipping the election. Nader may not be as wrong as I thought--he may turn out to be a protest vote for right wingers disgusted with the president, but unable to pull the lever for Kerry.
What bothers me most is that the media seems to have no mechanism to correct the perception that the Republicans are trying to create. There are opinion columns like Krugman's or Fred Kaplan in yesterday's slate that point out that the president is not telling the truth.
But when ABC runs a ckip of the president saying very forcefully that America is now safer or that the invasion was nonetheless justified, there seems to be no way for Jennings to follow that clip by saying, "Of course, we now know that this is not so."
But when ABC runs a ckip of the president saying very forcefully that America is now safer or that the invasion was nonetheless justified, there seems to be no way for Jennings to follow that clip by saying, "Of course, we now know that this is not so."
Rove and his crew use that fact very well.
Well, I don't know if Jennings can say that. It's obvious that it's true, but if those words ever come out of Jennings' mouth without it being proven in a court of law (and even then, probably) the Republicans will count it a major coup. It will be spun as the old 'liberal media bias' and net the GOP millions in campaign contributions. That's gotta be incredibly frustrating for Jennings.
No, someone else has to step up and take that vicious series of swings at the President that he has set himself up for with all this nonsense and straight-out-lying. He has, as of yet, as you note, not had to pay the piper yet. But I think we all know who's gonna take the gloves off, and now isn't the time to do it. The debates are the time to do it.
Do you know, I just haven't managed to see Fahrenheit 911 yet. I really intend to though, but the last time I had the time to go see it, I discovered that my girlfriend is pretty strongly anti-Michael Moore, so that was a non starter. Perhaps tomorrow night.
Nobody believes that rot anymore, whether Jennings says it or not. The polls indicate that whatever happens in November, Bush lost that one. The ones who would scream media bias already are, and they're funding the GOP just as they always have.
I haven't seen it, but I haven't been inside a theater in years. Probably Jurassic Park (with Mose) was the last time.
Well, I'm no Michael Moore fan. He uses profoundly dishonest techniques, including innuendo and juxtapositions that imply things without saying them. You'll have noticed that the right wing attack machine gave up pretty quickly trying to point out factual errors. He's like the administration most of the time (Bush sometimes lets loose with howlers over trivial issues)--what he says is strictly true, but the viewer comes away with an opinion that is very hard to prove.
And yet, there is actual footage of actual stuff that we just haven't been shown by anyone else. And there a story about one family that illustrates the costs of the war. The combination of the dubiousness of the benefits of the war with a very visceral presentation of the costs is very effective--and not falae.
"But when ABC runs a ckip of the president saying very forcefully that America is now safer . . . there seems to be no way for Jennings to follow that clip by saying, 'Of course, we now know that this is not so.'"
". . . Most troublesome of all are Bush's claims about nuclear proliferation. . . .
"However, the world's most alarming and concrete instance of proliferation—the open emergence of North Korea as a nuclear state—has been appallingly mishandled by the Bush administration. For over a year, Bush refused even to discuss the matter with the North Koreans, despite their clear desire to negotiate. A month ago, he finally offered a deal nearly identical to the deal the North Koreans offered us at the beginning of 2003—but it's too late. They have since moved much closer to mass production of A-bombs, and so they've stiffened their terms. . . .
"Toward the end of his speech, Bush said this:
'Three years ago, the world was very different. Terrorists planned attacks, with little fear of discovery or reckoning. Outlaw regimes supported terrorists and defied the civilized world. … Weapon-proliferators sent their deadly shipments. … The world changed on September the 11th, and since that day, we have changed the world. We are leading a steady, confident, systematic campaign against the dangers of our time. Today, because America has acted and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.'
"Stirring words. But what world is he talking about?"
Speaking of North Korea, I enjoyed watching Newt Gingrich get a mini-smackdown from Richard Holbrooke on the "Today" show last week. (Are transcripts of "Today" available on the net? The only documentation of this I found was a partial transcript at, of all places, RushLimbaugh.com.)
"GINGRICH: . . . What's Kerry saying, is Kerry saying he would invade North Korea? What is his complaint? I want to talk here, Richard, but what would you do in North Korea? If you're not willing to invade Iraq, if you don't think invading Afghanistan was right, what would do you in North Korea? Not talk about, what would you do against the most dangerous dictatorship on the planet?
"HOLBROOKE: Newt, North Korea actually has weapons of mass destruction.
"GINGRICH: Right and got them under the Clinton administration.
"HOLBROOKE: No, they got them before the Clinton administration. . . ."
Rush cuts it off here. Sorry, Newt, you're not being interviewed by Sean Hannity here - false statements don't go unchalleged when there's an honest person in the room.
Clinton came to office with a hostile North Korea having amassed a supply of ready-for-weapons nuclear material during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. The 1994 "Agreed Framework" agreement put that material under UN supervision and halted that process for years, until Bush II's shots from the hip about "evil" North Korea helped induce North Korea to break the agreement and take back the nuclear material. Hopefully things now are ONLY as bad as they were when Clinton took office, and not much, much worse.
yeah, but that doesn't matter. The issue is not, and never should be, whether Clinton dealt with something well or not. The question is whether Bush dealt with something well or not. Saying "Well, yeah, my guy sucks, but your other guy sucks too." is a side issue.
It doesn't matter, in making the decision of who should be president, whether it was Reagan or Clinton who let NK accumu;ate weapons. What does matter is that Bush has botched the issue.
But by invoking Clinton's name, it takes the heat off Bush because the public is supposed to believe Clinton is at fault and what could poor little Bush do, being handed all these problems from the evil Clinton?
Bush has the worst case of transference I have ever seen. He blames every single one of his mistakes on someone else; it's pathological the way he avoids taking responsibility.
For what it is worth (and his political instincts about Republicans especially are often uncanny) Willie Brown thinks that if Cheney's numbers continue to sag, Bush will dump him.
However, I guarantee you that if Cheney is dumped, it will be covered by an excuse such as a claim that Cheney's health is failing.
Of course, there remains the question of who will replace him. Is there a Republican with across-the-board popularity who (unlike Colin Powell, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani) is acceptable to the Republicans' right-wing base?
Thanks Wiz I missed "Press the Meat (in the Bush?)". I didn't miss what Karl Rove said in 2001. In fact, I noted that it meant war on Iraq - a more target rich environment dontcha know!
SEN BYRD: I'm saying they lacked the facts. I didn't have the facts any more than anybody else, but I had studied this administration; I had listened to what Karl Rove had said in Austin, Texas, when he addressed the Republican National Committee in January of 2001 when he indicated that this war, this homeland security subject, all of this, was a horse on which they could ride right through the upcoming election. He indicated that the people trusted the Republicans more to defend this country, and it was his suggestion that the Republican strategy should be to use this in order to win the election. I read about that. And then, as a result of my reading that, every time I saw the president on camera with the backdrop of the military, of the National Guard, I remembered what Karl Rove said. And I think the administration was carrying it right through on his advice.
"You could ask me about any city block in America, and I could tell you how many on that block are likely to be health care voters, or who's most concerned about education or job creation," said DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe. "And I could press a button and six seconds later you'd have a name, an address and a phone number for each of them. We can then begin a conversation with these people that is much more sophisticated and personal than we ever could before."
If you haven't seen this site yet, go and check it out: http://www.jibjab.com/ It's a parody of Kerry and Bush and good for a laugh. The site's been very busy, so you may have to try it a couple of times.
Ohio, I guarantee you that if Cheney is dumped, it will be covered by an excuse such as a claim that Cheney's health is failing. What? And break that winning streak of "I need to spend more time with my family."
Scary how the trudeau piece above perfectly aligns with krugman's piece in today's nytimes. And I thought I was cynical!
You aren't. Hell, some of us have been saying that Bush's grab for Iraq-centered hegemony and oil oil oil has pretty much been Bin Ladin's dream policy for, well, since we realized Bush was actually crazy mean dumb enough to do it.
First it was 'forget about the terrorists'. Then it was 'oh, shit.' Then it was 'Fuckin' terrorists, we're gonna kick your ass!' Then it was 'Hey, Bin Laden is the guy we're after.' Then it was 'Uh, we're not finding Bin Laden.' Then it was 'Well, catching that sneaky ol' Saddam Hussein is just as good!' Then it was 'Well, maybe not.' Now, mark my words, it's gonna be 'Those Iranian bastards aided Bin Laden AND are gonna give him the Bomb. We have proof!'
It really ought to strike more people that two Texas oilmen with massive ties to defense contractors (i.e. heavily invested in both oil and defense, with lots and lots of friends and contributors in both fields) have pursued a policy that, even if it's left the rest of us scratching our heads a bit wondering why the fuck we're doing X or Y.... has relentlessly benefitted the oil and defense industries. If the Middle East clinches up and oil prices rise, that's just a freebie for texas and gulf oil refiners. By what factor did military spending rise under Bush? Where's that money gone, has it gone to pay raises as he promised, or has it gone to defense contractors?
Anything that is thrown at this guy, the solution that he tries to implement always centers on tax cuts for the wealthy, driving up the price of oil, and buying things that go boom.
Like I said, it's not that simple. But people need to think about it a bit more.
Initially, they were making noise about syria...weren't they supposed to be harboring all those WMDs that fled iraq?
And re money for the defense contractors, the big thing that is new to this bunch is the privatization of previously DOD run operations...eg guys in the desert in tents vs. bus employees in the hilton. Not only are they far more expensive, but they also seem to be very lousy at it.
Syria has chemical and biological weapons and they'll use 'em on Israel.
If Bush actually does put the Iran thing on the front burner and the American public actually does fall in line over it, we deserve four more years of him. I'll emigrate, myself. It's really like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
I am thinking, though, that there's just no way that even Bush is stupid enough to try a full court terrorism Iran press the way he did for Iraq. Either there's something crafty planned, or he's gonna just opt himself straight out of a job.
JAH..I doubt that Bush's "investigation" of the IraN/Al Qaeda link is part of a plan of action as much as it is a plan of desperation...
I mean really talk about a day late, dollar short. The NSA memo that the 9/11 Committee is reported to have found is dated December, 2001. In that very month, the Bushies started their warmongering and sent Woolsey on his much ballyhoo'ed investigation in Europe of the Saddam connection to 9/11.
Perhaps someone else has noticed this too....
Bush's best shot, political-desperationwise, is to let the Israeli's launch a surprise attack and let IraN respond with cross-border attacks on IraQ and with a fatwah from Ayatollahs Sistani and Sadr.
Remember also that the Congress takes recess in a week not to return until after the GOP convention for another 2 weeks or so at which time about all they can do is pass the continuing resolutions to cover the appropriations they were unable to get done due to the failure of Bush's 2004 legislative agenda.
He will have lost an important forum for last ditch war mongering.
Gotta let Sharon bail him out on this..not in the greatest shape himself, he could use an airstrike himself
I still think the dems should anonymously start the rumor that if w is reelected, the draft will be reinstated. That just may be the ticket for getting the teens off their butts and into the voting booths.
Well, if they had shown any subtly in the past, one might be concerned that they have intelligence indicating that Iran is preparing military action against Iraq, or the Israelis are planning a pre-emptive attack on nuclear facilities, a la Libya. That plus terrorist whispering campaign may help deflect some discussion of consequences of the Iraq invasion, and lessen opposition to American involvement in an Iranian operation.
Given how overextended the US military is already, anything more than rhetoric directed against Iran would be almost impossible.
God in heaven, they don't want another war. They just want to scare people again. The rhetoric, and a few allegations, and so on, are all they want.
I don't think they want the Israeli strike, either. Well, surely some of the neocons do, but, by now It Has Sunk In that we can't handle the level of unrest there now, much less what happens when the Israelis start blowing up stuff in what is now arguably the most important Muslim country in the world. The Saudis have more money but Iran is now in the catbird seat, because we put them there.
Confession time: I am not too worried if Iran gets the bomb, and I'm pretty damned sure they probably have a few warheads already, bought on the black market. Everyone's running around like headed chickens. Ask them why it's bad and they'll say 'Because it's Iran and they hate us and they support terrorism.' Well, so did the Sovs! The Iranians aren't going to get uppity with the Talmudic bomb in their neighborhood; ironically, it will probably stabilize their state, because they'll have less to worry about from Iran OR the US. Isn't it an irony? Iran getting the bomb might actually contribute greatly to stability in the ME.
Lots of people might read that and go 'what the fuck'. All I ask is that they think about it a bit first.
This is something of a mine-shaft gap paradox that requires a great deal of faith in the power of deterrence. There's certainly plenty of evidence that deterrence works--between superpowers and between weak and strong states. Kennedy was deterred. The Russians never invaded. The US picked certainly nukeless Iraq out the axis of evil to attack.
But it does seem to me that prolif is just a bad thing. The US and the USSR bear much of the blame for proliferation--if we'd done as Reagan wanted and dramatically reduced warhead levels, it would have been easier to convince other countries that they are a bad thing.
In any case, although we'd all prefer that Iran not become a nuclear state, the fact is that they will, unless they are forcibly invaded and conquered. And that, as a remedy, would end up being FAR worse than the disease. As long as Israel is a nuclear state, Iran will aspire to be one. So we might as well start dealing with that reality, unless some peaceful means can be found where Iran eschews nuclear weapons on its own, without the means of leading them to that decision being so upsetting that the ME becomes more destabilized than it would be with Iran merely having a nuclear deterrent.
But it does seem to me that prolif is just a bad thing. The US and the USSR bear much of the blame for proliferation--if we'd done as Reagan wanted and dramatically reduced warhead levels, it would have been easier to convince other countries that they are a bad thing.
Nuclear proliferation certainly is a bad thing. The question is whether it is actually preventable to a state with Iran's resources and whether or not that prevention will be even worse in the long run.
Setting aside for the moment the rat's nest of hypocrisy hidden in the non-proliferation agenda and the fact that it's never really stopped a nation bent on acquiring the weapons from acquiring them (unless you count Iraq, and we can all see how that's turned out) there's still the fact that whatever chance we might have had to peacefully disarm Iran vanished when we decided to cowboy up Iraq. That's something else the neocon Pax Americana let's-get-the-oil-safely-under-our-control types should have thought of first.
I think deterrence has a pretty solid track record, Jay. This is a topic upon which my thinking has shifted in recent years. The only nuclear power which has ever gone into a non-elective war is, what, Israel? They're thought to have had two bombs in '67 and certainly had them in '73. It was suspected at the time that Israel had a weapons program, but it certainly wasn't widely known, if known at all, that they had a couple of silver bullets in the clip.
So, yes, Israel. Not the most laid back of nations, surrounded by states actively antipathic toward it. Number of nuclear bombs dropped by Israel -- zero.
The US war on WMD has pretty much proven the power of nuclear deterrence, if you ask me.
The most frightening thing about the current nuclear proliferation environment is North Korea, which has shown willingness to do just about anything for hard cash. Selling a nuke to a non-state actor is not outside their capability. Also, North Korea has deterrence of its own, namely its ability to destroy Seoul with conventional weapons.
Israel came very close to using nukes in 1973. Had the Syrians broken out into Galilee (which they almost did), a mushroom cloud would have appeared over Damascus.
I used to say that Reagan proved that it really doesn't matter who is president in many ways. But Bush is proving me wrong on that score. His Dad's and Clinton's failures to take advantage of the wrecked Soviet economy to cut warhead levels to the hundreds were bad failures. But adopting a policy of crossing our fingers and hoping NK doesn't develop a nuke could really be disastrous.
There's your ultimate test of deterrence A-5. Does Dear Leader care whether we nuke Pyongyang, if he can get ten or twenty million dollars by selling bin Laden a nuke?
The Bush administration has also ended a program that paid former Soviet nuclear scientists a subsidy to ensure that they do not sell their services to others.
I still think the dems should anonymously start the rumor that if w is reelected, the draft will be reinstated. That just may be the ticket for getting the teens off their butts and into the voting booths.
No if's ands or but's about it. The US Military is now being held together by a modern day Volksturm of aged reservists (11 dead in IraQ over 50 years old) and a defacto draft of "stop loss orders" (no not a stock broker order).
The US military is stretched to the limit. That is why China is rattling sabers against Taiwan and why North Korea and IraN are thumbing their noses.
That is the predicatable and predicted result of this disastrous, amateurish, adolescent foreign policy.
No if's and's no but's - we couldn't handle Cuban subversion of Grenada without a draft.
Bush has called himself a "war president" in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
"The enemy declared war on us," he told a re-election rally. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president." George Bush, July 20, 2004
India/Pakistan. Since they both have the bomb, their relations are a whole lot better.
South Africa : sure, the whites had the bomb. That didn't save them from democracy.
Israel : more ambiguous. I would say that, insofar as it has constituted the ultimate, autonomous guarantee of Israel's survival, it's been a good thing. On the other hand, with respect to the residual Israeli/Palestinian problem, it's completely irrelevant.
North korea : What do you call a small, malnourished, underdeveloped dictator with nuclear weapons? Sir...
Libya : my bet is that Colonel Quackbiscuit crash-started an implausible nuclear program in order to negotiate its destruction, against commercial concessions and hard cash.
But what influence do they have over events, at this point? They have sown the wind.
Desperate men take desperate measures, Alistair, but it's my sense that there is no way in hell Bush would try it.
The fact of course is that this story should be used to just bludgeon the current administration and it's policies -- not because we should have intervened in Iran instead of Iraq, but just to hammer home the point that the current team of boss fucksticks in Washington were shut out of power for a long time for a damned good reason and we shouldn't have allowed them back in, and one of the reasons is that they make really bad decisions.
Instead I worry that they'll be able to pick up some voters with the story.
An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? I'm sure it would give Feith an orgasm.
I used to say that Reagan proved that it really doesn't matter who is president in many ways. But Bush is proving me wrong on that score.
Remember the good old days when in the face of that conventional wisdom -- 'it doesn't matter a ton who's in the White House' -- our worst case scenario response was a conservative Supreme Court and a bunch of handouts to big business?
There's your ultimate test of deterrence A-5. Does Dear Leader care whether we nuke Pyongyang, if he can get ten or twenty million dollars by selling bin Laden a nuke?
Bet he does. Not because he's anything other than an egregious psychotic freak of nature, because he isn't. Not because he's sane, because he isn't. But I bet he likes being in charge of people.
Still, though, the point is taken that deterrence is mostly a state-to-state concept, and this day and age brings us more complex problems than that. There are, for example, terrorists who would probably praise Allah if, in response to a nuclear warhead detonating in a major American city that was traced to the Iranians, we took out Teheran. That's pretty much the opposite of deterrence, which is why you need other assets in play.
And this afternoon at the wake of a former co-worker I couldn't remember the names of several other co-workers when I tried to introduce them to my wife. Scary.
did someone hear my suggestion about the dems floating the rumor that w will institute the draft after reelection? I awoke early this am, flipped on the tv to a cbs news story talking about how unpopular a draft would be....
Mark Twain once wrote something along the lines of 'Show me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll show you where he gets his opinions.' And for a long time the feeling has been predominantly pro-Republican in our nation's military -- there's the old saying that 'Democrats want to have a small military and send it everywhere. Republicans want to have a large military and keep it home.' And the idea has been that Republicans are usually going to push through more military finding than the Democrats, they usually talk it up about how they're looking out for the military. At the 2000 GOP Convention Cheney's speech contained a line like 'A message to our friends in the military..... help is on the way!'
This thinking held true even when both candidates unveiled their budget plans... and Gore's had even more funding for the military than Bush's.
But it's starting to unravel now. Bush talked up a great line about taking better care of the military, but in terms of promised pay raises, better programs, and above all safer stewardship (remember all the lines Bush tossed out about how he wasn't gonna be sending our troops out to nation build, he wasn't going to commit US forces willy-nilly around the globe, etc) that the military bought at the time, his promises have fallen through. Try to imagine what the GOP would be saying if a democrat had made those promises and then did what Bush did!!
The thing is that the 'predominant' Republican outlook in the military has always been a lot closer to 60-40 than an overwhelming support. And that's why you're seeing the shift now. It's hard not to be pissed off, as a civilian, how Bush is misusing the good will of these dedicated servants of America, and many military families are now coming to grips with the sort of facts they were facing in Vietnam. That will tell in November.
Everytime you see one of those guys, they seem to be commited, loyal, dedicated and professional. This hsa been a demonstration of the benefits of a volunteer armed force, well trained and equipped.
So, yes, it is infuritating to see the administration wasting these men's lives without a plan.
As for Bush's talking a good game, and delivering less than promised, that's true in every single policy area. And he's still saying it. It really depends on the degree to which his message gets through uncorrected by the facts.
Yes. Like, the Democrats can't afford to really go strongly negative on him this early, but it's becoming clear that they risk a lot by not addressing some of these issues. Someone has to just step up and start talking, and I think someone will. I don't know who yet. Bill Richardson, Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, the Bush exiles.
Clark would be best. But I think it's also a media problem.
Anyone making these claims are accused of being "political"--any comment on the accuracy of the president's claim are dismissed as not substantive. This manipulates the press; it puts up two opposing views, but provides no way to evaluate who's telling the truth--with the Repubs devaluing both claims by saying this is all just politics, and we need to stick with strong steady leadership, instead of a flipflopping Massachusetts liberal.
They work very hard to keep the issues off the table, and the media helps them do that.
On last night's show, Charlie Rose had an interesting anonymous guest, who works for the CIA and he spoke cogently about the Terrorism/Military issue.
The Reader's Digest version is that America will continue to sacrifice it's youth in a military capacity because the American mind set is one of complacency and denial and dictated by politicians who don't have the courage to address the Israel/Arab bias or our Arab oil dependency.
Very interesting. Kerry hasn't been saying much and that seems to be working in his favor.
I remember how popular colin powell was when he was considered a potential candidate way back...that is until he opened his mouth.
The devil is always in the details, so if you just shut up, you can't be pinned down as being too this or too that or waffling on this or that. And wasn't it FDR who never had a bad word or any word to say about the opposition...he said why give them the free air time?
Not a bad approach.
Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Certainly the money is flowing into dem coffers now, if that's any indication....
hmmmm massachusetts liberal...wonder how the ma stats stack up against tx stats in terms of unemployment, educational attainment, etc.
"If you too were a massachusetts liberal, you'd have a higher paying job, be more likely to own your own home, kids would be in better schools, cleaner water, cleaner air, etc than a texas neocon."
"George W. Bush likes to call himself a wartime president, yet in his role as commander in chief, he has grossly mismanaged the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq," contended Mark Kitchens, national security spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. "He went to war without allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace. Now we find he can't even manage a wartime budget."
Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.
If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ... Not ready for duty, sir.
This administration had its moment.
They had their chance. They have not led. We will.
It does not unfold like a lecture but like the tour of a fun house, a fun house whose mirrors and skewed angles turn out to be a place all too easy to recognize as home. Strangely for so overtly polemical a work, Fahrenheit 9/11 can be seen as a triumph of form over content. What is least persuasive about it is the specifics of its arguments; what is exhilarating and often moving about it has to do above all with the materials, many of them archival and many not seen before, which are enlisted in support of those arguments, materials that linger and expand in the mind in ways that go far beyond the sometimes casually deployed debating points.
This is in Elections and not elsewhere because I think that the outsize popularity of Moore's movie is (a) early indicator that Bush cannot recover to win this November and (b) perhaps fulfilling its stated purpose to throw the election over the top in favor of Kerry.
I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong. There's a whole bunch of people who could care less about michael moore or iraq or anything else. All you need to do is ask abortion? gay marriage? and you've got their vote. Even if they care about the other issues, they roll the answer to those 2 questions up into a larger package of "values" and believe that w is a man of integrity and serious purpose and is the only one who can be trusted to lead our nation through trying times...a good xtian man. (Just ask yourself, given those 2 issues, what would it take to get ktheh to support kerry? How bad would things have to get?)
Or turn that last question around. Just how good would kerry have to be on all the other issues to get ktheh to support him? I just don't see how kerry can compete with that. Don't get me wrong, I'm ever so firmly in the ABB camp (anybody but bush). But even I don't like kerry and i don't trust him or find him especially persuasive or having the kinds of leadership skills, especially that "vision thing", that I like to see in a president. IMO he's only been as successful as he has been (which isn't a barn burner for sure) because of failure on the part of his opponent...not because he's done anything positive. The most positive thing I can say about him is he's kept quiet.
While we can all incestuously massage each other's lefty povs in these threads, it does not put us squarely in touch with what the soccer moms and nascar dads are thinking. I think we're deluding ourselves.
michael moore was on the daily show the other night and made a stunning point...america is a liberal nation. He's right of course. If you poll on the issues, the majority of americans want cleaner air and cleaner water and support social security and medicare, etc. But there are those issues that carry more weight than others, and these just aren't it.
Like dean said about the gopers playing off racism in the south, these people have consistently voted against their own interest in terms of jobs and health care and so on, in favor of the gopers who pay lip service to their "values" but vote only to enrich the already rich.
So the question comes down to, not even it's the economy stupid, but can iraq become such a sink hole for funds, and american lives, and scandal, that it could more than outweigh these other hard core emotional, i would say prejudicial issues, that are driving bush's popularity.
(Granted a lot of funding for bush is simply pocket book...the wealthy like their tax cuts and want to keep them...but there aren't enough of them to lock in the election so they don't really count.)
There's a whole bunch of people who could care less about michael moore or iraq or anything else. All you need to do is ask abortion? gay marriage? and you've got their vote. Even if they care about the other issues, they roll the answer to those 2 questions up into a larger package of "values" and believe that w is a man of integrity and serious purpose and is the only one who can be trusted to lead our nation through trying times...a good xtian man.
To praphrase James Baker, "fuck the morons, they don't vote but one way anyway."
Yes, there is a core of people - not insignificant - who aren't ever going to see Bush in a bad light because of certain encoded traits and attributes that he displays. But they are not enough to win the electoral college by themselves and their numbers are dwindling.
Also, those soccer moms are the ones who have partly ensured that Moore's movie is the most profitable documentary in history and not particularly flagging at the box office.
MB, moore's movie may be well attended, but it doesn't mean it's widely agreed with. Not all who went to see the passion were xtian.
and regarding dwindling numbers....I'm not so sure. Don't go by "approval" ratings. I don't approve of kerry, but i'll vote for him. I'm sure there are those that don't approve of bush but will vote for him, for just the reasons I stated.
Res posted a fine site at RI, Election Projection 2004, updated constantly with all available poll data.
It's early, the trends (in my opinion) will shift more dramatically as Kerry and Edwards start showing up in the news daily (in other words. after the Convention).
But even as of now, we have Kerry picking up five key states from Gore's tally and winning the electoral college very decisively - 327 -211
Mark my words, read the trends, Dubya ain't coming back.
That's my call too, and has been for a month or two. People mutter ominously about Dubya pulling something else out of his sleeve, and I'm sure he's going to try it, but at this point people are getting pretty cynical about Dubya and his sleight of hand.
The only scary part is that the Bush government has done nothing but advance the cause of Islamist terrorism, and those are people who wouldn't scruple to time an attack to help Bush. The thing is, at this point, I don't even know if a terrorist attack would cause people to rally around Bush again. It would look more like 'He's had three years to unfuck this situation and while he was dicking around in Iraq and plantin' fine young Americans there, the real enemy was still out there waiting to strike.'
The Kerry campaign needs to start driving the nails now, though. It's too early to really weigh in against Bush's mendacity, but it is time to start blitzing the facts, hard, because the facts are in Kerry's favor. Right now one of the smartest things Kerry could do is get someone like Clark to start stalking-horsing, and the smartest way he could do that is to get Clark to start photo-opping with soldiers who have lost faith in Bush. There are a whole lot of people wearing green who have turned against Bush as a direct result of his mismanagement of the war on terror, and that, right now, is very prime material to use. People don't listen so much to politicians, but when soldiers start saying 'I love my country, but this thing in Iraq has been a fuckup from start to finish, we are good soldiers and ought not to be used like this' people hear it.
Yes, the stalking horses should be loosed at some point.
But it's still too early, Kerry is doing just fine by staying close to the ground - still campaigning, but mostly locally - and letting the Bushites lose poll points every week thanks to heavy-handedness, their own incompetence and mismanagement, and circumstances both at home and in Iraq.
The moment he gets his hands bloodied on Bush's political nose, or even has a really senior Dem go apeshit, it starts to become politics as usual and the cynicism of this electorate will start to kick in. That point will come, anyways. But now he looks Presidential and hopeful and optimistic and grave, and Bush looks like a guy trying to get (re)elected.
I don't think its too early to nail Bush on his lies. Bush's credibilty numbers have been sinking for some time now and when a candidate loses her trust/cred/truthfulness numbers it is impossible to recover.
That's the point, Marj. Bush is already loosing his dogs, trying to go on the offensive. I'm sure he has a timetable in mind. The best bet is to start making him react again. Of course Kerry can't just wade in, but he has people who can.
Will Bush self-destruct like his father did? The chances are good. But this has proven itself a team much less ethical and much more driven to win at any cost than Bush Sr.'s administration, and Kerry isn't Clinton. The smart strategy is to keep disrupting his game plan. Look at this thing with the release of the 9/11 commission and the timing of the leaks on Berger. Kerry will be able to control all that, largely because that wasn't his administration, but, Bush will still gain a few votes on it.
DES MOINES, Iowa - Republicans initially dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a cinematic screed that would play mostly to inveterate Bush bashers. Four weeks and $94 million later, the film is still pulling in moviegoers at 2,000 theaters around the country, making Republicans nervous as it settles into the American mainstream.
AP Photo
"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."
Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base. Independents and GOP-leaning voters are likely to be found sitting beside those set to revel in its depiction of a clueless president with questionable ties to the oil industry.
"If you are a naive, uncommitted voter and wander into a theater, you aren't going to come away with a good impression of the president," Republican operative Joe Gaylord said. "It's a problem only if a lot of people see it."
Based on a record-breaking gross of $94 million through last weekend, theaters already have sold an estimated 12 million tickets to "Fahrenheit 9/11." A Gallup survey conducted July 8-11 said 8 percent of American adults had seen the film at that time, but that 18 percent still planned to see it at a theater and another 30 percent plan to see it on video.
More than a third of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of independents told Gallup they had seen or expected to see the film at theaters or on video.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's quixotic presidential campaign says it submitted about 5,400 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot, far short of the required number of 30,000. Luckily for him, approximately 43,000 signatures were filed by Michigan Republicans on his behalf, more than meeting the requirement. Speaks for itself.
This site though titled "Electoral Vote Predictor" does not predict anything but merely gives the latest state poll results. Predictor sites such as Margie's and the one at PollKatz Poll of Polls actually do attempt regression based predictions if only using current poll data.
The E-V site is neat because its map will show you the latest poll data as you move the cursor over each state and also has an Excel compilation you can download.
In case you missed frank rich in the nytimes this weekend, I suggest you check out what he has to say about the release of the remake of the manchurian candidate
I cannot recall when Hollywood last released a big-budget mainstream feature film as partisan as this one at the height of a presidential campaign. That it has slipped into action largely under the media's radar, as discreetly as the sleeper agents in its plot, is an achievement in itself. Freed from any obligations to fact, "The Manchurian Candidate" can play far dirtier than "Fahrenheit 9/11." Not being a documentary, it can also open on far more screens — some 2,800, which is more than three times what Michael Moore could command on his opening weekend (or any weekend to date)....
The new "Candidate," which takes the first gulf war instead of the Korean War as its historical template, finds a striking new international villain to replace the extinct evil empires of Mao and Stalin: Manchurian Global, a "supremely powerful, well-connected, private equity fund" that is in league with the Saudis and eager to scoop up the profits from privatizing the American Army. Think of it as the Carlyle Group or Halliburton on steroids, just as its primary fictional political beneficiary, the well-heeled "Prentiss family dynasty," with its three generations of Washington influence, is at most one syllable removed from the Bushes.
Perhaps to fake out the right, the villain played by Ms. Streep has been given the look, manner and senatorial rank of Hillary Clinton. (The character's invective, typified by her accusation that civil libertarians enable suicide bombers, is vintage Fox News Channel, blond auxiliary division.) She has programmed her son to be the "first privately owned and operated vice president of the United States" — in other words, the left's demonized image of the current vice president. This conspiracy unfolds in a sinister present-day America where surveillance cameras track library visitors, cable news channels peddle apocalypse 24/7, and the American government launches pre-emptive military strikes in countries like Guinea to prolong a war on terror "with no end in sight." The crucial election at hand will use electronic touch screens for voting, a dark intimation of Floridian balloting mischief. It will not be an election at all, says the movie's military-man hero (Denzel Washington in Colin Powell's rimless specs), but "a coup — in our own country, a regime change."
You see, you just can't create this level of revulsion and mistrust in the American intelligentsia and get away with it. This movie is just one of several indications that the Bush/Cheney record is going to get hammered so strongly and from so many sides that the Republicans as a national political force may well spend a few elections cycles scrambling to recover from the damage done and territories lost. Kind of like the Tories in the UK, consigned to purgatorial minority-status in perpetuity.
Oh, and the neocons? Stick a fork in 'em, they're done too.
I find him to be a dinosaur, Wombat, an uncreative diplomat incapable of thinking outside a cliched view of the world.
Granted he has some attributed achievements (like Dayton) but he has zero appeal to either US allies or the international community ever since his stint at the UN which was characterized by arrogance and mediocrity. He trod water for a while, that's it, and (granted, this is in retrospect) there were many opportunities to make headway given the unchallenged US position at the time. I am deeply pessimistic he is capable of heading and directing the necessary part-fence-meding/part-new-direction US foreign policy in the times we now live in.
Let's hope Kerry is creative, and doesn't plump for the obvious and tepid choice that Holbrooke represents.
Do you have a sense of who the other candidates might be?
I'll admit, I would rather see Holbrooke as the National Security Advisor. He'd certainly light fires under people.
Part of me wants to see Powell stay on, with a chance to be truly effective. Richard Lugar is probably too old. On the other hand, I suspect that Kerry would want to run his own foreign policy, so perhaps a colorless administrator type would be best.
The best choice, in a post-Powell Democratic government, would be Kerry himself. Dyed-in-the-wool internationalist, intellectually agile, powerful communicator.
Bill Clinton might not be bad, either. Powell gives a rock star performance overseas, and the former Prez would hold his own as a replacement.
But that's two people we won't be seeing taking over state, so surely there has to be someone else (better than Holbrooke).
In keeping with the excellent Clinton policy of co-opting moderate Republicans, I'd definitely applaud high posts for Powell, McCain, Giuliani in the Kerry administration.
Holbrooke has spent his life in training for Secretary of State
One more reason to deny him the job, the requirements have changed drastically. Whoever takes over has to have plainspeaking appeal, there is a hole to be climbed out of.
Jimmy Carter is really blasting Bush--"an unbroken record of mistakes and miscalculations...[He looks remarkably young for 80.]...he contrasts Truman and Eisenhower with Bush--they exercised the strength and judgment and a clear sense of mission==would not put our soldiers in harms way by wars of choice unless we were in grave danger--Kerry leads the Dem party--he served with honor and distinction--he will restore the honor and maturity to our govt that today is sorely lacking. I am proud to call John K my shipmate...policies shaped for American families not for the super-rich...our credibility has been shattered...we are isolated in a hostile world...when the trust is violated the bonds that hold us together are weakened..in just 34 months all the good will has been squandered by a series of mistakes and miscalculations...unilateral acts have isolated the US from the nations we need in combatting terrorism...recent policies have cost our reputation of our nation as the champion of freedom and justice...a confused strategy of preemptive war...we need Kerry to pursue the war against terrorism....Israel, achievements of Camp David and Clinton are in peril...North Korea has been allowed to advance unheeded...we cant advance our security if we forget the centrality of human rights;we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others; we cannot lead others if our leaders mislead...you can't be a war president one day and claim to be a peace president the next depending on the polls; Kerry will strengthen the alliance while avoiding wars; manipulation of the truth defining America's role--our nation's soul is at stake. The essential decency of the American people will prevail. Do not underestimate us Americans. We need Kerry's leadership--John Kerry and John Edwards.
David Brooks is whining about Carter's historical innacuracy and decision to reenter the "partisan sphere". Bush the elder wouldn't have given such a partisan speech.
Carter amplified on the themes in his convention address in a post-address interview with Jim Lehrer. He was very convincing in his criticism of the deleterious effect of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld policies on the way the U.S. is perceived around the world.
Carter: Bush has abandoned the pursuit of a comprehensive peace between Israel and Palestine that Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon--all the way back--pursued. This is not irrelevant to our problems with terrorism and our relationships with the Arab world.
Clinton has PAT BUCHANNAN singing his praises..."He was a maestro at the piano...working all the keys from left to right...liberal to conservative in front of 30,000,000 people"
Reflecting on Gore, Carter, Clinton, I am struck by how liberated all three were.
None were running for anything....each has run their races...and it freed them
I noticed this when Gore came to town to speak for Newsom's campaign. His speech last December had the same easy self deprecating opening (different tales) followed by lessons he'd learned (different wisdom) but the same basic structure and ease of delivery...contrast...he was PAINFUL to watch in 2000...
Clinton - put Cheney Bush and himself in contrast to Kerry on military service!!! AWESOME...not possible while runnign
Carter - mild mannered Jimmuh delivered the sharpest attack on Bush we'll see...
Just goes to show ya...what do we really learn about candidates running for office from political campaigns???
Teresa said on PBS this morning that she had never made those pumpkin spice cookies she "competed with" Laura over in the stupid Cookie-off some magazine ran. She said someone said get the nastiest recipe you can find and submit it and she did.
Yup, yup, yup. Clinton was excellent. Carter impressive. Gore is still gore and irritating. Hillary less than impressive. But all these pol-stars cranking out to stump for kerry won't cure him of this:
"I'm just quite confident that as the next months of the campaign go on I am going to have the ability to be able to make it clear to America that I can make this country safe and strong."
Please. That's beyond nuance. He sounds like he's either getting paid by the word, or he's so freakin' paranoid that someone will hold him to any statement he makes that he has to add conditions to qualifiers just to make sure no one can ever accuse him of saying anything at all. He needs to master the art of the soundbite or he's going nowhere. Now certainly there were and will be enough gifted speakers at the DNC who can lend him a hand, no?
And don't bet on edwards. He's far more eloquent but will be in that awkward position where he can't possibly outshine his "boss" so however low kerry sets the bar, edwards will have to be lower.
This is not good. Someone get kerry a decent speechwriter. I mean if they can find a winning style for bush, they can certainly find a winning style for kerry.
I lay you this bet, based on the realistic presumption that you haven't paid yet attention to Kerry in more than sound-bite-sized segments and jagged snippets on talk shows.
After he speaks, you will come in here and say that you did not know that Kerry had it in him to be so thoughtful, so eloquent, so winning, and to carry so much genuine gravitas.
These are not store-bought qualities for this candidate, they're what has earned him his senate seat and they simply have not yet been showcased to the general public as they will be when he accepts the nomination. Forget about the general public and what you think will sell in Peoria, you will - assuredly - be won over by this very distinguished American.
I wonder how many people remember me pushing Kerry back in the late 90s...I have wanted him to run for this office since the last two years of Clinton's second term.
People kept pooh-poohing it and telling me he didn't have the chops. I think he does and the fact he is such a contrast to Bush is a strength. He could read the phone book and sound more eloquent that Bush.
Marj, I guarantee you kerry could never be thoughtful™. As for the rest, we'll see. I'm not doubting the man's seriousness or brain power or ability to out-president bush by any means. But he doesn't need to win ME over. I am however suggesting that what it takes to win in the liberal, intellectual northeast is very different than what it takes to win in the south or the midwest or the bible belt. And that's what kerry needs to do to beat bush. And I'm sorry, but, using the quote above as an example, half of america will be asleep before they ever get to hear the key words, "make this country safe and strong."
And those of us hanging out in this very dem thread reinforcing each other's brilliance is not the way to test reality of where the voters are. There are many like my very rw friend who says they DID find wmd in iraq, but because of the extreme bias in the liberal press, you don't hear about that. That iraqis LOVE americans, but because of the liberal press, you don't hear about that. That the US is making tremendous improvements in quality of life for the iraqis, but because of the liberal press, you don't hear about that.
There are others like the conservatives i work with who are not fond of bush, but are very afraid of higher taxes, restrictive trade agreements, and unrestricted regulation of business that they believe will come with a kerry administration. They don't like the run up in the deficit, but don't believe the dems would do any better. Kerry has to deal with people like that.
If you read these posts, you'd think kerry has already won by a landslide, but the reality is the polls reveal a very close race, with or without nader. Kerry has his work cut out for him and he only has 100 days to figure it out. His performance at this convention will demonstrate if he's figured it out yet. My fear is that he hasn't. I hope I'm wrong and you're right. Time will tell.
If you read these posts, you'd think kerry has already won by a landslide, but the reality is the polls reveal a very close race, with or without nader
That's why I read more than the posts here. I am nowhere near as confident as some here that Kerry will win easily. Or even win, period.
So, Marj, do you think the public will be vulnerable to a stunt by Bush in September-October? Do you think if Osama's withered head is handed up on a platter, the public will go bonkers..or stay bonkers..and eat that up with the resulting dessert being a huge vote turnout for Bush?
Because you just know they are going to do something. They have to.
I agree J@h. I fear this will be another nail-biter election. The only good thing in that is it may actually bring out more voters. If they only manage to mobilize voters in the states that are already decided, though, it won't matter. As russert points out, it's really in the hands of a few voters in a few states.
I don't think the gopers need to actually do anything so concrete at getting osama. I keep remembering south carolina and bush and mccain...stealth campaigns in key states accusing kerry of having affairs, teresa having abortions, spectres of federally sanctioned gay marriage...
There was an unbelievable piece on the daily show the other night where one of their guys was interviewing this person who claims the clinton library should be called the "lie"brary. So they are creating a counter clinton library which is to focus on the "truth" of clinton's life and administration. view the floorplan including the "death" room. Guy being interviewed said that some people believe that clinton has had as many as 70 people murdered.
With people like that around, smearing kerry should be a slam-dunk. Truth and reality have nothing to do with anything. Welcome to wag the dog.
I listened to the speeches by Clinton and Gore. They were definitely not directed to the hard-core Democratic base, as I see it. They were directed at moderate Republicans and Independents. They emphasized reason and basic self-interest. Evidently, the Democratic leadership feels absolutely secure in respect to their base.
Bill Clinton, while a flagrant demagogue, can at least give a decent speech. But will someone, anyone (Bob Dole?), please help the junior senator from New York learn how to deliver an address? She was B-R-U-T-A-L. This only confirms that she rode to the senate on her husband's coattails (ironic, no?) rather than on the inspiration of her soaring oratory.
She also symbolizes the achievement of women to a lot of the D constituency. By all accounts, she's doing fine as a senator. I think she'd be a bad president--secretive and prickly--and doubt that she'd survive the flak to get the nomination.
Here's the New York Times' Jodi Wilgoren on John Kerry's speech in Florida yesterday:
"At a forum dominated by questions about health care, Mr. Kerry told retirees they should be terrified of losing prescription drug benefits."
"Terrified"? I'm willing to bet that is an extreme (at best) paraphrase of whatever Kerry actually said. But this characterization fits in so nicely with the perennial Republican talking point of how Democrats use a tactic of "scaring the elderly." How convenient.
Of i course the Bush campaign is going to start stunting. Of i course they're going to start using underhanded smearing on Kerry. But the Democrats will call him on it and people are weary of it. Any electoral strategy, macro or micro, will get you some votes and lose you some. But there has been, for many people especially the swing, a fundamental loss of trust in Bush, and there is a widespread distrust of his staff and backers. And Kerry has something that McCain didn't have in South Carolina, which is, the sort of funding which isn't easily swamped by a tactical shift in Bush's spending.
Is a Kerry victory a done deal? Nothing is a done deal until the votes are all counted. But this isn't the time to be hampered by fears that Bush will skunk another victory out -- that sort of attitude actually works in his favor. It's time to go on the offensive. Take it to the streets.
I don't think the election will be a blowout, but I'm confident of a Kerry win. If he gives a good speech and Democrats move in for the kill leading up to the Republican Convention they should be fine in November. If he gives a great one, Bush is toast unless he can match him, and he won't be able to match even a good Kerry speech in his delivery, even if the best speech writers money can buy are able to match content quality.
I also think the Republicans have a lot to worry about in their own convention. The party is not nearly as unified as the Democrats--for once--and they picked a risky time and place. If it flops it will be very hard to recover so close to the election, no matter what surprises they have cooked up for October.
And I liked Gore's speech. I like his humor and his fire and I hope we see more of it, though probably after November.
I think the turnout of younger voters who vote Democratic, 21-30, will be impressive. I'm very interested in the possibility (probability?) of Democrats reclaiming control of at least one house in November.
An energized Democratic party which believes in its own power to effect change is capable of such things. It's a matter of 'if you build it, they will come'.
Thanks for response, folks and it's "Ol' Yerp" indeed. Because my father was born in Italy, I'm applying for Italian citizenship just in case President Drippy Ass gets reelected.
I watched the convention on Cspan last night and it was much better than listening to the media gruel served up with standard sauce of cynicism and conceit.
Thanks Judith. And a question: Did you mention a source of elegant canes for discriminating ladies. After a lengthy period of stubborn refusal, spouse's seventy-something Green Bay cousin has agreed to use a walking aid. The change came after her husband and six children stopped referring to walking canes and started talking about walking sticks. Sticks okay, canes not okay. The colorful aluminum job she has is not quite right as to length, heft, etc.
PLEASE NOTE: The calculations that go into the latest Electoral College tally contain poll results from many states that are simply too close to call when the margins for error are considered. Still, in order to come up with numbers and identify a leader, that candidate with a lead in a particular state, no matter how small, was awarded that state’s votes. Therefore, changes in the Electoral College numbers from the last poll three weeks ago (6/20) may be more dramatic than may be warranted. Tennessee’s 11 Electoral College votes are excluded from the calculations altogether because the candidates are tied, down to the tenth of a percent.
Arkansas Florida Iowa Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Washington West Virginia Wisconsin
I don't really know why we would lean toward Bush, since we've gone the opposite direction wrt parties. We have one Republican congressman, and a very weak one at that. He's in the northwest, where all they ever have is a Republican. Our other US legislators appear to be very popular.
Of course seniors should be terrified of losing their prescription benefits. The cost of the medications most of them take is enormous. The medicare prescription benefits does not cover the entire cost as it is and, although this is not a widely known fact, the program does not cover all seniors on medicare. If a senior receives more than approximately $12,000 per year in benefits, they are ineligible for the program. Let's say someone has $1300 a month and that covers rent, food, untilities, clothing, transportation, medicare health premiums that do not cover health costs 100% and do not cover all types of health care, and other expenses. Not much to live on, is it?
Mr. Bush holds a negligible lead here, which is erased when considering the margin of error. When the vice-presidential candidates Cheney and Edwards are added to the question, it barely makes a difference, adding a point to the Kerry/Edwards ticket. This is just too close to call, and seems to volley back and forth.
There is a slight improvement in the sentiment Arkansans hold about the direction in which the country is moving compared to three weeks ago. Suburban and rural residents are most pleased, poll numbers show, as are those who are older.
Still, Mr. Bush still faces an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of people here. Asked if he should be re-elected or if it is time for someone new, 53% want someone new, while 44% said he deserves a second term. Males are more pro-Bush than females on this question here, as are those who make more money.
Suburban and rural residents are most pleased, poll numbers show, as are those who are older.
That's weird as hell to me. Rural residents have been very unhappy. I've never understood AR's elderly, though, except a lot of them aren't from here and move in because they like the lower cost of living in AR, especially housing. They were spared property tax increases for the most part, but the sales tax increase can't be good. But my biggest partner in support of rural ed is a Republican and has no intention of switching to Kerry, despite NCLB.
I think Arkies are really hesitant to vote for a Yankee Liberal from Massachusetts (which likely voters would not admit, I don't think), and if it weren't for that I think Kerry would be a little better off here.
No way do I think 4% of Arkies will go for Nader, though after working with some of the urban Liberals in the last year or so, I shouldn't be surprised. Reality check, anyone?
I would hope those who voted for Nader last time would realize that not only are they wasting their vote, but helping elect Bush. It is impossible for me to believe that they prefer Bush's politics and actions over the dems policies.
Anyway, everyone talks about Bush dropping some kinda bombshell in October, some kinda skullduggery that will turn things for him, the orchestration of which is according to his electoral strategy.
And I like that, because it makes whatever he tries to pull less efficacious.
The thing is, between 9/11, the Cheney Energy Task Force, Ken Lay, Iraw, Bush's military records and checkered past, the lobbyist-driven Bush agenda, and all the other things that have happened, you have to figure that there are several powerful Democrat bombshells in reserve. The GOP isn't the only party that knows that trick.
Of course it is, Arky. And it's smart. Now instead of pulling a sneaka-surprise on the American public, Bush has to pull one that works very well just to break even, or else he looks even more incompetent.
I tell you this, the Democratic party may have its problems and its big tent may be tattered in places, but when you see and hear people like Obama you have to figure it's still in good hands. Win or lose in November (it's a win, natch) there are some real quality people in the fold and shepherding the party forward.
Thre beautiful thing about Obama is that he may not have any opposition leaving him free to appear on behalf of the ticket not only in Illnois but in Wisconsin and Missouri..which he can do in any event, in Illinois to some extent, East St. Louis and Evanston/Chicago...
Obama was indeed outstanding and I think he has the chance to go far in demo politics. Depending on how things go, he might well be the first Afro-American president. I hope he is able to campaign for Kerry in the months ahead.
I liked Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech as well. She is a refreshing change from the Stepford wife type of presidential candidates.
Poor Teddy, he's slowed down and a few steps behind now and lost his ability for rousing rhetoric, IMO.
The talking heads on PBS thought Teddy did great and that worried them because they said he always gives his greatest speeches at events that "lose".
Obama was fantastic last night. This may be a "Clintonian" moment...except Obama wasn't long-winded. Where Clinton was thrust into the spotlight and remembered for a rambling, too-long keynote speech, Obama banged it and will be remembered for a masterful one.
I thought Teresa was very good and she leaves Laura in the dust, as far as I'm concerned. Two nice ladies but I'd be more drawn to Teresa at a party; she has more to talk about than "the girls" and cleaning.
Ann Richards: "You know, for American women in a Republican majority, their president has been like a marriage that's gone from bad to worse. You know the story. The guy has a great line, he's sort of cute, he tells you that life together will be bliss, and then in a few years he's snoring on the couch while the TV blares on the fifth football game of the day and the neighbors are screaming about the yard that never gets mowed, and there's a car up on blocks in the driveway, and your household budget is just stretched to the limit, and he's spending all the money on hunting trips, a new shotgun and a camo jumpsuit, and you're standing there at the sink thinking, 'I must have been out of my mind!' So here we are, almost four years past our shotgun wedding with this White House, and like we say in Texas: Honey, it's time to split the sheets and sign the legal papers."
Mago and Judith, don't get us wrong, Teresa is wonkers and the Cap'ns kind of first lady. We just thought her speech was a little bland. She's better off the cuff.
...she's waking up to the fact that 2008 is slipping through her fingers fast!
I don't believe she's foolish enough to think she could ever win the nomination. She's a smart woman. I think the stone face was due to some of the things he was saying...he skews more conservative than she would like.
Hillary is not Imus' favorite female, neither is Teresa. Elizabeth is the one to whom he gave his heart this morning.
Hillary knows that in politics it's a question of opportunity. If it comes, she will make her move. In the meantime, she'll be a good soldier and give her all to the ticket.
I thought Teresa's speech was pretty good. I thought she came across as a strong and knowlegeable woman and didn't sing one verse of "Stand by Your Man."
If it's true that Bush is on meds, and he should be, I wonder what he's on.
Nah, hillary defines ambition. She's itching for 2008. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if she's running around with the gopers trying to get nader on the ballots. 4 more years of bush would almost guarantee any dem will win in 2008 and she want's it to be her.
Eight years is a long time in politics, thoughtful. I hope that by then there'll be a sharp younger woman vying for the presidency, someone less polarizing than Hillary and with less baggage.
I know I shouldn't be surprised but I'm really ticked by the failure of the press to link the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter who was badgering Teresa Kerry (and earned her crisp "Shove it" response) with the paper's owner, the billionaire provocateur Richard Mellon Scaife of Vast Right Wing Conspiracy infamy.
Scaife was in on the effort to strangle Bill Clinton in his political cradle. He bankrolled the Arkansas Project and other vicious depredations aimed at destroying Clinton. He was lashed up with Ken Starr and with Ted Olson, dubya's recently departed Solicitor General.
Starr now enjoys sinecure at Pepperdine where Scaife is a regent and major funder. Olson bailed just ahead of a new election season that might refocus attention on his earlier activities.
Good. They need to keep in the forefront how in bed together those guys have been all this time.
I thought Teresa Heinz-Kerry did a great job. She wasn't spicy, but that befits the situation, imo. She didn't shrink from any significant points, including the need for women to have their opinions received the same as men.
For the guys around here, who consider themselves liberated but really still cringe at a woman engaging in a discussion exactly like they do, I always tell them a bitch is a woman with an opinion.
And Hillary Clinton will never be president. She may run one of these days but won't get the nomination, so I guess that's fine by me. She was first lady of AR quite a long time, and she does best as a worker, which is why the Senate seems to suit her so well, I think. She can be pushy, know-it-all, and overbearing in a leadership role,from what I understand. I think she needs to work on the stony (as opposed to stoned) appearance whenever the camera's on her. She looks like she was weaned on a pickle.
Hillary is ambitious, but as a senator and former First Lady, and as the wife of Bill Clinton, she knows all about and has access to polling data. And she does not poll well as a Presidential candidate. The people who like her, like her a lot, but the people who don't like her loathe her with a unifying and inspiring passion. In political terms she polls strongly both on positives and negatives, and people who poll strongly on negatives don't win nominations. Her presence on a ticket, unless many many things change, would be the best 'get out the vote' message the GOP could field, and it would work.
I would have a very hard time voting for Hillary for president. I don't despise her, but I don't care for her at all. She exudes one of the most annoying traits some Liberal Democrats have, and that's the arrogant assumption that she automatically knows what's best for people she purports to represent, regardless of their opinions about it, and comes partly from her failure to engage and interact with them. Clinton, though his actions reflect that to a degree, is not like that in his interactions. He treats everyone with the same warm familiarity and interest. Which is part of what gets him in trouble, I suppose.
The innocuously named newspaper has long served as the weapon of Richard Mellon Scaife, its founder and publisher. His name is now synonymous with the campaign of hate and calumny focused on the Clintons during the 1990’s, but to Ms. Heinz Kerry, his methods were familiar long before he achieved any national notoriety. During the decades of her marriage to the late Senator H. John Heinz III, she knew Mr. Scaife as part of the rarefied circle of very rich local families whose names adorn museum galleries and university buildings.
Although both men were Republicans, Heinz tended to be moderate and occasionally even liberal, while Mr. Scaife was increasingly conservative, attracted to conspiracy theories and aggressive extremism. Years before her first husband’s death in 1991, Teresa Heinz came to feel that Mr. Scaife had misused his newspaper to punish her and her husband for dissenting from right-wing Republican orthodoxy. Since her marriage to John Kerry in 1995, the hostility of the Scaife press and the outfits funded by Scaife foundations toward her has been nothing short of vicious.
An entertaining source, Wiz. Late in the article jexster's dry drunk theory of dubya behavior is discussed.
Indeed, robert and you should have seen the response that link got on the right-wing RV (read anti-Kerry gossip-mongering) website. It shut them up pretty quick and it lead me to believe that most of them believe it!
arky- If Obama doesn't "screw it up" as his wife warned, Hillary will be lucky to be on his cabinet when he's elected President.
Jeezaleezus: Prince Bandar Bush's promise to lower oil prices doesn't seem to be working out too well:
NEW YORK, July 28 (AFP) - The main New York oil contract shot to an all-time high 43.05 dollars a barrel Wednesday as the market reacted with alarm to a financial crisis at Russian oil giant Yukos. The benchmark contract, light sweet crude for delivery in September, soared 1.21 dollars to 43.05 dollars.
The Saudis might like four more years of Bush, but who else in the oil business does? Sure, the Texas oil people, but with the profits they're raking in on these higher prices, I doubt they want to be too aggressive in lowering it back down. And the high price of oil hurts Bush immensely.
Bush earlier this month accused Castro of welcoming sex tourism to bolster his failing economy and contributing to a global problem of human trafficking.
Speaking to Florida law enforcement officials on July 16, Bush claimed the Cuban leader shamelessly promotes sex tourism.
“The dictator welcomes sex tourism. Here’s how he bragged about the industry,” said Bush. “This is his quote — ‘Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world’ and ‘sex tourism is a vital source of hard currency.’”
The president made his accusations amid the release of the State Department yearly report on global human trafficking, which lists Cuba among the top ten violators.
Three days after Bush’s remarks, the Los Angeles Times reported that the White House found the comments in a Dartmouth undergraduate paper posted on the Internet and lifted them out of context. “It shows they didn’t read much of the article,” commented Charlie Trumbull, the author.
Speaking in 1992 to the Cuban parliament, Castro actually said, “There are prostitutes, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist.”
I didn't hear much of anything Sharpton said as I was on the phone. Talk to my girlfriend or listen to Al Sharpton? No-brainer. So I saw a lot of enthusiasm and later heard some punditry about tough rhetoric that maybe the Democrats didn't want on TV.
Waiting for Edwards to speak now, but the CNN coverage with Larry King was pretty good. It was also gratifying to see Joe Biden talk about the sort of thing I yesterday said Democrats need to talk about -- the difference between going negative and giving correct and just criticism of a failed presidency and a failure of a President. Biden put it well.
Also, reading between the lines, Bob Dole is obviously less than thrilled with GWB. There was a little love fest going on there for a few minutes between Dole and the Democrats on King.
Blitzer is on now. Wolf Blitzer, more and more, is making me think he should jump ship and go over to Fox News. He's a jackass.
There has been something very smart going on in this convention. They've been making it not about the Clinton successes, but the future, and been doing a very very good job of portraying them as the resurgence of the spirit of America, come back to reclaim its birthright from the last four years of darkness.
They're also doing a very good job of subtly stacking Kerry and Edwards' family against the families of their opponents.
So before the speeches the pundits were saying, 'what's he gonna do, build up Kerry or burn down Bush?'
John Edwards, instead, gave a policy speech. And it was brilliant. At a time when the Republicans were gearing up to spin against a Bush burndown and say 'Who are they anyway, no one knows what they stand for' Edwards turned their flank.
A-5 is right about Blitzer. He sucks up to whoever is in power and hasn't had an original, independent thought in a long time. I am more and more disillusioned with major media--Rather, Russert, Matthews, Williams, Fineman, not to mention the assholes on Fox. Even the NYT let us down on Iraq. Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw are the best of a bad lot.
Edwards did good. You're right, Wolf has become a real PITA. I liked hearing Biden and Dole and also noticed that Dole didn't seem all that warm about Bush.
I think Kerry needs to talk about why he can lead now and not talk about his leadership 30 years ago, and clear up why he voted against the alleged "good" bills to help the soldiers, et al. Those of us who know why he did are really in the minority and most people don't understand and will buy the gop ads hook, line and sinker. Hopefully the dems will run some ads.
Anyone who questions Kerry's or Edward's lack of foreign policy experience only has to remember two words: George Bush. He didn't even know the name of the Canadian PM, let alone the President of Pakistan and heads of other countries when he was running in 2004.
Surely it's more that that. Hope is the balm for those too beaten down to stand on their own feet and kick ass.
Resolve is what we need. Bush can be defeated. But the rest of you will have to do it. I'll be casting my Florida vote on an absentee ballot in a likely futile attempt to thwart Jeb's hacking of the magic cyberspace voting machines controlled by Republicans that we have here.
Hope is where Clinton was born. ;-) (really--maybe they're trying to subliminally connect people to him)
I agree with Patsy, the commentary has been wonderful. I've had to do other things and I'm hoping to get to watch the best speeches on line next week. I'm glad y'all are letting me know what those are and giving good summations and commentaries about them in case I don't get to them.
I hear ya Clyde but it is pretty obvious that K/E intend the high road in the campaign. The reasoning for this is that if the campaign becomes a two-sided mudfest between the principals this is likely to turn off independents with whom Kerry now has the advantage.
He needs to seal the swing vote and this is how they think they can do it.
My head tells me yes, my heartburn tells me something else.
Hope is on the way is a play on Help is on the way of course. If as expected the GOP steps up its attacks, the positive negative response is
Re kerry, i'm left with the impression that this guy went to fancy prep school and yale then vietnam, did a little protesting and the freakin' fell into a black hole until now. I heard a lot about his military experience and his medals, and then nothing.
One of the goper charges is he's done nothing in the senate. Did he sponsor any bills? did he run any committees? is there nothing since the 70s he can point to as accomplishments? and what about this nat'l journal thing that lists him as the most liberal senator...that needs to be addressed.
We've had 3 nights of nothing but kerry, kerry, kerry and yet a good chunk of his career is still a black hole.
and what about this nat'l journal thing that lists him as the most liberal senator...that needs to be addressed.
Why? Why the black eye on anyone who is liberal? These days, you have to be far left to even be considered in the middle. When things are so far to the right in the entire ruling faction, what is wrong with being the opposite of that?
Why? Because in an election this close, the only way to win is to appeal to that vast undecided center. Why do you think bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative last go round? Lie though it was, it made him sound more moderate and appealed to the center. the gopers have succeeded in defining kerry as the most liberal senator. if that goes unanswered it will work against him with the very voters he needs to attract.
Besides, there's the question, is that true? They keep hawking the nat'l journal as objective, but I have my very serious doubts. If his track record is in fact more moderate than the nat'l jrnl suggests, that should be made clear as well.
If he doesn't define himself, the gopers will, and in not too flattering a way.
But if you read the continuing debate on Ruy Teixeira's blog both Ruy's post and the comments you'll see that there is considerable sentiment that Kerry lay out a more aggressive plan to exit. His position has a number of implict conditions including notably a "stable" as opposed to "democratic" IraQ which will give him real flexibility to deal with the reality on the ground which I fear is worse than his current position assumes it is...
Re kerry, i'm left with the impression that this guy went to fancy prep school and yale then vietnam, did a little protesting and the freakin' fell into a black hole until now. I heard a lot about his military experience and his medals, and then nothing. It seems to me the following is much more than Bush had to show us four years ago.
"As he was about to graduate from Yale, John Kerry volunteered to serve in Vietnam. His leadership, courage, and sacrifice earned him a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts. In Vietnam, John Kerry saw the lives of his fellow soldiers put at risk because some leaders in Washington were making bad decisions.
When he returned home, he became a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and later co-founded Vietnam Veterans of America. John Kerry then went to work as a prosecutor, putting behind bars "the number two organized crime figure in New England." He fought for victims' rights and created programs for rape counseling.
John Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982. Two years later, he was elected to the United States Senate and has won reelection three-times since. In the Senate, John Kerry fought to strengthen our economy, improve public education, make health care more affordable, and protect our environment. And during his 19 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has distinguished himself as one of our nation's most respected voices on national security and international affairs. "
I agree with Thoughtful that Kerry needs to hammer on his senatorial record...what he has done...with specifics. The gops have nitpicked and sent misleading messages. From tonight on, Kerry, Edwards, and t.v. ads must make it what he's done, and not just attack Bush. The Bush ads saying what Kerry voted against are bothersome. I hear people mentioning them. For instance, the comment about how Kerry and Edwards voted against sending money to fund the troops in Iraq? People don't understand they, and two others, voted against the bill to protest giving Bush a blank check without requiring him to account for the expeditures, etc. I don't know how the gop ads should be approached, but I don't think they should be ignored.
Wonder if this will get as big a ride as Teresa Kerry's "Shove it" remark?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A campaign worker for President Bush said on Thursday American workers unhappy with low-quality jobs should find new ones -- or pop a Prozac to make themselves feel better.
"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?" said Susan Sheybani, an assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt.
Sorensen is from Nebraska, a red state. But he's not exactly fresh off the farm. My late aunt Dorothy was a classmate of his at University of Nebraska.
I lost the post to the ann coulter site (was that you magos?) I don't think i read the right column, but the one i read was classic coulter. that woman has some very deep-seated anger issues for sure.
Anyway, she alluded to and others have continued to make the point (i've seen it pointed out that f911 is contradictory because it criticizes bush for going into iraq and then criticizes them for inadequate troops and supplies) that the dems are wafflers because in one breath they say they're against the war and in the next that they are for staying in iraq. I don't see the problem.
I was against the war. I thought it was far from adequate data presented to justify a pre-emptive strike, something which make me shudder to my core anyway. Especially since the whole basis of our laws are probable cause before we arrest the perps, and there was far from probable cause with iraq, esp re terrorism and 9/11.
However, now that we're in there, the only way to keep it from becoming another breeding ground for us-hating terrorists is to fix it. So i'm for staying and fixing it with adequate troops and resources.
"This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar . . . .
"This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. . .
"A third source . . . claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: . . . according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.""
"Pakistan has arrested Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian al-Qaida suspect wanted by the United States in the dual 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . . ."
Imagine that! Furthermore:
"Ghailani - who is on the FBI's list of 22 most wanted terrorists, with a $5 million reward on his head - was arrested Sunday . . ."
Arrested Sunday, announcement not made until afternoon of John Kerry's acceptance speech. Good job, Pakistan!
What would make people stand up and take notice, would be if Kerry says that as soon as he is elected, he will "go to Iraq." He would go, not to spend a few hours at Baghdad Airport, waving a turkey, but to tour Iraq, meet with the troops on the front lines, meet with Iraqis, Kurds, etc.; in other words to engage himself personally (and to demonstrate personal courage).
Wes Clark's speech was AWESOME.. in the top three of the convention until Kerry's which Willie Brown has read and is peeing over on MSNBC. Should be Shrum Sorenson Goodwin are the best speechwriters the Democrats have.
But Clark's....there are about 5 30 second sound bites ready for prime time ads there...
And no question, the campaign will have made a huge error if it does not put Clark out there dogging Bush et al on National Security issues and taking no prisoners.
There is a major revolt brewing among the military professionals and especially among the enlisted and reserves because Bush's military and foreign policy leadership and decision making have been so incredibly inept and deceitful
I agree. Local dems pretty well filled a new Mexican food joint/sportsbar. It was as good a mix of folks as we can draw around here and they seemed enthused. Lots of applause and and a few hollers.
A CNN talker said a few minutes ago that a new Zogby poll was due out tonight showing a four to five point bump for Kerry.
Jim Lehrer "David what do Republicans say in response to this?"
Brooks, pause, stammer "Well I guess they say that this was not the real John Kerry, that it was all a production. But those are just words. The people saw him"
Yea Robert I fondly recalled the halcyon days of November 1992 when after phone banking all day, I returned to the Union Hall for the Victory Party...and leaving passing by that hotel next to the Transco Tower on the I10 loop...drunk, disheveled Bush yuppies, shirt tails out, ties askew waving tattered signs as I flipped them off....
While the Democratic Party rallies in Boston at the Democratic National Convention, the presidential ticket of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards holds a five point lead over President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney (48%-43%), according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1001 likely voters was conducted from Monday through Thursday (July 26-29, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.2.
Dan Lutz opened his MSNBC focus group of undecided mostly conservative voters in Cincy "this speech caused a massive move toward Kerry" including 4 Bush voters in 2000...his emotion meters Republican and Democratic lines moved in the same upward directions at key lines in the speech
Of course, I have heard Kerry speak before (off-the-cuff, even) and knew that he would do a good job. When he bound into the room and ran that handshake-line with real bounce in his step, you could see that he was bringing high energy with him. And the speech was a pretty well-crafted set-piece, very carefully calculated to stroke the base just enough, reach out to disaffected Republicans just enough, and from beginning to end an appeal to independents to join the fold.
1) Too many corny bits, however. I know that the arcana in American politics is cherished by many, but this call-and-response 'help is on its way', and the opening line salute, and the fulsome tributes to wife and daughters has got to be unnecessary. I mean, is anyone won over by that stuff.
2) Edwards, in my opinion, is starting to look quite a lot like Dan Quayle. And that's a bad thing, esepcially when he's not speaking he carries no gravitas and looks like a airheaded cheerleader. Now, we know he's a killer lawyer and might well actually wind up eviscerating Cheney (with a smile) in debates, but I have some trepidation about his choice now.
3) Kerry had a couple of masterstrokes. One was the unity message, where he mentioned - by name - every single Dem who ran with him and allegedly taught him lessons. Gore - to pick one example - would have slit his own throat rather than mention names that poll badly (ie: Sharpton). Kerry is secure enough to mention him, then have a hugely grinning Sharpton positioned right bhind him post-speech. I think that's the kind of gesture that turns off some, but energizes the great majority that is his base.
4) The other political masterstroke was the appeal to the Pres to play fair and "respect each other" even as Kerry busted out his whupping stick several times and displayed unveiled contempt for Ashcroft, Cheney, and Dubya's choices in Iraq. It's a very good, Dubya-Republican move - watch my lips not the baseball bat in my hands.
All in all, in every single quantifiable area without exception, Kerry exits this convention in the best shape - the best position - of any Presidential challenger in history.
More money, better political allies, more political people rallying to his aid, better poll numbers, you name it.
There are only a couple more real tests (like the debates), it's now Kerry's race to lose.
Judith left for a four day weekend to Arky's place, but she wants to share with you her letter which was printed in the Fort Worth Star Telegram today:
There is no level low enough to which the Republicans won't stoop.
ABC News reported that, in Michigan, the Ralph Nader campaign submitted only 5,400 signatures, far less than the 30,000 required to get on that state's ballot for the upcoming November Presidential election. Nader will be on the ballot, however; approximately 43,000 signatures were filed on his behalf by Michigan Republicans.
Most people voting for Nader claim they are trying to send a message. Little do they realize the message they are sending is "I'm one of the idiots who helped re-elect George Bush."
I read that story a few days back Mago but then I heard a news headline on CNN or someplace that Nader was filing suit to get on the ballot in several states including Michigan!
Don't add up do it?
Well anyway it doesn't matter either...I don't figger those republicans who signed up with nader will be voting for him instead of Bush and so I don't care much either...
Nader gets 1% maybe 2% if the race is still close Nov 2
I sent my only GOP friend two blasts with cc: to audience to witness his humiliation (hey Ace ain't got the balls to come around) and bcc: to the Chair of the SF GOP...
He is fit to be tied..ranting about evil demo libs Michael Moore...barely coherent...
July 30, 2004 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Friday the federal budget deficit will grow to $445 billion this fiscal year, a new record likely to fuel election-year fights about President Bush's economic policies.
The figure, released in the White House's mid-session budget review, is well above the 2003 shortfall of $374 billion, which set the previous record in dollar terms. But it is $76 billion below the $521 billion forecast for this year by the White House in February.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kilgore: You smell that CHAIRMAN M.? Do you smell that?... Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
BOSTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry plunged into the general election and embarked Friday on a coast-to-coast campaign swing through 21 states aimed at convincing millions of undecided voters that he will stand up for ordinary Americans.
``Ninety-seven days, lets make it happen,'' Kerry, coming off his acceptance speech Thursday night, told hundreds of supporters gathered at the early morning rally overlooking Boston Harbor.
Kerry and his running mate, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, rolled out of Boston with actor Ben Affleck to start a two-week, 3,500-mile campaign on buses emblazoned with the words, ``Believe in America.'' First stops, Scranton and Harrisburg, Pa., a state Bush lost by 5 percentage points in 2000.
1) Too many corny bits, however. I know that the arcana in American politics is cherished by many, but this call-and-response 'help is on its way', and the opening line salute, and the fulsome tributes to wife and daughters has got to be unnecessary. I mean, is anyone won over by that stuff.
I didn't like the salute. The repetition of 'help is on the way' does work, IMO -- I find it a bit corny but it will stick with people.
The familial thing is, on the other hand, a very huge thing. Look at the Bush clan, Laura Bush saying things like 'If I disagree with my husband you'll never know it' and 'I'll say what my husband tells me to say', the spoiled bitchy bratty little Bush daughters who get put out on the campaign trail for a few days until one of 'em sticks her tongue out at reporters, Bush the ineffective father. Look at how Bush has talked about family values again and again.
Yes, Marj, there's value in the family oriented statements and actions by Kerry.
Edwards, in my opinion, is starting to look quite a lot like Dan Quayle. And that's a bad thing, esepcially when he's not speaking he carries no gravitas and looks like a airheaded cheerleader. Now, we know he's a killer lawyer and might well actually wind up eviscerating Cheney (with a smile) in debates, but I have some trepidation about his choice now.
I don't see that much at all and expect that this kink in your thoughts will resolve itself nicely over the next few months.
1) I like, in the final analysis, that Kerry did not submit (cravenly, Gore-like) to the pollsters and speechwriters and consultants in making this speech. It's the biggest political moment he's ever had, and what you saw was mostly unalloyed and undiluted Kerry. There was some pandering, sure, some hamming it up about security and strength (repeated ad nauseum) but there was also real sincerity and that curious wonkily funny personality which came through when he (rather hokily) called trees cathedrals of nature or grinned about the West Wing being where he was born in some military hospital in Colorado.
2) It was, at its base, a very honest speech. No bullshit, a pretty straightforward Dem speech and platform. The military and security razzle-dazzle would have been flawed and fake if it were not for the very real crew that flanked Kerry's entrance and the extremely un-fake testimony from that Green Beret he plucked from the water in Vietnam. I liked the honesty, it bodes well that Kerry remained true to himself. You have to appreciate his desire to win as himself, and perhaps that is somthing that he did gather from his tests in the Dem primaries.
3) Thus, I don't find the campaign claim that Kerry is the candidate with integrity to be at all hollow or trumped-up. I liked him forever, and wanted him to be the guy to bloody Bush in this election -so for the purpose of this election I'm a partisan. But post-convention, I'm also comforted and secure in my political choices. They're solid, they're impressive men who can take this government in the right direction and out of the hole built by the criminally negligent Bushites.
I watched Kerry's speech in full, as well as much of the stuff leading up to it. And I've read the sparse comments here so far about the speech. A couple of quick observations:
1) What has Kerry actually done during the past couple of decades? After watching the video written by the Spielberg protege, then listening to the short speeches leading up to Kerry, and then listening to Kerry, I was struck by how very, very little was said concerning his Senate record. In fact, one got the sense that Kerry was born, served valiantly in Vietnam, is a husband and father, and then decided to run for president.
2) The reason for such sparse coverage of Kerry's actual Senate record is because, in short, it entirely contradicts what he said in the speech. Kerry in essense lied through his teeth last night, like a good politician does when stumping. During his Senate career Kerry has voted at least a dozen times for tax increases, and not once for a tax cut (per a CNN article I recently read). But you'll never hear him say this, but rather, you'll see him run away from it. In short, Kerry's speech was a cop-out in every sense.
3) This aside, the speech was fairly pedestrian. It certainly was not reminiscent of Clinton or Reagan, more Bob Dolish. It was mercifully shortish as well. And I'm surprised how sweaty he looked. Reminded me of Nixon. He should have at least taken a hankerchief up with him and dabbed his brow and chin occasionally. Of course, I don't blame him at all for sweating, but the constant licking of the lips was a bit too much. He looked awkward up there. I'm surprised this was even allowed by the organizers.
4) Buchanan's comment was dead on. Kerry had to pretend to be something he most clearly, given his Senate record, is not, in order to attempt to appeal to Independents. And that is the main difference between Kerry and Bush. With Bush, what you see is exactly what you get, good or bad. But Kerry played the part of a cameleon well last night, and one can only hope that centrist America can see through that.
Zell Miller is dead right. The Democratic Party has become a clique, and they only way it can really win over America these days is to pretend to be what it clearly is not. Kerry epitomized that perfectly last night.
The Republicans would do well to ask themselves--before they start tearing into Kerry's record over the last 30 years--whether their candidate's record could stand similar scrutiny.
Josh Marshall trenchantly, if somewhat cruelly, notes that for much of the same period George Bush's utterances consisted of "various invocations and inflections of 'par-TAY' and reciting the alphabet under legal compulsion."
Big difference, Wombat. Bush is already President. It doesn't matter nearly so much about his record before being President. But, of course, it matters for Kerry at this moment, because we should be able to gauge fairly well his promises from last night's speech by comparing it to his Senate voting record.
Is he a Nam war hero? Sure. But what have you done for me lately? And that is where they decided to skip WHOLE DECADES in his life. Born, Nam, family man, running for President. What did he do during those interim DECADES?? And yes, it does matter.
And let's all look at see how WoW decided to react to my honest evaluation of Kerry's speech last night. Name calling, denigrating my religious convictions, and insinuating that I am brain washed. Nothing about the substance, of course, just more of the leftwing name calling, knee jerk nonsense that makes them such fun to be with.
Oh, and I forgot the monkey picture.
This is precisely what is wrong with this thread and several of the leftwing nutcases that post here. I point out some glaring issues, like the virtually non-existent treatment of Kerry's Senate record, and how it contradicts his speech from last night, and all I get is some name calling from the peanut galary. Then these same people have the audacity to criticize others. Get that beam out of your own eye first, WoW.
Also, Wombat, Bush ran his 2000 campaign greatly on his record as Governor in Texas. In other words, he did what one would expect a politician seeking higher office to do, compare his past political record and show us that it "proves" him to be reliable for the new, tougher job.
No so Kerry. There was about a ten-second line in his speech last night about what he has done the last couple of decades in Congress, whereas they was ad nauseum material about a war that ENDED thirty years ago.
That tells me something important. Kerry wants to hide his record from the voters. You concentrate on what is your strength, and although pulling a man out of the river is certainly important, how long as he been a Senator and what has he to show for it? They obviously - and by "they" I mean his own party faithful - don't think much of Kerry's Senate record, or else they'd harp on it incessantly.
Again, last night Kerry had to pretend to be what he clearly is not, because if he were to decide to stand on his own Congressional record, he'd fail miserably. In fact, his entire platform to this point has been two-fold: 1) talk about his heroics over 30 years ago (and couple that with stirring family stories from his daughters, wife, and siblings), and 2) bash Bush and claim he can do better, while ignoring almost entirely his own voting record in the Senate.
Mercifully, the Democratic National Deception is over (or should I say just beginning?), and I think the Demos made a big mistake in choosing Kerry and not Sharpton. The latter was much more entertaining and hard hitting. Kerry was dry as granola.
This is what GWB said of his gubenatorial record in Texas...
Uniter not a divider..
Did you get what you voted for?
The largest lesson I learned in Midland still guides me as governor ... Everyone, from immigrant to entrepreneur, has an equal claim on this country's promise.
So we improved our schools, dramatically, for children of every accent, of every background.
We moved people from welfare to work.
We strengthened our juvenile justice laws.
Our budgets have been balanced, with surpluses, and we cut taxes not only once, but twice.
We accomplished a lot.
I don't deserve all the credit, and don't attempt to take it. I worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done.
A bittersweet part of tonight is that someone is missing, the late Lt. Governor of Texas Bob Bullock.
Bob was a Democrat, a crusty veteran of Texas politics, and my great friend.
He worked by my side, endorsed my re-election, and I know he is with me in spirit in saying to those who would malign our state for political gain... Don't mess with Texas.
As governor, I've made difficult decisions, and stood by them under pressure. I've been where the buck stops -- in business and in government. I've been a chief executive who sets an agenda, sets big goals, and rallies people to believe and achieve them.
I am proud of this record, and I'm prepared for the work ahead.
"that is what we are running on and Bush running from"
Nice rhetoric, but it contradicts entirely what you have been saying up to this point. You have consistently decried Bush for staying the course he decided to take like, for example, in Iraq. Now you say Bush is running from his course.
Fact is, Bush is a man of conviction. You might not always agree with those convictions, but there is no gray area about what they are. He knows what he wants and he goes for it, stubbornly at times certainly, but undetered by the naysayers nonetheless.
Kerry is actually running from his own congressional record. That is absolutely amazing. Didn't anybody else notice that in the video with Morgan narrating, the speeches leading up to Kerry's speech, and Kerry's own speech? How long was the speech, and how much did he devote to his decades in the Senate?
That should tell you something, clearly. He is basically running for President and trying to hide his entire political career! Why do you think?
Again, if he was a stellar Senator, we'd certainly have that highlighted prominently in at least the man's own speech. But nooooooo. About ten seconds worth and that's it!
Let me put it this way. If Kerry's entire congressional career can be summed up in ten seconds, he isn't worthy to be our President, period.
John Kerry entered the Senate with a reputation as a man of conviction. He confirmed that reputation by taking bold decisions on important issues. He helped provide health insurance for millions of low-income children. He has fought to improve public education, protect our natural environment, and strengthen our economy. He has been praised as one of the leading environmentalists in the Senate, who stopped the Bush-Cheney plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
John Kerry has never forgotten the lessons he learned as a young man – lessons that have been strengthened in his 19 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has learned that America must work with other countries to achieve our goals and the world's common goals. From his ground-breaking work on the Iran-Contra scandal to his leadership on global AIDS, John Kerry has distinguished himself as one of our nation's most respected voices on national security and international affairs.
As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, he worked closely with John McCain to learn the truth about American soldiers missing in Vietnam and to normalize relations with that country. As the ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, he is a leading expert on that region, including North Korea.
Years before September 11th, John Kerry wrote The New War, an in-depth study of America's national security in the 21st Century. He worked on a bipartisan basis to craft the American response to September 11th and has been a leading voice on American policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, the Middle East peace process and Israel's security.
Kerry's congressional record actually makes Hilary Clinton look conservative. But listen to his speech last night. He sounded centrist, if not to the right of center.
So I have a choice to make. Do I believe the man from his 40-minute speech, or do I look at his decades-long Senate voting record to decide what he will do if elected President? I think the latter is far more reliable a measure.
And that is precisely why Kerry and his cohorts are running from it, as fast as they can. Harp on and on about things done 30+ years ago, then bash the current guy in office and claim you can do better. But what about that big gap in the middle??
If Kerry concentrated on his Senate voting record and paltry "achievements," all he could hope to win over are the liberal, leftwing nutcases and nobody else. He knows full well that he needs to fool people into voting for him, so he poses as something he is not.
What we saw last night was smoke and mirrors, a classic political deception at work. Let's see in 97 days if it worked.
He knows what he wants and he goes for it, stubbornly at times certainly, but undetered by the naysayers nonetheless.
Undeterred by reality or by truth, and unconstrained by any promise he made during the 2000 election from foreign policy to domestic policy..from Iraq to the budget..from Social Security to no child left behind.
His speech today was 80% gutter crap...so too his 2000 acceptance speech.
He doesn't want to talk about his record with very good reason
We accomplished a lot.
I don't deserve all the credit, and don't attempt to take it. I worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done
I wouldn't want to talk about the lies, the deficits, the children left behind, the jobs lost, the wages down, the health insurance unavailable, the military disasters, the foreign policy failures either
"He attacks Kerry because he wants to alienate voters and divide the country.."
This is more nonsensical rhetoric, but also hypocritical. When Kerry bashed Bush, he is a man seeking to unite the public. But when Bush bashed Kerry, he is a man who wants to alienate voters. Laughable even as I read it again.
You see, jexster, pointing out the weaknesses of the opposition is precisely what you should do in an election. Both Kerry and Bush should be doing it. The fact that you whine when Bush does it says loads about you as a person.
Here are the facts. Evangelicals in America, who number anywhere from 80-125 million, form a large voting block in this country. Yet, only 25% of them voted in the last election.
However, 87% of evangelicals vote Republican. Had only half of evangelicals voted in the last election, it would have been an easy win for Bush.
I am entirely all for getting people out to vote, and despite jexster kneejerk nonsense, Bush is hardly interested in alienating voters. Rather, he wants to encourage as many as possible to vote, because when they do, he'll handily win.
If evangelicals decide to take another nap this election, Bush will probably still win by the hair of his chinny chin chin. However, if evangelicals wake up, consider how close the last election was, and come out and vote, Kerry will have virtually no chance of winning. He'll probably carry about 15 states at best.
ANd I certainly wouldn't talk about what I would do for America in my second term since the last time I lied so blatanlty.
I wouldn't talk about running 12.5 billion short for the last three months of the year in IraQ costs; how I got suckered by Ahmed Chalabi, an agent of IraN; about how Saddam had Al Qaeda connections when the IraNians did not IraQ; about 27 criminal investigations of republicans for misappropriating funds in IraQ; about Halliburton; about Enron, about my exit strategy
"I am glad you are familiar with Kerry's 20 year record of Senate service"
Here's the thing, though, jex. Consider the biggest speech of Kerry's life, the one just last night. If that was all you had to go on, what would you know about Kerry's Senate service?
He ran from it, and you simply cannot deny it. It was the single biggest speech of his political career, and had he been proud of his accomplishments in the Senate - or rather, had he thought they would stand him well this election, because I'm sure he is proud of it himself - he would have harped on it incessantly. But instead, he did the exact opposite. Ten seconds. That's what he devoted to his 20-year Senate service in the biggest speech to date of his political career. Ten seconds.
Why is that jex? Why did we hear LOADS more about Vietnam and things he did over thirty years ago, and why next to nothing about his 20 years of "service" in Congress?
Personally, I think the US should do what a country like Australia does, in making voting mandatory, or in providing a financial incentive to vote. If memory serves, the last major presidential election in Australia had something like a 95% voter turn out (per an Australian work colleague of mine). If we had voter turn out that high in America, the Presidency and both houses of Congress would be Republican, and very strongly such.
"fire up the fag bashers who will miraculously appear to save Bush"
And there you go. It is only a matter of time before leftwing whiners such as yourself start the fear mongering. You can't possibly argue on the substance. You must always bring it to name calling and fear mongering. Always.
You keep dodging, jexster, when all I have done is point out glaring omissions in Kerry's speech last night, in the speeches leading up to his speech, and in the propaganda video shown beforehand.
Again, if Kerry's Congressional record is so stellar, why avoid it so consistently as they did last night?!
But surely YOU have an opinion on why he'd ignore 20 years of his political career - and in THE SPEECH of his political career nonetheless - right, jexster?
Yes indeed it does speak for itself...it is all recorded...votes, floor debates, speeches, committee deliberations.....20 years of it in the Congressional Record and committee documents..
When Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 he ran largely on his political career and accomplishments in Texas. And one would expect him to do that.
Yesterday Kerry gave what all consider to be the single most important speech to date of his political career.
Today, Bush responded TO THAT SPEECH.
Now then, we'd expect the content of Kerry's speech to deal with all those nifty accomplishments during his stellar TWENTY YEARS in Congress.
What we got was TEN SECONDS about it.
What we'd also expect today is for Bush to talk about Kerry's speech and what it lacked. What we would NOT expect TODAY is Bush to rehash his own political career. That will be for later.
I could ask you the same thing, jexster, given the paucity of comments coming from you specifically about it. But as I have already stated, yes, I watched the entire speech, as well as the ones leading up to Kerry's speech, and the propaganda video before that. I think all totaled they ran nearly two hours, certainly 90 minutes.
And if you did watch the speech you heard not only direct reference to his record, you heard a number of ideas for the future, ideas which have been reflected in action, in votes taken in the Senate...
So I disagree that he didn't talk about his record in the fist place...
I rather suspect you didn't see the speech...So read it
It is easier to debate when your intelocutor knows what he is talking about..
Much more efficient...less time spent having to expose the lies, educate the willfully ignorant
Here is what we know about Bush, very clearly, from his own speeches:
He is proud about what he did in Iraq, and if given the chance, would do it again.
He is proud about his tax cuts and other economic moves.
He is proud about his record when it comes to healthcare and education.
He is proud about his record while serving as Governor of Texas.
All of this is very clear, because he points it out consistently.
Now then, from the political speech of his life, what do we know about Kerry's political life? Well, out of about 40 minutes of sweating and licking his dry lips, Kerry told us ten seconds about his past twenty years in the Senate. Why? Even someone brainwashed should be able to ask that question, because it is a pertinent one.
"And if you did watch the speech you heard not only direct reference to his record, you heard a number of ideas for the future, ideas which have been reflected in action, in votes taken in the Senate..."
What I heard was a TON about his time in Vietnam. What I didn't hear from lots about what he did in Congress the past twenty years.
Certainly, he had things to say about what he INTENDS TO DO in the future. But that is a far cry from what he HAS ALREADY DONE. And to really believe him wrt the former, one must look at the latter.
And there is the disconnect. Kerry didn't ground his future intentions in his past performance, only in a very minor way. Rather, he promised things that his own voting record over the past 20 years in the Senate clearly contradict.
In other words, either Kerry intends to become an entirely different man once President, or he is lying to us.
Now then, I'll grant the man the right to change his course. How he thought twenty years ago, for example, may not be the way he thinks today. However, if we are to believe all the rhetoric from his own campaign, and from the Democratic National Deception of this past week, then we should believe that Kerry is a man of conviction, convictions that were formed while he faithfully served his country in Vietnam over 30 years ago.
The bottom line is this: what he promised last night doesn't jibe with his own voting record in the Senate. What he promised sounded very mainstream, almost right of center. His voting record, however, is extremely leftwing.
His speech last night was a classic political speech: promise them what they want, knowing full well you won't deliver it if you win. Tell them what they want to hear.
Now then, be honest jexster, was there anything in Kerry's speech last night that you didn't like?
The one thing I did like in Kerry's speech was his reference to (paraphrase) "the backdoor drafting of the National Guard." He also promised to INCREASE the military, again, if memory serves, by 40,000 people. And, to his credit, he was clear in promising to raise taxes on those who make over $200,000/year, but not on anybody else. Of course, his voting record in the Senate tells me otherwise, so perhaps he is changing his tune for the election, or he is becoming someone he clearly hasn't been in the past, given his voting record. Again, if the CNN article I read is accurate, Kerry has NEVER voted for a tax cut in the twenty years he's been in the Senate.
This is precisely what is wrong with this thread and several of the leftwing nutcases that post here. I point out some glaring issues, like the virtually non-existent treatment of Kerry's Senate record, and how it contradicts his speech from last night, and all I get is some name calling from the peanut galary. Then these same people have the audacity to criticize others. Get that beam out of your own eye first, WoW.
So sorry, God-Boy, did my Karma run over your Dogma? Your palaverous poppycock doesn't merit a long-winded rebuttal because it is based on your jaundiced view of the world through the eyes of a fear-based conservative and a petty-minded snipe.
Sufficed to say, your divider-not-a-uniter's days are numbered--not because I say so, but because he has blundered his way to a majority consensus--that is, a collective awareness that he really doesn't have a plan for anything, but cutting his greedy keeper's taxes. And if he's reelected, this country deserves what it gets.
Here's what Kerry said in his speech last night concerning his record while serving for twenty years in the US Senate:
"I ask you to judge me by my record: As a young prosecutor, I fought for victim's rights and made prosecuting violence against women a priority. When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.
And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW's and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam."
That's it. Go to jexster's hotlink for the entire speech and then you'll see how little the above is in comparison to the entire material. And the above doesn't really all talk just about those twenty years.
In essence, Kerry spent what looks to be about 1% of his speech on his twenty-year political career in Congress.
Why try to hide such a stellar career from the swing voters? If he was proud of it, wouldn't he strongly highlight it for us?
"Your palaverous poppycock doesn't merit a long-winded rebuttal because it is based on your jaundiced view of the world through the eyes of a fear-based conservative and a petty-minded snipe."
You continue to make my point about people of your political ilk, WoW. You don't argue on the substance because you can't, that's why. What you do well is name calling, fear mongering, and demonizing people who disagree with you. But what you can't do well is actually argue the substance.
I've made very accurate observations about Kerry's speech last night. And all you can do is call me more names and continue to belittle my faith in the process. Oh well.
And as for "monkey" images, they say tons about the person posting them. I just consider them all monkey images, because, isn't there a monkey posting them for us?
"And if he's reelected, this country deserves what it gets."
Oh, wait, wait a minute here. Aren't you the same guy who says Bush doesn't have a chance in Hell of winning? Then what is this "if" business? So you do admit the possibility of defeat, eh, WoW?
And after that tell me why bush/cheney opposed a Federal Marriage amendment in 2000 and why Bush/Cheney are keeping evangelists in the closet at this year's convention
jexster, can't you read? I've posted ALL that Kerry said about his twenty years in the Senate. Let me do a word count for ya, just so you can see the paltry amount he spent on that stellar, accomplished career of his.
When Bush ran for the presidency in 2000 he ran largely on his political career and accomplishments in Texas. And one would expect him to do that
Not in his acceptance speech. I already showed you that he spent almost exactly what Kerry did last night.
Now, a question...since you have lied, by my rough count, at least three times, why should we believe ANYTHING you say?
Similarly, since Bush told over two hundred lies on over 100 occasions in order to support a war of murderous agression, why should we believe anything you say about such a liar?
And since, we now know that the only reason you support Bush's divisive agenda is because you wish to turn out the evangelical vote, why should believe any of your sanctimonious palaver about God?
Now as far as Bush's speech today being some sort of response to Kerry's speech, while I admit that I have only heard CNN bites of it, I heard nothing that remotely sounded like a response to Kerry's speech, except perhaps we have Bush's answer to Kerry's call to the high road of principle...
Kerry summed the difference between me and you Kully quite well don't you think?
I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.
The choice between Christian and Charlatan...patriot and deserter
"since you have lied, by my rough count, at least three times, why should we believe ANYTHING you say?"
Point them out for me please. Or is this more of your tactic at work, avoid the direct substance, call names and makes up inaccuracies to demonize the opposition?
Kerry's speech is right there for all to read, and I did see all of it last night. Did you jex? Doesn't seem that you did.
However, I'm not going to allow you to play your standard games here, jex, and avoid the substance and burying my posts in posts from you filled with name calling, rhetoric, claims of lying by your opponent, and so on.
My original point still remains: what Kerry decided to leave out of his speech speaks louder than the stuff he put in.
the crap about 85,000,000 evangelicals etc...another one...at least insofar as you profess knowledge of something you know nothing about if not for the manifest untruth of the statement itself..
You see Kully, the easier task is to list those times you tell the truth
Gosh you are dense. Why do I waste my time with you?
- "I have a choice to make" for one...
Can you not recognize poetic license in the use of "I"? But of course, I do have a choice nonetheless. Do I believe Kerry or not? And frankly, I do not.
- "kerry ignored his record" for two
Now this serves as an excellent example of how you have warped what I said. He didn't ENTIRELY ignore it, because he devoted a small paragraph or two to is, that is, HIS VOTING RECORD for the past twenty years in the Senate. And I have provided substance to back it up.
- "bush was responding to kerry's speech"
You've already admitted you only saw sound bites of it, so what do you really know? I've seen much more than that, as I watched the whole thing today.
"the crap about 85,000,000 evangelicals etc...another one...at least insofar as you profess knowledge of something you know nothing about if not for the manifest untruth of the statement itself"
I'll have to hand it to you, jexster. Despite what a complete moron you obviously are, you remain undetered. In fact, ironically, it is that stubborn determination in Bush that I admire that you seemingly share in common with him.
80-125 million evangelicals in America. Look it up moron.
My original point still remains: what Kerry decided to leave out of his speech speaks louder than the stuff he put in.
He left out scathing attacks on Bush..he didn't recite
Liar, liar, pants on fire; hanging from a telephone wire"
Didn't read
John 8 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
He left a great deal out of the 50 minutes the networks gave him...
And you have avoided virtually everything he DID say.
Let me pause and point out, again, your methodology jexster. Avoid the substance. Post nonsense and make me run around refuting it. Call me a liar when I haven't lied. Say I am trying to create fear, or discourage voters, or divide the country. And bury the substance in posts filled with garbage and nonsense.
But the whole time you have yet to address the issue. Why Kerry wouldn't harp on his stellar voting record in the Senate the past twenty years, but seemingly prefered to avoid it almost entirely.
Let me pause and point out, again, your methodology jexster. Avoid the substance. Post nonsense and make me run around refuting it. Call me a liar when I haven't lied. Say I am trying to create fear, or discourage voters, or divide the country. And bury the substance in posts filled with garbage and nonsense.
I don't know what you are talking about...you are blathering now..
Please tell us what if anything of substance you have said....and what "garbage and nonsense" are you talking about?
Yes and in point of fact, I have specifically and directly accused you of hate and bigotry ..of wishing to divide the country and demonize for political gain..and of having admitted this...I have been very specific....and you have too!
Portions which speak about his twenty years in the Senate and the extensive record he has built therein: 70
"When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.
And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW's and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam."
Like I said, roughly 1% of his entire speech devoted to his congressional record. Why? Because he wants to hide it from people. Why try to hide it? Because his voting record directly contradicts what he promises he will do once he is president.
Again, I have a choice: Do I believe Kerry and his promised based on a forty minute speech, or on his 20-years as a congressman?
Perhaps his votes against tax cuts for the wealthy?
Perhaps his votes against Bush environmental legislation?
A considerable portion of his speech was devoted to his proposals for the future...now for the life of me I do not know why you do make a list of each..quote by quote then go to Thomas.gov pull all his votes on each and list them
Senator Kerry opposes discrimination against LGBT families. Kerry has publicly declared his support for equal rights for all LGBT families, saying "All Americans deserve the protection of the Equal Protection Clause." He supports extending the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections to same-sex couples, including access to survivor benefits, the right to file joint income taxes and hospital visitation.
As a freshman Senator in 1985, Kerry was the original sponsor of the Civil Rights Amendment Act, which would have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Original co-sponsor of Ryan White Act to fund care of people with HIV (1990)
Opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (1993) and was one of the few Senators to testify against the policy in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Was the only Senator up for re-election who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (1996)
Co-Sponsor of Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), federal hate crimes legislation, the Early Treatment of HIV Act, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, and the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2002.
Supports the expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners and their children.
Supported the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down discriminatory laws and reaffirmed the privacy rights of gays and lesbians. Received a 100% voting rating from the Human Rights Campaign for the last four sessions of Congress, with a career rating of 96%.
Actually, this was a helpful investigation. I noticed that Kerry's speech last night had the same basic structure as did Bush's: start to talk about your roots, move from there to your own political accomplishments, then to what you intend to do, then to more general comments about faith and such.
As a percentage of the whole, neither guy actually spoke a whole lot about his past political achievements in the acceptance speech, although Bush did focus a little more on his own as Governor than did Kerry while 20 years in the Senate (as a % of the whole, about 5 times as much actually).
So it remains to be seen how much Kerry concentrates on his Senate record in these next 97 days. I will look particularly forward to the debates. If he begins to focus on his voting record, I'll be pleased to see that, and will certainly correct my impression that his campaign is actually trying to avoid scrutiny of that record.
216 words...now you claim that Kerry's record does not back up his promises..and I say that for every promise there is a vote which backs it up..
Now if you think that those 216 words ...5% are evidence that how did you put it "Bush ran primarily on his record as governor" I would have to conclude that you are either a liar or a dolt?
Now which statement did Kerry make that you think is belied by his record and which vote or statement or speech do you believe supports your position?
And further,
I've told you about our plans for the economy, for education, for health care, for energy independence. I want you to know more about them. So now I'm going to say something that Franklin Roosevelt could never have said in his acceptance speech: go to johnkerry.com. I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.
jexster, jexster, jexster...there is a difference about speaking about ONE SPEECH and speaking about how a man ran the race. My comments earlier, if you didn't take them out of context as you just did, referred to Bush's ENTIRE race and compared it to what Kerry as done SO FAR up to his speech from last night. So my comment above must be taken in that context.
However, given that impression, I would have expected Bush's acceptance speech to be considerably more concentrated on his time as Governor of Texas than the 5 times more than Kerry did last night.
And that is really all you had to do, jexster. You could have saved time and actually looked better yourself if you had gone to Bush's speech and done the math too. But all you do is rant and rave, talk about Beelzebub and fag bashers, and not deal with the substance of the issue. Facts are facts, though.
So we improved our schools, dramatically, for children of every accent, of every background.
We moved people from welfare to work.
We strengthened our juvenile justice laws.
Our budgets have been balanced, with surpluses, and we cut taxes not only once, but twice.
43 word
When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.
And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW's and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam."
Sorry, I missed this one amidst your garbage posts and nonsense.
Interesting. You claim to know Jesus and follow him, yet purposefully excise a large portion of his teaching and stand for things clearly opposed to his teaching in other ways. Of course, that is entirely your right to do. You post pictures of pornography and bondage right along quotations from Scripture and Jesus himself, all the while claiming that I am Beelzebub.
Are you sure you follow Jesus, or don't you rather just follow the few portions of his teaching that you prefer, while ignoring all the rest? More pointedly, do you really follow the God and Father of Jesus, who is the God revealed in both the Old and New Testaments?
Certainly, truth and honestly are part and parcel of Jesus' methodology, yet, you seem uncomfortable with them when he uses them, since you decide to chuck large portions of Jesus' teaching. Do you honestly believe that Jesus was honest and true in ALL his teachings, Jexster, or just portions of them?
Now instead of gutter politics, maybe Kully can tell us why Bush after repeatedly trying to kill the 911 Commission and trying to discredit its work product, he still 1000 days after the greatest loss of life on US soil, has done nothing to reform the intelligence system.
Why he lied about IraQ?
Why he failed to pursue the Global War on Terror?
How many words will he spend in his acceptance speech telling us the truth?
Not really. You will note that my comments today talked about the propaganda video portraying Kerry, the speeches leading up to Kerry, and Kerry's speech itself, and not just a word count on Kerry's speech. Did you see the video narrated by Morgan Freeman? And the other speeches leading up to Kerry?
Very clearly, there was a HUGE concentration on what he did in Vietnam, and relatively little to nothing on his past twenty years in the Senate. That is nothing more than observation, from which one can then develop his interpretation.
"he still 1000 days after the greatest loss of life on US soil, has done nothing to reform the intelligence system"
And this is where you run to needly hyperbole, jexster. It was not the greatest loss of life on US soil.
Your methodology remains horribly sloppy, like basing all your opinions on CNN snippets, for example. You are just sloppy, and it shows in your kneejerk conclusions.
"Tell us that his negligence led to the deaths of 3000 Americans"
More rhetoric from you jexster. Al Qaida planned the attacks FOR YEARS, training the operatives and pilots in America under Clinton's administration, etc. Again, just more kneejerk rhetoric from you, while ignoring the Commission's own conclusions that the 9/11 attack could not have been avoided!
Why do you insist on lies and creating more and more, then claiming your opponents are actually the ones lying, then claiming that you stand for honesty and truth? Why do you do this, jexster, all the while quoting Jesus in the process?
You claim Bush didn't say this, or Bush didn't say that, in his speech today, then you admit you only saw little clips of it on CNN and not the whole thing. Personally, I find it disturbing that you feel the need to beat your breast about your truth and honesty, all the while seemingly dishonest in your methodology, conclusions, and the use of information.
You know, the Pharisees did much the same thing. Perhaps that is why you like them so much, jex?
Tell us why he said he would leave gay marriage to the states four years ago and now is pressing a constitutional amendment, the first constitutional amendment in US history to limit individual rights?
So many questions so little time..and this "debate" is over 43 words v. 70
Well since you have a choice Kully and since the number of words used to refer to records is your criterion..
You have only one choice if you are to be true to us, to yourself, to God and not the Father of Lies...
Do it now...the "Facts" speak for themselves...you have no choice any longer..
So back to my original point in posting today: Kerry's acceptance speech sounded right of center, not far left as his voting record supports. So that, when he promises all these great "mildly rightwing" things like no increase in taxes for lower and middle classes, a larger armed forces, and so on, I am left to decide if I trust him or not.
In fact, this is nothing new. We must do this with every politician. We should expect them to highlight the good and ignore the bad, so perhaps that is why Kerry only spoke 71 words about his past twenty years in the Senate. Only time will tell.
But for now, the best way to measure Kerry's promises seems, at least to me, to scrutinize his voting record in the Senate, as opposed to believing last night's right-of-center 40-minute speech.
jexster, you may enjoy calling others liars, when clearly that is not the case as I already proved with those four "lies" you attributed to me earlier, but you really should take a good, hard look at yourself there bud. I know you have much personally at stake in politics, and no doubt feel the party pressure to conform, but at some point you have to decide: do you really follow Jesus, or Gavon? Do you really stand for God's truth, or continue to spew lies?
That is your choice today, jexster, and no doubt for some time to come.
do you really follow Jesus, or Gavon? Do you really stand for God's truth, or continue to spew lies?
I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by. I don't want to claim that God is on my side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that I am on God's side.
I sure answer a lot of your inane questions...why not try one of mine for a change!
Since you object to Kerry's lengthy discussion of his service to his country, since you brought the subject up, forget the "achievements" of the past four years, forget the lies, the incompetence, the flip flops...forget all of that..
What did GWB do for the first five decades on this planet other than live off his connections, play cards, become a drug addict and alcoholic and rip off investors and the people of Tarrant County?
jexster, not too long ago, you called me Beelzebub for supporting ANY war. You said in no uncertain terms that ALL war is evil, and that anybody who supports war in any form is also evil.
Yet, Kerry not only supports war in certain circumstances, but he also fought in one and oversaw the killing of humans via this means.
So I assume, in the name of consistency, that you also consider Kerry evil for this, right?
"2. Why he is letting abortionists and sodomite-lovers speak in prime time to his NY convention"
Politics, if this is true. I do know from exit polls in 2000 that 25% of homos voted for Bush.
This falls directly in my "lesser of two evils" comments earlier this year. Bush isn't perfect in my mind at all, and if what you say above is true, and I don't doubt it although I'd like to see specifics from you, it just proves my point.
Personally, I'd like to see a Republican Party which made no allowance for abortion rights supporters or special privileges for gays, but the Republican Party is actually much more openminded and accepting than is the Democratic Party. As Zell Miller has eloquently noted, the Democratic Party makes virtually no room anymore for conservative Democrats, and even moderates are feeling the pinch. This is actually very good news for Republicans, as the Demo Party falls more and more out of touch with mainstream, grassroots America.
jexster, don't you work for Gav's campaign? Are you a paid staff member? In other words, your pocketbook is directly affected by the success or failure of that party, right?
Regardless of the money per se, yours is hardly an objective political opinion. Rather, your political opinion is in the back pocket of certain special interest groups, right?
"Tell us why he said he would leave gay marriage to the states four years ago and now is pressing a constitutional amendment, the first constitutional amendment in US history to limit individual rights?"
Because he realizes now what a threat the attack on marriage by the homo lobby has become. A lot has happened in the past four years as gay groups attack the institution of marriage and attempt to get it to conform to their newfangled definitions, all for their own pockets and special interests.
It is actually quite telling how 2% of the population can be so selfish as to attempt to destroy a 5000-year old institution that affects the other 98%, all so they can get some extra money and benefits in the final analysis.
prolph, also, in all fairness and consistency, you should chastise jexster as well for his religious comments. After all, just a few pages up he posted Scripture and made biblical references that had nothing at all to do with American politics.
Or are you just a hypocrite who only cries foul when conservatives do something you don't like, but turn a blind eye when your own cronies do the same sorts of things?
"As a freshman Senator in 1985, Kerry was the original sponsor of the Civil Rights Amendment Act, which would have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (1993) and was one of the few Senators to testify against the policy in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Was the only Senator up for re-election who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (1996)"
In other words, he was out of touch with mainstream America and is still out of touch!
In post #6781 and for three posts inclusive I made observations about the DNC and Kerry's acceptance speech.
It took all of ONE post for a leftwing nutcase to come in and start calling me names, denigrating my faith, and implying that I am brainwashed.
And that, my friends, is what is wrong with The Mote and why you have lost so many people here, to the point that virtually only leftwingers are left.
Then came jexster, who has also denigrated my faith, called me names incessantly, used hatemongering labels to deride me, all the while dodging my questions and refusing to address the substance. We are now 130 posts down the line, when, had jexster just calmly addressed the issues, we certainly could have saved ourselves at least 60 posts.
But this is the sad tactic of many on the left. Avoid the issues and rather name call, create hatred and fear, and falsely accuse the conservatives of lies and deceit. jexster said I lied four times, which, of course, was a lie by him.
Whenever someone points out Kerry's inconsistencies, they are labeled bigots and divisive. But when these same people do the same thing wrt Bush, they don't bat an eye. Then they speak of freedom of speech and their right to object.
The double standards run so thick in The Mote it is sickening. Now prolph comes in and provides the quintessential example. He chastises me for bringing religion into the thread, when just earlier it was jexster who did it in several posts. No objection, though, when jexster does it.
And actually, in re-reading marjoribanks' comments, his were much more pointed and critical of Kerry's speach and of Edwards than anything I said in my original comments about the Kerry speech. Yet where was all the scathing rebuttal for marjoribanks?
Go back and read his comments, then mine in #6781-83. Then look to see how jexster and WoW responded to his comments, and then immediately how belligerent and arrogant they got with mine.
Lastly, politics is all about dividing, by its very nature. If you say you support abortion, for example, or if you say you do not, you are making a divisive statement. There is simply no way around this.
Some people want to leave the institution of marriage as a heterosexual bond, while others want to destroy this 5000-year old institution. Is this not divisive? Are not the 2% looking to ruin something that is sacred to the other 98%?
Of course Bush attacks Kerry! And Kerry should attack Bush. It is politics, after all. They should scrutinize the records and opinions of each other and have at it! That is public debate.
I am consistently amazed at how much whining liberals do when this process is underway. Kerry is no more of a "uniter" than Bush is, and Bush is no more of a "divider" than Kerry. Truly, the only way you could have a true "uniter" is if a person who waffled on each and every issue were elected. That pretty much describes Clinton well, stick your moistened finger in the air to find out your own opinion for that day. But wait. It might change tomorrow.
Liberals only label people "uniters" who agree with them. And their understanding of "unity" is limited to "we only tolerate people who think entirely like us, and we fully intend to silence those who think otherwise."
The Republican Party, right now, is the much more open-minded and tolerant of the two parties. The Democratic Party is becoming more and more closed-minded as it becomes increasingly co-opted and hijacked by leftwing nutcases.
The latest Pew Foundation Poll showed that only 7% of those working in the media consider themselves "conservative." This wasn't surprising. We'd probably get close to the same number, if not a little lower, if we polled Hollywood.
Have we ever had any similar poll in The Mote?
I'd also be interested in The Mote's voting record for this upcoming presidential election. Are people opposed to stating who they intend to vote for in November? Could we keep a tally and see how the numbers are?
In the final analysis, what troubles Kully should trouble him...Kerry's speech was about both his record and promises and Bush's record, Bush's promises....
I am glad Kully is so knowledgeable of scripture...
They sowed the wind, they reaped the whirlwind Hosea 8:7
The Republicans complained and still complain and carp about Michael Moore...they bitched and they moaned about Richard Clarke...they are bitching and moaning about Kerry's speech.
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
The power of the speech, reflected in a deafening series of ovations that consumed the FleetCenter tonight, came not from Kerry's biography or the themes he brought to the campaign two years ago. It came from his expression of widespread, pent-up outrage at the offenses of the Bush administration....
He released the outrage at the president's attempt to end local disputes about marriage by amending the Constitution. "Let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States," said Kerry.
Kerry's Vietnam biography was central to the speech not as a sword but as a shield. It entitled him—and through him, every critic of Bush's foreign policy who has felt too intimidated to speak out—to repudiate the administration. "That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head," said Kerry. "It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men that I served with and friends I grew up with. … That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people."
Massive explosion.
We're mad as hell and we are not going to take Kulligan's professions of "faith" any more
Kuli, I don't know the concentration of Evangelicals in the country, you do, but if, as I suspect, it is in uncontested Republican states, like Texas, its significance diminishes considerably. For example, although the election has been called close, actually even in the polls, the Electoral College is a different matter. Kerry has been solidly on top and stays there. It simply doesn't matter by what margin Bush carries Texas and Mississippi, he must carry Pennsylvania and Ohio to win and that appears close to impossible at the present time.
In the last week, two people have told me that Bush will reinstate the draft in January! Now where have I heard that before? Gosh, what if it turned out to be true?
In the last week, two people have told me that Bush will reinstate the draft in January! Now where have I heard that before? Gosh, what if it turned out to be true?
Personally, I happen to believe it's a foregone conclusion. Regardless of any American's personal opinion of George Bush, he is regarded as incompetent by the rest of the world. As a result, he will receive little or no support for whatever course of action he wishes to take. Since he is totally committed to take on radical Islam to the finish, the rest of the world will be content to watch from the sideline. Once elected, the American electorate is no longer a consideration as he serves out his term.
Of course he will reinstall the draft--no other alternative exists.
Of course, it is possible that he could rally the Evangelicals to the flag of a Christian crusade inspired by word from above. The prospect of sending their young men and women into the holocost would be a true test of their religion fervor.
Because he realizes now what a threat the attack on marriage by the homo lobby has become
Matthew 23:27-28 27 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. 28So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
NEW YORK, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- In a two-way trial heat between the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, among registered voters, Sen. John Kerry/Sen. John Edwards lead President George Bush/Vice-President Dick Cheney 52-44 percent, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. In a three- way race with the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo ticket added, Kerry/Edwards receives 49 percent of the vote; Bush/Cheney, 42 percent and Nader/Camejo, 3 percent, the poll shows.
Looking at crossover voters from the 2000 election, 92 percent of Gore voters in 2000 support Kerry (5 percent say they will vote for Bush and 3 percent is undecided); 84 percent of Bush voters say they plan to vote for the president again (four percent of Bush 2000 voters are undecided, 10 percent say they will vote for Kerry and 2 percent for Nader).
Ruy: Before We Pronounce on the Bounce, Let's Measure It Properly Shall We?
Newsweek -the data they report in the story don't really measure Kerry's bounce at all.
Check this out. Newsweek's last poll before the convention was on July 8-9 and Kerry led Bush, 51-45. In the current poll, conducted July 29-30, Kerry leads Bush, 52-44. From this they conclude Kerry got a "baby bounce" from the convention (1 point on support level, 2 points on margin or, if you look at their Kerry-Bush-Nader data, 2 points on support level, 4 points on margin).
But, as their story sheepishly admits, half of their poll was conducted on Thursday night, before Kerry had delivered his acceptance speech! Moreover, their results differ on the two nights, with Kerry leading by 2 points in the pre-acceptance speech data and by 10 points in the post-acceptance speech data.
What possible excuse can there be for presenting these data as measuring Kerry's bounce from the convention, when the effect of the most important event of the convention isn't included in half the data? Perhaps there is one, but I can't think of it.
And that's not all that's wrong with their bounce measure. To make their sin even more egregious, the previous poll they use as a point of comparison is way too long ago (July 8-9) to be a real before/after comparison. What if the race was closer before the convention than it was on July 8-9? Then using July 8-9 as a point of comparison would further contribute to understating Kerry's bounce from the convention.
And in fact that appears to be the case. In the Gallup poll, Kerry was leading 51-44 on July 8-11 but only 49-45 on July 19-21. So using July 8-9 as the comparison period probably knocks several more points off Kerry's bounce.
John Kerry has lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a Senator. He proved his physical courage under fire. He's proved his moral courage too. John Kerry fought a war and came home to fight for peace — his combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need in a Commander in Chief. Gen. Wesley Clark
Speaking of moral courage, which sewer did the KulliganMan disappear into
Bush trotted out his whoppers with tranquility, Because the press responded with docility, His goal was war. In order to fulfill it, he Exaggerated threats and volatility. But now his tales are showing their fragility. At last, the question's Bush's credibility.
You have to trample on the First Amendment to get to this convention. The Amendment is chalked on Canal Street, though as the week went on you had to rely on memory to complete the scuffed out clause that reads, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Protest is a casualty of the age of fear. In this first political convention since September 11 those petitioning for redress of their grievances are confined to a caged area out of view of many, and within hearing distance of only a few.
TQ heir problem is arrogance," a Texas delegate told me, meaning the Republicans. "Ours is anger." That insight lights up the hubristic temptations of both parties as nothing I've read from the punditry. The Republicans, like their ancestors the Federalists and the Whigs, act as if they alone possess the legitimacy to govern. They treated Bill Clinton like a burglar who picked their electoral college "lock" on the presidency; and they will confront President Kerry with a crisis in governance. Invoking the Democrats' use of the filibuster to block Bush's nominees for the Federal bench, Senate Republicans are likely to raise the bar for passing legislation to sixty votes. And the right-wing propaganda outlets will launch a jihad.
At the GOP convention in 1992 Rich Bond, then-chair of the party, declared "We are America's party." The Republicans have since learned not to say that aloud, but "This land is our land" remains the party's premise.
The Daily Howler points out that the "statistic" often quoted by Republicans and their mouthpieces, that John Kerry and John Edwards are "the first and fourth most liberal members of the Senate" (as calculated by the National Journal), is based on votes in a narrow period of time (2003) and skewed by Kerry's and Edward's missed votes while campaigning. Their actual overall record is more moderate. From the Howler:
"On July 10, the Journal’s Richard E. Cohen (not the Post columnist) tried to explain the pleasing facts which so many scribes have been peddling. Are Kerry and Edwards really first and fourth most liberal? That rating is based on calendar year 2003, when both senators—campaigning for the White House—missed large numbers of the 62 votes the Journal used for its tabulations. . .
"COHEN: 'The bigger picture presents a more nuanced view of the two senators on the Democratic presidential ticket. Since joining the Senate in 1985, Kerry has compiled a “lifetime average” composite liberal score of 85.7 in NJ's vote ratings. Ten other current senators have a lifetime composite liberal score that is higher than Kerry’S. (See NJ, 3/6/04, p. 679.) Meanwhile, Edwards, who first joined the Senate in 1999, has a lifetime composite liberal score of 75.7, a number that puts him in the moderate wing of his party.'
“'The bigger picture presents a more nuanced view?' . . . In fact, the bigger picture shows that Kerry and Edwards are not first and fourth most liberal! In fact, ten current senators have more liberal lifetime voting records than Kerry. . . ."
I predict that "first and fourth most liberal Senators" will be cited in the media over a hundred times for every one time the Journal's assessment of the Senators' ACTUAL full-career records is even mentioned. If ever.
The Kerry and Bush motorcades passed within miles of each other before heading in opposite directions
Kerry 52 Bush 44
"Give me four more years and the economy will be strong again" GWB
"When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away. Mt 16:1-4
Ten thousand people attended a Kerry open air rally in the rain even though the Secret Service prohibited umbrellas...this followed an appearance before 25,000 in Harrisburg
Zell Miller is an odious opportunist and definitely belongs with the GOPs! Did anyone see that douche bag on Press The Meat? He's a skin-crawler if ever there was one.
Zell Miller shouldn't really surprise us, Wiz. Very few race baiters ever reform. Zell attacked Lyndon Johnson as a traitor to the South for his sponsorship of the Civil Rights legislation. He has now come out of hiding as the Republican party of the South has moved radically to the right.
WASHINGTON -- (AP)-- The federal government warned Sunday of possible terrorist attacks against "iconic" financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J., saying a confluence of intelligence over the weekend pointed to a car or truck bomb.
Specifically, the government named these buildings as potential targets:
--The Citicorp building and the New York Stock Exchange in New York City.
--The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank buildings in Washington.
--The Prudential building in Newark.
"The preferred means of attack would be car or truck bombs," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in a briefing with journalists. That would be a primary means of attack."
A public school whose students don't test well Would lose its funds unless its score improves. If cutting funds won't help the kids advance, We could prohibit lunch, or take their shoes.
During a meeting Friday in Miami, Ridge called the news "an inside-the-Beltway game" and said he wouldn't comment about it...
Ridge, 58, has explained to colleagues that he needs to earn money to comfortably put his two children, Tommy Jr. and Lesley, through college, officials said. Both are teenagers. Ridge earns $175,700 a year as a Cabinet secretary...
So how are people making $50,000 a year, or less, supposed to "comfortably" send their kids to college?
Good question! And, thanks to Bush, when they finish college a high percentage of them can't get jobs in their field and come home to live with mom and pop and flip burgers or man a computer help desk at $8 or $10 an hour.
WASHINGTON — (USAToday) - The Democratic National Convention boosted voters' perceptions of John Kerry's leadership on critical issues, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. But it failed to give him the expected bump in the head-to-head race against President Bush. In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Dick Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%.
Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.
jexster, do you ever go back and reread your own posts? You are the most divisive, hateful person here. You constantly spew vile garbage, to the point that even the leftwingers were sick and tired of it and got you your own thread where, hopefully, you'd remain contained.
I am truly amazed by people like you, who all the time they call others hatemongers and the like, are doing precisely that themselves.
Then, to make matters even more incredible, right along with posts containing pornographic pictures depicting young men, you quote Scripture and claim to follow Jesus! You quote the Latin Mass right along with depictions of your fetish for young men in bondage.
And all the while you attempt to label others as evil?
Remove the beam, jexster. Perhaps after that you can truly see.
jexster, it is obvious that you are a paid employee of your party, and that your only real desire is that they win so you can continue to receive your paycheck. And you will warp any and all data you can toward that aim.
It is also obvious that you do not intend to unite people, but rather look specifically to instill hatred and divide them, all the while claiming that your enemies are doing that. Your are the epitome of hypocrisy.
You are just beholden to a special interest group. You don't really care about anything else so long as people support that group. So, for example, you castigate me and call me Beelzebub for supporting the war in Iraq, but you even go further than that. You castigated me for supporting ANY war, period. You said that only Satan supports war.
But then comes along Kerry and all of the sudden, your tune changes. Here's a man who has gone to war and killed people, and you are rabidly supporting him. Where is your profession now, jexster? Where lies your moral compunction against warmongers?
Fact is, so long as the political person supports your ONE issue -namely, he supports homos and their agenda - you don't really care about anything else. All you want to do is continue to line your own pockets.
Then you call the Repubs hypocrites! All you are interested in is the same thing you chastise them for, the need for the all powerful dollar. You are just a lackey for a special interests lobby, and nothing more.
"Both John McCain and John Kerry nearly died in Vietnam. Both say that these experiences have made every day that has followed feel like an gift from God, and that they are going to take this extra time to do what is right. The difference is that once McCain latches onto an issue, like campaign finance reform, he sticks with it year after year.
John Kerry doesn't. He will momentarily embrace daring ideas, but if they threaten core constituencies, he often abandons them, returning meekly to the Democratic choir."
Here's something said earlier this year by angel-five:
"Very early on I predicted that there would be two potential threats to Bush in 2004 -- Edwards and Clark. It's shaping up to look that way now. Kerry's the front runner but Kerry isn't going to be able to avoid getting called a 'dirty liberal' any more than Dean was. And Kerry doesn't have the oomph with the public, he isn't telegenic, most people don't even know who he is, he does little to attract voters in the critical battleground states, there are a whole host of reasons why he isn't the best Bush-beater in the pack."
What the hell happened to this thread after Friday?
--
Hooligan,
You know, your aggrieved, highly personal, innuendo-filled diatribe against Jexster is at least as vile as any of the over-the-top responses that you've seen levied at your initial comments. Certainly, the "how dare you think jesus is on your side" rubbish is something that you should be at least a tad ashamed of.
Besides, no one gives a crap whose side jesus is on in the real world of politics. See, the dude ain't registered to vote.
Anyway, all of this reminds me a lot of the debates last time around.
Perfectly reasonable and intelligent people read the results 100% differently from each other. People I generally respect nearly came to blows - they were convinced that idiot partisanship was all that kept the "other side" from admitting that their dawg just plain sucked.
Realization set in that no one was lying or feigning responses, the two candidates just set off different avidities and loathings in different people in a strange but comprehensive manner.
"Zell Miller is an odious opportunist and definitely belongs with the GOPs!"
What a hoot. Miller spent his entire political career as a Democrat, was even the keynote speaker at Clinton's 1992 Demo Convention. He has every right to say what he has said about the Demo Party, and he is right on top of it. The Party has become a narrowminded, fearmongering party. It used to actually stand for something positive in America, but no more. The party has been co-opted by the radical leftwing, and the only way they know they can win is to appear to be what they clearly are not.
Kerry is the primary example. His acceptance speech, even in the opinion of Buchanan, sounded right of center, but the man's voting record is far left of center. Why is that? Hmmmmmm. Let me guess....
Zell Miller watched his party slowly but surely slide further and further to the left. And it will hopefully continue to do so.
Now, Hooligan is bound to hate Kerry, hate his every position and stance and utterance, hate everything that he stands for. Kerry is everything Hooligan absolutely does not want in his President (politically speaking, frankly Hooligan would be a hypocrite if he did not mostly admire Kerry the family man and I don't think our missionary man is a hypocrite).
The thing is, Hooligan is couching his natural loathing to Kerry in a set of terms that feign rational choice after considering various options. So, Kerry's speech was "boring" or "substance-less" or whatever. And so, Kerry has to be seen as a "flip-flopper" or whatever.
Just come out and admit it, Hooligan. This is a bit like the anti-Christ coming to power in a free and fair and legitimate manner for you, innit?
And let me just tell you - as I have ceaselessly admitted and shared and pointed out here - you have reason to loathe Kerry, as do all reactionary, extremist fundies like you. You got one of yours in the White House and must have figured that the tide had turned your way. and your boy gave you pretty much what you wanted.
But, thing is, he freaked the rest of us out and fucked up so unbelievably totally on the international stage that he's the most loatheed and feared man in the world - and that's including Bin Laden and Saddam and everyone else.
So, he's gone. And poetic justice is that he's going to be trounced out of office (and your ilk are going to be on the defensive for a good long time) because of the campaign run by a dyed-in-the-wool, out-and-out, real liberal. And, gotta love it, this liberal is taking a page from Dubya's playbook and running unashamed as a military-minded centrist purely to get his foot in the White House door.
So, dawg, I understand why you're extremely pissed and upset and flabbergasted that this campaign is actually working. You should be, I would be if I were one a you.
"Kuli, I don't know the concentration of Evangelicals in the country, you do, but if, as I suspect, it is in uncontested Republican states, like Texas, its significance diminishes considerably."
I don't know the exact spread of evangelicals in America, Mags, but I think you might be underestimating their presence in states outside the Bible belt. Any number of those states had closely contested votes in 2000. Again, we are talking about a voting block that is ten of millions of people. Weren't some states decides by only a few thousand votes?
"For example, although the election has been called close, actually even in the polls, the Electoral College is a different matter. Kerry has been solidly on top and stays there."
You'd have to provide some solid evidence of this, Mags. I saw a CNN report about ten days ago which showed Bush was leading the electoral college. The total states they had depicted as either red or blue was about 36, which meant 14 states will still too close to call.
"Now, Hooligan is bound to hate Kerry, hate his every position and stance and utterance, hate everything that he stands for."
You obviously do not read the thread, marj. Thanks for displaying this.
I already pointed out the other day that there were several things that I actually liked from Kerry's acceptance speech.
Please, next time, cut out the pontificating. We all know how much you love the sound of your own voice (and reading your own words), but unless you actually speak to the truth of the matter, what good is either?
"So, Kerry's speech was "boring" or "substance-less" or whatever. And so, Kerry has to be seen as a "flip-flopper" or whatever."
marjorie, why don't you actually refer to my comments and words, instead of making things up? Are you just that lazy?
We've already seen you assume things which are untrue about my position and views on Kerry's speech. Why continue to make yourself look idiotic "or whatever?"
Mags, here's a map I found on the web. I'm not sure how accurate it is. It seems to support your contention that Kerry is winning the College, however, it contradicts your notion that he is winning PA and Ohio. In fact, it has Bush slightly ahead in the latter state.
In the last link, it has 12 states which are designated "uncertain Kerry," and 6 states designated "uncertain Bush." The remaining 32 states seem likely for either candidate.
What I like about this site is that it lists each state and gives the % lead each candidate currently enjoys. From what I gather, they update it regularly based on the latest polling data.
Looking at the six states that are "uncertain Bush," he has solid leads in 3 of them. Of the 12 states "uncertain Kerry," he has solid leads in 3 or perhaps 4. (By "solid lead" I tried to look at leads greater than 3% which is typically the statistic margin of error in most polls).
Looking at the states that we could for the moment assume are solidly for a particular candidate, the electoral college is
Kerry - 193 Bush - 149
Bush picks up 30 more votes from the 3 "uncertain Bush" states which are 5% or more currently in his favor.
Kerry picks up 35 votes with 3 "uncertain Kerry" states where he enjoys 4.3% or greater (throw in WV's 5 where he has a 3% lead and now he gets 40 votes). This leaves us here
Generally speaking, both websites come out relatively the same.
Back to the second website, which is more detailed:
There are 8 states where Kerry has a razor thing lead, and they add up to 73 votes.
There are 3 states where Bush enjoys a razor thin lead, and they add up to 53 votes.
In 6 of those states, Kerry has a 1% or less lead (55 votes).
Outside of Florida, which really looks to be a dead heat (Bush is listed as having a 0.1% lead there), only Ohio falls close to the 1% margin at 1.3% (20 votes).
"July 23, 2004--If the Presidential Election were held today, Senator John Kerry would win 227 Electoral Votes, President George W. Bush would win 208 Electoral Votes. 103 Electoral Votes would be in the toss-up category."
It remains to be seen what will happen after the GOP's national convention in August, but if history proves anything, and even recent history as in the last presidential election, Bush will come out with a slight bump. Gore went in leading Bush before the GOP's convention in 2000.
Again, this is a horse race, and anybody who says it is a done deal suffers from a serious case of wishful thinking, either party's faithful included in that analysis. Personally, I think Bush will win by a razor thin victory, as he did last time.
The al qaeda people are pretty sophisticated observers of the stock market. At least, we were told that they had been heavy purchasers of puts prior to 9/11. The recent discovery of outdated material in Pakistan could serve a double purpose, which cost them nothing--It reinforces Bush whom they favor as a recruiting target for obvious purposes and brings in much needed funding.
Analysts said the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely polarized contest. Nearly nine of 10 voters say their minds are made up and won't change. "The convention, typically a kicking-off point for a party, is now merely a reaffirmation" of where voters stand, said David Moore, senior editor of the Gallup Poll. "In a race this tight, the polls are going to be all over the place," said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director. "Most importantly, voters now clearly trust John Kerry more than Bush to lead and defend America."
But Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the Bush campaign, said "history doesn't bode well" for Kerry. Since World War II, the three challengers who have unseated presidents held clear leads after their conventions.
"will unite the country, not divide it" (Kerry +13).
Kerry's now running convention acceptance speech sound bite ads...so we shall see what happens in other polls out this week and in continued polling (Gallup apparently is also baffled about the Sat night result so has kept this poll open) though Bush's latest "terror" alert will probably muddy the picture
The convention clearly reframed the race...look no further than Kerry's well publicized comments on the terror alert (bad leadership, not as safe as we could or should be) and on Bush's response to the 911 Commish (What took him 2.5 years?)
All good questions Bush will face come debate time
well, let's see, with the networks covering all of 3 hrs of the convention, is it any wonder that the 'bounce' was so slight? just exactly where is c-span in the ratings game?
it will be interesting to see how the networks handle the gop convention...
All of this talk about "uniting" the country politically is just rhetorical nonsense. That is, unless you sidestep all the political hotspots.
Kerry isn't interesting in "uniting" the country. He supports abortion on demand, something the majority of Americans oppose. He supports gay marriage, again, something the majority of Americans oppose. And his voting record in the Senate for the past 20 years proves that he is out of touch with mainstream America.
However, Bush isn't interested in "uniting" the country either. Neither candidate is, nor can they do so. The 2000 election should clearly tell us that this country is polarized, extremely so. I doubt we won't see the likes of a Ronald Reagan, who truly garnered the vast majority of the votes, for quite some time. All talk of a "uniter" as President is just nonsensical rhetoric.
The last person to win the presidency with a majority of the popular vote was Bush Sr., in 1988, with 53.4% of the vote. Not even Clinton won a majority of the popular vote, despite the impression left that he was such a popular president. In 1992 he only won 43% of the vote, in 1996, 50%. Put into perspective, more people did NOT want Clinton to be president, and by a fairly wide margin, in 1992, and just about the same number that wanted him in 1996 didn't as well.
Clinton was very clearly a better "politician" than either Kerry or George W., and closer to center than Kerry. At least, he packaged himself that way. Of course, neither Gore nor Bush pulled in over 50% of the vote in 2000.
The nation is horribly polarized, and with good reason. One party consistently stands for the moral dumbing down of America, and the other consistently stands for its traditional values. Further, this former party is becoming increasingly alienated from the majority of states. Recall Gore only carried 20 states, albeit most of the most populace ones.
The only way Kerry can win this thing is if he portrays himself as a centrist, something he did fairly well during his acceptance speech on Thursday. Despite the mistakes Bush has made, and despite the errant rhetoric against him that he can't do anything right, he is still right in there. I think this says much more about the polarization of America than it does about the candidate himself. Personally, I'd prefer a Repub more like Reagan than Bush Jr.
Interesting, despite his wide appeal, slightly over 40% of those who voted in 1984 didn't want Reagan reelected either. Of course, we all know he won in a landslide electoral college victory, carrying all but one state.
Kuligan forgets that while most people may personally oppose abortion and gay marriage, they are also reluctant to force others to do the same. By taking a "conservative" position in regard to changing the now established "right" to choose, and unwillingness to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage, Kerry is far more aligned to the mainstream of the US polity than Bush's radical religious beliefs and policies.
Again, the only way Kerry can win is if he packages himself as something he clearly - given his Senate voting record - is not.
Both of these guys are dividers by the very nature of today's political environment in America. Neither is a "uniter" in any sense of the word, because the country is virtually split right down the middle on key issues.
However, this is my hypothetical (and it is only that). If a Ronald Reagan appeared on the scene, he'd steal the show again. Clinton was the Demo's counterpart to Reagan in many ways, yet, despite his charm and mass appeal, could never even garner over half of the popular vote. In other words, even a Democrat packaged as wonderfully as Clinton wasn't able to appeal to a majority of the voters.
From the past elections, it seems reasonable to assume that roughly 40% of the populace will vote Democrat no matter what, and the same number will vote Republican no matter what. But of that remaining 20%, a Republican has a better chance of resonating with them than does a Democrat.
Kerry will have to run away from his voting record and attempt to appear more centrist than he actually is, if he is going to sway the few remaining voters necessary. However, neither Bush nor Kerry have the skills of a Reagan or Clinton. But I think it will become increasingly difficult for a Democrat to win the presidency, so long as that party remains coopted by the leftwing nutcases that frequent it.
Wombat, sorry, but you are just simply wrong. Only roughly 30% support abortion on demand, something that Kerry supports. The vast majority oppose it.
On gay marriage, again, the split in the "conservative" constituency (and majority) is found in WHO should stop it, not if we should. Many believe the state should do it, while others believe the fed should. However, a MAJORITY believe it should be done, period.
Daschle up in SD is in a major battle on just this issue. His rather conservative state is up in arms on his vote against the marriage amendment, and clearly, in this case at least, the representative did not truly represent his constituency. Let's hope it costs him his reelection bid up there.
In the recent Senate vote, several Republicans voted against the amendment not because they support gay marriage, but because they think it is more properly handled by the states and not the federal government. Personally, I think the same way, although I have a feeling that states will be forced to conform once several other states begin to recognize gay marriage, regardless of what their majority feel about the matter.
If I recall correctly, 3 Democratic Senators voted for the amendment. This means that a majority of the current senators want to see gay marriage stopped. And clearly, the same can be said about the current House.
Kerry's support of it may play well at home, but it doesn't elsewhere. That's why he didn't even touch on the issue in his acceptance speech.
"Kerry is far more aligned to the mainstream of the US polity"
Just so we don't start parsing words, Wombat, let me be clear. If we took a popular vote today on abortion and gay marriage, the majority would disagree with Kerry's position on both issues. Of course, as you said above, you used the word "polity," which may be just a roundabout way of saying that Kerry agrees with the current LAW concerning abortion, something I am not disputing. I am, however, saying that Kerry's views on abortion on demand and gay marriage are clearly out of step with the majority of Americans.
Keep in mind also that such things often fall to the vote of the Supreme Court, whether or not the majority agrees. On the issue of abortion, for example, NEVER has Roe v. Wade been the majority's view in the past 31 years. It is rather a law instituted on an unwilling majority. Personally, I think (perhaps naively so) in time the conscience of America may come to bear, especially as the death count increases. At least, that is my hope.
Does anyone know the name of the article that talked about "the 49% president?" Perhaps others saw it. I read it roughly half a year ago, I think. Anyway, we are in a different age, one where our presidents from here on out are virtually assured of never receiving the majority vote, yet assuming the office.
Again, even a Democrat with seemingly wide appeal and obviously excellent skills like Clinton couldn't do it. I do believe, though, that a Republican similarly skilled would be able to still do it, because independents have shown themselves in the long run to be more favorable to the Repub platform than to the Demo one.
Neither is a "uniter" in any sense of the word, because the country is virtually split right down the middle on key issues.
This is actually nonsense. Most people are centrists. On abortion, most people believe Clinton's formulation--safe, legal and rare. The later the abortion, the less comfortable people are with it. People don't like the use of abortion as primary birth control method, and so forth.
On gay marriage, most people don't care. Of those who do, it's the institution of marriage, rather than gay pairings that concern them.
On issues like school prayer or the the ten commandments in a courtroom, only evangelicals (atheists as well as low church Christians) get worked up about those issues.
The primary issue for most American's is Reagan's formulation--am I better off today than I was four year's ago. Bush's primary problem is that way too many people are answering that question in the negative.
The polarization is among politicians, not the populace. And it stems almost entirely from the extreme right wing of the republican party's attempts to manufacture polarization as a tool for motivating their base. The democrats, as usual, are reaching out for centrist positions, as did Clinton.
Interestingly, in looking at exit polling data for the 2000 election, uneducated people (those without high school diplomas) were far more likely to vote for Gore than for Bush, but college degreed people voted more for Bush than Gore.
The upper class voted more for Gore than for Bush, but the upper-middle class and middle class were slightly more favorable toward Bush. That's fairly amazing, given the common rhetoric that the Republican Party caters to the rich and wealthy.
Again, the only way Kerry can win is if he packages himself as something he clearly - given his Senate voting record - is not.
I know this is the current talking point among the ditto heads, but I've not seen much in the way of presentation of this voting record. You did see the link above debunking the most liberal Senator claim, did you not?
And, in any case, when your running the country as opposed to representing a constituency, you're going to find yourself forced to the center anyway. With the exception of Bush, it's happened to every president--Nixon adopted environmental policies he didn't like, Reagan raised the taxes in 1986 that he lowered in 1982, Clinton, upbraided by the 1994 elections, became a deficit hawk and appointed a republican to his cabinet.
Bush is unique in my memory in continuing to pursue deeply unpopular policies this late into his presidency. They think they can continue to do so by hiding what they are doing and lying about it. That strategy may work; for example, the Abu Graib coverup seems to be holding. But there are a lot of pots aboiling....
"I know this is the current talking point among the ditto heads"
I wouldn't know.
"Bush is unique in my memory in continuing to pursue deeply unpopular policies this late into his presidency."
They clearly aren't as unpopular as you think. However, Bush is standing for what he believes, and is doing what he said he would do. To abandon that now would, well, make him look like the typical cameleon Democrat.
"They think they can continue to do so by hiding what they are doing and lying about it."
Whatever. But, of course, the all-knowing jay will catch them in their lies and expose the truth. Uncover the conspiracies, jay! The whole nation is counting on you!!
To abandon that now would, well, make him look like the typical cameleon Democrat.
Or it might make him look like someone who could think his way out of a paper bag at least to the point of being able to adjust policy to circumstances.
First, over a quarter are unaffiliated with any party, so an evenly split, polarized populace is clearly false if you use party affiliation as your measure of polarization.
But, in an case, it's a bad measure. The fact that someone is affiliated with a party may merely mean that they want to vote in primaries. Or that they chose a party affilliation 20 years ago, and haven't gotten around to changing it.
It is true that on the question of Bush's reelection, opinions appear to be strongly held on both sides.
On your "abortion on demand" poll number, you are, of course aware that
A recent ABC News poll finds Americans generally favorable toward abortion by a 54% to 43% margin, while a Gallup Poll finds Americans more negative than positive by 61% to 37%. The differences in results appear to be related to question wording, suggesting that some people are so conflicted on the issue of abortion that even slight wording differences can move them from a positive to a negative view, or vice versa.
From the gallup web site.
As I said, safe, legal and rare (I'd add early, too). Never a good thing, never a trivial thing, sometimes necessary. As I said at the outset, centrist.
"Or it might make him look like someone who could think his way out of a paper bag at least to the point of being able to adjust policy to circumstances."
And when he does do that, arky, he is called a liar for not staying the course. Damned if you do...
jay, yesterday marjoribanks took the award for "ignorant kneejerk blowhard" and today you get it for the same reason. Instead of actually addressing the issues and looking for supporting data, you take the lazy man's way of spouting rhetorical nonsense. Take this for example:
"On gay marriage, most people don't care."
There hasn't been a single poll that I have seen where "I don't care" garnered double digits, let alone "most" of the votes.
However, just for your own future reference, here is a CNN/USA Today/Gallop nationwide poll for you to chew on:
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" Form A (N=499, MoE ± 5)
Should Be Valid Should Not Be No Opinion % % % 7/19-21/04 32 62 6 3/5-7/04 33 61 6 2/16-17/04 32 64 4 2/6-8/04 36 59 5 12/03 31 65 4 10/03 35 61 4 6/03 39 55 6 1/00 34 62 4 2/99 35 62 3 3/96 27 68 5
So much for "most people" not even caring jay. Get your facts straight next time before entering a discussion or debate.
They clearly aren't as unpopular as you think. However, Bush is standing for what he believes, and is doing what he said he would do.
Sure they are. That's why they lie about what they are doing--what they are doing is unpopular, and they know it. Faced with similar circumstances, past presidents adopted more centrist policies-as with Nixon and the environment or Clinton and NAFTA.
Moreover, Bush may be doing what he believes in, but he is not doing what he said he would do.
But, of course, the all-knowing jay will catch them in their lies and expose the truth. Uncover the conspiracies, jay!
You don't have to go any further than your local bookstore to find them for yourself. I have heard about one set of lies and hidden agendas from the inside, in the way the administration is gutting the EPA's authority.
I do want to note that I still haven't heard anything about this awful record Kerry has in the Senate, other than the claim he has one. And that sarcastic personal attacks don't advance your argument any.
Jay, please keep with the terminology that I used when subsequently attempting to engage it. I said "abortion on demand." That means something other than simply "abortion."
When people are asked in polls to list the issues that are important to them, gay marriage pulls up at the end. Sure, they may have an opinion one way or another, but it's not an important issue. As Bush is finding out.
When is he going to introduce the other six constitutional amendments he favors? Which will be next? The balanced budget amendment?
Also, the same polling data I referenced above re: gay marriage shows that people are vastly opposed to it, yet are only slightly supportive of a constitutional amendment barring it. In other words, as I said earlier, they prefer that the states do it. The recent Senate vote, although helpful, actually does not reflect the nationwide attitude against gay marriage.
Personally, I think each state should set its own course, but states which oppose it should not be forced to recognize it from another state which supports it. However, if this was determined to be unconstitutional, then a constitutional amendment should be created to protect states whose populace are opposed to warping the institution of marriage to cater to a perverted 2% of the population.
"When people are asked in polls to list the issues that are important to them, gay marriage pulls up at the end. Sure, they may have an opinion one way or another, but it's not an important issue. As Bush is finding out."
Don't be dumb jay. You said "most people don't care", but clearly they do care. When asked about the issue, only about 4-5% on average don't care. The rest do care.
That is far different than ranking a hundred issues one by one on the level of importance. I don't think gay marriage would be number one on my list either, but that hardly means it isn't important to me.
The point is that people's opinions are very sensitive to how the question is asked. That there isn't a huge polarization on the issue. That people see both sides, and are in conflict. They certainly don't want the 14 year old rape victim forced to carry a child to term. They certainly don't want a woman in the 25th week having an abortion for her convenience.
It's a difficult question for most people--because they aren't polarized on this issue.
Did I explain that clearly enough, this time? The language matters because people don't have strong, polarized positions on the issue.
And in the future, jay, do what you expect Bush so often to do. Just say, "Oops, sorry, I was wrong." Because you clearly are wrong.
Coming back and trying to reword things in your favor just makes you look pathetic and ignorant about it. Or at bear minimum, reword your original statement better to more adequately communicate your intended meaning.
But don't come back and pretend to say something that you didn't originally say. After all, your original words are still right up there for all to re-read.
jay, as I said already, you aren't addressing what I originally spoke about. "abortion on demand" is something far different than, say, "allowing a rape victim to abort the child." Abortion on demand says abort no matter the reason, just because it is the woman's right to do so, period. Kerry supports this, and the vast majority of Americans, when asked specifically, do not.
You are talking in more general terms and I was not, that's all.
Back to the issue of gay marriage, I do not dispute your new contention that the issue isn't at the top of the list of the majority of people. Of course, I'd like to see some solid substantiation for that claim nonetheless, but it sounds reasonable to me.
That people don't care, period, is utter nonsense, as polling data proves otherwise.
Again, the polling data clearly shows the majority of Americans opposed to gay marriage, but changing the Constitution to protect against it clearly isn't their first option for handling it. "gay unions" seem to be a compromise of sorts, although even then, a majority of Americans oppose them (but obviously not as large as a majority).
The issue simply is that a majority of Americans do not want to see the institution of marriage violated or changed just to cater to 2% of the populace.
And this polling data is far different that asking the question, "Is homosexuality immoral?" A very slight majority say yes to that. So there is obviously a fair amount of people who, despite thinking homosexuality is okay, still don't want to see the institution of marriage changed to cater to it.
The point I was refuting was your claim the country is polarized. I used abortion as an example because there are strong opinions on the subject. But the existence of those strong opinions are limited to a small number of people. The fluidity of the polling numbers illustrates this. I was also pointing out that you were picking a poll (assuming you actually saw one--there was no citiation) that had language that influenced people to answer in opposition to abortion.
I am not talking in "more general terms" than you are. I am talking about the larger point about polarization that you raised, and noted that abortion doesn't show that kind of 50-50 polarization. In fact, people have mixed feelings about the issue.
"Now I am going to read a list of some of the issues that will probably be discussed in next year's presidential election campaigns. As I read each one, please tell me how important the candidates' positions on that issue will be in influencing your vote for president -- extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. How about [see below]?"
Extremely/ Very Important % Education 86 The economy 86 Terrorism 85 Health care 82 The situation in Iraq 80 Taxes 74 The federal budget deficit 72 Foreign affairs 65 The environment 62 Corporate corruption 60 Immigration 55 Gun policy 53 Abortion 52 Same-sex marriage 44
On November 2 millions of Americans will cast their votes for President in computerized voting systems that can be rigged by corporate or local-election insiders. Some 98 million citizens, five out of every six of the roughly 115 million who will go to the polls, will consign their votes into computers that unidentified computer programmers, working in the main for four private corporations and the officials of 10,500 election jurisdictions, could program to invisibly falsify the outcomes.
The result could be the failure of an American presidential election and its collapse into suspicions, accusations and a civic fury that will make Florida 2000 seem like a family spat in the kitchen.
What's with the knee jerk slogan "sanctity of marriage"? Does it refer to the almost 50% divorce rate? The high incident of spouse and child abuse? High rate of single moms trying to support her kids because so many dads pay minimum, if any, child support? If it's for procreation, then what about childless marriages? Should those couples be made to divorce? What about those beyond child bearing age? Is this the sort of thing that gay marriage is threatening?
It doesn't threaten anything. As I've said before, love and commitment will inevitably win out over bigotry and hate.
P J O'Rourck says it best:
I am a little to the right of ... Why is the Attila comparison used? Fifth-century Hunnish depredations on the Roman Empire were the work of an overpowerful executive pursuing a policy of economic redistribution in an atmosphere of permissive social mores. I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.
Hah! Nice quote, Jay. I can't see any threats either. It was in the late 70's that a lesbian mother and her partner were allowed custody of the mother's three children after her divorce from the father. It was a landmark case and aside from the psychiatrists that each party had testify, the judge himself brought in experts who testified there would be no damage to the children. These days, adoption and also awarding custody to gays is no big deal. The issue is what is in the best welfare of the children. It's nice that in these cases the courts keep the real issue in mind!
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Kerry's gain is smaller than usual for a convention bounce, testament to the unusually polarized race, with many voters committing early to each candidate. Still, it comes at a crucial time for the Democratic candidate, countering a loss of momentum leading up to his convention.
The Massachusetts senator gained five to eight points among registered voters on issues and attributes alike, while Bush lost about as many. And after a convention that focused heavily on his military experience in Vietnam, Kerry leads Bush as "better qualified to be commander-in-chief," by 52 percent to 44 percent.
Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry emerged from his national convention last week with a small lead over President Bush in the race for the White House and improved his standing against the president on both the economy and on who is better qualified to serve as commander in chief, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
The new poll shows Kerry now claims the support of 50 percent of all registered voters, compared with 44 percent for Bush, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2 percent. On the eve of the convention, Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 46 percent.
Among those most likely to vote, the race is tighter: Kerry holds a 2-point advantage over Bush in the current poll.
8 point bounce, 6 point lead in an electorate that hasn't moved for months is very nice indeed but it is the reframed race and the fact that Kerry now gets equal news time with the Emperor of the Armadillo People that is the most significant...
Nine Banded Armadillo
Texas State mamal and Imperial Subject on the way to Farm to Market Roadkill
The Democrat is now viewed as more honest and trustworthy than Bush, by 47 percent to 41 percent. Immediately before the convention, those numbers were essentially reversed. Kerry also has widened his advantage as the candidate who best understands the problems of average Americans. While Bush was seen on the eve of the convention as the candidate who most closely shared their values, Kerry now has a 50 to 44 percent advantage over Bush on that question.
THAT is the most important part of the results, that plus the fact that a significant proportion of the public still does not have a clear idea about Kerry's stands, though that number has fallen and will do so further as people pour over the 250 book!!!!
All in all, catbird's seat....the debates will be very important needless to say.
DRUDGE (yeah, I know. Drudge?) is reporting that the NYTimes will have a big-time report tomorrow that much of the info upon which the current boost-W's-poll-numbers scare is based is three to four years old and that evidence of ongoing activity is slim.
From Brad de Long's website, great quote by carville:
You know, back in 2000 a Republican friend of mine warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Al Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true.
Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the NY and D.C. areas was 3 or 4 years old... NYT Tuesday Page One Splash To Claim: Intelligence and law enforcement officials 'had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way'... WASH POST Page One: Alerts Stemmed from Pre-9/11 Acts /// 'There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new,' said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. 'Why did we go to this level?... I still don't know that'... POST: 'Most of the information was compiled prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and that there are serious doubts about the age of other, undated files'...
By Dan Eggen and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, August 3, 2004; Page A01
Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued since then, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.
More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.
"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
Bleedin' obvious, to the non-gullible observer, that the timing of the terrorism alert (independently of whether there is any new threat or not) is an "anti-bounce" measure.
Any self-respecting journalist would want to see pretty hard evidence of a new threat rather than taking Bush's word for it...
And yet... it works. My radio station (hard-headed, subtle, lucid, not excessively pro-American, not at all pro-Bush) took it, hook line and sinker. Sad.
People wanting to get married, most together for years even decades are a threat to the sanctity of marriage?!?!?!?
I was blessed to have parents who had a stable marriage in a small very Catholic town with few divorces and was truly shocked when I got out into the real world to hear horror stories and see people first hand people broken by child abuse, incest, spousal abuse...women battered...
AC...If Bush said the sun rose in the east, I'd go outside and check
There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
The government was today urged to spell out the exact nature of the terrorist threat to Britain as speculation continued that recently discovered documents meant that an al-Qaida strike was imminent. [...]The Pakistani information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, said the files also revealed targets in the UK.
Clue : the information was given out by the Pakistani information minister, i.e. the department of censorship and propaganda, following the US electoral timetable. Undoubtedly they put in some stuff about the UK as window dressing. It is roughly as significant and reliable as the yellowcake dossier from Berlusconi's intelligence [sic] agency.
I happened to see President Bush giving a casual remark in the Rose Garden yesterday. He said something to this effect--You know, everybody thought there were WMDs in Iraq, including me. However, even if there were not, I was justified in going in.
I'm not sure of the exact wording, but as I understood, it was the first admission that he was going in irrespective. The decision had already been made. Someone has the exact words. The Kerry campaign should jump all over this, in my opinion. I' m sure it was a slip of the tongue.
"You know, everybody thought there were WMDs in Iraq, including me. However, even if there were not, I was justified in going in."
And I agree wholeheartedly. People seem to forget what Saddam had done running up to the invasion, how he had consistently flaunted international law, how he constantly lied to us, did things he promised he'd never do again, didn't do things he promised he would do, and so on.
"6 point lead in an electorate that hasn't moved for months is very nice indeed"
Hey you special interest bozo, jexster, the electorate moves each and every week. If you ever took the time to actually look things up, instead of just sitting at your leftwing websites and doing nothing else, you'd see that in those sites I provided the other day which follow the electoral college, they move with virtually every poll. For example, just in the polls after the Democratic National Deception, five states moved in the College: 2 from slightly in favor of Bush to slightly in favor of Kerry, two the exact opposite way, and one from strongly in favor for Bush to slightly in his favor.
Read man. Stop spouting nonsensical BS and read for a change.
Of course, we know that all that matters to you is the money anyway, so who cares about the truth, right? You are just a party lackey, nothing more.
Just another example of empty rhetoric spouting by Bush haters because they have nothing better to do. Gore did not win, and the follow up recounts ultimately proved that. He lost, plain and simple.
Of course, adhering to fact and truth have never been hallmarks of the leftwing, so why change now?
People seem to forget what Saddam had done running up to the invasion, how he had consistently flaunted international law, how he constantly lied to us, did things he promised he'd never do again, didn't do things he promised he would do, and so on.
Hey you special interest bozo, jexster, the electorate moves each and every week
Oh yeah SewageBreath?
Until the convention, the WaPo poll has not moved at all. The margin of difference between the two candidates has been fluctuating within the MOE for most of the time.
Bush led Gore by 12-15 points in the summer of 2000. The race did not tighten until after labor day - Gore +4 and moved within the MOE until election day...
In 2000 the day before the election about 38% of Democrats said they were enthusiastic about voting...42% of republicans
Now 76% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans say they are...
Everything is pointing to a major increase in turnout this year..Carlos Watson thinks it will go up from about 105 million to 115 million or more...
"A turnout increase will make Republican blood run cold" Kevin Phillips...
An excited, polarized electorate means Kerry +5
That is why Bush has gone negative so early,...to depress turnout of low turnout voters....
From what I could tell, the folks in NYC didn't look all that scared. A friend of mine I talked to just laughed it off and said nothing was slowed down. "This is New York, it doesn't shut down because Ridge tries to scare us."
Good Oh! A poll showing a slight lead (2 points) for John/John in Wisconsin. dubya lost WI to Gore by 5700 votes and has been spending a lot of time there... I doubt it's because he likes the sweetcorn.
Another good sign in the state polls...they confirm the national trend that Nader, the Great GOP Hope, is heading south fast...down now in the 2-3% range and headed toward the resting place I have predicted 1-2% with a shot at going below the Interstate line (.01)
The tenor was set the week of September 11th. People didn't leave. They pulled together. People, like me, who were out of town (I was actually pushing back from the departure gate when cell phones started ringing) got back as soon as we could. Heroic efforts were made to get the financial markets up and running. The terrorists have certainly not won anything here.
We've also been at a higher alert level anyway. I read a piece that said security measures at the Manhattan Citigroup building had been enhanced--ids required and bags searched. It's no doubt true that they're doing that, but it's not new; I have an id for that buiiding, and my bag was always searched.
On the election, it's hard to see how Bush can win. I don't think there are many Gore voters going to Bush. But there are plenty of Nader voters going to Kerry, and some Bush voters going to Kerry. Those little old ladies who didn't mean to vote for Buchanan alone represent a turnaround in Florida.
Hence the negative advertising. Their only hope lies in driving down turnout. But, in this case, I suspect it will have the opposite effect.
GOP pollster/Consultant Ken(?) Fabrizio was quoted last week as saying that independent voters are leaning so hard to Kerry it won't take much for the door to come crashing open....he urged Bush to go real negative, real fast...
Lies Have Consequences KulliganMan..see the Lies Thread for a quick list of Kerry Senate accomplishments including kudos from Bill Frist..and Bush...I didn't forget him either...
If I recall correctly, during the last presidential election Moties were informed by Ce Lardo Oro that GBush travelled to Mexico to patronize child prostitutes.
I haven't been following Jexster's commentary very closely, but I do recall that at the time of the last election Lardo Oro and Jex were high fiving eachother on a regular basis.
Jay, it appears that Kerry has a strong statistical edge on the cross-voting as you pointed out. I have been trying to watch to watch the electoral polls and Kerry seems to be consistently scoring higher in the electoral college polls than in the national polls we see. I actually don't know why this is so. Maybe someone has some insight on that. The only reason that I can come up with, is that the big electoral states are the industrial states, and that is where the job losses are most prominent.
You must have me confused with some Slerbian pig farmer...I wasn't giving ANYONE high fives in the last election
But no matter - that was then, this now...
CULTURE WAR PRESIDENT!
DALLAS (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) promised on Tuesday to fight in a second term for conservative social causes --from a ban on gay marriage and human cloning to limits on abortion rights -- as he appealed to Catholic voters to support him, a Methodist, over John Kerry (news - web sites), a Catholic
Seems that Karl Rove is moving the B/C campaign as far right as possible in the desperate hope of gaining those phantom legions of Falwellian nutters
Kerry seems to be consistently scoring higher in the electoral college polls than in the national polls we see.
There are two reasons. The first is that, with one exception (Maine), the electors of each state go by 'winner take all'. If Kerry wins Ohio's popular vote by one vote, he gets all of Ohio's electoral votes (presuming that the electors vote as the people they represent have demanded). This means that Kerry could win the popular vote by 52 votes overall and still win every electoral college vote, or win the necessary 270 electoral votes while getting buried in the popular vote. Minor differences can show up big through the Electoral College system.
For example, The Federal Election Commission maintains records on past elections. And on this page, for example, they show the stats for the 1996 Presidential election between Clinton and Dole. That was an eight point race --Clinton got 49% of the popular vote, Dole 41%. But Clinton got around 70% of the electoral votes (the total was Clinton 379, Dole 159).
The second reason is that the swing states seem to be breaking for Kerry and it's not just industry. Yes, there's a lot of heavy industry in places like Ohio and Michigan -- but there's a lot in New York (almost guaranteed to go Democratic) and Texas (which is owned lock stock and barrel by the GOP). It's more a matter of certain industries and professions being located in certain states, which have done well (i.e. oil) or poorly (i.e. manufacturing) under Bush, and the strength of each party's political machine in each. Kerry is doing well in the battleground states because they are the states feeling the most fallout from Bush's economy and, consequently, the states with the most young kids looking for jobs in the military, and Iraq and the economy are the two biggest issues for the 2004 voter.
I wonder if ever in his idle moments, Bush remembers how much fun it was to fly around in fighter jets with no one shooting at him and then in his guts realizes that his opponent is a man who when under fire, turned to the sound of the guns, ran his enemies down and killed them in order to carry out his mission and to protect his men?
I agree with A-5's analysis, and just want to add that the electoral college tends to multiply margin of victory. That is, Bush's big leads in places like KS show up in the national polling numbers, while Kerry's small leads in places like Ohio show up smaller. Pikers and tyros look at the national polling numbers.
(This is of course why I've never had much sympathy for Gore's being robbed. He knew the rules of the game. For his campaign to allow the election to come down to a few thousand little old ladies who meant to vote for him when they filled out the ballot for Buchanan was unconscionable.)
In recent days, Kerry has been getting flack for not offering enough details of his strategy to extricate us from Iraq. (Accusations of a "secret plan" and so forth.)
Has Bush offered an extrication plan in any more detail than Kerry has? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
“Let me talk about the intelligence in Iraq. First of all, we all thought we’d find stockpiles of weapons. We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet. Every person standing up here would say, 'Gosh, we thought it was going to be different.; As did congress, by the way. Member of both parties. And the United Nations. But what we do know is that Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons. And... umm … but let me just say this to you. Knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq. We still would have gone to make our country more secure. He had the capability of making weapons. He had terrorist ties. The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.”
This may have been essentially true as of October 2002, but was certainly false in March of 2003. And, of course, the world would be better off with any number of rulers out of power, from Mugabe to Dear Leader.
Thank you, Jay. It seems that Bush has taken full responsibility for the war. As a result, he must be held responsible for the consequences and his choice of the incompetent personel to whom he assigned the responsibility for carrying out his program. The fact that not one of these people has been removed is almost beyond belief to me.
And yet another sign that John Kerry is out of touch with mainstream America.
There seems to still be some hope for our country and its slide down the moral cesspool. At least the people of Missouri recognized that what the degenerates want isn't right or good, and other states, are moving in the same direction:
"Missouri Voters Approve Consitutional Gay Marriage Ban"
"Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.
Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.
Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions."
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has persuaded scores of corporate executives to go public with endorsements to prove his moderate appeal and suggest cracks in President Bush's base of business support. Joined by several business leaders at an economic summit today in Davenport, Iowa, Mr. Kerry will release a list of about 200 other corporate supporters. Among the Kerry converts is David Bonderman, founder and managing partner of the Fort Worth, Texas, investment firm Texas Pacific Group, who supported Mr. Bush for president in 2000 and earlier for Texas governor.
In an interview from a chartered boat off Italy where he is vacationing, Mr. Bonderman said: "George is a really good guy personally. But his policies are really terrible. And he had an opportunity to bring the country together -- which was his MO in Texas. But for reasons only his psychiatrist would know, he's chosen to do just the opposite as president. He's turning out to be the worst president since Millard Fillmore -- and that's probably an insult to Millard Fillmore."
The Bush campaign notes that the president's support in the business world is far deeper than that of his Democratic rival. That is true given the Republican leaning of American companies, and Mr. Bush's pro-business record on cutting taxes, promoting trade and curbing regulation. Mr. Bush has raised many times what Sen. Kerry has from business donors -- just as the Republican did against Vice President Al Gore in 2000.
If Kerry's position sounds familiar, it should. It was Bush/Cheney's before they decided they could appease the Bigoted Evangelical so-called "Christians" by pandering to their fear and their hate...
Text: Should we change the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage? Text: Vice President Dick Cheney, October 5, 2000 Dick Cheney [2000]: People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. Text: Lynne Cheney, July 11, 2004 Lynne Cheney [2004]: People should be free to enter into the relationships that they choose. Dick Cheney [2000]: I think that different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. Lynne Cheney [2004]: When it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states. Dick Cheney [2000]: I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. Text: We agree with what Dick Cheney once said. Text: And what Lynne Cheney just said. Text: Call your Senators. 202-224-3121 Text: Don’t write discrimination into the Constitution.
In January Gavin Newsom sat in the gallery of the House of Representatives and heard Bush announce that he would reverse (flip-flop) his position on a Federal Marriage Amendment.
As he listened, it became apparent that Bush would use this as a wedge issue in the election. He was replused at what he heard and returned to SF where he directed the County Recorder to obey the Constitution of California which prohibits discrimination against any group in any matter.
At the time, I wrote in the AP thread that this was the Political Play of the Year and so it now is clear that such was the case.
Support for marriage rights for lesbian and gays has risen. Opposition to the FMA is nearly 60%.
Newsom knew that Bush, if left to his own devices, would have sprung the FMA in July with a massive attack during the Demo convention, against gays and lesbians who, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled, were entitled under the Mass Constitution to the same rights as SewageBreath.
Now we see the brilliance predicted coming to pass.
According to a recent poll - Gallup I believe - Gay marriage ranks DEAD last after abortion and gun control among the 15 issues of concern to the voters.
What's more, Bush, as predicted has been left "holding his dick in the klieg lights", frantically pandering to nutters like SewageBrain, and alientating swing voters nationwide.
There were no attacks in Boston against the Homo degenerates, the FMA flopped, and Bush has scheduled FMA opponents for every prime time speech at the GOP convention.
And SewageBlather has been left holding his little dick in the klieg lights
Interesting take, jexster. Now try this one. Bush knows that the Marriage Amendment will fail in the Senate, as everyone knew it would. So why go ahead and push for it anyway, knowing that defeat is certain?
Because the defeat would scare ethical people in America into actually doing something about the perverted homo lobby. It would signal to the states that they really do need to get off their kiesters and do something about it. Missouri is the first of many, many more to come.
Hallelujah! Our country may yet have hope.
But don't worry none, jexster. I'm sure you'll still be pulling in that pay check for that special interest group that has you in its back pocket and literally wasting hours each and every day spouting its lies. Don't forget, gays and lesbians have much higher incomes on average than do heteros. So that money will keep rolling in for ya.
I await your reply, jexster. I'm not sure, though, if the post will be a pornography filled ofering with gay boys in bondage, or a quote from Jesus Christ.
DAVENPORT, Iowa --A television station is reporting three bank robberies happened about the same time President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry were speaking at separate venues in Davenport Wednesday morning.
Police would neither confirm nor deny that an APB had been issued for Neil Bush.
judith, it is a well known fact, and I'm sure you can easily find it online somewhere. But I'll see what I can do to dig it up for you.
P.S. Tourism agencies in America and elsewhere are beginning to recognize this fact, by the way. There is tons of money in the gay/lesbian community, dispelling any myth that this group is really a disadvantaged and poor little minority that needs special rights and privileges and the hefty protection of the government.
poor little minority that needs special rights and privileges and the hefty protection of the government.
But they have never claimed they want special rights and never claimed they are poor. The merely want the same rights as others have been freely given.
judith, I found quite a bit on a simple "average income homosexuals" search. One interesting link studied the traditional arguments used in granting protected class status to a particular group, the three "touchstones."
1. As an entire class, have suffered a history of discrimination evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.
2. As an entire class, exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that define them as a discrete group.
3. As an entire class, clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.
CNN: "Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the first Gulf War, delivered the Democratic radio address supporting implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations for national security. McPeak, a former fighter pilot who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 as well as Bush in 2000, said Bush's inability to craft a true allied coalition was a serious deficiency. Bush has 'alienated our friends, damaged our credibility around the world, reduced our influence to an all-time low in my lifetime, given hope to our enemies...The real deal for me is not whether a strategy or a plan or an idea is Republican or Democrat, but whether it makes us safer,' he said. 'And it means an awful lot to me that John Kerry fought for his country as a young man.' "
"They have median annual household incomes of $45,776. Nationally, the median income for a family household is $35,492, according to 1996 figures from the U.S. Census.3 According to a study by researcher Greenfield Online in conjunction with homosexual marketing consultant Spare Parts, homosexuals’ annual household income is $57,300. Georgia Tech Graphics Visualization & Usability Center found that homosexuals’ annual income is $52,000.4 Market researcher Overlooked Opinions found that male homosexuals reported household incomes of more than $50,000 in 1990, compared to the national average of about $37,000.5"
The footnotes come from several sources, including the Wall Street Journal.
"According to the Miami Daily Business Review, homosexuals have "extraordinarily high disposable income, and are a very attractive target for advertisers." The Review reports Simmons Market Research Bureau findings that 21 percent of homosexuals have household incomes exceeding $100,000; 31 percent have personal income exceeding $65,000; 61 percent have a four-year college degree, compared with the U.S. mean of 18 percent; 17 percent hold masters degrees, compared with 4 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.8"
"The merely want the same rights as others have been freely given."
Yes, yes, all they want is the freedom to do what they want to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that's all. Forget the fact that they want a 5000-year old institution to be changed just to suit them.
Personally, I think what they should do is all get together, perhaps on an island somewhere, or even take one of the fifty states, and build a utopian society based on their sexual ethics. Of course, we'd insist that they remain homosexual in all their practices, since it is such a worthy and worthwhile lifestyle to choose.
Of course, they'll all be gone in a generation or two, but that's really not the point, is it? Naw, just a good old fashion lifestyle.
As an entire class, clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.
None of these are true by the homosexual lobby
Yes, that last one certainly IS true. Bush won't even meet with the Log Cabin Republicans and he is trying to change the constitution to deny them rights and stigmatize them from normal society.
America is waking up, Jex! Rejoice! More states will follow. Then no doubt we'll have a bloody Supreme Court battle over it, and once the homos have shoved their agenda entirely down the other 98% of the population, perhaps then they'll be truly happy, right?
Doubt it. More will come.
But don't fear, jex, your pay check is safe and sure. Keep toeing the party and special interest line, and keep cashing in on the fear mongering you are so good at.
Gosh, judith, what country do you live in? I'm not being sarcastic either, but anybody that says homosexuals are politically powerless in America can't be actually living in America.
Forget the fact that they want a 5000-year old institution to be changed just to suit them.
I thought marriage only became an "institution" such as we know it during medieval times; it became a social contract assuring inheritance.
Surely you don't mean bibical marriage as described in the Old Testament? The one which states marriage shall be "between a man and a woman or women"? That would seem to lean more toward what the Mormans do, wouldn't it?
As the good people of Missouri know, and as other states will soon follow, it is the PROTECTION of something, judith, not the denial of rights. The latter phraseology is just political rhetoric that didn't fool the people of the Show Me state.
2% of the population want a 5000-year old institution to be changed just to suit them. That's the bottom line. And thankfully, people in 38 states aren't buying it.
judith, let's try this the other way. Start naming civilizations which defined "marriage" as between a man and another man, or the same wrt women. Perhaps that would help.
One distinguishing feature of the wacko "religious" right, other than its irreligion and hate, is its penchant for scientific and sociological bunk....
See it is so simple even you should be able to get it..
Bush will do anything to get re-elected including but not limited to pandering to hate, ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and using the Constitution of the US for his weapon
Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association
Arlington, Virginia; The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
This thread however is not the place for extended policy debates..
Bush will do anything to get re-elected including but not limited to pandering to hate, ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and using the Constitution of the US for his weapon
Speaking of which, a King County superior court judge, ruled today that same sex marriage was legal and held unconstitutional Washington state's Defense of Marriage Act, limiting marriage to one man and one woman. An automatic stay of proceedings was entered until the state supreme court reviews the case. State law requires that lower court decisions finding a state law unconstituional must first be reviewed by the state supreme court before going into effect. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001996456_webgaymarriage04m.html
I thought marriage only became an "institution" such as we know it during medieval times; it became a social contract assuring inheritance.
All human societies have marriage. The rules differ. There is no one institution of marriage, and if Kuligan is going to reach back that far in Judeo-Christian history, he's reaching back to an "institution" that incorporated levirate marriage, polygamy, concubines and sexual slaves as part of the institution.
NEW YORK (AP) - In an unprecedented series of concerts in nine swing states, more than 20 musical acts - including Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks - will perform fund-raising concerts one month before the Nov. 2 election in an effort to unseat President Bush.
The shows, which will begin Oct. 1 in Pennsylvania, will take an unusual approach: as many as six concerts on a single day in cities across the states expected to decide the November presidential race. Other stops on the tour are North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the key state in 2000, Florida.
By Allan Lengel and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A17
Federal investigators concluded that Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) divulged classified intercepted messages to the media when he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to sources familiar with the probe.
Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby's committee had been given the information in a classified briefing, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case.
2% of the population want a 5000-year old institution to be changed just to suit them. That's the bottom line. And thankfully, people in 38 states aren't buying it.
Nobody is changing a 5000-year-old institution. In fact, the government is legally incapable of changing that institution. However, the government IS capable of changing which marriages it will recognize, and in fact it has done that already. There were places and times in this nation's history where interracial marriage was forbidden. Did that change a 5,000 year old institution? No. Did the government's overturning of racial miscegenation laws change a 5,000 year old institution? No. Did the government's stand on bigamy change a 5,000 year old institution? No. The US has existed as a nation since the ratifying of the Constitution and its recognition of marriage is therefore only around 220 years old, and that recognition of marriage has been altered several times during that span of years.
The idea that marriage is a sacred contract between man and woman is alive and well in those who choose to define it so, and cannot be altered in any way by the State's decisions, any more than Roe V. Wade forces thumpers to change their minds about abortion. Their marriages are not altered a whit by alternate forms of marriage being introduced among other people any more than they were by the fact that polygamy and polyandry have been practiced in different parts of the world (and in the US).
The US government was right to overturn miscegenation laws, and it is right to allow states to embrace or deny gay marriage as a constitutional and legally recognizable union. And any talk about altering an ancient tradition is simple casuistry.
Anyway, the only likely voters that find Bush's stand on gay marriage a compelling and important reason to vote for him, aren't in any danger of voting for Kerry in the first place. Gay marriage is one of those issues that lots of people have opinions on but few will rank as very important to them -- and, ironically, there are likely voters, i.e. conservative gays (they do exist, you know) who are now less likely to vote for Bush thanks to his stand.
The fact that Bush's team has chosen to make this Punch and Judy show into a major part of their election year strategy indicates at least one of two things. The first is simple incompetence. The second is that the Bush re-election campaign feels it can get better results by tossing raw meat to its right-end base than it can by courting the left end of the base or the swing voters. Of course, they aren't going to cede the GOP moderates and the swing outright, but Bush courted them in 2000 with a platform that turned out to have very little to do with what he accomplished in office. The ones who didn't vote for him the first time definitely won't the second, and many that did are defecting to Kerry or, at least, becoming less likely to vote.
The Bush strategy has always been 'feed the base, feed the base, feed the base'. It didn't win him the popular vote last time, even with Nader getting a much larger percentage of the left's votes than he will this time, but it, along with 'compassionate conservatism' lip service promises, did manage to get him close enough that the USSC could push him onto the inaugural podium. The thing is, Bush's team have apparently forgotten about part of their base this time. The longer they keep this up, the more their numbers will drop and their unfavorables will rise. The religious right can never be the centerpiece of a successful candidate's electoral base.
And that is one of two reasons why I am happy to see Bush pushing the de facto Constitutional outlawing of gay marriage. The second is that I think his chimpery on this issue actually helps the gay rights agenda in America, the same way his economic and warfare policies have helped the Democrats become as unified and strong as they have been in two generations. A shame that while the gay marriage wankery has come at no real cost to American gays (like Missouri was on the brink of letting them marry or something) the damage to America wrought by Bush's economic and military policies is too high of a price to pay to unify the Democrats.
Not so sure... I tend to agree with Kuligin in this : that Bush is rallying people who might otherwise be ashamed of their reactionary instincts.
"Feed the base", in this respect, has perhaps actually enlarged the hard right, by letting it come out of the closet. By being a likeable front-man for an ideology of cruelty, Bush has made it fashionable.
Not so sure... I tend to agree with Kuligin in this : that Bush is rallying people who might otherwise be ashamed of their reactionary instincts.
He can rally them all he likes, but gay marriage polls as a low priority for most voters. People get up and talk about it, but when it comes time to decide who will run the country for the next four years, people are generally a lot more concerned about the economy, the war in Iraq, international relations and terrorism. This is one of those issues like flag burning -- if John Kerry were to burn an American flag or marry a man on public television, it'd be the end of him, but as long as he doesn't inflame the electorate by doing so, it will be a small issue. Meanwhile other people are going 'We're at war in Iraq, terrorists are threatening to attack us, I'm out of a job, my drug costs are rising and Social Security is screwed, why is Bush spending time pissing around with this issue?'
Previously, I have pointed to the Michael Moore film's outrageous profitability as one cultural sign that the nails are being hammered into Dubya's political coffin, that the paradigm has shifted decisively.
It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting.
The pols on the other side can counter straight political arguments, this kind of heartfelt and powerfully deep-seated cultural responses - got no answer. Yeah, I have heard Hooligan's predictions.
But, all the real signs are that this race is pretty much over barring unforseen circumstances.
We busted out of class had to get away from those fools We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school Tonight I hear the neighborhood drummer sound I can feel my heart begin to pound you say you're tired and you just want to close your eyes and follow your dreams down
We made a promise we swore we'd always remember no retreat no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend, no retreat no surrender
No young faces grow sad and old and hearts of fire grow cold, we swore blood brothers against the wind. I'm ready to grow young again and hear your sister's voice calling us home across the open yards well maybe we could cut someplace of our own with these drums and these guitars
We made a promise we swore we'd always remember no retreat no surrender Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend, no retreat no surrender
Blood brothers in the stormy night with a vow to defend no retreat no surrender
Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim the walls of my room are closing in There's a war outside still raging You say it ain't ours anymore to win I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed with a wide open country in my eyes and these romantic dreams in my head
I laugh everytime Bush tries to smear Kerry by talking about his "Hollywood" friends. He seems to be saying actors are too stupid to have the right to have any say in politics. Wonder what they're going to do about Arnold at the GOP Convention? I did read they aren't sure about what role they want to give him. Hahahahahaha.
Now there's a dilemma for The Gropenator-his eagerness for a national role in the GOP versus his background in a liberal industry that has been good to him. I'll bet his wife will encourage him to admonish the thug wing of the party--and he would be smart to play the tolerance card at the convention.
Bush is rallying people who might otherwise be ashamed of their reactionary instincts.
Now there is a comprehensive grid to analyze all of Bush's allure to people who identify with his myriad character flaws: inferiority complex, intellectually lazy, a history of mistakes and bad judgement, petulant, petty, opportunistic, greedy, overcompensating for his fear with false bravado, resorting to intimidation to get his way, alcoholism . . .
Thanks for posting the Springsteen article. I hadn't looked at the paper yet. I read about the concert series yesterday, and hope to go to Philadelphia on October 1 for REM and Bruce.
Howard Stern, Bruce, REM--that covers a lot of the under 40 crowd. Turnout may be through the roof.
actually, i'm feeling ever more hopeful about kerry's chances...my never vote anything but repub husband is seriously wavering because the bushies have strayed so far from what he considers to be core republican policies.
Gotta love that repub base: (from wsj article on debt)
Some Christians see the pervasive use of plastic as part of a dark biblical prophecy. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, has said plastic may signal the cashless society of the end times foreshadowed in the Bible. Robertson's network accepts contributions from supporters on both Visa and MasterCard.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,” Bush said. “They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
Haven't looked it up or seen it anywhere else, but Bro sent me this one:
NEWSWEEK reports that President Bush, appearing before a right-to-life rally in Tampa, Florida on June 17, stated: "We must always remember that all human beings begin life as a feces. A Feces is a living being in the eyes of God, who has endowed that feces with all of the rights and God- given blessings of any other human being." The audience listened in disbelief as the President repeated his error at least a dozen times, before realizing that he had used the word 'feces" when he meant to say "fetus."
...as you listen to George Bush telling his current fable, if you listen carefully, you can hear in the background the faint but unmistakable cry of a wolf.
WASHINGTON — For President Bush, the first family and Bush's top aides, the most generous foreign leader last year — by far — was Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
The State Department's annual tally of gifts to administration officials shows Abdullah gave them $127,600 in jewelry and other presents, including diamond-and-sapphire jewelry valued at $95,500 for first lady Laura Bush.
The Saudi royal family's gifts dwarfed those of other world leaders, according to the tally, and easily eclipsed Abdullah's $55,020 in gifts in 2002. Abdullah has been Saudi Arabia's de-facto ruler since 1996 after a stroke sidelined King Fahd.
I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. - Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) climbed aboard the back of a pickup truck for an impromptu rally Thursday after hundreds of supporters showed up in the parking lot of the motel where he stayed overnight.
Encouraged by the turnout, Edwards staffers passed out signs that read "America Can Do Better" and "Help is on the Way." They even bought two large boxes of doughnuts and passed them out among people at the Victorian Inn in this southeast Missouri town.
Edwards had planned to spend just a few minutes shaking hands with supporters before heading to St. Louis, where he and John Kerry (news -web sites) will board a westbound campaign train. Instead, he delivered a short speech in which he pledged a Kerry administration would work to create jobs, improve health care, fight terrorism and protect veterans.
"Anyway, the only likely voters that find Bush's stand on gay marriage a compelling and important reason to vote for him, aren't in any danger of voting for Kerry in the first place"
Simply not true. Note the recent vote in Missouri, and by how large a margin it was won, 71%.
Yet the most recent polling data from Missouri find Kerry slightly ahead of Bush, 49% to 48%.
Clearly, at least in Missouri, this is a hot issue. The case is the same in many other states as well, most notably South Dakota, which I already reports. Newsweek recently noted that Daschle is in very real danger of losing the election there because of his Senate vote against the marriage amendment, when his constituents are greatly in favor of it.
In short, you may attempt to marginalize this issue all you want to, but that's always been part of the pro-homo lobby's plans anyway. Lull people to sleep.
The Senate defeat of the marriage amendment, rather than a striking blow against the conservative position, was in fact a political act of genius. It has awakened conservatives who had been lulled into complacency. Missouri is the first of many states to follow.
i Again, start listing those civilizations which considered marriage legitimate between two men, or between two women? Jay? Judith?
pick me.
the Mississippian cultures were not homophobic. It really freaked the Jesuits out. I could probably find a quote for you if you don't believe it. I stumbled across one just the other day.
I'm not sure, but I think you would find most Native American societies accepted homosexual marriages.
The Senate defeat of the marriage amendment, rather than a striking blow against the conservative position, was in fact a political act of genius. It has awakened conservatives who had been lulled into complacency. Missouri is the first of many states to follow.
This Senate "defeat" was a sham...Bush never wanted it to come before Congress at all. It was just another of his little ploys to look like he was doing something but in actuality, he was just passing the buck on to the states without looking disengaged.
It worked for people like you but it will backfire, just wait.
Former U.S. Sen. Chic Hecht of Nevada is a staunch Republican, but he thanks his lucky stars for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
On July 12, 1988, Hecht was attending a weekly Republican luncheon when a piece of apple lodged firmly in his throat.
Hecht stumbled out of the room, thinking he might vomit but not wanting to do it in front of his colleagues. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., thumped his back, but Hecht quickly passed out in the hallway.
Just then, Kerry stepped off an elevator, rushed to Hecht's side and gave him the Heimlich maneuver -- four times.
The lifesaving incident made international news, and Dr. Henry Heimlich, who invented the maneuver in 1974, called Hecht to say that had Kerry intervened just 30 seconds later Hecht might have been in a vegetative state for life.
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."
"Anyway, the only likely voters that find Bush's stand on gay marriage a compelling and important reason to vote for him, aren't in any danger of voting for Kerry in the first place"
Simply not true..
Fraid just saying it don't make it so Kulligan. Sorta like your prayers for the Right to Life Amendment.
From a recent article in the Chron..
The Hoover Institution isn't exactly a hot bed of flaming liberals
Referring to the gay bashing amendment.
Whether this calculation pays off, only the election will tell, but dig down into the polling data, analysts say, and the riskiness of the strategy becomes clear.
"What's missing is intensity," said Morris Fiorina, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and Stanford University political scientist who just published "Culture War? The Myth of Polarized America."
"You can do a poll and find that 75 percent of the country prefers Coke to Pepsi, but that doesn't mean they feel all that strongly about it," Fiorina said. "I haven't seen any indication in the polls that this is a major issue for most people. Just the opposite: This issue comes in at or near the bottom when you go asking people what's important to them in this election."
Simply not true. Note the recent vote in Missouri, and by how large a margin it was won, 71%.
Yet the most recent polling data from Missouri find Kerry slightly ahead of Bush, 49% to 48%.
Clearly, at least in Missouri, this is a hot issue.
You don't even apparently understand what you cited, then. There are plenty of people in the Kerry camp who are ambivalent toward, or against, gay marriage. They're just not so much interested in it that it will trump the economy or the war in Iraq. If you go door to door and ask people 'are you for or against gay marriage', you will get a lot saying 'against' or 'unsure'. That might lead a novice to conclude it's a hot issue!
If you ask 'would you prefer that your chosen presidential candidate be for or against gay marriage', the numbers will be smaller. If you ask 'is the issue of gay marriage one of your major concerns when you choose who to vote for' the numbers will be a lot smaller. And if you ask 'if you found your candidate's stance on gay marriage disagreed with your own, would you decide not to vote for him or her' the number will be miniscule.
Americans have opinions on almost everything, and when asked will readily share them. But when it comes to major decisions they usually only use a few points of information to make their choice. For some it's 'shares my values', for some it's 'cares about people like me', for some it's 'keeps the interests of business in mind', for some it's 'strong leader', for the overwhelming majority it's 'policies benefit me more than the opposition', for many it's 'strong military'. And then you get into what you might call, charitably, idiosyncratic issues, or uncharitably, the wing-nut issues. 'Voted to ban assault weapons', 'Favors trade with Cuba', 'Against decriminalization', 'For the death penalty', 'Wants to open the Palmdale plant'. These are issues which are important to a much smaller number of people. Gay marriage is an idiosyncratic issue for relatively few people, and, once again, they're already going to vote for Bush, or against him. This will sway few peoples' minds.
You only need to look at the Missouri polling data to see that! The very data you cited. Earlier in the year Missouri was a red state. It is now, despite Bush's frenetic campaigning and the gay marriage issue, a blue one. 71% of people according to you, Kuligin, favor a ban on gay marriage (or whatever flowery language you wish to describe their program). If it's a hot button issue how come Bush's numbers are dropping?
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - An unabashed racist will represent the Republican party in the November election for a congressional seat after a write-in candidate failed to derail his effort.
With 86 percent of the primary vote counted Thursday, write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand had just 1,554 votes compared to 7,671, or 83 percent, for James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics.
In November, the GOP candidate will oppose Rep. John Tanner (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who has represented the northwest Tennessee district for 15 years.
Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."
Unless the Evangelical Armies from Armpit AL come forth as a mighty cloud and pillar of feces.
WASHINGTON - The nation's payroll growth slowed dramatically in July with a paltry 32,000 jobs being added_ a potentially troubling sign that the rough patch the economy hit in June was no aberration
WASHINGTON - Oil prices could rise as high as $50 per barrel before the year is up, analysts say, as the world's growing thirst for crude stretches supplies thin and uncertainty abounds in petroleum-producing nations.
Josh Marshall is grateful for Alan Keyes' entry in the Illinois senate race:
In an era of political drama often tilting toward tragedy, comedy isn't always an easy thing to summon from the news. But I'm confident that Keyes will be helping to rectify that problem.
The New Yorker ran an article on Ronald Reagan that brief piece about a visit to New York to receive an award from a lay Catholic organization. During the festivities, one of the speakers--overwhelmed by emotion and wine--began his speech by saying that President Reagan began life as a "feces." He then went on to describe the acheivements of the President, and threw in a comment on how John Cardinal O'Connor (who was presumably wishing he was anywhere other than in the room) was also a feces, as were they all. Reagan's comment (on the flight back to Washington) was that it was the first time that he had to wear tie and tails to be told that he was a shit.
"'Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whisper in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needed to attend to,' Kerry said. 'And I would have attended to it.'
". . . Kerry made the remarks at a conference of minority journalists in Washington, answering a question about what he would have done differently than Bush in responding to the terror strike.
"The Bush campaign enlisted Rudolph Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City on the morning of the attacks, to condemn Kerry's comments.
"'John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore,' Giuliani said. . . ."
Protesting too much, Republicans? In addition to trotting out heavyweight Mayor Giuliani (who, I'm sure, took prompt action and did NOT sit like a stone for 7 minutes when HE learned of the World Trade Center attack), Dan Bartlett called Kerry's answer "politics of the worst sort." How SHOULD Kerry have answered that question, Repubs?
Maybe someone will ask President Bush if he would have spent those 7 minutes the same way if he found himself in that situation again.
Clearly Bush was intrigued by the story and wanted to know how "My Pet Goat" ended. He may have thought there were some good lines in it that could be used in some of his future speeches.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 (Thanks to Alicia Butler.)
With the GOP Convention starting in 3 weeks; Iraq falling deeper into chaos and its puppet government a failure, and with job creation having ground to a halt, I wonder how many times we will hear Bushie's latest stump lines
"we've turned the corner"
"if we Bush another four years he'll restore peace and prosperity"?
WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.
ADVERTISEMENT
But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.
NEW YORK -- Investors sold off stocks Friday, sending prices sharply lower, as the market flinched at a new report showing the economy created far fewer jobs in July than had been expected.
In afternoon trading, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 116.22, or 1.2 percent, at 9,846.81. ..................................................
The latest national poll from The Economist shows Sen. John Kerry leading President Bush, 48% to 43%. More striking, however, is that 58% of those surveyed were disatisfied with "the way things were going in the United States" and 53% disapproved of President Bush's job performance. .................................................
Is it possible that the slowdown in job creation is related to Kerry's prospects? In general, Kerry's program punishes the exporters of jobs to the benefit of those creating jobs and hiring in the US. Do the multinationals sense the end of the Bush gravy train? It certainly appears that way.
How low can they go? The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (sic)" have evidently decided that John Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam war is a transgression that justifies lying about Kerry's service. Their tales are contradicted by the official record as well as the remembrances of those who were actually with Kerry, on his boat, and can't be taken seriously.
Every single vet who has a different recollection of the facts than Kerry and his men ALSO happens to have a political ax to grind against Kerry. Some coincidence, huh?
It's sad that these vets have decided to trade on their brave and dangerous service for such a low cause.
Robert, there is an excellent piece in the FW Star-Telegram today about how the experts are stumped about the dearth of jobs. It's in the Business section and I can't get the site to load...think you might be able to get in and link the piece? Thanks!
CHICAGO - It wasn't so long ago -- a couple of months, maybe -- that economists and other pundits were jettisoning the term "jobless recovery" like some unruly party-crasher.
From January to May, the economy created an average of 225,000 jobs per month. And if the robust economic recovery had failed to produce meaningful job growth until then, that surely wasn't the case anymore.
Even after the pace of job growth slowed sharply in June, most experts on the economy confidently declared the result an anomaly or, at worst, a speed bump.
As recently as July 21, Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson said at a meeting of the Exchequer Club in Washington, D.C., that "there is little indication that the labor market's progress is stalling."
On Friday, however, even the optimists had trouble explaining why employers had added just 32,000 jobs in July.
Drudge followed up with: "Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played."
I don't read Drudge, tmesis, but thank you. None of the men who appeared in the ad vere at the place where the incident happened, so I believe Kerry and the man who was in the water, at least for now.
WASHINGTON - (AP) - Clarence Thomas has been interviewed by White House lawyers as a possible choice to be the next chief justice of the United States, says the author of a new biography.
Thomas says he isn't interested but could find it hard to turn down an opportunity to be the first black man to lead the Supreme Court, said biographer Ken Foskett.
Robert, can you get into the FWS-T at all? I found a great letter to the editor called Follow The Money which sheds some light on the Swift Boat group.
Neither Magos nor I can get access to it right now, though.
I read in a Friday news story, "McCain denounces ad criticizing Kerry," that the major contributor to the veterans group that made the ad was Bob J. Perry.
The story said that Perry, a Houston homebuilder, "donated at least $100,000" to the group and that "his June donation accounted for most of the $158,750 the group reported raising as of June 30."
I wondered who Perry is. A quick Internet search found him on the Web site www.followthemoney.org. The site showed that in 2002 he gave $2,876,500 to Republicans in Texas. He also gave $100,000 to Louisiana Republicans that year.
The group claims to be nonpartisan, but it appears that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Texas Republican Party. So much for the "truth" part of the name.
Forrest Randy Thompson, U.S. Navy (retired), Lewisville
NPR had a piece on this yesterday, and they said what Drudge said about Elliott and they shed some light on who was funding the "Swift Boat" group. It will be interesting to see what the final story is on the commander's current position, but I'm glad McCain shamed them.
In researching where money goes in AR I discovered that there is sort of a cache of names that pop up over and over in various groups across the state and the country. In AR I call them the "usual suspects" and they are usually members of, high-level employees of, or supporters of major corporations.
I used to not like John Kerry but since I got to know more about him, I have found a lot to like. It's astonishing how convincingly well he stacks up against George 'Coke-monkey' Bush. This may be the first election that I vote Democrat in a long time!
You're so right, Magoseph. I'm learning to share my fiance's politics. It is hard for a Bush freak like myself but I know the dividends of crossing over will be big. The future does not belong to fear, it belongs to freedom!
woden, to me the most worrisome aspect of the re-election of Bush is the Supreme court. When asked which Supreme Court justice he admired the most, he answered Scalia. Scalia represents to me the type of person that is most dangerous in this position of power--with his intellect, he has significant persuasive power on the Court and a passion to implement decisions which could lead this country into fascism.
Why? The trend in the US is going the other way. Most of my really cynical friends, including my husband, are beginning to dare to hope Kerry will make it. The really cynical ones think Bush supporters will do anything to prevent it, but that's just paranoid, imo. I do have my tin-foil hat handy, though, just in case.
I don't feel like I will have a good handle on things until after the Republican Convention and at least one debate, but I feel very good about Kerry winning right now. Bush is floundering and he can't seem to get a handle on anything positive to work his way back on track.
I don't share your optimism. I am a Democrat who is not enthused at all about Kerry. His speeches are uninspiring, his positions on the issues seem to come from political calculus rather than conviction, and his record shows he stands firm on very few issues.
I will probably hold my nose and vote for him anyway.
I predict Bush will win handily. I disagree with him on almost every issue. But I do get the impression that he firmly believes in what he is doing. That counts for a lot with the electorate.
It's not a matter of being enthused about Kerry so much as Bush's negatives creating a greater contrast between the two among moderate and independent voters. I really liked his speech at the convention, though, and like Woden I am more impressed with him than I thought I would be. So far, imo, he's saying the right things at the right times.
Bush is an idiot, and it becomes more apparent to more people daily. People may like a man of conviction, but they don't feel comfortable with one who's so obviously led by the nose because he can't function independently.
The fact that struck home with me on that was one noted months or even more than a year ago comparing the number of press conferences he'd given to his father's and Clinton's. His father at that point in his presidency had given 90-something, Clinton 50-something. Bush Jr. had given nine. I doubt he's done two since then.
It's not so much that I have no faith in Kerry but I have no faith in the electorate. Check out the post I just made in Lies Have Consequences...after a red, white, and blue convention, BushCo are leading right into a 9/11 anniversary which they will milk for all its worth by launching National Preparedness Month on September 9th...great launch day as it is a Thursday and will make the Friday news arc leading into the 11th.
Right now the polling is running Kerry 307 Bush 231. Those basic numbers haven't changed a whole lot. Ohio changes, Florida changes, most of the other states have trended the way they're going.
The theory is this: Keyes lives in the 19th century. He has adopted the trappings of a free black man from that time period, and it informs his opinions, his manners, his outlook, and even his speaking style.
I admit, this is just a rough theory -- but it certainly explains why Keyes ignores every constitutional and political development since the Civil War.
I agree with Arky on her point about having a better feel for it after the Republican convention.
Here is a link to poll numbers from 2000. Note that accoding to the Gallup poll from September 18-20 of 2000, Gore was up 51-41. Of course the leads in the polls flip flopped numerous times that year between the conventions and election day.
So I'm taking the current numbers with a grain of salt. I see that PA is blue on your map, but I would be very surprised if Kerry wins here. This is Republican territory now. Yes, we have a Democratic governor, but he had to act like a Republican to get elected over a weak candidate. We have two long time Republican Senators, Republican majorities in both chambers of the legislature, and a congressional delegation with 12 Republicans and 7 Democrats.
This is resonance/angelfive, Grey. I can't figure out how to log out on this browser.
The difference between now and 2000 is that in 2000 you had two non-incumbents running for office. Now, you have a challenger running against an incumbent. They're very different races, because the incumbent gets their swing voters early -- they essentially have a four year long campaign, which is why so many of them get reelected. This is why people say that with an incumbent president, what you see is what you get with the polling numbers.
Is it possible Bush will win? Yes. But I don't think it's gonna pan out. People are unhappy with the economy and the war and how other things are going. It's not a matter of whether or not they Like bush. It's a matter of whether or not someone else might appeal more, and in a situation like this the sitting president gets blamed for the status quo.
Alan Keyes is a flip-flopper...he chided Hillary Clinton for running for office in New York when she didn't live there. Now he has decided that is hunky-dorey and he is doing the very thing he accused her of doing.
He may not be of this century but he certainly has that Republican thing down pat...do as we say, not as we do.
If people get their quarterly investment statements right before election day and they look like mine did this go-round, they are going to be very unhappy with BushCo.
Well, I must admit that's a good point about the incumbent picking up the swing voters early.
Perhaps my perspective is skewed by living in RepublicanLand. But I just cannot reconcile what I am seeing and hearing around here with poll numbers showing Kerry ahead in PA, and nationwide 51-47.
Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette claims that the various polls of the past week show Kerry and Bush in a dead heat.
Bush's team is trying too hard--it's too obvious they're desperate. It will be so easy for September to backfire on them, no matter what happens.--whether there's a real terrorist threat or an attack or nothing occurs. With their own fevered rhetoric and misuse of the alert system they have created a situation where the only thing that might work in their favor is a clearly foiled attack. Trying to fudge on implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission won't help them either. They've already been called on that, and weak as the press still is, they can't let something like that slide by without it being noted.
People don't like fear being used on them to challenge civil liberties without a clear effort to increase security, and a lot of libertarian/conservative types are squawking about that.
If I lived in TX I'd be very depressed. As it is, in AR we may swing to Bush barely, but there's certainly not much sentiment or support for him here. For state reasons, the Republican Party is very split right now. The Democratic Party is too, but over one basice issue. The Republican split is deeper and more damaging to their strength here. They only have one seat in the legislature and they'd best just be thankful to hang onto it. They won't pick up any.
A5, you and Woden are too cute. Always knew some clever woman would snap you up.
Go to http://www.themote.com/login.asp and you can move back and forth between the IDs. The cookie that keeps your login will be overwritten each time one of you logs in.
Useful to us innumerates...even if it does make my head hurt.
The central limit theorem, on which polling is based, dictates that every poll has a margin of error, which determines a range of results within which the true number lies. A confidence interval accompanies the margin of error. The confidence interval (usually 95 percent in the US) indicates that, if several samplings of the same randomly selected pool of voters were taken, the true number for all voters would lie within the range set by the margin of error for 95 percent of the samples.
That's why you shouldn't waste your time looking at national polls. In even a moderately close election, they'll always indicate a dead heat within the margin of error.
At this juncture the only poll that has any relevance would be an Electoral College poll sponsored by an unquestionable source. That same poll would have to be looked at every week to avoid the distortions between divergent polls. The trend of that specific electoral poll would be relevant. However, I believe this election in particular will be decided in the last six weeks by the movement of the undecided group.
Zogby spotted that movement in the last election with about three weeks to go.
I just heard on Chicago WBBN a report that the Bush electioneering squads have descended in mass on the Amish farmers in PA in an attempt to incite them to vote straight-Republican as a block. These people, of course, have never voted before and are reported to be bargaining very hard for considerations.
This part particularly outrages me. What these so-called religious people are saying in effect is that what exists is a holy war inaugurated by Bush and supported by their Christian God. This would be much more palatable if at the same time they were organizing their voting campaign, they were also signing up volunteers to join the poor devils at the front. My husband promises me that if any churches in our community organizes such a campaign, he will establish a booth with a big sign requesting people to commit to service in Iraq and go all the way with their leader.
They hold open meetings for parishioners each month. They inform church members about socially conservative electoral issues. They register them to vote at stands outside the sanctuary on designated "voter registration" Sundays. Last week, the "moral action team" even drove church members to the polls, and they plan to do the same for this fall's general election as well.
Judith...Fear Not..Help is on the Way...the Old Hunting Dog has arthritis and two teeth left in his mouth. Quite simply, I knew that Alan Keyes -- whom I recently called the master of grandiloquent nonsense -- would not let me down.
Keyes kicked off his campaign in what
I guess we should be calling his new hometown of Chicago today. But first he had to get over the fact that a few years ago he not only knocked Hillary Clinton for relocating to New York to run for Senate -- after all most every Republican did that --but had to dress it up in typically Keyesian mumbo-jumbo.
Harkening back to the wisdom of no one in particular, Keyes intoned, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."
The best walk back I heard for this one was the response from a Republican party official in Illinois a few days ago -- as related to me by a TPM reader -- who, when confronted with this seeming change of mind, shot back that you guessed it
911 changed everything!
For three years Bush has filled the national toilet with such crap...
Yes Mago, Karl Rove was embarrassed that his Fundie turnout projections were 20% off. He is obssessed with his shame and this nonsense.
Thus the pander to the "Christian" right from day 1.
Rove decided that the fundie's couldn't deliver the vote themselves..the Christian Coalition's fault - lack of tactical skill dontcha know so the GOP took over direct and illegal politiking of conservative churchesin '02.
The "evangelicals" are now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Taliban wing of the GOP.
These supporters - some of whom have raised $200,000 or more for President Bush or the party - are being charged a "convention fee'' this year of up to $4,500 per person for themselves and each guest, according to a Web page run by LogiCom Project Management, the company handling the events and travel arrangements.
That's just for starters. The fund-raisers will also pay for airfare, several nights in a hotel and optional events they might choose - like a fashion show at Barneys or the U.S. Open tennis tournament. The result is that a couple could easily run up a tab of well over $10,000.
...While Democratic fund-raisers got into parties free during their national convention in Boston, some Republicans - even the most well off - are experiencing sticker shock. A few said they called campaign officials to complain. Others are looking into leaving their spouses behind, sharing hotel rooms or taking other measures to cut costs. Almost all said they have heard grumbling from their friends in fund-raising circles.
Perhaps my perspective is skewed by living in RepublicanLand. But I just cannot reconcile what I am seeing and hearing around here with poll numbers showing Kerry ahead in PA, and nationwide 51-47.
Why do you think red states are red and blue blue? I mean, not that that's the total reason, because it isn't. It isn't even the largest reason. But people in these states aren't as different as the polls suggest they might be. They just have asymmetrically developed parties and populations skewed toward one end of the interest scale, and the opposition feels drowned out before they even speak. This is why some states poll 70:30 when they're more like 60:40 or 55:45. Peer pressure is real and it's hard to get enthusiastic about a candidate that all your visible neighbors hate unless you thrive on being disliked.
I live in Republican Land, although I'm posting from a Democrat stronghold atm. Where I live gun racks and bush/cheney stickers are common sights.
There's a really interesting question in this mix, though.
We, the people who choose to spend lots of time online and have a sense of membership in an online community (and, due to the nature of the net, can choose our communities) are still in a minority. But it's a growing one. I know people from Sweden better than I know some of my neighbors. And I believe this trend will only increase with time as computing power and cheap bandwidth make the online world more entrancing and life-like.
So the question becomes, will this be a tool for overcoming the sort of self-repression that minority party members and supporters feel in places like Idaho and Texas and DC?
Rasmussen shows an 18 point Kerry lead in California. This happens to match the Bush disapproval margin in the Field polling done over the same period. No way the horse race is that lopsided now nor will Kerry ever have such a lead here. Exact match in fact...57-39
The Field Poll is the most reliable California poll and is as good as the best national pollsters - You should hear what Mervin Field has to say about Survey USA and Rasmussen robo polling techniques
The central limit theorem states that given a distribution with a meam ? and variance ?2, the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a normal distribution population with a mean (?) and a variance ?2/N as N, the sample size, increases.
<
It is the basis for all inferential quantitative statistics.
This applet illustrates how it works using rolls of dice.
As sample size increases its distribution rapidly comes to approximate the actual population distribution..this is expressed as Margin of Error at a given confidence level (probablity) usually 95%.
95% happens to be two standard deviations (the square root of the variance) out from the mean. Thedistribution of a Normal random variable is completely characterized by the mean and the variance. That is, know those two numbers only, you can plug them into a formula that produces the bell shaped curve of the proper height and width.
Sample size for normal distributions is a function of confidence interval (z score), the population standard deviation and the desired margin of error.
Thus as sample size increases in the following equation margin of error decreases...with a larger sample size the confidence level increases for any desired MOE.
As I understand it, Bayesian probabilistic inferences are incorporated as qualifiers in classical statistical methods or to put it another way scientific classical inference assumes only correllation, not causation per se. Bayesian theory grounds factor analysis for instance..a method I really do not understand the math of but one that survey researchers and statisticians often use to determine whether an independent variable bears some causal relation to the dependent variable...
The two schools are complementary as best I understand.
Ohmigod. So it has come to this, has it? In my declining years I'm subjected to bicoastal math lectures. And it's all my father's fault for the constant retelling of being done in by algebra in his brief flirtation with higher education. Thus is born a phobia.
Classical inference is a subset of Baysian statistical theory. The Baysians find the adoption of rigid tests of significance as arbitrary. They believe in systematic inclusion of prior information in constructing the hypothesis. The hypothesis that a coin I obtain in change from my newstand dealer is not fair would require more data evidence to prove than the hypothesis that he is really a martian in disguise. Classical inference would use the same data evidence for either question.
dang...i can't find it on the net, but sunday's nyt had an op-ed chart showing how the $144B spent on the war with iraq could've been spent on improving US security including more cops, better communications among agencies, aid to afghanistan, aid for local first responders, bomb detectors at airports, improved screening at ports, etc etc...quite something.
Do not doubt but believe...the US military wants the War President safely back in Crawford in the rear with the gear
and on the double quick!
Franks Says Kerry Absolutely Qualified for President
WASHINGTON - Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, producer of the early military successes in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news -web sites), said Sunday that criticism of John Kerry (news - web sites)'s war record is political hyperbole and Kerry is "absolutely" qualified to be commander in chief
The IraQ issue debate is joined...and Kerry's parry might have a little something to do with the content of the prior post
Bush best be careful what he prays for..The Virgin Mother of God & Mohammed might be on duty at the Night Crisis Line
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.
In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
But Kerry has charged that the president and his advisers badly mishandled the war, and in the news conference he posed sharp questions for Bush.
"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" he asked. "Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?"
"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war?" he added. "Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?" WaPo
Yea Robt welcome to the Brave New World...it happened after either you I take or certainly I was a college party boy..
When I was an undergrad only the psych and math students did stats...they did it in Fortran on punch cards...they'd turn em in one night and pick up the next..debug and submit..
BPc ...I wouldn't have learned any of this had I not, in midlife crisis, gone back to get another post grad degree.
Stats. methods more stats..a passing social science fad I think but it has apparently been around since the advent of the PC..
Yea, jexster, I recall from one of my brushes with graduate school a professor who culled his international reporting class damn quick by suggesting a parallel course in statistics. Don't know why because I suddenly discovered I had the wrong room.
When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques. ..................................................
What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?
I'm about to have to take a stats course, I'm afraid, just to do the work I'm trying to do right now. I've waded into fairly simple stuff for the last year or so, but I'm beginning to get in over my head and I have to do an important paper requiring a lot of stats and number-crunching on Excel that needs to be done yesterday.
I thought about suggesting it as a group Mote project. ;-)
Bush Spontaneously Combusts at Chicago Mercantile Exch
When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques
Charlie Cook, jexster's good friend, has an excellent "Off to the Races" column this week. He does indulge in some of the statistical bafflegab related above, but he mostly stays the course followed for several weeks. Excerpts:
In the new, Aug. 3-5 Associated Press/Ipsos Public Affairs survey of 798 registered voters, the Kerry/Edwards ticket had a three-point lead over the Bush/Cheney ticket, 48 to 45 percent, with the Nader/Camejo ticket rounding out the field with three percent and another three percent undecided. This marked a five-point decline for Bush since the July 6-7 AP/Ipsos survey, when the president was ahead of Kerry by four points, 50 to 46 percent, with Nader picking up two percent. The latest survey also showed Bush with a 49 percent approve, 50 percent disapprove, not much different from June or July numbers. Suffice it to say, this race has remained very, very stable since April.
Updating some figures that this column published last month with the latest AP/Ipsos survey data, the far more sobering numbers for Republicans are those of voters in the undecided column. Keep in mind two important factors: First, when an elected president is seeking re-election, the contest is a referendum on the incumbent far more than it is a competition between candidates. Second, undecided voters historically have broken heavily against well-known, well-defined incumbents. This has proven true on the congressional, senatorial, gubernatorial and presidential level. That's the origin of the phrase in politics for incumbents, "what you see is what you get" -- you get pretty much the percentage on Election Day that the last round of polls indicate that you will get, while the undecided vote goes elsewhere.
Now if goodfriend jexster truly had connections he would obtain a clean link to the entire column.
With those two premises in mind, let's take a look at the combined last five months of AP/Ipsos national polls of registered voters. Among the 3,719 registered voters in the combined April through early August surveys, 41 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, while 56 percent say the country is off on the wrong track. While those are not good numbers for an incumbent, we have certainly seen much worse. But among the 327 registered voters who are undecided, only 19 percent say the country is headed in the right direction; 74 percent say its off on the wrong track.
While 49 percent of all registered voters approve of Bush's overall job as president, another 49 percent disapprove. Among just the undecided voters, only 25 percent approve, and 68 percent disapprove. Those are very ugly numbers for an incumbent. Not surprisingly, this pool of undecided voters tend to be disproportionately more Democrat than Republican, with 43 percent identifying themselves as Democrats, 32 percent as independents and only 25 percent as Republicans.
The natural tendency for a Bush supporter is to say: "But wait, those numbers for undecided voters are from only 327 interviews. That has to have a higher statistical margin of error than if it were a broader sample of 500, or 800 or 1,000 voters." This is absolutely true, but given the relatively small number of undecided voters, it's hard to get larger samples of undecided voters.
It is also true that the margin of error figures so often cited in news stories and columns about polls are those for percentages close to 50-50, where the margin of error is the greatest. The closer percentages are to 90-10 (or 10-90), or 80-20 or 70-30, the margin of error is significantly less, and the numbers are much more stable and reliable.
Having pontificated myself on this very same subject in nearly identical terms, I got a real charge out of this..
Of course, I don't keep Charlie's insight all to myself...I taught the boy everything he knows!
He got the glory, I got squat. Oh well. Unlucky in live, unlucky in love...
This election is certainly not over, but for me, it will be a matter of watching for events or circumstances that will fundamentally change the existing equation -- one that for now favors a challenger over an incumbent.
Not surprisingly, this pool of undecided voters tend to be disproportionately more Democrat than Republican
Take ESL course and call me in the morning..
"The undecided voters are leaning hard against Kerry's door just waiting for the first excuse to go crashing in" Tony Fabrizio, GOP consultant
All polling has been very clear on this point for months. These are "independent" voters ie weak Demo identifiers..Bush is engaged in a vain effort to turn off and reduced turnout among this very group with his relentless and apparently from the polls a failed negative campaigning..
If he wins, what will Bush do to spur growth and restore jobs? Clearly, he will do nothing. Bush by that point will have no interest in stronger economic growth. Indeed, the huge deficits sure to accompany deep stagnation will suit the Republican agenda perfectly. Bush will defend his past tax cuts by pointing out that no one raises taxes in a recession. Instead he will demand spending cuts and the privatization of Social Security, citing the budget deficits that he himself deliberately created. Greenspan, taking time from monetary mismanagement to launch trial balloons for Bush's future fiscal policy, is already making this completely illogical case. It's true enough that one shouldn't raise taxes in a slump. But one definitely should not cut spending either, nor strike at the last shreds of security for working people.
See, the way life works..you sign up for my slick analyses and we get all your personal info and hook you so that you will pay the big bucks for all National Journal's excellent publications.
Why in the hell give you a link?
You from Texas or Sweden or somethin..
Godless communists always expectin somethin for nuthin
By the way, this really IS woden, really really, and I love John Kerry, I do, I do! John Kerry! I love the name even! And he married that pickle woman, that's the best!
I talked to my son today. My kid is working for Kerry. He's working at the phone banks calling undecided voters, arranging block parties, helping to set up barbeques, etc. He says things are pretty disorganized though. They are calling people to work weekends late Thursday night and his girlfriend who is very computer literate has offered to set up data banks and programs keeps being told by workers, "I'm not sure who to give that information to, I'm just a volunteer." My cousin works Thursdays at one of the Seattle campaign headquarters tells me the same thing. This is not good.
In Franklin County, Ohio, the Kerry campaign has a plan! Precinct captains (Do I get a hockey jersey with a "C" on it?) are going to phone voters in their precincts to see where they stand (e.g. definitely for Kerry or Bush, leaning, undecided) and feed that information to the campaign. Precinct captains will then follow up to persuade leaning or undecided voters, and to get out the vote.
now what the heck is kerry doing by saying he'd still have approved the war in iraq even knowing what he knows now. He's playing right into bush's hand.
freakin' idiot. he's being handed so much material that this election can be as easy to play as chopsticks and instead he's going to nuance himself right out of any chances of winning.
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, locked in a tight state race with President Bush for months, now leads in the latest poll of Michigan voters. Forty-nine percent of the 600 likely voters surveyed statewide by Lansing-based EPIC/MRA say they back Kerry and running mate John Edwards, while 42% say they back Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was scheduled to campaign Wednesday evening in Battle Creek.
Three percent say they support independent candidate Ralph Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo. Six percent are undecided. In a separate question, 82% say they are very certain they'll vote for their chosen candidate. ..................................................
A poll conducted by EPIC/MRA on July 6-8, just after Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate, had Kerry-Edwards at 47% and Bush-Cheney at 44%, with Nader and Camejo getting 3%. Six percent were undecided.
The Wall St. Journal reports "The latest Zogby Interactive poll, taken during the Democratic convention, shows John Kerry ahead in 13 of the 16 battleground states we track. That is his biggest lead -- in terms of the number of states -- since Zogby began conducting twice-a-month online polls for WSJ.com in late May. Moreover, his lead is greater than the margin of error in five of the states (including Pennsylvania), up from four states just before the convention. And Mr. Kerry took back narrow leads in Florida and West Virginia."
Thoughtful (7306): You're playing into Republican hands when you describe Kerry's October 2002 Iraq vote as a vote "for the war." Rather, it was a vote to authorize force under certain conditions. Although I agree with you that Kerry made a mistake, the vote was not by its terms an unconditional approval of the war.
The GOP is making the case that Kerry is a "flip-flopper" by dumbing down every vote, statement or other action pertaining to the war as falling into one of only two categories: "for the war" or "against the war". For example: October 2002 conditional authority: For. Early 2003 statements that conditions had not come to pass, and war should not be commenced: Against. Vote against unfunded, blank-check appropriation of $87 million: Against. Policy, now that we're in Iraq, to stay there and try to bring order: For.
Senator John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.
This is exactly the wrong thing to say. He needs to say that he voted for the war based on the information he had at the time and that had he known that iraq was such an inconsequential threat to the us he would have not voted for it, instead focusing on the war on al qaeda. Only under the conditions that iraq presented an imminent threat did it make sense to attack a war on 2 fronts with 2 different enemies. He needs to reinforce that the bushies pursued this war for their own reasons and that they had intended on this war long before 9/11. He needs to separate himself clearly from bush on this issue as THAT is the only way he will ever gain any credibility with the international community. They (as well as a good chunk of us) feel that we were lied to and that the intelligence was manipulated. What is the point of supporting this candidate when he says he would've done the same thing?
This is just suicide. Worse thing is, now that he said it, he can't nuance his way out of it without verifying those flip-flopper claims.
And don't get me started on how his 'I'm going to spend money to fix every problem that is a problem in each and every area i campaign in' doesn't sound like a budget-blowing democrat. He needs to firmly make the point that his options are limited due to the mishandling of billions by the bushies, but with time, he hopes to bring the budget back to fiscal soundness while shifting the emphasis away from favors for the wealthy and the well connected, back to the people who are most affected by the economic malaise.
A respected local pollster said today Kerry leads Bush in Michigan 49 to 42! This confirms my little bumper sticker count which shows Kerry leading by an even greater margin.
He also said that Kerry still lags with over age 60 voters because he and Edwards haven't emphasized health care and Social Security enough. And Bush remains ahead with them on terrorism and Iraq.
The bee in my bonnet is that Bush has opened the door to making his Wars on IraQ and on Jihadists a free fire zone.
His credibilty, his honesty his military leadership, and his foreign policy stewardship are his greatest vulnerablities. IraQ is in chaos, a chaos that will progressively worsen over the next weeks. The place is going to hell in a handbasket and Bush has pinned his hopes on Saddam-lite, Allawi.
Kerry maybe sandbagging him (I hope) but this first parry and thrust was wimpy.
WRT "authorizing war" that is EXACTLY what he did. The resolution he voted for allowed Bush to make war even if it were later discovered that Saddam had disarmed (he had), even if Bush spurned international cooperation (he did), and even if Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda (they didn't).
Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.
.... Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent.... Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. ...
The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.
Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.
That right there could lose AR for Bush. We just got our state sales tax raised and it's now about 5th highest in the country, though we're tied for #1 in poverty and he wants to do a national sales tax?
What an idiot. Just when you think he can't possibly prove himself any more alienated from the working class....
I just got a popup telling me to send a message to my Congressmen that I am concerned about healthcare. I was surprised to see it, since I have popup blockers on my computer. But what was worse was the prewritten message said that something to the effect that I support President Bush's position on health care!
There was no indication who paid for this popup or sponsored it. There was a space to put my name, address, zipcode, etc. (I also posted it in health.) It had the "right" language at first, i.e. concern for the current status of health care in the U.S., etc. Then part way in it urged Congress to support Bush's plan and position on health care. Ugh. I deleted it before I could copy it. I'll try to open the windows I opened it to see if I can get it to show up again.
I can't tell you how disappointed i am in mccain for stumping for bush. He's a goper, fine. That doesn't mean he has to align himself with this far-RW camp. He should know better. I thought he had more integrity than that.
HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAHAH
I should know better than to even consider integrity and politician in the same breath!!!!!
However, considered to be beneficial to exporters who don't pay vat on exported goods...currently a disadvantage for us mfctrs who pay corp taxes regardless of where they sell their goods vs. overseas corps who get the vat tax break when they export.
An Epic/MRA poll of "active voters" conducted from August 4-10 reports a 49-42 advantage for John Kerry in Michigan, with 3 percent for Nader, and 6 percent "unsure."
I just saw a preview of a study that finds the Swift Boat ads quite effective among independents in raising doubts about John Kerry's war record. And that suggests that Karl Rove will want to send more money toward the group running the ad.
This of course is only the beginning. The temperature will get much higher in the next couple months since, as Charlie Cook, aptly argues this week, President Bush is in the process of losing this election unless there's a major change in the dynamic of the race.
A group financed by a major Republican contributor has begun running radio ads in about a dozen cities, many in battleground states, attacking Sen. John F. Kerry as "rich, white and wishy-washy" and mocking his wife for boasting of her African roots.
Quinnipiac University---Democratic challenger John Kerry leads President George W. Bush 47 – 41 percent among Florida voters, with 4 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. With Nader out of the race, Sen. Kerry leads President Bush 49 – 42 percent.
Bush and Kerry were locked in a 43 – 43 percent dead heat, with 5 percent for Nader, in a June 29 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University.
Florida voters disapprove of the job President Bush is doing 54 – 44 percent, compared to a 52 – 46 percent disapproval June 29.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The court said the city illegally issued the certificates and performed the ceremonies, since state law defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
I was watching Ch 11 coverage of the ScT decision - not at all unexpected..
When the voice over announced "and the Court ruled that Mayor Newsom exceeded his authority under state law" at that very moment they ran footage of my friend and Director of the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services performing a marriage ceremony at the Temple of Love.
I hoped to cheer them up so I called announced that as an officer of the court it was my duty to place the Director under arrest...
FYI the City's case proceeds in Superior Court to declare the state statute unconstitutional. I suspect some of the aggrieved partners will join in that suit now.
Feareth not the Burnt Bush Judith..the Fear of Allah is the beginning of Wisdom!
The party that Nixon built is crumbling. Bush is the candidate of canned talking points and a party whose instincts have become rote and often counterproductive. The "war president" wraps himself in the flag but the latest Code Orange terrorist alert aroused no one to rally-'round-the-flag; instead, it raised questions about Bush's timing and handling. Rather than campaign on his record, he has challenged Kerry to justify his vote for the Iraq war resolution, and when Kerry explained his reasoning, Bush accused him of "nuance." How can Bush change the subject? With independent voters bleeding away from him, he has taken to stumping with the Republican maverick Sen. John McCain, his mortal enemy. Can Bush dump Cheney without being seen as desperate and repudiating his entire term? Bush's father owed his political career to Nixon's patronage; now the son is in danger of inheriting the wind.
Yeah, I'm guessing that McCain has been offered State or Defense. The trouble with that is niether position will hold any power if it's in McCain's hands.
McCain wants to run for prez in '08 in a GOP whose radical wing is burnt out and emasculated.
This is exactly right, and, no, he won't be too old. And I doubt McCain would take a cabinet post for Bush. They hate each other and McCain saw what being a good soldier did for Powell.
Tonight, on Larry King, Bush said if he appointed someone to oversee all the intelligence agencies it would not be a cabinet position. He muttered something about why should that person have to sit around the table and listen to reports from the Dept of Agriculture, etc. I quit listening then. I had a headache.
It's pretty sad when you think a president did a fairly good job in an interview just because he didn't blatantly and repeatedly screw up, butchering the English language every step of the way.
The Daily Show did a number on Cheney's drive by slime of Kerry who had criticized Bush's failed WOT calling for a more thoughtful focused, proactive and sensitive approach
Of course Cheney went off on sensitive..
Stewart then ran a clip of the Emperor of Lies, who, speaking the day before to the same audience that Cheney had said
"when it comes to intelligence and bringing people to justice we have to be very...
You guessed it.
Stewart finished him off with the clip of Cheney saying "the terrorists aren't impressed by sensitive"
Stewart: "Apparently not by your invasion of IraQ either"
I will post the clip when it comes up..there's more
The first part focuses on security. I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us
This should sound familiar...it is the same tired old BushShit..the same cut and paste talking point policies that they used to frame their IraQ lies...
(Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.
The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.
The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.
In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.
Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.
Don't worry Kully...when he wins he'll push a whole bunch o laws outlawing abortionits, perverts and making the world safe to rapture your ass outta here
WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans take a dim view of President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the economy and feel jobs are scarce, according to a poll released Thursday.
Two-thirds of Americans rate the economy as "only fair" or "poor" and 55 percent said they think jobs are difficult to find in the area where they live, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
"The most important thing about this poll is that there's not a lot of time left before the election and the public is still pretty bearish — or negative — about the nation's economy," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.
His use of the National Guard to escape Vietnam should have inhibited him and his party from successively attacking the patriotism and martial virtues of triple amputee Senator Max Cleland and John Kerry--having earlier pointed fingers at Bill Clinton. But going AWOL, to the extent of deserting for a year even from this surrogate service, makes him doubly vulnerable. Which may of course account for the seeming fungibility of his paperwork, even though, in truth, these people have no shame.
I'm checking this forum out, having left the last on unpleasant terms. But I see, by your comments re: the degenerate national disgrace, Bushy, that we have much in common. Is there anybody - just for balance, you know - that is a Bushy fan (besides my buddy Jen, who probably doesn't post in this thread because politics makes her nuts).
Yea, didn't look like many Bushies here. In one respect that's not such a good thing, as we end up preaching to the choir. Not to say that info isn't a useful thing . . .
Hey Mikales, glad to see you made it. There have been Bushies here and they may come back. I think you'll find many of the threads interesting and the Good Life thread is waiting for your recipes and wine reviews
FYI Dept.: The Lewis Lapham essay in the Sept. issue of Harper's does a stellar job of ferreting out the history of the Republican propaganda machine. His language is dazzling in its concise vividness.
...The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the new rule on the public release of auto-safety information on July 28, 2003, but outside the industry hardly anyone took notice. In the following months, allies of tire manufacturers and automakers flooded the agency with comments, and all of them "contended that the release of early warning data is likely to cause substantial competitive harm," the agency said. At the same time, consumer groups argued that the data "should be released because it is important to the identification of potential defects," the agency added.
When the agency published a revised final rule on April 21, 2004, it exempted from public release warranty-claim information, industry reports on safety issues and consumer complaints, among other data, saying that releasing that information would cause "substantial competitive harm."
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, filed suit, saying consumers needed the data to inform themselves about unsafe vehicles and tires. But Ray Tyson, the chief spokesman for the highway safety agency, said: "The suggestion that the American consumer is missing out is off the mark. I can't believe this information would be of much interest to the general public."...
Right...we don't care if our tires are going to shred or our SUVs are going to tip over in a turn. We'd much rather the manufactirers make a profit off out deaths.
MOSCOW, Aug. 13 -- Alarmed by record-high election-year oil prices, President Bush in recent days has sent repeated appeals through intermediaries to the man he calls "my good friend," President Vladimir Putin, asking him to calm the politically charged crisis surrounding Russia's giant Yukos Oil Co. in the interest of stabilizing world energy markets.
dubya might be better advised to make nice with Hugo Chavez, be more sensitive, don't you know...
Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he promised former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Cesar Gaviria, the secretary general of the Organization of American States, that he would respect the outcome of tomorrow's recall vote.
``I pledged to them to respect the results, whatever they are,'' Chavez said at a press conference after meeting Carter and Gaviria, a former president of Colombia. Carter's Carter Center, an organization that aims to help strengthen democracy, and the OAS are leading a group of international observers who are monitoring the ballot.
Chavez said he expects to win the referendum, which will decide whether he should serve out the remaining 2-1/2 years of his term.
SEATTLE - IReuters) - President Bush will travel to Florida Sunday morning to examine the damage done by Hurricane Charley, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today.
"The president wants to take a first-hand look at the damage from Charley and make sure that people who have been affected by the hurricane are getting the assistance they need," he told reporters traveling with the president on a weekend campaign trip.
Residents are being advised to be on the lookout for falling bales of cash and absentee ballots as the president tours the state by air.
While he did not name the specific cities Bush would visit, McClellan said care would be taken not to interfere with the relief effort in the aftermath of the storm that swept across the state Friday. "Certainly before we go anywhere we make sure that doesn't happen," he said.
The president has already declared the state a disaster area to speed emergency assistance.
Press the Meat explains KulliganTheSewerMan.. {paraphrase} "There is a noticeable difference between the Bush and Kerry campaigns. While Kerry is hitting battleground states, moderates and independents hard, Bush is spending an inordinate amount of time in his red states working on his conservative base"
"Well yes that just indicates the deep insecurity of the Bush campaign. Because he is doing so poorly with moderate and independent voters, he must solidify his base and drive up their turnout to offset Kerry's advantages among swing voters"
Kerry Favored Over Bush 47%-43% In Multi-Candidate Race; Voters With Passports Give Kerry 58%-35% Edge; Candidates in Dead Heat Among Investors; New Zogby America Poll Reveals
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is favored over President George W. Bush (47%-43%) among likely voters when Ralph Nader, Libertarian, Constitution and Green Party presidential candidates are factored into the 2004 presidential race, according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1011 likely voters was conducted Thursday through Saturday (August 12-14, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1.
CAUX, Switzerland (AFP) - The authors of the unofficial Geneva Initiative for peace between Israel and the Palestinians criticised the United States, with one of the top Israeli initiators admitting he wanted the Democrats to win November's US presidential race.
"I hope personally that there will be a new president in the United States of America because that's the best interest of the state of Israel," former Israeli Labour Party politician and parliament speaker Avraham Burg said.
"I would like the Democrats to take over and a Democrat administration to pick up at the point where (ex-president Bill) Clinton left the region," he told journalists during a conference in the Swiss village of Caux.
Burg and his Palestinian counterpart on the Geneva Initiative, former information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, called for a revival of US political involvement in the Middle East conflict.
The Geneva founders also rounded on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites)'s announced unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), warning it would be counterproductive without an idea of what follows afterwards.
"The position of the United States was not positive and is not helpful in moving from Gaza to Geneva," Rabbo said, adding that the international community had a key role to play in the conflict at this moment.
On the same day, deep within the turgid pages of the Federal Register, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a regulation that would forbid the public release of some data relating to unsafe motor vehicles, saying that publicizing the information would cause "substantial competitive harm" to manufacturers.
As soon as the rule was published, consumer groups yelped in complaint, while the government responded that it was trying to balance the interests of consumers with the competitive needs of business. But hardly anyone else noticed, and that was hardly an isolated case....
But Ray Tyson, the chief spokesman for the highway safety agency, said: "The suggestion that the American consumer is missing out is off the mark. I can't believe this information would be of much interest to the general public."
Included in the article was a chart showing some of the key regulatory changes the bushies have made in favor of business including wetlands affected by mining, medical privacy, coal dust standards for minors, increasing hours for truck drivers and a whole lot more. If anyone doubts it, let's be clear. This party represents only ONE constituency.
So tell me why the SEC is going after Cheney for the accounting misdeeds of halliburton on his watch. Couldn't be politics, could it?
Cheney taking a page out of kenny boy's play book feigning he didn't know about an accouting change that had a significant impact on reported earnings? I don't know of any ceo of a publicly held co that doesn't live and die by earnings reports.
Or perhaps he's taking a page out of w's play book. Those well enough connected to the bushies need not fear the sec as they won't prosecute you even if they've got you dead to rights.
Wait a minute...wasn't this supposed to be the party of personal responsibility?
State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November.
The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud...
Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. ..................................................
Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today.
Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city's black vote. ..................................................
Florida is a state that's very much in play in the presidential election. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush.
The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State.
the key to this election is getting traditional, conservative gopers to realize just how radical this bunch is...sway them and the election's in the bag.
But how do you convince all these business guys that while their tax cuts and easier regulatory environment may seem to help them in the short term, it can't begin to match the costs of operating in an economy based on fiscal/monetary props, the stimulus already fading, jobs not rousing to take their place and deficits (read interest rate increases) looming larger all the time.
Candidate alert! A new, heretofore unidentified group of untapped voters has emerged, waiting for wooing. This weekend, 175 members of the North American Anarchist Convergence (what, you expected a convention?) decided they would break with tradition and go to the polls this November
THREE weeks ago in Boston, the Democrats witnessed the birth of a new black star in Barack Obama, their candidate for the open Senate seat in Illinois. Now the Republicans have conjured up a black star of their own to do battle with the self-described skinny guy with an odd name. Alan Keyes, talk-show host, holy-roller social conservative, Maryland resident and sometime presidential candidate, will take Mr Obama on.
The thinking behind this is beguiling in its simplicity: the Democrats have a black man who can give a rafter-raising speech, so we had better find a rafter-raising black man too. Beguiling, but stupid. Mr Keyes's Senate run will produce nothing but disaster—humiliation for Mr Keyes, more pie on the face of the already pie-covered Illinois Republican Party, and yet another setback for Republican efforts to woo minority voters.
To make matters even worse for the Republicans, Mr Keyes's numerous defects as a candidate are only magnified by the comparison with Mr Obama. Mr Obama has spent almost 20 years in Illinois—seven as a state senator—and is married to a woman from the South Side of Chicago. He won an impressive 53% of the Democratic primary vote against six strong opponents. He is optimistic where Mr Keyes preaches Sodom and Gomorrah, and moderate where Mr Keyes is intemperate. He is also a rising national star, with unrivalled support from the national party, while Mr Keyes is a serial failure.
The Republicans' fatal mistake was to think that the best way to counter a black man was with another black man. The point about Mr Obama—as the Republicans might have realised if they had paid greater attention to his speech in Boston—is that he is a post-racial candidate.
And despite the raft of recent attacks, K/E are staying the course on the high road...plodding perhaps but very interesting..today Edwards is unveiling an econ program for rural America
Now THAT is taking the battle to Bush Country...
Bushies take for granted that all rural folk are nutty evangelicals like Kulligan...
Many are poor above all and won't swallow the Fundie opiate
The Republican right wing is in total charge of the IL party apparently.
When this happens, it is generally a sign that the State GOP is a shambles...
It is thus in CA and in ILL and in WA for sure.
They can't even get an endorsement from former Repub Gov and 911 Commissioner Jim Thompson and the Dems are salivating at a Keyes/Obama debate because IL TV reaches populous areas of Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Wisconsin
When's Farht. 9/11 coming out in DVD? Before November, I hope....
And let's see if the goper attempt to exploit 9/11 brings them a negative bounce.
Then again, neighbor (non-goper) saw W on larry king (i didn't) and he said that w seemed to really be talking...saying what he thinks, not resorting to buzzwords and stock phrases, not tripping over his own tongue. He said for the first time w demonstrated posession of some gray matter.
Netflix doesn't have a date, although two unrealsed films in my queue show september. My guess is that Moore may love money more than he says he does. The theatrical release is probably doing too well.
"If Bush can win reelection despite the failure of his two most consequential -- and truly radical -- decisions, he will truly be a political miracle man. But as his own nominating convention approaches, the odds are against him."
Given oil prices, it would seem that the house of Saud isn't particularly interested in seeing bush reelected either, no? Or is that the october surprise?
I think it started at Capitol Hill Blue and a lot of people pooh pooh that site. But there has to be some excuse for his weird speech patterns so I'll buy it!
Nader fails to make Independent Party ballot in South Carolina---Tries for Reform Party...(Cut his freakin' head off. That'll do it
(Columbia-AP) Aug. 16, 2004 - Ralph Nader won't be listed on the ballot in South Carolina as an independent candidate in this year's presidential election.
Officials with the State Election Commission say Nader fell short of the 10,000 signatures needed to have his name on the ballot.
Nader turned in more than 11,000 signatures but some were found to be invalid once checked against county voter rolls.
Nader's candidacy has been endorsed by the Reform Party. Now campaign officials are negotiating with the Reform Party and other parties to get him on the ballot as a party candidate in November.
Evidence of overwhelming and systemic fraud in the Ralph Nader for President petitions was released today by the Service Employees International Union. An analysis of the petition sheets and a direct survey of people whose names appear on the petition suggests at least two-thirds of all signatures turned in by the Nader campaign to date are fraudulent.
Maureen Dowd said was asked, on a local talk show today, Who she thought would win the presidential election and she said Bush if Kerry doesn’t significantly improve his campaigning abilities. Wassup wit dat?
I have heard this Wombat..I think Ohio's favorite site "Capitol Hill Blue" is following DOTUS's situation (Disthymic(sp) of the US)
7418 -
Actually I have read speculation that Pooty Poot WANTS Bush to win on the reasoning that Kerry will affect raprochement with Europe thus rendering Russia's own efforts somewhat less attractive to EuroTrash.
Of course the Poles, Ukrainians and Rumanianians are by their deeds trying to suck up to Bush ostensibly out of fear of Russia, so this theory doesn't quite hang.
Anyway, outside of a very narrow range of interest and action think that the notion that this or that nation wants one or the other candidate is to say the least a wee bit myopic & self-centered
AP via Demo Underground: John Kerry is adding some of the Democratic Party's most experienced strategists to his team for the stretch drive against President Bush, including hometown allies from Boston and top advisers of former President Clinton. ..
Michael Whouley, the Boston operative who helped salvage Kerry's candidacy in Iowa, is returning to the Democratic presidential campaign to help strengthen Kerry's state-by-state political organizations and to provide general strategic advice. Cahill said he had held similar jobs in the past three Democratic presidential campaigns.
Doug Sosnik, a political adviser in the Clinton White House, has joined the Democratic National Committee as a general strategist. As titular head of the party, Kerry has placed aides in key positions at the DNC. ..
Regena Thomas, secretary of state in New Jersey, will help the DNC's voter turnout operation.
• Jack Corrigan, who looked out for Kerry's interests at the Democratic Convention in Boston, will join the DNC's legal team.
• Marcia Hale, director of intergovernmental affairs in the Clinton White House, will help the DNC coordinate the activities of senior Democrats campaigning on Kerry's behalf.
• Gerry Salemme, former chief of staff to Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has joined the campaign as Cahill's deputy to help with day-to-day operations.
• Bill Lynch, former deputy mayor of New York, is a deputy campaign manager helping Kerry reach out to black voters.
LOS ANGELES - President George W. Bush will face a home-video barrage four weeks before the election: "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's assault on Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks, debuts on DVD and videotape Oct. 5.
The announcement Tuesday confirmed Moore's initial intention to have the film out shortly before Election Day, a time frame the director favored since May's Cannes Film Festival, where "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top honor. ..
Among DVD extras will be a featurette examining the release of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which lost its theatrical distributor last spring after Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax handle the film because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and lined up distribution through Lions Gate and IFC Films.
Also featured on the DVD will be:
_ Deleted footage that includes a scene outside Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where seven U.S. soldiers have been charged with abusing Iraqi prisoners.
_ Coverage of Lila Lipscomb _ the mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, who was featured prominently in "Fahrenheit 9/11" _ at the film's premiere in Washington.
But if that's me you are referring to as Jay, please stop.
Jay is jayackroyd, our beloved benefactor and a learned man whose informed and informing messages should not be put at even the slightest risk of being confused with my poor ramblings.
Thanks rjb...i heard that on the news yesterday. too bad they aren't adding that clip where Goss says he's not qualified to head up an intelligence agency!
Both presidential contenders found themselves crossing paths in Portland, Oregon late last week. How did the two visits compare?
Bush: Bush met with 300 small business owners Friday morning, and 2,300 supporters in a town hall-style gathering at a Beaverton school that also attracted a few hundred protesters to a police cordon a few hundred yards away....
Kerry: Fire officials estimated the crowd at Kerry's rally in Waterfront Park at between 40,000 and 50,000 people, the largest turnout for a political speech in Portland in at least a decade....
Of course it helps to have a candidate who isn't afraid of the American people, and doesn't demand they sign loyalty oaths and employ bouncers at the door.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) has a commanding lead over President Bush (news - web sites) in California of 54 percent to 38 percent among likely voters, a poll released on Tuesday found.
The PPIC poll, which had a two-percent margin of error, found 56 percent disapproving of Bush's job of president and 40 percent approving.
The News and Observer reports that "In what may be the closest presidential race in the state since 1992, Democrat John Kerry is within 3 percentage points of President Bush in a new poll".
Kerry 48%, Bush 45% in Ohio
An August 11th American Research Group survey of 600 respondents shows Kerry 3 points ahead of George W. Bush. The survey also shows Bush's favorability rating declining from 48% to 41% during the period from June 23 to August 11th while John Kerry's favorability rating increased from 48% to 51%
7423 - SEIU has no authority of course but it is very good indeed to see this most left wing of unions so active in exposing Nader to their constituencies
krugman has another scary oped about how much confidence we can have in voting machines and how legitimate anyone can consider fl elections with the chicanery already coming out let alone the no accountability on electronic voting machines.
Where's jimmy carter when we need him?
If the Supreme court was so up in arms in the last election about equal protection guarantees, why aren't they being more vocal now? Why isn't the press being more vocal now?
This is serious sh*t here, and most disconcerting.
Item: These new voting machines take forever to boot up. According to Rodriguez-Taseff, they'll be powered up the night before and left running all night long (in polling spots with little security—like schools and libraries).
Item: There will be no printed receipt from the machines. Instead, the machines will just keep the vote records on their hard drives. Which of course could not possibly crash or malfunction, thereby losing hundreds and thousands of votes, with no printouts to fall back on. And of course you could not possibly hack into the machines, while they're left on all night, and screw with the voting data. Sure, there's no paper trail to stop you, but it just couldn't happen.
i can see the sc pulling the plug on the entire election as there is no guarantee of equal rights with these electronic voting machines.
(Note: the above statement is dependent upon the outcome. Bush win, SC mute; kerry win, sc pulls the plug.)
Of course, it's not like there hasn't always been chicanery with even paper ballots. Old bud of mine telling story his father told of counting paper ballots in a local election. Incumbent party "boss" stood over his shoulders and when too many votes came in the wrong way, he'd squeeze his shoulders and say, "the next 10 are mine."
Only difference is electronic votes are easier to mess with...no need purposely losing ballot boxes or reversing digits in tallying votes, etc.
And the old mechanical machines are tedious nightmares to set up correctly and it really relies on the honesty of the mechanic. Another bud's father set up the machines in our local town years ago and talked of how easy it was to make a mistake setting them up, let alone doing it intentionally. It's not like there's a single question to yay or nay. In our elections there are crazy things like choose 5 of the 7 candidates listed or others where someone is running unopposed in addition to other issues to approve on the ballot, so it can be a bit complex.
Still, if ATMs and gasoline pumps manage to spit out receipts without issue, you'd think a voting machine could do the same.
I agree. There are indications already that Florida is up to chicanery again. (Interviewing people from lists composed mostly of alleged African American felons, but few or none Hispanic alleged felons. Whatever the truth it is, this episode, combined with electronic, paperless voting machines doesn't increase my trust in the fairness of elections in Florida. After 2000 you'd think they would bend over backwards to be punctilious.
An unabashed racist won the Republican nomination for a House district in Tennessee earlier this month. James Hart, who contends that whites should not mix with "less favored races," thumped a Republican write-in candidate -- 7,865 to 2,061 -- to win the party's nomination for the state's 8th Congressional District.
"The poverty genes of less 'favored races', which are spread by welfare and immigration, are destroying our cities no less than if they were hit by a nuclear bomb," Hart said on his campaign Web site. "Unless we stop dysgenic welfare and immigration policies, the U.S. will look like one big Detroit."
The state GOP, which was unable to find another candidate in time for the election's filing deadline, has disowned Hart's campaign, calling his views "outrageous." The district, which is represented by Rep. John S. Tanner (D-Tenn.), is considered Democratic country. But Hart's candidacy will nevertheless give him a platform for his views and the Republican Party a headache.
hubby this a.m. suggested we have votes run by the grocery stores. After all with their hi-tech scanning they know who we are, where we live, all our food preferences to the point that they print customized coupons for us and they manage to give detailed paper receipts including items purchased, savings per item, total savings for this trip and even year-to-date savings.
ATMs too manage to give detailed paper receipts in addition to keeping track of electronic transactions with a fairly high degree of security.
If we can have such rigor around candy bar purchases, certainly we can have rigor around voting.
Not that I believe there is any conspiracy to rig elections. The companies cut corners, and the state governments let them do so. It just gonna make a bigger mess, because this will increase the number of paper absentee ballots.
That said, there is a lot to be said for paper ballots, period.
i caught the tail end of the rerun of the jon stewart interview of clinton last night...what was it he said? Democrats win by encouraging people to think...if you think, you'll vote democratic.
My rant of the week: Kerry is extremely frustrating with his focus on military service and his Vietnam experience. That is his least appealing aspect. His most appealing aspect is when he lets himself be the 19 year Senator that he is.
People are freaking tired of war and things related to war, they want peace and a return to normalcy. If Kerry had any political brains he'd let Bush be the war president, encourage that image, and set himself up as the Peace President alternative, mainly only talk about domestic issues and such.
If Kerry loses, which seems unlikely but could happen, it will be because he didn't understand the sentiment of his times or why people were dissatisfied with Bush.
The silent majority is the peace loving, stability loving majority that wants neither riots in the streets nor wars abroad.
I agree with jay...i think the biggest challenge to kerry that the gopers keep harping on is that he's not steady...a flipflopper...anti-war guy...who can't be trusted in times of war. Even with the "mess-o-potamia" as stewart calls it, a potential terror attack is still bush's trump card...don't switch horses mid race.
I agree harping on accomplishments decades old does get tiresome, and I think it leaves his senate career as a big black hole which the nat'l journal has gladly filled as "the most liberal senator". That can't be a good thing. But he's really got to convince the more centrist gopers that the country will be just fine, in fact even better off in his hands than in bush's.
He's also got the people like me--the ones who view the government as deeply corrupt and don't pull the lever for either party. But Bush is so bad that he just has to go. Even if Kerry were a mediocrity, he can't be worse than Bush. Hoover, Harding, Buchanan come to mind. But none of those guys was as actively destructive in their policy making as this guy is.
"Secondly, the tactics of our—as you know, we don't have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's—ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions—you can't—we're out of sanctions."—Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004
Bush's state-by-state position continues to deteriorate with potential new battlegrounds opening up in the Old South and the loss of Colorado (albeit a robo poll)
Well, one thing these bushies are apparently getting good at is setting the stage.
When he spoke at a Boeing Co. plant outside in Ridley Park, Penn., you might have been forgiven for thinking that he was actually speaking to Boeing workers. But, just like when he spoke at a union hall in Las Vegas last week, the room was filled with invited guests. Workers had the day off.
A Quinnipiac University poll released on August 18th shows Democratic challenger John Kerry holding a 47 – 42 percent lead over President George W. Bush among Pennsylvania voters, with 4 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader.
Military veterans or voters with a household member who is a veteran or currently in active duty or reserve service support Kerry 46 – 42 percent, with 6 percent for Nader. These voters from military families say 54 – 41 percent that the war is wrong.
"Despite a month of relentless campaigning by the Republican and Democratic camps in Pennsylvania, the presidential horse race remains virtually the same" said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"In what may prove to be damaging news for the President, the anti-war attitude among voters from military households in Pennsylvania is greater than the attitude among all voters. Kerry hold the same slim lead among these voters that he has among the electorate in general," Richards added.
But that leaves the major question unanswered. Do the bush people filling the hall with sworn bush supporters because they don't want hecklers or dissenters to interrupt or spoil the photo ops? Or do they do it to keep emperor George believing he's wearing new clothes, that he's the greatest pres since TR (remember the mount rushmore shot?) and that the masses of american people just adore him?
We were vacationing in CO Springs when Bush was there to speak to the AF grads...blue angels flying overhead. Very nice. Anyway, the powers that be put the protesters at the south gate and the bush supporters at the north gate and made sure that bush left by the north gate...never even saw the protesters. So whose choice is that? Smells Rovian to me.
It matters not to me whether this is being done with or without w's knowledge. If he knows about it, he's responsible. If he doesn't know about it, it's his fault for being such a weak, easy to manipulate leader. (I suspect the latter...7 minutes...7 minutes! "Er ... excuse me Mr President, but my telling you the country is under attack means you have to do something...see YOU are in charge".)
The son of an Assemblies of God minister and educator, Ashcroft has woven his private faith into his public life. In his 1998 book, "Lessons From a Father to His Son," he wrote that he held voluntary daily prayers with his staff and anointed himself prior to each of his two terms as Missouri's governor. He did so again, using a bowl of Crisco oil, before being sworn in 1995 as senator.
The act of anointment, he wrote in his largely autobiographical book, replicated the practice of "the ancient kings of Israel, David and Saul," who Ashcroft said, "were anointed as they undertook their administrative duties."
HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news -web sites) spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.
Recalling a White House meeting last spring with an Iraqi man who had both of his arms amputated by the regime of Saddam Hussein (news -web sites), the president said the man, who worked as a jeweller, was accused of illegal currency trading.
"And he had sold dinars on a particular day to buy another currency, euros or dollars, so he could buy gold to manufacture his product," Bush said.
"And because the Soviet dinar had devalued, Saddam Hussein plucked this guy out of society to punish him, and six other small merchants, for the devaluation of their currency. He just summarily said, you're it, come here -- and cut his hand off."
"Newly obtained military records of one of John Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.
"In interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that his boat came under fire March 13, 1969, in Viet Cong-controlled territory. Kerry won a Bronze Star that day.
"But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow also won a Bronze Star, and the citation praises him for providing aid to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him." . . ."
This should not have been a surprise. Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty" and other sources had already noted that Thurlow, like Kerry, was awarded a Bronze Star for his heroism that day. Thurlow's contention that there was no danger was non-credible on its face.
But no matter. The tarnishing of John Kerry's military record has been successful. Millions of people have heard Thurlow's lie, and right-wing talk radio will continue to repeat it to election day and beyond. As another Republican said on a different occasion, "Mission accomplished."
Let's get some things straight here. There is a right-wing slime machine. It has kicked into gear with this phony attack on Kerry's military record. Bush benefits from the ad and condones it. And if Kerry doesn't hit back harder, it could cost him the election.
I think this could be a watershed in the campaign, so let me elaborate on each of these points.
1. The Conintern propaganda machine is running full tilt.
A watershed of slime and of lies...whoda thunk it ..not from the man who promised to restore honor to the presidency surely.
Cincinnati, OH--Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush are in a statistical dead-heat among Ohio’s likely voters. Kerry receives the support of 48 percent of Ohio’s likely voters, while Bush receives the support of 46 percent.
These findings are based on the latest Ohio Poll, conducted by the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati. The Ohio Poll is sponsored by the University of Cincinnati. The Poll was conducted between August 11 and August 17, 2004.
With the conintern stoking the issue, it's not going away. Perhaps Kerry should try to turn this libel to his advantage, the way an Alfonse D'Amato would have, by loudly proclaiming his injury. Without getting into the substance of the charges (which is a no-win situation), he should give Bush unshirted hell for the sleaze being sent out in his name. Kerry could ask his friend John McCain to stop campaigning for Bush until the Swiftvets ads stop. If Bush doesn't respond, Kerry should loose his own attack dogs and make a bigger issue out of Bush avoiding the draft.
Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam and, once there, volunteered for dangerous duty. He killed enemy fighters, was injured and decorated. Then he came home and distinguished himself in opposition to the war. That a president who shirked any similar duty would try to make an issue out of Kerry's war record is simply amazing. Bush won't get away with it—unless Kerry lets him.
"Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam ... Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'
I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America-then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me. And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security - the issues that really matter to the American people.” – John Kerry, August 19, 2004
NPR this a.m. was interviewing people about the election and one guy said, I can't vote for kerry. I just can't get that picture of him and jane fonda together out of my head.
Too bad no one informed him that that was a faked up shot. Problem is, it's just such an image that will make up the entire part and parcel of their vote. Most voters are lazy. Most voters don't bother checking facts. Most voters don't bother delving into policy issues to find out where the candidates really stand. And certainly the press doesn't make it easy to find.
I can remember in the last election when I was talking to a coworker and he said, I can't vote for gore...he's proposing the largest federal spending increase in US history. And I said, did you know that w is proposing the 2nd largest federal spending increase in US history on top of the largest tax cut in US history? And he said, No. How come nobody told me that?
One time, for a staff presentation I put together a summary of 2 candidates proposals on fiscal issues. After the meeting, someone asked if it took me a lot of time to assemble, and I said yes. It was difficult to find comparisons or even policy proposals, especially any that include specifics. See, they really don't want you to know. If they told you the truth, you wouldn't vote for them. Better from their POV to vote on image, not facts.
jex, absolutely. I think the best way for kerry to make himself believable on being strong on national security is by being strong in standing up to these lies. If he won't defend his personal honor, how can you depend on him to defend the nation?
If, however, he responds without resorting to their tactics, he can really turn this thing around. The quote above is an excellent example. I hope he does more of that. He did better when he 'adopted' howard dean's anger. He needs to do that again.
On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.
Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.
In a post-9/11 environment, obviously, this question of strength, toughness or resolve is particularly salient. That, of course, is why so much of this debate is about war and military service in the first place.
One way -- perhaps the best way -- to demonstrate someone's lack or toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves -- ... And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can't or won't defend themselves certainly isn't someone you can depend upon to defend you. Marshall
I recently read some place that the Bush tax cut will amount to a return of, roughly $1000 for a family of four with an annual income of $50,000 and that the refund would be $78,000 for someone over (I think) a million.
Anyone remember seeing these figures? And if so where can I find them again?
CBS Evening news opened this evening with the claim that Kerry had suffered a reversal of fortune due, the program intimated, to dubya's swift boat propaganda team and their TV ads.
The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.
In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.
Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.
The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said.
Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.
But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.
The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.
People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250.
Haven't looked at the poll but it seems that the commentary may be accurate because Bush's numbers didn't go up in the aggregate, Kerry's went down.
The ad probably doesn't account for all of it but in general Kerry's got to hit back hard not only at the ad but more importantly at the failures, lies, and incompetence of the Bush regime..
Kerry's got a substantial edge among voters on the issues and he should not be shy to exploit it
Driving Bush's trust numbers down is both possible and a key objective I should think
Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied. [Article, Page A18]. A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.
Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.
The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of election fraud."
State officials have said that the investigation, which has already frightened many voters and intimidated elderly volunteers, is in response to allegations of voter fraud involving absentee ballots that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. But the department considered that matter closed last spring, according to a letter from the office of Guy Tunnell, the department's commissioner, to Lawson Lamar, the state attorney in Orlando, who would be responsible for any criminal prosecutions.
If you're movin to Tom DeLay's District DO NOT BE A TRAITOR - Don't Buy a Perry Home
Perry, a Houston home builder, initially contributed $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and recently gave another $100,000. Perry has given millions of dollars to GOP efforts over the years, including $46,000 to Bush's gubernatorial campaigns in 1994 and 1998. He gave $2,000 to Bush's reelection campaign this year, records show. Seven of the 10 initial financial contributors to the veterans group have given to Bush's campaign this year, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.
According to a sexual harassment lawsuit she filed the following year, Hudson pleaded with her to remain silent and created an "extraordinarily hostile" classroom environment that "emotionally devastated" her. The paper said Hudson settled the lawsuit for $30,000 in 1996 and moved to Washington, where he revitalized Crisis magazine and caught Rove's eye by devising a GOP strategy to target frequent Mass-attending Catholics in the 2000 election. A spokeswoman for Fordham, Elizabeth Schmalz, issued a statement yesterday saying "sexual harassment is not tolerated" at the Catholic university. Without naming either Hudson or his accuser, she said, "Fordham followed its policy rigorously and initiated an investigation into the matter upon the student's complaint. The professor later surrendered his tenure and left the University."
AP: The State Board of Elections on Friday rejected petitions by Ralph Nader's presidential campaign, denying the 70-year-old consumer activist a spot on the ballot in Virginia.
David Corn of The Nation has obtained the medal citation for a third Bronze Star recipient involved in The disputed swift boat action in 1969. The citation confirms Kerry's account of events and refutes that of Larry Thurlow, a member of the anti-Kerry vets. Of course the citation for Thurlow's own Bronze Star refutes the tale he is now telling. Remember, we're dealing with republicans here and with their belief that a lie repeated often enough will become truth.
The latest volley from the Swift Vets shows what motivates these anti-Kerry veterans. They remain mad at him for opposing the war and addressing its worst aspects. As for what happened on March 13, 1969, the issue is whether to accept the accounts of veterans who are angry with Kerry or the documentary evidence that is seconded by Rassmann, a Republican, and Kerry's crew mates. Lambert's citation offers more reason to wonder about the Swift Boat group's version of events and to question its dedication to the truth.
Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Kerry is "losing his cool." In 2000, the Bush campaign used similar language to portray rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as potentially too unstable to run the country.
David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, responded in kind: "Maybe if George Bush had seen combat up close his hired-gun mouthpiece wouldn't be so flip."
Not to be outdone, Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said, "Mr. McClellan needs to understand that John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second-graders while America is under attack." -
The new "Swift Boat Veterans for (sic) Truth" plays the same game with John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony that right-wing talk show hosts were playing (and continue today) a few months ago.
Kerry referred explicitly to the accounts of the "Winter Soldiers":
". . . in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . ." (You know the rest. Sean Hannity, for one, reads it every day.)
Kerry's referral to this testimony - testimony that had already been entered into the Congressional Record - is mischaracterized as an "accusation" directed broadly against American soldiers. But the "they" in Kerry's statement is clearly the 150 individual veterans who admitted committing these acts.
The Swift Boat liars misrepresent what Kerry said. Furthermore, their ad explicitly misquotes Kerry when it posts over a picture of Kerry the sentence, "They had personally raped . . .," with "They" capitalized as if Kerry's sentence began with that word.
The criticism in Kerry's testimony (this passage and elsewhere) was of the military and political leaders who put our front line soldiers in the position they were in, not the soldiers themselves. It's a lie to say otherwise.
It galling that the media is characterizing the phony controversy about whether John Kerry earned his war medals as a question whether to believe "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or "John Kerry". Rather, it is a dispute between the SBVF(sic)T's and the OFFICIAL MILITARY RECORDS.
As more contemporaneous military records are examined and found to refute the lying SBVFT's - Larry Thurlow was given a written citation stating that he acted bravely under enemy fire; records report the swift boats sustaining gunfire damage on that day - there should be no doubt whatsoever that the SBVFTs' claims that there was no enemy fire the day Kerry (and Thurlow) earned a Bronze Star are inaccurate (if not, as I believe, deliberate lies). This so-called "dispute" should be laid to rest.
But instead, we read "evenhanded" media reports like "we'll never know exactly what happened." Liars win again.
Another piece of crap (I'm on a roll this morning) are political analysts saying they don't know whether the SBVFT ads will be counterproductive and actually hurt Bush, with quotes from John O'Neill and others bravely saying, "We don't care who it helps or hurts." BullSHIT!! These ads and this book are financed by experienced, committed Republican operatives. They no doubt calculated (even if they didn't actually discuss the matter with their old buddy Karl Rove) that smearing John Kerry would help George W. Bush. And their calcuations are proving accurate.
Media commentators should not play along and pretend that this is an independent, political-impact-be-damned effort.
I can't understand how people can say it's okay for the Rove slime machine to attack Kerry but they get so up in arms when some 527 runs an ad critical of the "President." It's like they think becomng a president dissolves all sins...unless, of course, you're a Democrat who becomes one.
In a world where sanity prevailed, people would hold Bush accountable for these ads and it would reflect badly on him. But this isn't that sort of world.
By William B. Rood Chicago Tribune Published August 21, 2004
There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago—three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969.
One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other. ..................................................
I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.
But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three swift boats—including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43—that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a Navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area.
The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.
Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.
The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.
We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.
The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.
The first time we took fire—the usual rockets and automatic weapons—Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an Army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.
Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.
It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.
We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch—a thatched hut—maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.
With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.
Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.
John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.
The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.
Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.
Congratulatory message
Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-Capt. and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."
Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.
Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.
It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer, Michael Bernique, was summoned to Saigon to explain to top Navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream.
Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.
Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.
The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.
What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.
Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.
Error in citation
There are more details. Go to the Trib and read...
This ought to go a long way toward blowing the swift boat liars out of the water...
As I said, I think the Kerry campaign is right to go aggressively on the attack against the president for running his campaign this way and seeking to profit politically from this garbage. But that's not enough. Kerry's surrogates have to go aggressively on the attack against the president on all his many points of vulnerability, which are legion -- his dishonesty about his own gap-ridden service in the Texas Air National Guard, his White House's on-going efforts to cover up the Plame leak, the endless record of deceptions tied to the Iraq invasion, yet-to-be revealed dirty laundry from the past, all of it.
Counterattacking on the president's shameless behavior on the Swift Boat matter is necessary, but hardly sufficient. To be successful, Kerry and his team and his surrogates (you know, the folks he's on a first name basis with but doesn't know from Adam and can't control in any way) need to place the president on the defensive across the board.
This whole Swift Boat episode is entirely in keeping not just with the record of George W. Bush, but, to be frank, his whole family. Think back to the 1988 and 1992 presidential races. Partly, it's in the their political DNA. But it's also in the nature of blue bloods trying to ape populist politics -- for the key example, see the 1992 GOP convention in Houston and the sad antics of Bush family retainer Rich Bond.
I said a few days ago that it was ridiculous to compare the ads run by Moveon to the Swift Boat ones. And it's true -- they're very soft soap in comparison. But that's a mistake. They should be hitting much harder.
The president has chosen the ground on which he wants to fight this campaign. And as per usual he's mobilized friends and family retainers to do the fighting for him. The president is playing tackle football, not touch or flag. If the Dems keep up with the latter they'll lose.
Back in the primaries John Kerry would say that if the Bushies thought they could pull a Max Cleland on him, he'd say, "Bring it on." Well, it's on.
My sense of Kerry is almost entirely definied by watching his 1996 race against Bill Weld up close. So I think he has it in him to fight. But now's when we find out.
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A Vietnam veteran who worked with President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign has left over his appearance in a commercial by a group challenging Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s war record, a campaign spokesman said on Saturday.
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Ken Cordier was a Bush supporter during the 2000 election and served as a member of his a steering committee to help reach out to veterans during this election.
"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement being run by (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)," Schmidt said. "Because of his involvement with this 527 (group), Col. Cordier will no longer participate" in the steering committee.
The disclosure of Cordier's involvement came one day after White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot denied the campaign coordinated with the group on the ads, which claim that Kerry lied about his Vietnam War service
I know that the anti-Kerry vet charges are cratering fast and are hardly worth much more discussion, but Col. Hackworth's take is worth noting. Apologies if this has been linked recently. CNN is having Bob Dole on Wolf Blitzer's show tomorrow. I expect he will spin a more low key version of Pat Buchanan's "Hero in Vietnam, but slimed fellow vets postwar" bilge [paraphrase] . If so, he's behind the curve. I'll wager that this won't be an issue by the end of the upcoming GOP circle-jerk.
"...But politics and style aside, Kerry did serve with distinction in Vietnam when he easily could have avoided that killing field. His service to his country shouldn’t be diminished by the same despicable, politically motivated tactics visited upon Sens. John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia, also Viet vets. This kind of gutter-bashing doesn’t belong in American politics, and vets shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as ammo for cheap shots at one of their own... ...O’Neill and his chorus of haters are still in their get-Kerry mode. I suspect the decades-long fury is still fueled by Kerry’s high-profile anti-war stance when he returned home. That was a position that was taken by hundreds of thousands of other Viet vets, including myself in 1971[my emphasis]– which, according to Joe Califono's recent book, Inside: A Public Life, almost cost me my life... ...As our commander in chief, Bush also needs to bear in mind that the U.S. Navy and its high standards for handling awards are now on trial as well. Hopefully, the president’s righteous actions will expedite that institution’s exoneration along with Lt. John Kerry’s heroism..."
Just this morning I saw on CNN Headline News a typical political news story, reporting that polls find that a significant number of voters say they find the Swift Boat Vets for (sic) Truth ads credible and a factor in their vote.
Never mind that the attacks on Kerry's combat record are demonstrable lies, with more proof of their falsity turning up every day. (As if this unsubstantiated challenge to the accuracy of 35-year-old Navy records should ever have been taken that seriously in the first place.) To go into THAT would be "liberal bias".
As Mark Shields noted on CNN's "Capital Gang" last night, the Republicans have located lots of people who say they "served with John Kerry" in Vietnam (even if sometimes it depends on the meaning of the word "with"). So how come they can't find a single person who served with George W. Bush in Alabama?
"At the fund-raiser, Mr. Ferrell's Bush, who was wearing a flight suit, boasted of his plan to replace logged redwoods with 'substiture trees' made out of red-painted plywood. He then told the crowd: 'Will I be able to do everything you people want? No. Frankly a lot of endangered species are going to be extincted. But this is part of evolution and natural selection. Which, by the way, I don't believe in.'"
Thanks Clyde - I have become a fan of the HackMan myself..If someone had said four years ago that I would be reading this guy for the past two years, I would have said that someone was crazy
Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.
All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.
By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.
Don't miss Philip Gourevitch's article in the 8/23 New Yorker about Errol Morris's TV ads created for Move On. The ads consist of "person to person" interviews by Morris (on his Interrotron machine which allows the interviewee to see Morris while he or she is being taped)with Republicans who have decided to vote for Kerry. Out of 20,000 responses to a Move On on-line questionnaire about 500 fitted the criterion. That group was winnowed to 40 which were interviewed on the Interrotron by Morris. The interviews, some lasting 4 hours were edited down by Morris to 30-second ads. Move On showed 17 on its website last week in an on-line poll to determine the most popular ones which will be aired nationally in the fall. One hundred thousand responded.
The first-place ad showed Les Buttrill, an ex-marine who fought in Iraq. It will be aired during the GOP convention. Others will be tested and aired in coming weeks.
[From Gourevitch's fascinating and hopeful article which is worth reading in its entirety.]
"He pointed at more photographs: "Ex-marine, fund manager, medical transcriptionist, a professor at a business school (HBS?) and talked about how ashamed he is by what an MBA has produced in the White House. Morris stood back from the portreai board 'My Mt Rushmore,' he said."
Rick Dove, a retired Marine Colonel from NC:
"When am I going to hear my President say, 'I blew it, folks, the buck stops here, this is my lmistake and I'm going to learn from this and we're going to go on?'"
Yvonne Wilder business consultant from Cherry Hill NJ: "If I had to do it again, I wouldn't have voted for Bush in 2000. We had a two-trillion-dollar surplus. Two trillion dollars is a lot of money. O.K? And Bush, in three years he blew over seven trillion dollars. And, I would be fine if we actually would have something to show for that. We don't have, you know, universal health care, we've cut benefits for veterans, NO Child Left Behind is a joke--we can't afford another four years of George Bush. It would just be disastrous."
Deborah Wood, of Wimberley, TX: "Let's get religion involved in all this. When you have Osama bin Laden waging a religious jihad--a war against America for religion--and then you have Bush saying God's on our side, it's like a huge pissing contest. Who's going to blink first? We're going to have a huge holocause war if we don't get Bush out of there."
"Morris chuckled. 'I don't think you can run that one,' as another cut from Wood's testimony came on the screen. This time, she said, 'I don't like to be lied to. I can handle the truth. Where are these mobile labs? Where's the WMDs? Where's the smallpox? If I were a mother of one of those people that were killed--the soldieers that were killed over there--I'd want to know. My kid has died because of you, my kid is dead in the ground because of you. I feel very betrayed. I feel like the whole country is betrayed.'"
Powerful stuff. I can see another Academy Award Errol Morris documentary coming out of the material he's gathered. Initially, according to Gourevitch, Morris approached the Kerry campaign offering to produce the ads but they didn't go for his idea. Then he went to Wes Boyd of Move on who grabbed the idea and ran with it.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Palm Beach County has introduced an absentee ballot that requires voters to indicate their choices by connecting broken arrows, sparking criticism that it is even more confusing than the infamous ``butterfly ballot'' used in the 2000 election.
Theresa LePore, the elections supervisor who approved the 2000 butterfly ballot, opted for a ballot design for the Aug. 31 primary that asks voters to draw lines joining two ends of an arrow.
Critics say the new ballot is not an improvement.
``People do the craziest things when they're asked to connect the arrows,'' said Stephen Ansolabehere, former director of the Voting Technology Project, a collaboration between the California and Massachusetts Institutes of Technology.
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Former Republican Sen. Bob Dole suggested Sunday that John Kerry apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War and joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for ``superficial wounds.'' Dole also called on Kerry to release all the records of his service in Vietnam.
Separately, President Bush's re-election campaign continued to deny links to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry group running ads in three states, after the resignation of a campaign volunteer who appeared in the group's new ad.
I thought he'd died from his self inflicted wounds..
And speaking ill of the dead..
The Ace of Spades and his Pack of PutzFaced Pundits.. "Bush will beat Kerry in a walk" – New York Daily News columnist Zev Chafets, August 4, 2004.
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk…I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004." – Divine interlocutor Pat Robertson, January 2, 2004
"As the economy and the market vote for President Bush, he will win in a landslide carrying at least 40 states." – Right-wing econo-pundit Larry Kudlow, December 31, 2003
"The political stars are suddenly aligned for President Bush for a smashing re-election victory in 2004…One can imagine a Democratic ticket--Lieberman-Graham perhaps--that would be competitive." – Weekly Standard and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes, June 27, 2003
"If the economy recovers, President Bush will win handily. If the economy stays in the doldrums, the president will face a tough campaign but will probably still win." – Visionary historian Newt Gingrich, June 17, 2003
"The issue increasingly is not whether George Bush is favored to win but whether he can build up a real landslide." – Switch-hitting media samurai David Gergen, June 15, 2003
"Don't forget, these Democrats voted for the tax cuts in 1986 after their party had been trounced by Reagan in 1984. They will look more kindly on a 28 percent rate after the 2004 Bush landslide." – Conservative movement cruise director Grover Norquist, February 10, 2003
"Bush and Karl Rove, his chief political strategist, are keenly aware that the only thing that stands in the way of this enormously popular president being re-elected in a landslide in 2004 is the economy slipping into a double dip recession." – Right-wing purist and Club for Growth head Stephen Moore, December 9, 2002.
CRAWFORD, Texas A volunteer for John Kerry says he picked up a flier in a Bush-Cheney campaign office promoting the group running attack ads against Kerry.
The Kerry campaign says the flier at a Bush office in Gainesville, Florida, advertises a weekend rally by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The campaign e-mailed the flier to news organizations, saying that the Bush-Cheney campaign was "busted" for coordinating "in their smear campaign against John Kerry."
It occurs to me that the reason for Kerry's delay in dealing with these ads is to make them part of the RNC convention news cycle. That instead of seeing pictures on the news of centrist "republicans" like Zell Miller and Rudy Giuiliani talking positively about the party's commitement to every American, we're gonna see poeple lying about Kerry's record as surrogates for Bush. Instead of a positive, forward-looking message out of the convention, we're gonna get a negative, tear down his opponent (the war hero) message.
NBC's Jim Lampley reported that Matt Sludge reported that Bush is considering a Greek Stunt...a surprise trip to the Olympics to watch the soccer finals if the IraQ team makes it...
Lampley went on to add "there are a number of problems however with this scenario. Even if they do make the finals, there is the security issue and while the Greek people are very fond of America, they don't very much like Bush. And there's also the problem of the Iraqi team -they don't like him trying to use them as a campaign prop"
Bush better run some more of those Olympian Leader spots
Yeah, and it is not hard to imagine that sentence--but to say it brings the Kerry campaign down into a negative realm they've avoided.
Well, in fact, it should be two sentences: 1) When his nation called in the 1960s, he went awol. 2) When the nation needed a President to be a leader in a dangerous crisis, he sent our children into a war that had nothing to do with that crisis.
I have engaged the local Chairman of God's Own Party..I blind copied him on an email of the Boston Globe editorial "Imagine if Clinton had done this to Dole in 1996"
He made the mistake of returning fire which verbatim were SBVT talking points..
Target acquired..
The next heat seeking missle if he dares respond a third time:
"As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart." Ole Dole 1998 Autobiography
Avoid the negative Jay...the kick in the balls is a segue into whatever positive, policy oriented subject Kerry might wish to discuss..
Bush's sleaziness, his lies, his incompetence, his sysiphisian labors to avoid any responsibility for any number of failures are the perfect jumping off point from negative to positive.
Eg GWB is a divider not a uniter, I will ______
GWB's policies re: ________ conceived in duplicity and extremism, executed incompetently have wrecked ______ we must do __________
Brit Hume, Joe Scarborough, and other media mouthpieces for the GOP are touting this Washington Post article on the Kerry combat record "controversy":
"Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode
By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A01
When John F. Kerry rescued Jim Rassmann from the Bay Hap River in the jungles of Vietnam in March 1969, neither man could possibly have imagined that the episode would become a much-disputed focus of an American presidential campaign 35 years later. . . ."
And no wonder Brit et al love this article. The Post calls the U.S. Navy record of events "Kerry's version", and throws up its hands. unable to resolve the conflict between "Kerry's version" and the Swift Boat Veterans for (sic) Truth's.
In declaring the contest a draw, the Post gives these liars all they could hope for.
Josh Marshall, at www.talkingpointsmemo.com, as usual says it best:
"[T]he headline of the piece -- and some of the editorial remarks in it -- tried to give the impression that the Kerry camp had held back key information, when the article itself provides no evidence of that at all. Considering the piece a bit more, though, it strikes me just how clear an example this is of the poverty of what passes as journalistic objectivity -- the effort to find a point of balance when the facts themselves provide no basis for it. Let me explain. If you wade through the article, it's easy to lose track of this. But what does the article itself say? Kerry says one thing, he's critics say another. But are Kerry and O'Neil really equal in this? The military records all back up Kerry. Back in the old days --i.e., last month --official military records use to be considered at least presumptively accurate. . . . At a minimum one would assume that the burden of proof would lie with those who dispute their veracity. . . . . On top of that, all the people who were in Kerry's boat support his version of events. . . . Others who were tens or hundreds of yards away, or not even present, contradict his account. Is it really so hard to distinguish between the quality of evidence and testimony that both sides are bringing to the table? . . . If this were a civil suit, and this was accusers' evidence, it wouldn't even pass the laugh test. And yet the Post portrays the two 'sides' as if they have equal standing. As though it were he said, she said."
As big mo put it in her op-ed...to think that kerry who served in vietnam is even on the defensive over this against a guy who ducked duty by pulling strings to get into the nat'l guard and even then went awol.
Un-freaking-believable.
and she makes the point that the biggest failure is that the opponents are surprised by these attacks...the goper dogs did it to dukakis, to clinton, to mccain in SC, so don't you think they should've caught on by now? Don't you think they'd know how to respond by now?
Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.
Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam,...
and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.
Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.
[emphasis mine]
Guess who wrote this?
Andrew Ferguson, senior editor at The Weekly Standard.
So why don't they just do the right thing and stage a coup at the RNC and get someone more moderate, more trustworthy to run against kerry...if they're any moderates left who haven't tainted themselves by supporting this crowd. It's too late for Powell and McCain....
So why don't they just do the right thing and stage a coup at the RNC and get someone more moderate, more trustworthy to run against kerry...if they're any moderates left who haven't tainted themselves by supporting this crowd. It's too late for Powell and McCain....
(CPOD) Aug. 23, 2004 – George W. Bush holds the upper hand in the 2004 United States presidential election, according to a poll by InsiderAdvantage. 46 per cent of respondents would vote for the Republican incumbent, while 43 per cent would support Democratic nominee John Kerry.
One per cent of respondents would vote for independent candidate Ralph Nader, two per cent would back another candidate, and eight per cent remain undecided. The election is scheduled for Nov. 2.
Support for Bush increased by four per cent since June, while backing for Kerry went up by three per cent.
John H. Hinderaker and Scott W. Johnson had a jolly good time in a Wednesday commentary "fact-checking" Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's statements about operating his Swift boat in Cambodian waters. When the checkers are acting as surrogate smear artists for the Bush campaign, however, it is necessary to fact-check them as well. What you'll find doesn't reflect well on Hinderaker and Johnson. The fraudulence of what they have written is easy to verify, for those with a mind to look and a desire to know the truth.
Interesting factoids here...and overall very revealing of smear tactics.
In the latest round, Bush has abandoned any pretense that the SBVT ads are independent....today's answer "Kerry's 527's have spent 60 million on 'attack' ads" implicitly approves the SVBT smear
In a survey last week by the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) led Bush among likely voters 48 to 46 percent, with independent Ralph Nader garnering 1 percent. A Gallup poll in Ohio also showed a two-point spread favoring Kerry, but when the pool of respondents was expanded to include all registered voters, not just people who voted last time, Kerry was ahead by 10 points.
I keep begging for a report from our man on the battleground...
What Ole Dole giveth with his bad arm he took away with his good one..apparently the vile bastard hedged his bets ..
Not widely reported h - his comment that Kerry has the advantage and is in a particularly good position in battleground states from polls he had seen..
The Bushies responded "Dole speaking for himself"
Ole BoB Dole had a nasty black soul A nasty ole soul was he
The unending wall-to-wall media coverage of that stupid (but effective) Swift Boat ad just underlines what a democratic crisis this country is in.
Not that a Kerry Presidency is going to change it much, but there is a slim chance that a genuine and acknowledged mandate for serious change from the status quo will improve matters a bit.
See, there are a huge number of really crucial things happening right now. Oil prices are rising - contrary to stated promises from the Bushites, and there was another setback to the relationship with a petroleum-producing state when Chavez won a historic referendum. The US is poised to take on a truly difficult situation in Najaf, perhaps including an actual all-out assault on a mosque complex unreservedly revered by hundreds of millions of Shi-ites. Help is not on its way in Iraq from allies. Investors are jittery, employment is flat, there is an imminet crisis in national health care spending underway. House prices are ticking downward, employment is (depending on the region) either flat or sinking.
But the media sheep, dominated by just a few corporate houses - all of whose profits are either up or unaffected - are baying endlessly and airheadedly about daily carefully issued "news" about Kerry's alleged misdeeds decades ago in a period where he volunteered and served in the military while his opponents both ducked duty.
It doesn't stop, Kerry is faulted for alleged campaign incompetence, and this story crowds out the headlines and - astonishingly - is all the media is hyping even as all the other issues fall aside for another crucial fortnight of a campaign drawing swiftly to its conclusion.
Democracy? This ain't democracy, you need different functioning and critical pillars of society to qualify as a democracy. This is one vast boondoggle, this country is allowing the wool to be pulled over its eyes to a shameful level.
Of course, I still think Kerry will win. The BJP tried the same exact kind of shit in India a few months ago and got wiped out. Aznar tried the same exact kind of lying bullshit in Spain a few months ago, and he too got booted. I refuse to think (or admit, yet) that this self-styled "greatest country in the history of the world" contains a majority of citizens less intelligent or brave or perceptive than third-world Indians or craven Euroweenie Spaniards.
I'm hoping so. I'm hoping that even gopers have some limit and will wake up to realize that this crowd has gone OTT. I'm hoping that, as Lee Atwater admitted on his deathbed that he went too far, that this crowd will too finally realize they have gone too far. It may take some more time, some more smearing, some more mudslinging, but eventually, as they did in the 50s, eventually there will be another "Have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?" moment.
Well, it's more effective - and will produce more positive results - if the tactics continue apace and then they are rejected decisively at the voting booth.
To use the India example again, the powerful rejection of shamefully divisive religious politics and flag-waving militarism has changed the short and medium term political picture completely. Now, no one - including those from the BJP party which engaged in those tactics - dares to go the same way for a good long while.
I want to see these unprincipled right-wing fuckers not just beaten, but marginalized and unmasked for the extremists they are.
A solid Kerry victory - after all of this - will do exactly that, and it is still very much on the cards. The media is simply more foolishly distracted than the electorate (I think).
It's been an irksome week. I found it particularly irritating that the Times had the story undermining the slimers' ad, but didn't run it until Kerry directly responded. Isn't it newsworthy, in and of itself, that Bush associates are running a series of ads that is manifestly false? Why is it a requirement that Kerry has to drag himself down before they'll run the story?
The republicans are once again exploiting the "balance" of the media--putting what actually happened on an equal footing with the smear, and thereby turning the question of Kerry's (and therefore Bush's) Vietnam service into "just politics."
I wish I had a couple of million dollars to fund a series of by Reformed Cokeheads for Truth on why Bush skipped his physical.
All that aside, the use of these tactics makes the defeat of Bush even more imperative. If this is how you win, we're fucked. If polices, and results, simply don't matter, then we are going to get bad policies and bad results. It's corrupt enough already, with at least lip service given to policies and their consequences. If they don't matter--if the next race is Jeb smearing Obama, then we're doomed.
If this is how you win, we're fucked. If polices, and results, simply don't matter, then we are going to get bad policies and bad results.
Absolutely right, it means that the system is perhaps irrevokably broken.
But, let's look historically over the past 20-25 years. I cannot think of a single solid democracy - let alone one of the rich countries - where such tactics have won out for more than the very short term.
So, deplore these times I will. But I'm pretty confident that they're about to pass and the electorate is about to crawl out of its 9/11-induced funk and reassert itself.
clydefo makes a good point on diebold...it can really destroy confidence in the election. I'm already thinking the only way to have real confidence in the election is to nullify all of FL's electoral votes...Bob Herbert's revelation on sheriffs strong-arming elderly black voters to convict lists that prevent blacks (mainly dems) from voting but not hispanics (mainly gops) and now this:
WEST PALM BEACH -- Critics say Palm Beach County has come up with a confusing successor to the butterfly ballot, by calling on absentee voters to cast their primary votes by connecting broken arrows.
And now this: Bush says he wants all 527s pulled. How about just pulling the ones that don't tell the truth? MoveOn has actually been pretty accurate--some innuendo, but mostly just stuff that is true.
Their Bush voter for Kerry interviews are particularly effective, imo.
Isn't that part of the goal of sliming. They know that particularly until the rnc they have a financial advantage over kerry, but the 527s are interferring with that. By turning theirs into a slime machine, they have a shot at getting dems to agree to pull all the ads, putting advantage back in their court. Also, this way, w can seem to agree with the dems charge that he should disavow the boat people while keeping support among his base by calling for a "fairer" playing field. I'm telling you, these guys are real players. The dems clearly are not.
Their Bush voter for Kerry interviews are particularly effective
Except that one quoted above who doesn't know her trillions from her billions or her debt from her deficit.
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Under pressure from Democrats and Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday called for ads attacking John Kerry (news - web sites)'s record in Vietnam to be stopped along with others run by independent groups, and said Kerry should be proud of his war service.
"That means that ad and every other ad," Bush said when asked if he wanted to bring a stop to commercials by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which accuse Sen. Kerry of lying about his war record in Vietnam.
You'll notice that this also tries to bring the ads to the same level--the personal smear is equated with the presentation of the record. Except for the national guard ad, the MoveOn ads are on the issues, not the man.
"Have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?" moment.
That should have come with Clinton and I'm more disgusted with him as time passes.
The media is a pathetic joke right now, and I don't think it's any more relevant than it was with Clinton.
Bush I was not a bad candidate, he was veep to a very popular president, and Dukakis was weak. This scenario is much closer to '92 and the media behavior is similar.
I can take the GOP's slime. That's what they do. The media needs to get up out of the gutter and quit legitimizing it.
I'm just pissed all around, but I think what's happening is more reflective of the degeneration of the media and the politics of money than it is of what the people will do in the voting booths.
And we vote on paper ballots. It's actually probably too cozy, because we all know eachother. Nothing can be done about that, though.
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama (AP) -- The three companies that certify the nation's voting technologies operate in secrecy, and refuse to discuss flaws in the ATM-like machines to be used by nearly one in three voters in November. Despite concerns over whether the so-called touchscreen machines can be trusted, the testing companies won't say publicly if they have encountered shoddy workmanship. They say they are committed to secrecy in their contracts with the voting machines' makers -- even though tax money ultimately buys or leases the machines. "I find it grotesque that an organization charged with such a heavy responsibility feels no obligation to explain to anyone what it is doing," Michael Shamos, a Carnegie Mellon computer scientist and electronic voting expert, told lawmakers in Washington, D.C. The system for "testing and certifying voting equipment in this country is not only broken, but is virtually nonexistent," Shamos added...
...Shawn Southworth, a voting equipment tester at the laboratory, said in a telephone interview that he wouldn't publicly discuss the company's work. He referred questions to a spokeswoman at CIBER headquarters in Greenwood Village, Colorado, who never returned telephone messages...
...Wyle spokesman Dan Reeder refused to provide details on how the El Segundo, California-based company, which has been vetting hardware for the space industry since 1949 in Huntsville, tests the voting equipment...
...Carolyn Goggins, a spokeswoman for SysTest Labs, the only other federally approved election software and hardware tester, refused to discuss the company's work...
..."Suppose you had a situation where ballots were handed to a private company that counted them behind a closed door and burned the results," said Dill, founder of VerifiedVoting.org. "Nobody but an idiot would accept a system like that. We've got something that is almost as bad with electronic voting."
I don't get it...isn't this public business? Isn't how voting is being done necessarily in the public perview? Aren't voting machines purchased and paid for with tax dollars? Where do these testers get off refusing to discuss this and where are the public officials demanding the test results and the machine reliability data be made public?
This makes voting in iraq look sane!
Where is the media on this? This should be headline news every day between now and election day.
This story should be at least as well known as the kobe bryant case.
The experience with one-party rule in Ohio shouldn't enamor the public with the Republican party. I agree with the article Jex linked in Message # 7583 in that Ohio Republicans' poor performance and low esteem among the public will impair Bush's chances. However, I don't thing the fund-raising scandal described in the article is common knowledge or likely in and of itself to have an impact.
I'm optimistic, and one reason is what I see around me. Four years ago I thought I was the only Democrat in Republican Central Ohio (other than Mrs. Ohio, of course!). This year I see Kerry bumper stickers everywhere. I even personally know some Republicans who are voting for Kerry. Since Bush won Ohio by only 3.5% last time (despite Gore giving up on the state, and despite Nader getting 2.5%), it's hard to see him winning this time.
More on the Seigneurs of Sleaze courtesy Josh Marshall...
From The Financial Times, left-wing rag, December 9th, 2003 ...
The Bush campaign machine, well oiled and already rolling, should not be underestimated. The current president's father gained a formidable reputation as a nasty campaigner, though the presidential fingerprints were carefully wiped off negative blueprints administered by Lee Atwater, the first Mr Bush's ruthless chief strategist. Karl Rove, a disciple of Mr Atwater, is similarly meticulous about keeping the president publicly above the fray. Yet it is an open secret in Washington that White House-blessed campaign strategists have been working quietly for months to compile potentially damaging background on all the Democratic candidates. In the early going, when it appeared Mr Kerry would emerge as the frontrunner, one senior Republican commented wryly: "By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."
And from Bush campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, yesterday on Meet the Press ...
The fact is this campaign is unprecedented in our praise of our opponent's service during Vietnam.
By Charles Pierce, contributing to Eric Alterman's "Altercation" (in the "Opinions" section of www.msnbc.com):
"It has been made abundantly clear -- most recently, by Mr. Rood of the Chicago Tribune and by the invaluable Joe Galloway of Knight-Ridder -- that these Swift Boat characters are dealing in public lies. The day before, it was the NYT. The day before that, the Washington Post. We've had people outed as Republican operatives, disparaging war wounds they never saw, asserting as fact things they never witnessed, and ultimately calumnizing their own heroism. By all standard measures, this story should be over . . .
However, they live.
Why?
Television.
The print media, God love it, has done so thorough a debunking of these guys that you'd expect to hear a couple of them on Art Bell's program late one night. But because the "issue" and the "controversy" make good television theater, they must be kept alive. Which is why, the next time you see, say, Norah O'Donnell, down by the phony barn on the phony ranch, and she tells you how remarkable it is that the ads are "having an effect" despite the fact that the actual buy was so low, you should feel free to excuse yourself and go vomit in the corner. The original ad contained substantially less truth than the Hitler Diaries, but it was run anyway, over and over again, in news pieces about the "issue" and on argument shows dealing with the "controversy." In other words, television news gave up a substantial portion of its "news hole" this week to information that the people running the news operations had to know were demonstrable lies."
The latest tack, focusing on John Kerry's antiwar activities, comes close to resurrecting Vietnam-era McCarthyism in which criticism of the war or the President was unpatriotic. When right-wingers today say that Kerry gave "aid and comfort to the enemy," are they calling ALL 60's-70's war critics traitors? In this regard, how is Kerry's criticism distinguishable from anyone else's?
I recall how in 1992 Republicans denounced Bill Clinton for antiwar activities while he was a student at Oxford. They thundered, "He criticized our country WHILE ON FOREIGN SOIL!" It was never clear to me why the location of Clinton's feet made such a difference, but it sounded good and allowed Repubs to smear Clinton's patriotism without smearing that of millions of 1992 voters who two decades earlier had done the exact same thing (albeit stateside).
Will this year's Republican attack dogs try to draw such a line? Or are they prepared to broadly slander Vietnam war critics as traitors across the board?
NewsHour had a very good discussion - Gergen and the Director of the Annenberg School...
Both agreed that:
- Bush achieved some short term gain - The story was so full of shit that mainstream media didn't pay it much attention at first - The principal culprits of spreading the slime were conservative talk radio and cable news - Now mainstream esp print media is coming down hard on the sleaze bucket vets of tripe - Bush stands to lose big time as he becomes identified with SBVT
The next time the nation gets into a war, why would any American with an interest in national service show up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the attacks on John Kerry by a bunch of angry, Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam.
But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: We don't know if there's a direct connection because the CBS poll didn't tie that finding back to seeing or viewing the ad but what we do know from analysis of how communication functions with audiences is that if you have extended discussion about whether or not someone earned something, you're creating doubt.
So, for example, if we say let's have a discussion about whether Kathleen Jamieson is a murderer and David goes on television and says she's definitely not. We have absolutely no proof. The fact that we've had that discussion, let's say repeatedly over cable for about a week-and-a-half and political talk radio, might make you more wary the next time you see me with a paring knife.
Well then U 2 can tell me if I am right about Ohio....
Been there twice - once to Columbus when I was 5 Then passing through from DC to Chicago
So I don't know anything about Ohio...
But I did look at a political geographic analysis that divided the country into ten zones that have very similar voting characteristics
3 of those zones cut up Ohio
- Great Lakes (Demo) Cleveland, Akron etc
- Farm Belt (think Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana) runs south of the above through Columbus to Cincy
- Hick Country (appalachia like WVa in SE OHIO)
The farm belt zone is pretty much GOP country...the Great Lakes -Demo and Appalachia mostly GOP except when the economy or national defense is fucked up as now..
I expect that if all informed people were honest, they would concede that there is a smear going on. Sadly, almost half the electorate is willing to tolerate this because of their greedy Leona Helmsley attitude that "only the little people pay taxes". My property tax estimate came in the mail today and I instantly understood the con game involved in that Bush $300 tax break last year or whenever. The bastard bought us off with a color TV set.
The rich become the moneylenders, we and our middle-class progeny ultimately bear the burden. One fourth of each federal dollar taken in is used to pay interest to Dick and Lynn Cheney and their ilk.
What is a fair share? Who is going to pay for America?
If President Bush really wants to tell the Swift Boat group's funder, Bob Perry, that he doesn't like the ads he's paying for, maybe he can bring it up at the fundraiser Perry is cohosting in New York next week.
President Bush, Karl Rove, and Tom DeLay are all scheduled to be there.
The Dallas Morning News got the story. But when they asked Perry's spokesman what the deal was, he suddenly hadn't heard a thing about it.
Perry's spokesman Bill Miller says he was surprised to see his boss's name on the list.
"He told me, 'I never approved the use of my name. I'm not going to be there,' " Mr. Miller told the News.
Summer Woman - Great! If your parents would like Kerry buttons, bumper stickers, or the like, ask them to e-mail me at OhioSTOPAS@aol.com.
Jex - That's exactly right about the different Ohios. Cleveland/Toledo and Cincinnati/Columbus are two quite different areas, not just politically. And Little West Virginia in southeast Ohio is a third distinct area.
My property tax estimate came in the mail today and I instantly understood the con game involved in that Bush $300 tax break last year or whenever. The bastard bought us off with a color TV set.
Clydefo, I am so glad you brought this up...I only hope that Kuligin can read your post. When I mentioned the same thing months ago, and pointed out to him that because of government cuts in states' budgets, whatever amount we got in "tax relief" from BushCo would be eaten up in higher property taxes and state fees, he ridiculed me all over the place.
Maybe he will listen when a man says it. (Assuming you are male and not some lady named Clyde.)
Krugman, bless him, took the gloves off his coverage of the Bushites long ago.
In today's column, he touches once again on what I believe is a serious part of the motivation for the incumbents in going as nasty as needed to retain power at any cost - the fear of inevitable hearings, inquiries and jail terms.
President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.
What EXACTLY does Bush mean when he says Kerry should join him and "get rid of" independent political ads by "527" groups?
Is he suggesting that the candidates have power to immediately rewrite election laws? Of course not.
Is he saying both candidates should support revising election laws for future elections? Maybe. But what about the First Amendment?
Is he saying that each candidate should repudiate independent ads that support him or criticize his opponent? Maybe. But why should a candidate repudiate fair criticism of his opponent?
Bush is obviously trying to make an equivalence among all independent ads, as if the problem with the Swift Boat Veterans for (sic) Truth's ad attacking John Kerry's combat record was that it was independent, and not that it was a pack of deliberate lies.
And he is obviously trying to make an equivalence among all "negative" ads, as if the problem with the SBVf(s)T's ad is that it criticizes Kerry rather than its lies.
And, obviously, if supporters of Kerry hadn't used the 527 technique so much more successfully than supporters of Bush, Bush wouldn't be making this proposal at all.
But what exactly does Bush's nonsensical, meaningless call to "get rid of 527 ads" mean? I have no idea, and no one is bothering to try to get an explanation.
And meanwhile, Bush is continuing to reap the political advantage of having people lie about his opponent, while ducking the moral responsibility to tell the public the truth and set the record straight. Just like South Carolina 2000.
Personally, I consider the savage public hearings in 2005-2006 to be one of the best fringe benefits of a Kerry win in November.
Cheney, el diablo himself, will undoubtedly shuffle off his mortal coil the moment they pull the plug of near-unlimited power outta his ass. But wouldn't it be so very peachy keen to see him doing a perp walk in an orange jumpsuit before then?
Some young spokesman was on cnn yesterday talking about evoting and it was clear that he had not a clue as to what or why there'd be a controversy about voting machines. Either he was a paid spokesman or he was the most naive person on earth. His take, the only reason why people are unhappy with evoting machines are because they don't understand the technology and/or aren't familiar with electronic things.
What utter bs. It is precisely because we've all hit buttons on our touch-screen atms that registered the wrong answer, because we've all had our machines crash in the middle of important work, because we've all been attacked by worms and viruses, and because we all have an intimate familiarity with the biggest bug generator of all, microsoft, that we mistrust these machines. And heck, other than hacking, all of that has happened without sinister motiviations. Add the high-stakes game of politics to the mix and the only rational response to these machines is mistrust.
This is the sort of counterpunch I was talking about Jay...
BOSTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) plans to accuse President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday of weakening the middle class, many of whom fear losing their jobs.
Bush and his allies have "turned to the tactics of fear and smear because they can't talk about jobs, health care, energy independence, and rebuilding our alliances -- the real issues that matter to the American people," Kerry will say in a speech prepared for delivery to Cooper Union in New York City.
"They have no plans, no positive vision and no understanding of an urgent and undeniable truth
Of course Ohio, Bush conveniently forgets to mention that he was in favor of 527 activity during the M/F Congressional actions.
He OPPOSED restrictions back then, before he got hoisted with his owne petar Here's what Bush said when he signed McCain-Feingold:
However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.
I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.
I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.
As Josh Marshall so accurately diagnosed, this is a moral coward the likes of which the US Presidency has never seen before - and we've had some REAL doozies
So, according to you, it's just fine for Kerry to personally criticize GWB's National Guard Service, but it's wrong for GWB (who hasn't personally responded in kind) to request that 527 organizations on both sides keep it clean?
Kerry clearly set the tone that Ohio objects to when he insisted that GWB personally force the SBVFT to stop running their anti-Kerry ads. Kerry's lying complaint to the FEC was both frivolous and indicative of the fundamental contempt that he holds the First Amendment in.
Re 7633: Sorry, Connie, we still have no evidence that George W. Bush showed up in Alabama.
And Bush clearly lied about his service in his autobiography when he said after completing flight training he continued to fly with his unit "for several years." (To the contrary, his flying privileges would be suspended 22 months later.)
Kerry's lying complaint to the FEC was both frivolous and indicative of the fundamental contempt that he holds the First Amendment in.
No, Kerry is putting his money where his mouth is...he deplored the MoveOn ad which linked in a picture of Hiltler and Bush and asked that they take it down.
The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues..
There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether he had the backbone for the job of president — and even when he did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?
David Gergen was right on ...this is going to cost Bush big time..and from the looks of things, by Terry McAuliffe buddy's intel is correct...Kerry has turned the swift boat to the attack
lmost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.
The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"
' Talking to Sports Illustrated, Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir expressed dismay at being used in Bush's re-election propaganda: "Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign. He can find another way to advertise for himself."
"My problems are not with the American people; they are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything," Coach Adnan Hamad added. "The American Army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"
Ahmed Manajid, whose cousin was an insurgent killed by US soldiers, went even further, saying he would "for sure" be fighting the occupation as a member of the Iraqi resistance were he not playing soccer
It's not my fault that you missed, ignored or forgot the incontrovertible evidence I presented here that he did, and furthermore, satisfactorily fulfilled his NG duties.
Ohio, in my book, you have no, absolutely no credibility whatsoever on this matter.
Concerned, you'd better alert the media with your proof that Bush served in Alabama...they can't seem to find the proof or they would have printed it long ago.
So, according to you, it's just fine for Kerry to personally criticize GWB's National Guard Service, but it's wrong for GWB (who hasn't personally responded in kind) to request that 527 organizations on both sides keep it clean?
He said that they should not be allowed to advertise at all. (Note Jexster's documentation of a flipflop here, just by the way.) It's Kerry who's saying keep it clean. Get the smears and the lies off the screen.
He asked MoveOn to pull the ad criticizing Bush's national guard service. I found that disingenuous, myself. MoveOn has made it clear that they are gonna do what they want. I said, way back when, that we'd see the 527s for the democrats be uncoordinated, while the republicans would be coordinated, and that has turned out to be the case.
Kerry can credibly say that he did pick up the phone, and they wouldn't listen. Bush can't.
Well then U 2 can tell me if I am right about Ohio....
Been there twice - once to Columbus when I was 5 Then passing through from DC to Chicago
So I don't know anything about Ohio...
But I did look at a political geographic analysis that divided the country into ten zones that have very similar voting characteristics
3 of those zones cut up Ohio
- Great Lakes (Demo) Cleveland, Akron etc
- Farm Belt (think Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana) runs south of the above through Columbus to Cincy
- Hick Country (appalachia like WVa in SE OHIO)
The farm belt zone is pretty much GOP country...the Great Lakes -Demo and Appalachia mostly GOP except when the economy or national defense is fucked up as now..
Comments please
jexter - Here is a link to the NYT map that analyzes the distribution of support across the state in the 2000 presidential election.
I would say that your analysis is supported by the graphic, though it is interesting to note that Dayton and Columbus both went for Gore, so there is an urban/rural interaction going on as well.
Judith, you've reminded me of my little sister. I'll go kick his ass if he won't listen to us, but there are gaps in my memory, so tell me, do we know for sure that Kuligin is a man?
"STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?
"CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
"STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.
"CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.
"STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?
"CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day. . . ."
Hahaha! "Little thing called 'objectivity'." Funny, but sad too.
"The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
"Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues . . .
"No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word.
"Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he were a man of principle, would say the same thing."
Actually the lineage of sleaze extends back some 16 years to Bush's Willie Horton smear and then to the Clinton character assassination campaign, begun within weeks of his inauguration...
Their days are numbered...
Isaiah 28
Then your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand; when the overwhelming scourge passes through you will be beaten down by it. 19As often as it passes through, it will take you; for morning by morning it will pass through, by day and by night; and it will be sheer terror to understand the message.
20For the bed is too short to stretch oneself on it, and the covering too narrow to wrap oneself in it.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite an embarrassing failure in their forecasting four years ago, political scientists and economists are again predicting the outcome of the presidential election, and most foresee a win for President George W. Bush.
"If this election follows historical patterns, it looks very likely that Bush is going to win," said Ray Fair, a Yale University economist whose model is built mainly around gross domestic product growth and predicts that Bush will take 58.5 percent of the vote.
Current polls show a very close race with many suggesting that Democratic nominee John Kerry may be slightly ahead.
Yes, the problem with the econ models is they're based on past elections focusing on repeatable indicators such as income growth, unemployment rates, inflation rates and some other factors such as incumbency. But econ models can't measure exogenous factors such as iraq war or impact of another terrorist attack.
And speaking of ads...MoveOn beginning today will be releasing a shit load of ads done by Hollywood hotshots startiing with a Matt Damon..(beat still my heart!)
that mccain ad is terrific...just the expression on w's face...he has no answer, he has no way of dealing with genuine human emotion. he has no empathy. he has no substance.
Y'all seen those Bush Flip Flop Attack Ads pissing on Kerry for calling for a reduction in intel budgets?
Well, did you know that after the 1993 WTC bombings, Bush CIA nominee PORTER GAUSS, proposed a 20% reduction, with most cuts coming in HUMAN INTEL....far deeper than anything Kerry proposed..
Maybe Bush oughta nominate Kerry for DCI!
Maybe the Moron of the US oughta visit the Lies Have Consequences Thread for confession
WASHINGTON - Most Americans oppose political parties obtaining church rosters, says a new poll that found bipartisan opposition to a step the Republicans have taken to identify voters.
The Republican National Committee (news - web sites) has sought church directories from Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics who support President Bush (news - web sites), a move it said would help them mobilize new voters. Republicans argued that the directories are public documents available to anyone, and the request violated no law. They have continued the practice.
But religious leaders expressed concern that the outreach could violate limits on politics in church.
Damn and I was gonna give a copy of my parish roster to Bush
NYTimes---The Bush campaign's top outside lawyer said he had given legal advice to the group of veterans attacking Senator John Kerry's Vietnam War record and antiwar activism in a book, television commercials and countless appearances on cable news programs.
The lawyer, Benjamin L. Ginsberg, said that the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, called him in July to ask for his help and that he agreed. He said he had yet to work out payment details with the group and that he might consider doing the work pro bono.
Mr. Ginsberg, the chief outside counsel to the Bush-Cheney re-election effort, agreed to an interview after several telephone calls to him and the campaign asking that he explain his role. He said he was helping the group comply with campaign finance rules and his work was entirely separate from his work for the president.
The Swift Boat Veterans for (sic) Truth and their book "Unfit for Command" did catch John Kerry in one inaccuracy about his Vietnam combat record.
As has been recently reported ad nauseum, Kerry has said over the years that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968. It was a dramatic night, related in Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty." in which Kerry and his crew experienced both enemy and friendly fire. However, Brinkley concludes that on this night Kerry was downriver from the Cambodia-Vietnam border, still in Vietnam. The Kerry campaign concurs, and states that Kerry's excursions into Cambodia occurred in January and/or February 1969 rather than in December 1968. A "gotcha" for the SBVF(s)T's, but no big deal.
However, "Unfit for Command" co-author John O'Neill insists that John Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia. There appear to be no records that can confirm or refute this particular claim. After all, our operations in Cambodia were still being officially denied as late as April 1970, when President Nixon announced our intent to invade Cambodia, so records are unlikely.
But it is historical fact that contrary to official denials, our soldiers were operating in Cambodia at the time Kerry was serving near the Cambodia-Vietnam border. So how does O'Neill know Kerry was never in Cambodia?
"The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi. There were gunboats stationed right up there to stop people from coming. And our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek."
"The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.
"O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.
"O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
"NIXON: In a swift boat?
"O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
"JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. . ."
Oops.
I hope you can buy fireproof pants in Cambodia, Mr. O'Neill.
And you thought his first term was a nightmare--What Bush has planned for America if he wins.And you thought his first term was a nightmare--What Bush has planned for America if he wins. Aug. 25, 2004 President Bush's plans for a second term threaten a devastating series of far-reaching challenges to the viability of the Democratic Party itself. Under Bush's slogan of an "ownership society," the Republicans intend a long-term effort, using changes in Medicare, Social Security and taxes to pit better-off and worse-off Democrats against each other, offering all-but-irresistible incentives for some to desert the others -- and any progressive national coalition. Congressional Democrats reeling from the impact of the last four years of Republican government in the White House and Congress (apart from the brief Democratic-controlled Senate in part of 2001-02) will find no respite in the platform's subtext about the party-splitting wedges ahead. A second-term Bush agenda will constantly impale Democrats on the dilemma of abandoning their poorer, sicker, older and minority groups, or seeing their better-off, healthier and younger members lured off to the other party. If it sounds like a political nightmare for the Democrats, that's because that's what it is planned to be.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - John Kerry won the endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists on Wednesday as he attacked President Bush for policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.
The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation."
They cited "poorly designed" tax cuts that instead of creating jobs have turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits, a "fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation."
The endorsement, in the form of an open letter American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.
First recite the woes that Bush's period in power have visited on the US economy, then flash a picture of Kerry (with furrowed brow) with a voiceover that 10 Nobel Prizewinners in Economics all agree that it is crucial to vote him in.
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - John Kerry (news - web sites) won the endorsement of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists on Wednesday as he attacked President Bush (news - web sites) for policies that he said have led to the creation of only low-paying jobs.
The Democratic presidential nominee released a letter from the economists saying the Bush administration had "embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation."
They cited "poorly designed" tax cuts that instead of creating jobs have turned budget surpluses into enormous budget deficits, a "fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation."
The endorsement, in the form of an open letter American voters, was signed by George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.
Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said, referring to his daughter, Mary. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone."
I guess it is safe for you to come out of the closet now!
WASHINGTON — The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics. The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.
The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.
As a senior strategist for John Kerry, I have prepared this update for the campaign's most active supporters as we enter the crucial weeks ahead.
It's clear that your support has put this campaign in such a strong position as we enter a critical period. Your hard work, activism, and contributions have allowed our campaign to match the Bush campaign on the airwaves and on the ground. I can report that all you've done is now paying off when it counts the most.
By any standard, President Bush heads into his convention in a very weak position. His current position stems from the fact that voters judge the incumbent on his performance and on the state of the nation. By this measure, the president is in grave difficulty. To be counted a success, the Republican convention must fundamentally alter public attitudes on President Bush's stewardship of the country.
There are some basic benchmarks by which an incumbent's success can be measured as the campaign heads into the fall:
* The average winning incumbent has had a job approval rating of 60%.
Indeed, every incumbent who has won reelection has had his job approval in the mid-50's or higher at this point. In recent polling, Bush's average approval rating has been 48%. President Bush must emerge from his convention having dramatically altered public perception of his performance in office.
* In recent years, when incumbents have gone on to victory, 52% of voters, on average, said the country was on the right track. Now, just 37% think things are moving in the right direction. Thus, President Bush must convince the electorate that the nation is in much better shape than voters now believe to be the case.
Every incumbent who has gone on to be reelected has had a double-digit lead at this point.
* Following their conventions, the average elected incumbent has held a 16-point lead, while winning incumbents have led by an average of 27 points. Bush will need a very substantial bounce to reach the mark set by his successful predecessors.
* Incumbents have enjoyed an average bounce in the vote margin of 8 points.
* On average, incumbents' share of the two-party vote has declined by 4 points between their convention and Election Day.
President Bush has the opportunity to achieve an average, or even greater, bounce from his convention. Typically, elected incumbents go into their conventions with a 9-point lead, while incumbents who have gone on to win enter their conventions with a 21-point lead. Most current polls show the race quite close. This gives the president substantial room to bounce.
By contrast, Senator Kerry entered his convention in a far stronger position than the average challenger. The average challenger goes into his convention 16 points behind, while Senator Kerry entered his convention with a 1-2 point lead. This gave Senator Kerry much less room to bounce.
However, as the data above makes clear, average is not enough for President Bush. Incumbents who went on to win reelection had an average lead of 27 points after their convention. Indeed, the average elected incumbent -- winners and losers -- had a lead of 16 points after their conventions.
An average bounce would still leave Bush well below the historical mark set by other incumbents, particularly those who went on to victory.
Perhaps most important, the average elected incumbent experienced a 4-point drop in his share of the two-party vote from the post-convention polling to Election Day. Thus, to beat the odds, President Bush will need to be garnering 55% of the two-party vote after his convention. Anything less than that and the president will remain in grave political danger.
In what way? It's clear that they're lying. I guess this is a stratagery for the Bushies--smear Kerry's Vietnam service, and then accuse Kerry of focusing on that service instead of the issues. But it seems shortsighted, and desperate to me. They've got nothing else to run on?
Jay isn't showing obsession; BushCo is. They seem obsessively drawn to trashing the reputations of war heros. It's like they can't help themselves...they see one running for office and they have to slander him in some way. They've done it to McCain, Kerry, and to Cleland...they even did it to Bob Kerrey.
That's obsession and a very unseemly one considering how they all sat out the very war those men served in with honor. It might make a good case study for some psych class.
If some Democartic group were doing this to Republican candidates, you'd be bleating about it like crazy. Of course, most of the Republicans weren't in any wars so you have no worries there.
"The fog of war lingers - and often thickens - as the decades go by. A so-called truth squad that has been attacking John Kerry's Vietnam War record has done nothing to clear the air. . . .
"In the critics' version of events of late 1968 and early 1969, Kerry wasn't a war hero and subsequently lied about his gallantry. If Kerry's short but hazardous duty as a swift-boat commander is to be defamed, the burden of proof is on the attackers to make a case that stands up to scrutiny. . .
"The criticism comes from some swift-boat veterans who served at the same time as Kerry. Dueling versions have emerged; one accuses Kerry of lying to obtain his five medals and even cowardice during duty, while others say Kerry acted honorably and bravely.
"After many interviews and a review of archives, The Washington Post says that "both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place."
"The medical reports and other records available for public inspection are spare on details regarding Kerry's actions and the severity of his injuries. In the interest of blowing away the fog, Kerry should release all pertinent records regarding his service in Vietnam. . . ."
This editorial is a putrid example of what The Daily Show was satirizing the other night (see my Message # 7669: "I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity'.") The anti-Kerry veterans' claims about Kerry's combat record are obvious lies (at best, grossly mistaken recollections), refuted by contemporaneous records that have been re-confirmed by newly discovered eyewitnesses. But the Dispatch throws up its hands and says "We don't know WHO to believe. Maybe if John Kerry were more forthcoming . . ." This makes me sick.
The Bush campaign has been extremely adroit in exploiting this "balance" in the media. Their current line, of making this a free speech issue, is typical. Of course those guys have the rights to buy time and say what they think. That's not the point. The point is that they're lying, blatantly, obviously and for no other reason than to smear Kerry's character. They're even lying about their motivation. They aren't outraged, morally offended vets who just HAD to speak out. They're Bush operatives, funded by big money from longstanding Bush supporters attacking one of the central strengths of Kerry's candidacy--his moral courage, while drawing attention away from the fundamental weakness of Bush's candidacy--his moral cowardice.
"For 35 years, Richard McCann largely kept his experiences as a swift boat commander in Vietnam to himself. . . .
But McCann, 60, recently broke his self-imposed silence in a very public way to respond to charges by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth . . .
McCann said Wednesday that he was shocked by the accusations. He couldn't believe the group was talking about the same man he served with in Vietnam in 1969 . . .
McCann, retired chief executive of the Meridia Health System . . . said the decision to publicly air his disagreement with the group was painful but necessary.
"When you have a scenario that is blatantly untrue and I'm in a unique position to say I was there, I feel it's my responsibility to step forward," McCann said.
. . . "I said it in 1969 and I'll say it again today: There is no one that I would rather have guarding my back in a war zone than John Kerry." . . .
"What these people are doing is a disservice and discredit to all the people who served," McCann said of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "They're calling into question all the medals that were issued, if they're saying John Kerry was able to manipulate the system. And that is a disgrace."
McCann said he hasn't talked to Kerry since a reunion of Swift boat commanders 10 years ago, and describes himself as an independent who previously voted for George Bush, thinking Bush would be "more moderate than he turned out to be."
He said one reason he's voting for Kerry this year is because "I'd like to see this country led by wisdom, rather than arrogance."
concerned, the "you" in "you weren't" above refers to bush, not to the swifties....as in "Kerry was in vietnam, bush wasn't. End of story."
and I'm most disappointed in your response about e-voting. Instead of opening what could be an interesting discussion about what the election could mean to both sides if there's no confidence in the result...if there's a close call as in the last one with no way to recount, or if evidence surfaces that the machines have been tampered with. Instead, you ignore the main point and strain to blame the lefties.
This has been part of the plan all along...a quote from last dec in the financial times by a bushie was something to the regard that, by the time we're through with him, no one will even know what side kerry fought on.
Got an e-mail this morning from that Greg Palast site listing a lot of stuff the RNC is telling delegates the "lefties" are going to do during the convention...send out hookers with AIDS to infect the convention-goers (guess they know their audience); dress as Republicns and give faulty directions to bewildered attendees causing them to become hopelessly lost; release diseased mice into the hotels and convention site....the things Palast was most upset about was the dressing like Republicans.
What amazes me about this, if it is true that the RNC is alerting to this (and he linked to the RNC site but I didn't bother to look) is that they thought up this sort of garbage in the first place. It is really telling that some RNC operatives had this sort of swill in their minds...speaks rather highly of them, huh?
Out of touch with lives of typical americans, just like the last bush administration: (from today's wapo) In a lighter moment, the Cheney tour stopped at a farm stand owned by Ray Levan, 65, in the small town of Catawissa. Cheney and his wife went to buy fruit and vegetables, while daughters Mary and Elizabeth went with the Cheney grandchildren to watch cows being fed.
The Cheneys purchased nine apples, five large tomatoes, three green peppers and a dozen ears of corn. Cheney pulled a $10 bill from his pocket and gave it to Levan. Asked by a reporter whether the $10 covered the cost of the produce, Levan indicated that it did not. But he said it was an "honor" to sell the fruits and vegetables to the vice president, even if at a discount.
Aha! That's what's meant by a compassionate conservative...poor farmers show their compassion for conservative leaders by giving them discounts on produce!!!!
No wonder they'd rather spend their time trashing kerry's vietnam record....beats trying to defend their own record: From today's wapo
The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.
Fifty of the country's leading anarchists are expected to be in the city for the Republican National Convention, and a handful of them are hard-core extremists with histories of violent and disruptive tactics, according to police intelligence sources.
Police said each of the 50 have up to 50 followers who are willing to be arrested during disturbances at the convention. This group, police say, is expected to engage for the most part in civil disobedience, including sit-ins in front of delegates' buses.
Jonathan Chait makes a compelling and fearful case that the Bush Administration's tactics of disinformation, manipulation, and dishonesty present a fundamental threat to democracy.
The prospect of his re-election is a gruesome one to contemplate for if these tactics begun with Poppy, profliferated during the Clinton years, and honed fine during the Bush Regime's first term prove sucessful now, then certainly, US democracy will have become an Orwellian Sewer indeed.
What politico in her right mind would not ape success????
In that vein...a look at a possible future from the Editors of the New Republic...
Just how dishonest must a smear campaign be for American journalists to say so plainly or, better yet, to ignore altogether? That's the only real question still unanswered in the controversy sparked by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth over John Kerry's service in Vietnam--although even to use the word "controversy" affords the issue's protagonists too much dignity
Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest.
There was a time when he would have refused. I know. I was there.
CACCIOPPI IS THE SURPRISE CANDIDATE OF THE 3RD DISTRICT RACE
For many years, incumbent U.S. Representative Billy Tauzin was unbeatable in the 3rd Congressional District. He won 12 consecutive terms, averaging 90% of the vote. Tauzin switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, but it did not impact his popularity. Yet, after 24 years in Congress, Billy Tauzin will be retiring from Congress at the end of this term...
In contrast to the GOP conflict, the Democrats in the race have avoided such in-party fighting. Among the Democrats, the candidate that has been most remarkable so far is Charmaine Caccioppi. Last week, Caccioppi received the coveted endorsement from the Alliance for Good Government, which is the political equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. The Alliance is a bi-partisan organization with a great reputation among voters. The members of the Alliance are activists who hold forums and objectively analyze the candidates running for office. The group tends to lean toward Republican candidates, so Caccioppi’s endorsement is even more impressive. In this campaign, Caccioppi has also picked up endorsements from a variety of elected officials, including Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee.
Caccioppi is well qualified for Congress and has an interesting background. She worked with former United States Senator J. Bennett Johnston for many years in Washington D.C. and in recent years worked with Metrovision to promote economic development in the New Orleans region. She is also running an aggressive campaign and is the first candidate in the race to air television commercials...
As the only female in the race, Caccioppi has an advantage because the majority of the district’s voters are women. Such an edge is not reflected in the polls, which show her well behind Tauzin III; however, it is still very early in the race. Tauzin’s big lead is based on his father’s name recognition, which helps in a district that has demographics that are not tailor made for the GOP ...GOP officials hope that the endorsement will help the younger Tauzin avoid having to face a Democrat in a December run-off, when President Bush will not be on the ballot. A run-off election could be a problem for Tauzin or any Republican candidate in the 3rd district, especially if the Democratic opponent is Charmaine Caccioppi
what remains a mystery to me is why some stories have legs and others don't. there's probably as much truth to the swift boat thing as there was to the kerry/intern rumor launched a few months back...yet mysteriously that one evaporated, but this one keeps on going and going and going. Who/how are these strings pulled? why is it bush's decades-long drunk was left to lie as he requested as it was "so far in the past", yet kerry's vietnam record is treated as fresh meat?
There's way too much coordination for it to be independent choices of news editors...
"Robert E. Lambert doesn’t plan to vote for John Kerry.
"But the Eagle Point man challenges claims by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that there was no enemy fire aimed at the five swift boats, including the one commanded by Kerry, on March 13, 1969 on the Bay Hap River in the southern tip of what was then South Vietnam.
"Lambert, now 64, was a crew member on swift boat PCF-51 that day. The boat was commanded by Navy Lt. Larry Thurlow, a now-retired officer who questions why Kerry was awarded a Bronze star for bravery and a third Purple Heart for the March 13 incident.
"'He and another officer now say we weren’t under fire at that time,'" Lambert said Wednesday afternoon. 'Well, I sure was under the impression we were.'
"Lambert’s Bronze Star medal citation for the incident praises his courage under fire . . ."
Of course, if having personal ties to an issue is what it takes to get the Vice President in touch with his softer side, we should probably all be rooting for Cheney to discover that, in addition to having a gay daughter, he also has a couple of black grandkids, an illegal immigrant cousin, an aunt with a drug habit, a transsexual brother, a sister who just got laid off from a textile mill in North Carolina, and a long-lost son who's been getting his butt shot at in Najaf.
With enough rabble-rousers, poor folk, and minorities in the family, the Vice President might actually be forced to become a tolerant, compassionate kind of guy. Barring that, we can only hope that enough swing-voters see through Dick's freedom-for-everyone b.s. to send the dark-hearted, autocratic jerk back to Wyoming come November.
(and he linked to the RNC site but I didn't bother to look) is that they thought up this sort of garbage in the first place.
This reminds me--I was looking at the RNC site the other day and they were going on about some video that's evidently their response to Farenheit 9/11 that they say has had more viewers than Moore's movie (obviously it's being handed out free by the millions, and I figure that's how they're counting viewership, but I didn't read the gory details.
I don't usually link to stuff in other forums but there's no link to the article and it is way too long to post here; not sure everyone wants to read it but here it is:
In Iowa today, a review board consisting of the Attorney General, Secretary of State and State Auditor (including two registered Democrats) decided to place the names of independent candidates Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo on the state ballot.
Nader submitted more than twice the number of required signatures, but Democratic objectors still tried to keep him off the ballot, raising technical legal issues and making erroneous claims and objections with no basis in the law.
"Throughout the country the Democratic Party is taking unprecedented steps to prevent voters from having the choice of a serious anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, pro-health care for all, and pro-living wage candidate on the ballot. They do not want to compete with candidates who stand against the two corporate parties and advocate for the necessities of the American people,” said Theresa Amato, campaign manager for the Nader/Camejo Campaign.
“We hope the Iowa decision sends a message to the orchestrated assault against our state nominating petitions. We will stand up against their anti-democratic behavior and campaign for the rights of the American public to have more voices and choices on the ballot in November."
The Bush campaign has been extremely adroit in exploiting this "balance" in the media. Their current line, of making this a free speech issue, is typical. Of course those guys have the rights to buy time and say what they think. That's not the point. The point is that they're lying, blatantly, obviously and for no other reason than to smear Kerry's character. They're even lying about their motivation. They aren't outraged, morally offended vets who just HAD to speak out. They're Bush operatives, funded by big money from longstanding Bush supporters attacking one of the central strengths of Kerry's candidacy--his moral courage, while drawing attention away from the fundamental weakness of Bush's candidacy--his moral cowardice. This is utter nonsense. There is not one word of what you say that can be backed up. Of course these men favor Bush because they would have anyone but Kerry just as you would have anyone but Bush. Instead of just mouthing off, give some proof that they are Bush operatives. The beef with Kerry did not start in 2004. It was one thing to be against the war and another to be Jane Fonda. I marched against the war in 1967, when most Americans favored the war. Kerry came back expecting to be hailed a great hero and found an America dead set against the war. Only the far left radicals protested the war before Nixon was elected. Then the whole Democrat Party joined in, as if it was Nixon's war. Kerry simply jumped on the bandwagon in an attemt to win the hearts and minds of his fellow Democrats. I will be happy to talk specific issues with you, but if the above is the best you can do, get a life.
I listened today to the felloow who subed for Rush. He interviewed a vet who served on Kerry's boat for 2 and 1/2 months. He was very convincing. He claimed that one story Kerry told about shooting a father and son was a total lie, because he was the one who did so. Kerry was in the radar room and failed to see the boat comming up the river, which was the cause of the whole mess. Kerry wrote it up as if it were a total victory. this fellow claimed Kerry was the worst officer he had ever served with.
Of course, you'r stuck with the guy and I guess you must rise to his defence no matter what. Talk about a true believer!
Could any of you tell me what medals Dole or Bush 1 got in WWII. You know, I just can't remember them braging about there war deeds. Nor do I remember many of the heros of WWII mouthing off about what they did in the war. But we sure do know, ad nauseum, about Kerry's 4 months and 12 days in Vietnam. Well, I guess if no one else will blow your horn, you better start tooting.
Would someone please give me the name of one person in the Bush group who has denegrated Kerry's war record? Is what he said after he came back from Viet Nam fair game to be discussed, or is that off limits? It seems when liberals were questioned about Moore's movie, all the could talk about was not the acuracy of his movie but his right to free speech. I thought the answer to bad speech was more speech. Liberals don't seem to think so, it seems.
Does anyone know how many days or hours that Robert Dole served in actual combat before he got his "million dollar wound" as they called it in those days?
More grist for campaigns: Poverty in America rises
Last year, more Americans lived in poverty, more children were poor, and more people lacked health insurance than in 2002.
That message, reported by the US Census Bureau yesterday, was expected, but the increases confirm a troubling trend for the economy and a challenge for the incumbent president in an election year.
As an outsider, watching that "Kerry is a lying coward" TV ad really brought home how dirty american politics can get.
It looks like it will cause serious damage to his campaign, if the reception he got at the recent veteran’s jamboree was anything to go by. Still, whatever about what happened on the boat, or how he got his medal or whatever, I think he went and did his duty as best he could, and then spoke his mind when he got home.
He comes out better than Bush in this respect, but that is just my opinion.
all the anecdotal evidence suggests that Democrats and their allies in the new 527s are significantly outgunning the GOP in GOTV preparations.
In a dead-even election, of course, every vote matters. But the odds that Bush is going to prevail by ignoring undecided voters and winning the turnout wars fall somewhere on the scale that leads from slim to none. If the President's wizards really believe the crap they're saying on the subject, it's a sure sign of a campaign in deep denial, and deep trouble.
He says we have turned the corner with the economy. He's right but the corner we've turned is toward a much worse one. Poverty increased by 1.3 million to 35.8 million and the number of people without health insurance swelled by 1.4 million to nearly 45 million.
Those aren't encouraging numbers. An increase of over one million in both catagories is not turning the corner to a robust economy.
You're on message, but do you actually believe any of this?
We've had two resignations from the Bush campaign. The guys behind this were the same guys behind the attacks on McCain. The free speech angle comes not from the democrats, but from the Bushies. NOBODY has said that the Swiftees don't have the right to run these ads. What they have said is that it is deplorable to run ads that are lies, and that dishonor all recipients of awards of valor in Vietnam.
Right on. This point has been made on a couple of blogs. It takes real patriotism and moral courage to volunteer for a war, to volunteer for a risky role in that war, and then come back and say that the war is wrong.
A blogger (I can't remember which) pointed out that the republican attack Kerry for speaking out against the war. The act of speaking out is seen as bad in and of itself. They don't, on the other hand, defend the war. They don't say Kerry position was wrong, that the war was good for America or for Vietnam. They attack him for delivering bad news. You're an engineer. You know that we have to hear bad news; otherwise we're going to hear worse later on.
That is the crux of it. Bush wants the 527s handcuffed because they highlight what his administration has done. Unlike the Swifties, they deal in facts, rather than fiction.
AlD: give us examples of 527s that have run advertisements that purvey actual lies about the Bush administration's policies.
And of course the difference between WWII and Vietnam is that the latter was a war of choice. If you were of a certain age and socioeconomic class, you didn't have to go. Our Vice President had other priorities. Our current President's dad/or his friends pulled strings to get him into the Air National Guard. Kerry could have done the same, but he chose not to.
Jay isn't showing obsession; BushCo is. They seem obsessively drawn to trashing the reputations of war heros.
Sorry. I must reject this premise. I don't recall GWB or any member of his administration ever criticizing Kerry's war record, although Kerry has personally repeatedly attacked GWB's NG service.
Oh, and the coordination with the party doesn't matter either, right?
But city permits obtained by The New York Times listed the Alachua County Republican Party Executive Committee as one of four sponsors for the rally, and one of the checks to pay for the permit was written by a member of the party's executive committee. Additional permits for the rally were taken out by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and two additional anti-Kerry veterans groups, all of which gave their address as the local Republican party headquarters and their contact as a member of the party's executive committee.
But it doesn't really matter. It looks like this is gonna be net positive for Kerry. The lies are too overwrought and too public. Unlike the McCain fathering a black child lies, which were push polled, or the Cleland equivalent to Osama, which were very late in the campaign, they're being run up the flagpole too early. My guess is that the plan was to follow up with Hanoi Jane ads, but it's gonna be hard to do now.
Did you read the piece based on an interview in today's NYTimes? The man is an idiot.
And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam and earning his medals and risking his life in the most volatile and ugly and pointless and lethal and hideous war in American history unless you count Iraq, which you really really should, Dubya was "serving" in the Air National Guard, which we all know translates to mean "hangin' down in Tijuana slamming tequila shooters and annoying the waitresses, all while praising Jesus that he had a daddy who could keep him away from scary complicated violent stuff."
Whoa. Let me take that back. That was totally out of line and inappropriate and disrespectful of our fine incoherent president, and I have absolutely no proof that Dubya was such an embarrassment, such an incompetent AWOL serviceman. Very sorry.
Did you read the piece based on an interview in today's NYTimes? The man is an idiot.
"I mean, if you've ever been a governor of a state, you understand the vast potential of broadband technology, you understand how hard it is to make sure that physics, for example, is taught in every classroom in the state. It's difficult to do. It's, like, cost-prohibitive."—Washington, D.C., June 24, 2004
Harry Truman's old saying has never been more true: If you want to live like a Republican, you should vote for the Democrats.President William Jefferson Clinton, Democratic National Convention 2000
In Message # 7760, I linked to an interview with Swift boat veteran (the non-lying kind, i.e. a REAL Swift boat veteran for truth) Robert Lambert. Lambert confirmed that he, John Kerry, Larry Thurlow and others were indeed under enemy fire (contrary to the lying Thurlow) the day all earned Bronze Stars.
"A previously undisclosed Navy record obtained by NEWSWEEK supports John Kerry’s claim that he was under fire when he rescued a U.S. Green Beret who had pitched overboard from Kerry’s 50-foot Swift Boat during a short but intense engagement in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in March 1969.. . .
"Lambert’s surviving military records do not include the initial recommendation for this medal, so there is no way to know who filled the required role of witness to vouch for Lambert’s actions. But the citation contains such detail about the actions of both Thurlow and Lambert—actions that Kerry cannot have known since his launch was on the far side of the river—that it seems implausible Kerry could have written the recommendation. . . ."
The best part:
"A spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said Wednesday that Thurlow was traveling and out of contact."
The privileged classes no longer feel an obligation to put their lives - or their children's lives - on the line in defense of the nation. The very least they could do is insist that those who have put themselves in harm's way be treated with respect.
jay We've had two resignations from the Bush campaign. The guys behind this were the same guys behind the attacks on McCain. The free speech angle comes not from the democrats, but from the Bushies. We've had two resignations from the Bush campaign. The guys behind this were the same guys behind the attacks on McCain. The free speech angle comes not from the democrats, but from the Bushies. NOBODY has said that the Swiftees don't have the right to run these ads. What they have said is that it is deplorable to run ads that are lies, and that dishonor all recipients of awards of valor in Vietnam. NOBODY has said these guys don't have the right to run these ads. What they have said is that it is deplorable to run ads that are lies, and that dishonor all recipients of awards of valor in Vietnam.
You are far too bright a guy to print such drivil. First, to say NOBODY has said these guys don't have a right to run these ads. Not only have they said the very thing, but they have asked the publisher of the book to withdraw it from print and have asked for Book Stores not to carry it. Connyers has asked Ashcroft to procecute the Swiftboat signers.
As to resignation of Ginsberg, any fair minded person, and you are certainly that, knows he had no good reason to do so, for he had done nothing wrong.
If you have proof of a direct connection to the Bush group, go to Ashcroft with it, and he could do nothing less than prosecute as it is a violation of law. Dems insist that Bush stop the ad, knowing full well he does not have the power to do so, and if he did, they could then demand he be prosecuted
Bush has said he is against all the 527 ads. I'm not, because I really do believe in free speech, and if the Republicans or Democrats want to tell lies about their opponant, so what.
As to the money people behind any of these anti-Kerry ads being big doners to Bush, grow up, jay. Do you wxpect them to be Kerry supporters. Is Soros a big doner to left wing groups? I hear that 87% of 527 money is spent on anti-Bush ads. Certainly Moore's movie was a political move to harm Bush and aid Kerry. The question in any of this is what is being said; does it have creditability or not. As to what happened in Viet Nam, I certainly can not come to a conclusion either way. But as to Kerry's behavior when he came back, I do have an opinion of Kerry, and it is not favorable. If you appove or what he told Congress and all he said about American fighters in Viet Nam, so be it.
Kerry is and always has been a Politician, I imagine. I wonder if he went to Viet Nam thinking it would eventually help him politically. But in 1971 America had turned against the war, starting 1n 1969 when Nixon became President. It would have been impossible for a Democrat to run praising the War in Viet Nam. The only option for a Democract was anti-war. Now things have changed, and it seems that Democrats want to make heroes out of Viet Nam Vets. Believe me, jay, they were not thought of as heroes by the left in the '70's. And cops were pigs.
That's right Al..he volunteered to go to Vietnam, volunteered for the most hazardous duty there, planning to win a bronze star and a silver star, get three Purple Hearts so he wouldn't be around long enough to get fragged by one of his enlisted men and all of it so he could run against George W. Bush, a drunk and a deserter
He's not only a politician..he's a damn good one too!
Telling lies about someone, when I know or believe it is lies, bothers me not at all. It does say something about the person speaking, however.
A long time ago when you were raving and ranting about Bush being a liar, I asked you to be specific. I don't remember you even bothering to respond, but as always happens on the Mote, someong jumped to your defense, as I remember it was jay, but don't hold me to that as in my fading years, my memory is not what it once was, except for golf. At any rate, one of the lies mentioned was that Bush had said he would insist on a vote of the Security Council on a Resolution supporting war. He did not do so, so I had to concede, that smackes of a lie. I have been quilty of that kind of lie all too often whith my children. I have made promises I really meant but did not fullfill. Perhaps you, and maybe even jay, have done the same. I guess I could also be called a liar because I said on the Mote that WoW once said that 9/11 was a great victory for UBL. But I may go to my grave insisting I told what I believed to be the truth. I think I can discuss matters with jay, but not serious matters with you. I love talking to you about frivolous matters, however.
The problem is just a the young Peter Beinart put it, conservatives do not have the guts to debate whether the war was moral.
Beinart neglected to mention the recently declassified Johnson tape in 1965 when he said that the US could not win but he could not politically afford to withdraw.
I call what Kerry did courage. I call what George Bush did at the time cowardice.
The same with Dick Cheney - a big war supporter who used three tricks to dodge putting his fat ass where his mouth was.
When I lived through all the war protests in the '60 and early '70's, I don't remember Vets being thought of as heroes, but as dirty baby killers, just like Kerry and Jane said, at least that was the opinion of the left wing. jexster, you can link all kinds of things, but you can't alter what really happened. You would support anybody to beat Bush, but your a goofball anyway. I nice one, pretty smart, but a goofball nonetheless.
Henry M. Jackson Sam Nunn and my boss J Bennett Johnston just to name 3 Are you under the impression these man were nominated for President by the Democrat Party? My god, my memory really has failed me. Two of them would have gotten my vote; they would not have gotten yours, I don't suppose.
You see, Judith dar, that's the rub. Some of the Vets who served in Viet Nam don't remember being monsters and resnt Kerry calling them that. I would imagine you feel the same about the present military.
What is the TRUTH: that Kerry faught in Cambodia against the law, or that U.S. patrol boats were near the Cambodia boarder to make sure that did not happen. or do you really give a shit.
Yes, I really give a shit, Al, and I am very much up on what is going on in this campaign.
The fact is, Kerry did not tar all soldiers with the brush of evil...he was reporting on what he and others had seen and what others had testified to. So don't start patting me on the head and asking if I give a shit or not.
Have you read the testimony of the Winter Soldiers? I have.
And your idea about Kerry going to Viet Nam hoping it would look good on his political resumé is just what the talking points memo from the RNC is asking all you good little parrots to repeat. Good job, Al!
Wonkers, Al doesn't care nor believe what Kerry says. "The hate is too strong" "He has a preconceived hatred for Kerry" "He wouldn't believe anything good about Kerry"...substitute Bush for Kerry and she for he and it coud Al talking about me, right?
Joining the Marines or Navy and going off to war was a tradition among the scions of east coast aristocrats of Kennedys and Kerry's vintage and earlier. It made more sense for World War II than in the case of our later adventures.
If Al D seriously believes that My Lai was an isolated incident, then I am sure he also believes that Abu Ghraib was the work of a few misguided enlisted personnel.
I don't know what fantasies Vietnam veterans have come up with to try and salvage something constructive out of their experience, but I have yet to hear a serving officer who began his service in Vietnam deny that atrocities took place or that the way the US conducted operations (free fire zones, agent orange, etc.) was profligate with noncombatant lives. How many hundreds of thousands of noncombatant Vietnamese died?
One notices, for example, that the military no longer uses body counts, emphasises precision to minimize collateral damage, and--until recently--insisted on the highest possible standards for training and practice in dealing with noncombatants and POWs. The military clearly knew what they had done in Vietnam, even if Al D is in denial about it.
It's kind of funny just how revolted the mass of New Yorkers are about the Republican convention in this city, I mean virtually everyone you talk to is absolutely scandalized that the place is going to be used as a backdrop for Dubya's campaign.
I think the calculation made by the Republicans is correct, though. They will get some "bounce" out of being near Ground Zero, and Giuliani will never be far off-camera. Instead of looking like a reactionary bunch of extremist right-wingers, they will instead look cosmpolotan and feign being mainstream.
Plus, if some of the many many sets of protests spill out of the holding pens and actually get on the radar - the Republicans will be able to taint the other side as wild-eyed extremists.
Anyway, I just watched a bit of Crossfire after a very long time.
Carville and the maturing NY Congressman Anthony Wiener.
Man, both those guys were just spitting with outrage and revulsion for the Republicans. Sympathetic as I am, I just wonder how sustainable this level of vituperation is and how healthy it is for an electorate to be not just totally divided but actually in open war with the other side.
Carville, never bashful atthe best of times, literally kept leaning over two inches from Novak's ugly mug and shouting epithets in a physically threatening manner. And Wiener wasn't exactly parliamentary either, I swear if someone talked to me in that manner there would be some ass-kicking following right up.
The same stuff, of course, goes on every day on the Fox News channel with just waves and waves of pure hate beamed out at "liberals" and " traitors" and the Dems. I've actually taken to watching Hannity quite often while idly channel-surfing, because I like to picture him exploding in a cloud of brimstone when Kerry wins. I swear, I will watch every show of his for a year if/when that happens, just because I want to see him squirm.
My Lai was hardly an isolated incident. We could have another MegaThread on such atrocities, but that wasn't what Kerry was principally talking about. All wars have attrocities - another good reason why a chicken shit drunk shouldn't be President of the US..
Free fire zones AL..
Those were massive death authorized. That's primarily what Kerry was testifying to.
If Al had checked factcheck.org instead of making shit up he'd know or recall.
Headline Republicans Urge Bush to Divert Attention from IraQ and Vietnam Record
Door Gunner : Anyone who runs is V.C. Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined V.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Private Joker : How can you shoot women and children? Door Gunner : Easy... you don't lead 'em so much. [laughs] Door Gunner : Ain't war hell?
A taped confession and plea for forgiveness from Ben Barnes,the guy who got the Little Drunk Drug Addict into the Texas Air National Guard, is available in the confessional
Bob Herbert'a NYTime's column "Where is the shame?" has handy capsules of four prominent Chicken-Hawks...
Mr. Bush himself, the nation's commander in chief and the biggest hawk of all. He revels in the accouterments of combat. The story was somewhat different when he was 22 years old and eligible for combat himself. He managed to get into the cushy confines of the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 - a year in which more than a half-million American troops were in the war zone and more than 14,000 were killed.
The story gets murky after that. We know the future president breezed off at some point to work on a political campaign in Alabama, skipped a required flight physical in 1972 and was suspended from flying. He supported the war in Vietnam but was never in any danger of being sent there.
Vice President Dick Cheney, another fierce administration hawk. Mr. Cheney asked for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the draft. He told senators at a confirmation hearing in 1989, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Many draft-age Americans had similar priorities - getting an education, getting married and starting a family.
Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is reported to have said, "I would have served, if asked." But with the war raging in Vietnam, he received six student deferments and an "occupational deferment" based on the essential nature of a civilian job at Southwest Missouri State University - teaching business law to undergraduates.
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk on Iraq. He was not fanatical about Vietnam and escaped the draft with student deferments.
Did you Liberals have any problem with Clinton's avoidance of serving in any capacity during the Viet Nam, but not having any problem bombing Serbia, or Iraq for that matter?,P. He admits his remarks were a bit over the top. That's a bit like saying Hitler's remarks about Jews was a bit over the top.
If Kerry saw atrocities commited in Nam, as an officer he should have reported it, and if he committed atrocities, he should be tried for war crimes. I have no hate for Kerry, that is silly nonsense, and I don't believe you could find one remark of mine that indicates hate. I don't see this issue all one way, as most of you do, but I think it is proper to discuss the possibility of the remarks about Kerry being valid. Purple Heart Medals were not the kind of medal difficult to obtain, it is not the Congressional Medal of Honor. Three of then could get one sent back home if the request were made. Kerry did so.
Are there no Viet Nam Vets on the Mote that can speak up about their time in Nam? Of course there were atrocities, perhaps one was committed by Bob Kerry (sp). But I do not believe that the vast majority of servicemen raped and pillaged like Gengis Kahn, as Kerry claimed. You all seem to think he is talking gospel.
By the way, how many civilians died in the Dresdan bombings, and why was Dresdan bombed?
NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.
Is this Admiral a Bush operative and a liar, or is he simply stating the truth. You are all interested in truth, aren't you?
Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."
Schachte, a lieutenant, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember.
Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968.
I was going to print the article, since I don't do links, except golf links. Read it if you are really interested in information in order to get to truth. If you have things you want me to read of the same caliber in defense of Kerry, I will certainly read them.
As to the money people behind any of these anti-Kerry ads being big doners to Bush, grow up, jay. Do you wxpect them to be Kerry supporters. Is Soros a big doner to left wing groups? I hear that 87% of 527 money is spent on anti-Bush ads.
Al, Soros didn't fund Kerry's senate campaigns. Soros didn't back Edwards. His 527 is anti Bush. The 527s lying about Kerry are funded by long-standing Bush supporters. Wes Boyd doesn't care about Kerry. He's not a long-standing supporter of any democrat. The Swiftees are long time dirty operatives for the Bushes.
If you claim is that they Bushies' have kept their fingerprints off this operation, and therefore there can be no criticism, aren't you being awfully disingenuous?
Did you Liberals have any problem with Clinton's avoidance of serving in any capacity during the Viet Nam, but not having any problem bombing Serbia, or Iraq for that matter?,
Sure. I never voted for him. Does this mean that you concede that Bush and Cheney (and Wolfowitz and on and on) should be ashamed for their committing the lives of Americans to combat with no clear goal, having themselves never served?
These people are scum. Their tactics are ever the same - lies, smear, innuendo all on behalf of the coward who sponsors them and the lunatics who republish their shit.
AlD's last appearance was in smear of Richard Clarke. EVERY SINGLE ONE of his factual claims was unanimously adopted in the 911 report.
Now the reason for all of this is plain...
How can a Republican support a coward like GWB in a race against a bona fide war hero?
It is hard and that is why Bush is trying to smear the war hero with lies.
Knock one down, up pops another and ALL of them, including Schate, have close ties to the Bush campaign
What percentage of Naval Officers have a Lee Atwater attitude that political lies do not besmirch one's character, and serve the greater good of keeping the fascists in control? I say it's about 50%. How many of them (and the brass in the other services) are graduates of the service academies, where, IMO, the Honor Code is used to weed out whistle-blowers and others that have the integrity to report their own transgressions? Those who graduate are either paragons of perfect conduct or pliable tools for the cover-ups and lying about defense contract overruns, etc, when they become Admirals and Generals.
I have and will continue to defend Bob Novak's right to refuse to divulge the names of the sources who leaked to him the identity of Valerie Plame. But there's no defending Novak against the charge of being a first class hack.
Today he's got an interview with another Swift Boat fellow questioning the severity and nature of one of John Kerry's war wounds.
And at the end of the piece he writes: "Schachte said he never has been contacted by or talked to anybody in the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he has been a political independent who votes for candidates of both parties."
Apparently, he's the kind of independent who gave George W. Bush a thousand bucks in 2000 and in 2004. He's also the new law partner of one of the guys running the Republican National Convention.
In addition to his penchant for lying, for fabricating facts - especially those of the sleaze variety, and for passing on whatever sludge he picks up from his loony toons extremist sources, AlD is fond of tossing about the word "liberal" thinking apparently that this too is a smear.
Well AlD I got news...bring it on...George Bush has made the L word respectable again.
And while you are at it, consider all of the CONSERVATIVES who see through another cowardly Bush smear tactic...Gen Anthony McPeak - AF Chief of Staff and Bush 2000 Supporter..Ditto Marine Corps Gen. David Hoar..and a long, long list of other "liberals" such as David Hackworth..
[thanks Clyde for reminding me]
Now why doesn't George Bush have the courage to make these accusations himself? Isn't it obvious? The man is not only a pampered little brat, a moron, a drunk, he is above all gutless.
But politics and style aside, Kerry did serve with distinction in Vietnam when he easily could have avoided that killing field. His service to his country shouldn’t be diminished by the same despicable, politically motivated tactics visited upon Sens. John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia, also Viet vets. This kind of gutter-bashing doesn’t belong in American politics, and vets shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as ammo for cheap shots at one of their own.
The stalwart Brown Water Navy warriors who fought at Kerry’s side say he was A-OK, which is good enough for me. The muckrakers such as John O’Neill and his Swiftboat snipers – who didn’t sail on his boat but served anywhere from 100 meters to 300 miles away – are now coming off like eyewitnesses when in fact not one of their testimonies would hold up in a court of law. A judge would call these men liars and disallow their biased statements.
I’ve been in a fair number of battles in my lifetime, first fighting for my country in several hot wars, then covering a dozen conflicts as a correspondent. And I’ve learned that if you can’t see the fight right up close, smell it, hear it and touch it, you can’t possibly bear witness.
This isn’t the first time Kerry’s been sniped at. Joe Klein wrote in The New Yorker that Nixon aide Charles Colson formed the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace in 1971 solely to attack John Kerry.
Colson told Klein that Kerry “was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the president, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.”
As our commander in chief, Bush also needs to bear in mind that the U.S. Navy and its high standards for handling awards are now on trial as well. Hopefully, the president’s righteous actions will expedite that institution’s exoneration along with Lt. John Kerry’s heroism. Col. David Hackworth - LIBERAL
In 2000 John McCain was appalled that GWB slandered 4 Vietnam Vets to get elected.
' key personnel who worked in both NESA and OSP were part of a broader network of neo-conservative ideologues and activists who worked with other Bush political appointees scattered around the national-security bureaucracy to move the country to war, according to retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was assigned to NESA from May 2002 through February 2003. The heads of NESA and OSP were Deputy Undersecretary William Luti and Abram Shulsky, respectively. Other appointees who worked with them in both offices included Michael Rubin, a Middle East specialist previously with the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI); David Schenker, previously with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); and Michael Makovsky; an expert on neo-con icon Winston Churchill and the younger brother of David Makovsky, a senior WINEP fellow and former executive editor of pro-Likud Jerusalem Post. Along with Feith, all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel. '
Now US occupation of Iraq is making it even more hated in the Muslim world. It is a policy hatched in part by AIPAC, WINEP, and their associated "thinkers." The cynical might suggest that they actively want the US involved in a violent struggle with Muslims, to make sure that the US remains anti-Palestinian and so will permit Israeli expansion.
All this can happen because there is a vacuum in US political discourse
Of course, we all know there is no reason to bring up things from the Viet Nam era...but here's an interesting little clip of former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes of Texas doing a mea culpa about something he did back then...he helped get George Bush into the National Guard as a favor to a rich and powerful family.
If al-Qaeda succeeds in another big attack, it could well tip the country over into military rule, as Gen. Tommy Franks has suggested. That is, the fate of the Republic is in danger. And the danger comes from two directions, not just one. It comes from radical extremists in the Muslim world, who must be fought. But it also comes from radical extremists in Israel, who have key allies in the US and whom the US government actively supports and against whom influential Americans are afraid to speak out.
They want our silence more than life itself. Their mindless minions like AlD use sleazey innuendo and lies to silence the truth. They impugn our patriotism to silence us. They will go to any lengths, even to launching their slime attacks against those who have fought and are even now figthing for our country.
Richard Clarke John Kerry Max Cleland Joseph Wilson Valerie Plame
You Me
It doesn't matter. They have no shame these crackpot counterfeit patriots.
Purple Heart Medals were not the kind of medal difficult to obtain, it is not the Congressional Medal of Honor. Three of then could get one sent back home if the request were made. Kerry did so.
I guess Bush was saved the indignity of having to request transfer home after three Purple Hearts. I guess he IS a noble man, after all. A man with a plan.
He is a War President, Peace President, Culture War President with Compassionate Results and a Strategery of Slime, in short GWB will say anything, be anything, do anything that, from moment to moment, he thinks will keep his vile ass in power.
But it seems that with the Sleaze Bucket Vets scam, Bush has overplayed his slime...
Perhaps the following explains why Republicans have their panties twisted, bemoaning the Slime Job on Kerry's Medals and wishing people wouldn't pay any attention to IraQ. Reports of panic attacks in God's Own Party with the FaithBase wishing that Bush would turn a corner, any corner but demeaning the sacrifices of US veterans or spinning more lies about IraQ will do, but the question is where is the rat to turn in the maze he has built for himself.
the four major polls conducted since August 20th do not reveal any consistent or substantial pro-Bush swing such as would be expected from a successful attack on John Kerry's war record and character during the week and a half before. Instead, the only generalization that can be made from looking at a broader group of over 20 polls of registered and likely voters since the beginning of August is of a slight and gradual shrinkage of about 3 or 4% in Kerry's lead.
If August had been a slow news month, this trend would almost certainly have been ascribed to an inevitable "coming back down to earth" following the run of positive news coverage Kerry had enjoyed for several months during the spring (the remarkable fundraising success, the popular choice of Edwards, the united, energized Democratic convention). Instead, because the attacks on Kerry’s medals and military service were intensely dramatic and widely covered, many commentators simply assumed that any changes in the opinion polls had to be due to their influence.
But the data in the LA Times and the other recent polls is actually more consistent with a different interpretation -- that a certain decline in Kerry's support, particularly among veterans, was inevitable as voters began to pay more attention to the campaign. On the other hand, the data show that the swift-boat surrogates attack on Kerry's medals and service has been -- as it richly deserved to be -- an almost unmitigated fiasco.
Since the beginning of Kerry's campaign it has been clear that there were a substantial number of veterans, and Vietnam veterans in particular, whose support he would never be able to attract because of his participation in the movement against the Vietnam War.
As a result, there was never any realistic possibility that Kerry would hold onto the support of many of these voters, even after his quite effective performance at the Democratic convention. All the Bush campaign needed to do was to make sure that these voters were made aware of Kerry's significant role in the anti-war movement of the early 1970's.
. Had the Bush campaign been satisfied with simply harvesting these sympathetic voters, they probably could have done so with even a relatively honest and low-key series of commercials. Instead, however, they hoped that, with the help of their surrogates, they could achieve an even more ambitious goal - to impugn Kerry's valor, honesty and character through attacks on his wartime record of bravery and heroism.
The essence of this strategy was not only to directly damage Kerry's image and reputation, but to trap him into choosing between "taking the high road" and not responding to the attacks (which could then be spun to make him look weak and indecisive) or to provoke him into an ill-tempered, aggressive response (for which he could then be criticized as negative, partisan, bitter and shrill).
But the Bush campaign made a profound miscalculation. In the L.A. Times survey, only 18% of the voters had been convinced that "Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals" while 58% said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" them. Independent voters sided with Kerry 5 to 1. Even men and self-described conservatives - groups that are normally quite pro-Bush - strongly supported Kerry, by 59 to 19 for men and 42 to 29 for conservatives. Other polls, such as the Fox/Opinion Dynamics and Annenberg Center for Public Policy survey found similar attitudes. In the Fox poll, even most veterans held, by 50% to 21% that Kerry deserved his purple hearts.
Moreover, Americans did not buy Bush's transparent attempts to pretend his campaign was not involved with the smear. The Gallup poll showed that more Americans think Bush is responsible for the commercials (50%) then do not (44%) and 56% think he should specifically denounce them while only 32% think he should not. An August 26 Annenberg Center survey found very similar attitudes.
It was this failure to convince the American people of the charges against Kerry that set the stage for the growing backlash against the Bush campaign - the investigative reports and editorial statements in newspapers across the country, the resignations of two Bush officials when their links to the smear campaign were exposed, and then Bush's disingenuous and finally humiliating series of statements and clarifications.
No lie is too big for the crowd that sent 1000 US servicement and women to die, leaving the living in a quagmire that has already cost well over 100 billion with no end in sight, leaving US power and influence dimished and our nation's soul blakened...
Jex, your brother is right. In his day, Barnes was more powerful than the Governor. Lately, he seems remorseful to those he might have screwed over; I'm wondering if he is in a 12 step program of some sort.
My brother, John Kerry, decided to volunteer to put his life on the line to serve his country in Vietnam. A lot of guys dodged service, but not my brother John. As Bill Clinton pointed out not long ago, when push came to shove, a lot of young men found other alternatives, but not my brother John. He volunteered for service and he went to Vietnam, and by every official US Navy account, he acquitted himself heroically.
President Bush (news - web sites) is coming to town. You better watch out, you better not shout -- unless you're a certified delegate inside Madison Square Garden. With protesters somewhere out of sight, the Republican National Convention will be a celebration of the ideology, values and interests served by this second Bush presidency.
Whether you agree or disagree with the words pouring from the podium over Americans who see reflections of themselves in George W. Bush, the real issue of this election will not be mentioned. The core issue is this: Our president is incompetent. He is not a good president.
Inasmuch as Al is so interested in learning of the manifold lies and deceits of GWB yet for some reason lacks the balls to visit the Confessional (lost them in divorce settlement?)
One of the 2,509 delegates to the Republican National Conventions has dropped out because of dissatisfaction with President Bush.
Congressional Quarterly reported Friday that after attending four previous conventions, Philadelphia's Jesse Walters was chosen as a delegate to this year's GOP convention in New York only to resign the position, saying he could not support Bush and expressing concern with the rightward move of the Republican Party.
Once the Naderites sober up enough to realize that Ralph's Name is not on the ballot and Kerry takes 3/4 of the undecided vote (really about 10%) Kerry should win by 5+%
So what does Bush do, he directs his slime machine to go after a war hero and today jnow that the heat has become too much to bear, he started to sound like Bill Clinton ...
First the IraQi football (sic) team told him to piss up Rummy's rope; next the IOC told him to stop whoring the Olympics; then the Greek people chased his Step N Fetchit Secty of State away from the final ceremonies, now US Olympic Hero Blasts Bush for Politicizing Games for Campaign
They'll say anything, do anything, steal, cheat, lie, smear..
NEW YORK - Americans increasingly believe President Bush (news -web sites)'s re-election campaign is behind the ads attacking Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s Vietnam experience, a poll found.
Almost half in a poll taken this week say they think the president's campaign is behind the ads that try to undercut Kerry's medals for heroism while just over a third think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an independent group, the National Annenberg Election Survey found.
The Swift boat ads, which ran in three swing states earlier this month, challenged Kerry's wartime service in Vietnam for which he received five medals.
The public's belief that Kerry did not earn his medals grew to 30 percent when the attack ads got widespread publicity on cable news networks. But that number has dropped to 24 percent now.
Robert Bauer, the national counsel of the Kerry-Edwards campaign, also represents America Coming Together, one of the largest of the anti-Bush 527s. He hasn't resigned from either post.
One of the anti-Bush 527s is run by Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign manager. Kerry staffer Zach Exley came to his campaign from MoveOn.org, the 527 that has run the most vicious anti-Bush ads.
Kerry can be confident that while the "mainstream" media will trumpet his charges, there will be no exploration of possible collusion between his campaign and these supposedly independent groups.
On May 9, for instance, the Democratic National Committee issued a press release that said: "The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization."
Just more examples of the massive LW hypocrisy we've all come to expect. When they pule and whine about Republicans, chances are that the real wrongdoing is in their own camp. Btw, this article points out that John O'Neill, the principal author of 'Unfit For Command', voted for Pinocchio Bore in 2000.
Seems Josh Marshall and the FBI have been onto the same espionage at the highest levels of the Bush Regime and it is MUCH more serious than news reports have let on....
Here is the article on the Franklin investigation that I discussed earlier. This is a piece my colleagues and I at the Washington Monthly wrote. It discusses how the Franklin investigation relates to the Ghorbanifar back-channel run out of Doug Feith's office from 2001 to 2003.
I haven't yet been able to comment on the breaking news last night that the FBI is investigating whether an employee at the OSD, Larry Franklin, passed classified US government information to Israel. That is because my colleagues and I have a piece coming out on the subject which will, hopefully, be appearing later today in The Washington Monthly.
A few thoughts though about this story.
I'm told the evidence the FBI has on Franklin -- at least on the narrow facts of the case -- is quite strong and involves wire tap information, though why a career DIA analyst like Franklin would allow himself to get tripped up on a phone call mystifies me.
The main focus thus far has been on the highly sensitive and troubling allegation that an ally, Israel, was spying on the United States or the recipient of classified information from a US government official.
However, I strongly suspect that as this story develops the bigger deal will be less the alleged recipient of the information, Israel, than the country that is the subject of the information, Iran.
I don't mean to imply that it's an either/or. It can very much be both. But the reportage thus far has understated the degree to which this is an Iran story -- it grows out of the simmering and unresolved administration battle over policy toward Iran.
Now we know why Mister Miscalculation, Poppy's Moron Son, sent thousands to their deaths; spent hundreds of billions of dollars; ravaged the US military; made the US the Evil Empire II to most of the world; is losing the war against Osama Bin Forgotten, and has managed to miss every rogue nuclear program on the planet.
And we also have a good idea of why after thirty years and an entire decade spent healing the wounds of Vietnam, the sleaziest, most corrupt and incompetent leader in the history of the modern presidency, the Uniter-Not-A-Divider has managed to divide the country over a war that ended 30 years ago
One of many "simmering unresolved battles" in an administration that I said three and a half years ago was out of control internally because of the weak and inept leadership of GWB.
The idea that the Bush Administration is 'out of control internally' amounts to nothing more than a hoped-for situation by the anti-Bushites who grasp at anything to bolster that assumption.
All those leaks..all those military top brass in the Kerry camp, including Poppy's AF chief of staff and one of the participants at the 2000 RNC..the CIA move on the Plame Treason, the Espionage leak before the convention, the total failure of the IraQ plan all that and more is evidence of virtual anarchy in the Bush regime's War Cabinet.
In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, this man Larry Diamond, conservative Hoover Institution scholar, Diamond, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank located on the Stanford University campus, was personally recruited to serve as a senior advisor to the CPA by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
Read what he has to say on the subject.
Like I said...well known fact...well documented
Unlike the shit you so casually throw around here...NONE of which on ANY subject has proved accurate or even true in many casess.
Your silly little habit of ad hominem attack and sloganized slur falls apart - again...how many time? I'd say on any of 30 topics give or take..runs smack dab into fact and truth...
7909. jexster - 8/29/2004 12:33:15 AM It is fact....well known fact... You have about 900 messages to read in Lies. I suggest you get to it before talking out of your ass,you wind up with even more shit on your face than Bush has on his
Are you adressing me? Are you addressing concerned? We're the only two posting these past few minutes.
I choose not to accept your reading assignment of 900 posts. Why don't you distill it down for me. What are you on about? Who are you going to vote for in Election 2004?
My brother laughed at me today when I made my son introduce him to his friends. I mad him do it formally: eldest first (his uncle) and then the kids, so he would know how to go in this world.
To get a Purple Heart, someone with connections need merely whine about what happened when in service to the country and get one, is what I understand.
But first, one would have to see battle action, something which I have never done and never want to do, and the whining seems somewhat reasonable.
So, someone saying Lesser Bush is more suited to lead the nation because Kerry and the Purple Hearts distorted things, makes me think Lesser Bush a liar.
I've been protected. I've never been shot at. I want it to stay that way.
So, someone saying Lesser Bush is more suited to lead the nation because Kerry and the Purple Hearts distorted things, makes me think Lesser Bush a liar.
How's that, since he hasn't said anything of the sort on this matter......?
Kerry's Desperate Response to the Swifties, by Les Kinsolving:
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is providing a frightening preview of what would happen to the United States if he is ever elected to its most powerful office.
Not only is his campaign trying desperately to persuade Regnery Publishers to stop publishing the Swift Boat Veteran book "Unfit for Command," but Kerry himself tried to stop another activity of the Swift Boat Veterans: two absolutely devastating one-minute TV spots.
The New York Post reports:
"The new ad was unveiled as Kerry – clearly worried about the impact of the ads by a group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth – tried to knock them off the air by filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
"The anti-Kerry commercial starts with video of Kerry testifying to the U.S. Senate in 1971 that he knew U.S. troops who 'personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads' – and switches to POWs who say Kerry's words were 'devastating' for them.
"'John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us,' says former Vietnam POW Paul Galanti, a highly decorated Navy combat pilot.
"Galanti flew 97 combat missions over Vietnam before being shot down and held at the notorious Hanoi Hilton for seven years – including while Kerry testified."
And the Post's Washington bureau chief, Deborah Orin, added the following editorial insert: "(Pay attention Ladies and Gentlemen, the NY Times, Washington Post, and the Kerry camp are calling this man a liar and Republican stooge, or implying it, not too subtly.)"
"The second ad, 'Sellout,' was unveiled the day after Kerry lashed out at the swift vets' first TV spot, which portrays the would-be commander in chief as a liar who inflated his war record.
"In a stunning development, the first swift vets ad has become a hot issue in the 2004 race even though it ran in just a few markets – 57 percent of Americans have seen or heard about it, according to a new poll yesterday.
"Kerry's FEC complaint charges the swift vets, an officially independent '527' group, illegally coordinated their ad with the Bush campaign – which both Bush and the swift vets deny.
"The 527s are barred from any contact with campaigns. Most 527s are anti-Bush and have run over $50 million in TV ads attacking Bush – nearly 100 times as much as the swift vets, who say they've spent just $550,000 so far.
"Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt dismissed the complaint as 'frivolous' and shot back that there is a 'revolving door of personnel, coordinated strategies and overlapping fund-raising' between groups like MoveOn and Team Kerry."
In this new one-minute TV spot, which I have seen, Ken Cordier, a prisoner of war from December 1966 to March 1973, says, "That was part of the torture, was to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes. He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?"
In the concluding quote, Galanti says, "He dishonored his country and, more importantly, the people he served with. He just sold them out."
In response to these statements by our former prisoners of war in Hanoi, nominee Kerry denounced them by saying in Boston that the swiftboat group "isn't interested in the truth and they're not telling the truth."
Yet this new spot has Kerry's own words before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. Speaking to firefighters in Boston, he castigated President Bush, saying the president wants the group "to do his dirty work."
Responding to Kerry's speech, Houston attorney and former swiftboat commander John O'Neill, a spokesman for the group, charged Kerry is resorting to personal attacks because "he can't deal with the truth."
The group's first TV commercial quoted Kerry's Vietnam comrades calling him a liar, questioning his honor, accusing him of misrepresenting his actions for medals and attacking his character.
In response, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Kerry's presidential campaign faxed a letter to television station managers warning them not to broadcast it.
The letter told the managers if they decided to air the ad they would be "responsible for the false and libelous charges" made by the group. But the swiftboat vets already had supplied the stations with affidavits and other supporting documents, and only one station decided not to broadcast it.
7928. concerned, I understand the media answer is that Bush never said anything bad about Kerry. That Kerry perhaps whined and used his connections to get a Purple Heart in the process was implied.
Bush did not see action in that war. He was of age. Why did he not serve?
Because it was better for America that one of the thousands of applicants ahead of George on the Air National Guard waiting list - most more qualified than he, except for the category "political connections" - go to Vietnam in his place.
I've complained before (see, e.g., Message # 7734) about the "he said/she said" media coverage of the Swift Boat Liars' claims about Kerry's war record. This superficially evenhanded and "objective" coverage gives equal weight to official U.S. Navy records (i.e., "John Kerry's version"), supported by eyewitness recollections of veterans who were there and who have no reason to lie, and the Liars' unsubstantiated claims.
Fickle Play of Memory in Kerry War Debate Jeff Donn, Associated Press
You'd think the details would be scorched into a veteran's memory like a cattle brand: ducking gunfire, seeing someone die in battle, bracing against a blast's concussion. Who could forget?
Yet such memories not only blurred over time in one classic psychological study of soldiers, but mutated too. . . .
Could such memory research help explain some of the dueling accounts of U.S. Sen. John Kerry's war experiences? . . .
". . . [In the event for which John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star] Who was the enemy Kerry shot?
"One veteran says 'a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth.'
Another: 'He was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.' . . ."
This is disgusting. Although the reporter doesn't identify the veterans he quotes, the "veteran" who says the enemy soldier was a fleeing teenager is John O'Neill, writing in "Unfit for Command." Indeed, O'Neill is a "veteran". But HE WASN'T THERE that day, and of course O'Neill has spent 33 years working for Republicans in attacking John Kerry.
On the other hand, the veteran who confirms the official record of Kerry's heroism is William Rood, an officer with no reason to lie, and most importantly someone WHO WAS THERE.
How could a reporter possibly put these two accounts side by side? What is O'Neill's fiction doing in a story about wartime memory, when O'Neill WASN'T THERE? How did this possibly get by an editor?
If Bush wins this election, the lesson will be: To win, lie.
Ulgine: So, someone saying Lesser Bush is more suited to lead the nation because Kerry and the Purple Hearts distorted things, makes me think Lesser Bush a liar.
Concerned: How's that, since he hasn't said anything of the sort on this matter......?
Evidently, Jex isn't the only person who doesn't "read" others' posts, huh, Ulgine? Concerned seems to think one has to open the mouth and speak for things to be taken as lies.
Well, I can supply an example of him doing just that: the other day when he was stuck in front of cameras and directly asked, he made the remark that Kerry served his country with honor, blah blah blah "but this isn't about that; the issue is, Who is best suited to lead the War On Tara...I am leading the War On Tara and that's what the issue is...."
That's a lie. The issue is, how best to smear my opponent and make people think he is ill equipped to lead the nation.
This is America, not Denmark. In this country, tens of millions of people choose to watch FoxNews not simply because Americans are credulous idiots or at the behest of some right-wing corporate cabal, but because average Americans respect viciousness. They are attracted to viciousness for a lot of reasons. In part, it reminds them of their bosses, whom they secretly adore. Americans hate themselves for the way they behave in public, always smiling and nodding their heads with accompanying really?s and uh-huhs to show that they're listening to the other person, never having the guts to say what they really feel. So they vicariously scream and bully others into submission through right-wing surrogate-brutes. Spending time watching Sean Hannity is enough for your average American white male to feel less cowardly than he really is.
The left won't accept this awful truth about the American soul, a beast that they believe they can fix "if only the people knew the Truth."
But what if the Truth is that Americans don't want to know the Truth? What if Americans consciously choose lies over truth when given the chance—and not even very interesting lies, but rather the blandest, dumbest and meanest lies? What if Americans are not a likeable people? The left's wires short-circuit when confronted with this terrible possibility; the right, on the other hand, warmly embraces Middle America's rank soul and exploits it to their full advantage. The Republicans know Americans better than the left. They know that it's not so much Goering's famous "bigger lie" that works here, but the dumber the lie, the more they want to hear it repeated.
Demo Underground reports a new Columbus Dispatch poll that has dubya and Kerry tied at 46% with Nader at 2%. Bush had a 3% lead in the July poll, the report said.
Seems an odd poll. 3,176 participants and done by mail. Know anything about it, OhioSTOPAS?
WASHINGTON - The FBI (news - web sites) has spent more than a year covertly investigating, including with the use of electronic surveillance, whether a Pentagon (news - web sites) analyst funneled highly classified material to Israel, officials said Saturday. Prosecutors were still weighing whether to bring the most serious charge of espionage.
Franklin works in an office overseen by Douglas J. Feith, the defense undersecretary for policy. Feith is an influential aide to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld whose previous work included prewar intelligence on Iraq (news - web sites), including purported ties between Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime and al-Qaida terrorism network.
But let me tell ya Bill, I live in the epicenter of Greenie Weenie Naderism...not only that I live in SF Supervisorial District 5, the epicenter of the epicenter and I know quite a few Green Party Nader voters..
strike that
I know quite a few ex-Nader voters and in months of searching haven't found a single one so it is nice you are here...
Of course, Nader won't be on the California ballot so I guess that all make sense..
The Independent Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader submitted 1,983 signatures today in Washington State. This satisfies the requirements. Washington state requires 1,000 valid signatures.
The signatures were collected at nine nominating conventions as required by the Washington ballot access law. The conventions were held from June 26th through August 28th.
To date, states where signatures have been submitted include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming—as well as Washington, DC. States that have completed their review and informed the campaign that it has satisfied the signature requirement include: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, Tennessee, and South Dakota.
Tomorrow, Nader will formally accept the endorsement of the Reform Party USA in Irving, Texas. States where the Reform Party has ballot lines include: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, and South Carolina. Nader/Camejo 2004 has also received the nomination of the Independent Party of Delaware.
The Nader/Camejo Campaign expects to be on the ballot in more states than in the 2000 campaign, when it was on the ballot in 43 states and the District of Columbia.
President Bush still won’t say anything about his allies’ outrageous “Swift Boat” ad, despite calls from Republican leaders, Vietnam vets, and over 175,000 of us, including 6,000 current military service members and their families. Together, we can make sure he pays a political price for allowing this hypocritical attack on John Kerry’s leadership and service in Vietnam.
The pictures on CNN of the pre-convention protests are amazing. Block upon block of people walking abreast from one side of the street to the other...thousands of people.
the most popular topic of conversation was whether President Bush might surprise and announce during the convention that Vice President Cheney would not be running with him this year.
This rumor has swirled around a bit from time to time throughout the year, the chatter being that Mr. Bush would prefer to run with Sen. John McCain – or maybe Rudy Giuliani – and will sooner or later find a way to do it.
Charlie Cook was joining in on that one.."One thing the Bushies value more than loyalty, it is winning. So it is hard to see how Bush would knowingly lose the election> Cheney better watch his back"
That was a couple of months ago. I never bought it frankly.
Cheney is necessary to hold the Base and Bush's desperately lame strategery in this election is to say a big FU to independent/moderate voters in the hopes that a massive turnout of "hidden" conservatives will save his sorry ass.
LOS ANGELES -- Veterans of George W. Bush's National Guard unit charged today that the president has misrepresented his military service during the Vietnam War. The veterans allege that during a period when the future president was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air National Guard, he was actually fighting in Vietnam.
"For more than 30 years we have remained silent," said the head of the group, which calls itself "Stiff Drink Veterans for Kerry, Whoops We Mean for Brewsky, Whoops We Mean for Truth." But, he added, "We want to be on Larry King just as much as those Swift Vote guys."
The White House yesterday strongly denied the Stiff Drink version of events. "As has been his policy throughout his entire life," a spokesman said, "the president never left the continental United States during the entire Vietnam era -- well, except for a few weekends in Tijuana. These Stiff Drink fellows are nothing more than a front for the Kerry campaign, which would like to convince the American people that George W. Bush is responsible for the Vietnam War."
How can a Republican support a coward like GWB in a race against a bona fide war hero? This was posted Friday, but since I spent the last two days driving down from Washington to Oakland, I didn't catch it until now when I tryed to catch up with the Mote. It is just too funny. Who do you suppose jexster supported in 1992, the War Hero or the draft dodger?
Your silly little habit of ad hominem attack and sloganized slur falls apart - again...how many time? I'd say on any of 30 topics give or take..runs smack dab into fact and truth...
I guess this was to concerned, but it certainly illustrates what a lack of self awareness poor jexster has. If the insults he hurls at me came from someone other than jexster, I might be offended. But I must say, it isn't exactly pleasant on this Thread. Perhaps I should stick to the Inferno.
Whatever else one may say of Poppy, Democrat or Republican, GHWB didn't lie his way in to a pointless war of aggression; when he did fight he had an effective plan; he had broad international support, and as he wrote in his memoirs, he believed that anyone who'd think about conquering IraQ was nuts.
ANd Poppy of course didn't strut about like some drunken barnyard rooster cackling "Bring it on" "Let's Roll" "mission accomplished"
See Duhbya is the most militarily inept president since James Madison let the Brits burn Washington
But Poppy on the other hand was a military man....a war hero..like Kerry
Lauer: Did John Kerry serve heroically in Vietnam, in your opinion? President GEORGE W. BUSH: I think his service is heroic, yes. I think he's--and should be proud of it. And I think that we ought to move beyond the past. I mean, he's proud of his service, I'm proud of mine. And the real question is, who best to lead us forward.
Nice try. After that the president's people have been softening Kerry up for three or four weeks, now he wants to look to the future. That's a pretty nice little scam, isn't it? Lauer might have done better to ask the president why he's only saying that now a day before the convention, as opposed to in early August. (Actually, why didn't you ask that, Matt?) This is right out of the Bush family playbook: have your people savage your opponent and once the damage is done try to take the high road.
But it's too late. As Max Cleland said a few days ago, President Bush's "moment of truth came and went."
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam Notes: THREE seperate draft exemptions. Says he had "other priorities." You bet he had other priorities. Like trying to arrange the next exemption. .
Name: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Born: 1950±
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam Notes: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff. He’s had a string of no-doubt well-paying government jobs in State and Defense. He’s also practiced law. In fact, he was Marc Rich’s lawyer for years. Yes — the Marc Rich whose pardon from President Clinton was excoriated by so many high and mighty Republicans.
Name: Karl Rove Born: 1950
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Name: Paul Wolfowitz Born: 1943
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam Notes: He got a BA at Cornell in 1965. Maybe if we'd had a guy as bright as he thinks he is in Vietnam, it would have turned out differently.
The Justice Department is demanding records on a liberal Internet site that lists delegates to the Republican National Convention and urges protesters to give them an unwelcome reception, the NY TIMES is planning to splash on Monday
Federal prosecutors said in a subpoena that the information was needed as part of a criminal investigation into possible voter intimidation.
But civil rights advocates argue that the Internet postings amount to political dissent, not threats or intimidation.
If Kerry and the Dems would but listen to Ralph, Kerry could win easily.
I agree. Criticizing Nader voters for having principles and sticking to them, borders on fascism.
OK, so they are too naive for my taste too, I would like to see them vote more pragmatically... this time. But they are right, 100% right to vote for what they believe in. Anything else is a perversion of democracy.
I consider two-party democracy to be just marginally more democratic than one-party democracy.
Could it be that Cheney's recent gay rights' move is a prelude to his withdrawal on a matter of conscience? If such a con could be pulled on the American voter, they deserve everything they are going to get for the next four years.
If the Cheney rumor becomes reality, it's a pretty nice deal for Bush and McCain. From their point of view, Bush gets a second term and McCain inherits the presidency.
What a hoot. First, we have jexster decrying war and saying how evil it is. Then, we have him criticizing certain Repub leaders on not "participating" in Vietnam! Talk about a waffling weasel.
Back the, Kerry had a sizable lead according to both sites. Now, respectively, they have him at:
Kerry - 249 Bush - 232
Kerry - 270 Bush - 268
Of course, they are calculating "weak states" somewhat differently, but both show a decided melting away of Kerry's post-convention lead, and we haven't even gone through the Repub convention yet. In fact, in the latter figures which have Kerry oh-so-slightly ahead, of "likely" delegates, Bush is actually in the lead, 142 to 137.
So once again, all the attempts at fear mongering by the liberal nutcases in this forum, all the "put a fork in him" comments, and all the whining every time I said it would be a dead heat, have all come to naught, once again.
Bush will win this thing by the hair of his chinny chin chin.
What is perhaps most shocking to me is that California has become, according to both sites, a "weak Kerry" state. Of course, I don't for a moment believe that Bush will win California, but these sites base their results on the latest polling data which shows Kerry with a 3% lead in the state. That is just amazing to me. How has Kerry been able to blow such a large lead in such a Democratic-leaning state, one where Gore won by a huge margin?
ktheh, do you not understand it's a matter of standing up for what you believe...not what the other guy believes? A jew is not a weasel because he doesn't go to church to get communion, but you could call a xtian one if he doesn't. It's a matter of following up stated beliefs with concrete action demonstrating those beliefs. bush, cheney, etc all supported the war in vietnam and all managed to arrange things so they wouldn't have to go. That's weasely...that's not following up your stated beliefs with definitive action.
In the same way, it's not weasely to have been against the us going into iraq and then decrying the abysmal performance there. If as the gopers seemed to believe, iraq was the critical key to a future peace in the middle east, then it was certainly worthwhile doing it with full committment and support, pursuing all avenues to achieve democracy in the country. It is weasely to believe and say all those things, then go in and fight the war on the cheap, ignoring one's own intelligence and reports of what needed to be done to protect the security of the nation going forward, sending troops in without adequate food, body armor, armored vehicles, etc., attempting to privatize the operation and losing +$8Billion in the process (has halliburton found that money yet??!!!??), etc. etc. It's weasely to say the war is so critical, and not follow it up with concrete action and funding.
thoughtful, perhaps you didn't read too closely my post on war. I mentioned Vietnam, not Iraq. Jexster has made his stance very, very clear, most pointedly in calling me Beelzebub because I support a just war theory. Jexster has made it clear that he is against ALL war of any kind, period.
Now, however, when it suits him (see post 7985) he decries the fact that certain Repub leaders avoided the Vietnam conflict. One would think, given jexster's hatred of all war, that he'd be pleased that some people didn't participate in the slaughter in Vietnam.
Therefore, your comments, while interesting, don't really address why I called jexster a weasel.
There is a definite tightening of the race, but as has been previosly pointed out, Bush should be comfortably ahead at his point.
To the extent that there are undecided voters, those voters are the challengers at the end by better than3 to 1.
This is the best EV site because he uses a statistical regression. He should throw out the robo polls though and in fact some of the polls these site use are very suspect.
But that said, the results show a tightening race as this graph shows
What you cannot see here:
1. Strong Kerry 195 Stong BUsh 161 Weak Kerry87 Weak Bush 75 Barely Kerry 0 Barely Bush 20
2. The weak and barely Bush states were in the main strong bush states in 2000. This means that Bush has to spend money defending his strongholds like Virgina, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc
* The average winning incumbent has had a job approval rating of 60%.(Bush 48-50)
**every incumbent who has won reelection has had his job approval in the mid-50's or higher at this point.
* In recent years, when incumbents have gone on to victory, 52% of voters,on average, said the country was on the right track. Now - 37%.
***Every incumbent who has gone on to be reelected has had a double-digit lead at this point
**** Following their conventions, the average elected incumbent has held a 16-point lead, while winning incumbents have led by an average of 27 points.
The Bushies supported the War in Vietnam and dodged it Clinton was against the war and dodged it.
But hypocrisy is lost on the lunatic fringe right..or as I have said B$
Mt23
27 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. 28So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
He didn't serve..he ran..thanks to Ben Barnes and then he went AWOL
But the point isn't his physical cowardice it is his moral cowardice and duplicity...summoning pond scum to trash his opponents all the while scurring like a rat to take the "high road"
Moreover, this penchant to dodge responsibility at all costs has manifest itself time and time again during his adminsitration..
Where does the buck stop?
Anywhere but in the Oval Office
It shows the kind of man he is, just like Kerry's service shows what kind of man he is.
Sigh. ktheh, once again you focus on the specifics and miss the principle being applied. It's not whether or not jex is for war or any specific war or not. It's irrelevant whether we are talking about iraq or vietnam or, as my post implied, religion, or even politics. Jex would be a weasel if he said he was against welfare, and then started collecting. Weaseliness (if there is such a word) is a matter of consistency between words and actions.
There's certainly nothing weasely about pointing out when someone is being weasely by being inconsistent between their actions and their words. So, for example, there is nothing weasely about me if I am against welfare, and point out someone else who states to be for welfare and then votes to cut funding it. See?
This is a standard GOP Smear-By-innuendo..we saw Frist do it with Ricard Clarke...
I thought I would post before TD got his talking points from the RNC Daily Sewer
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - having already enraged some New Yorkers with his remarks about local office-holders' "unseemly scramble" for federal money after 9/11 - yesterday opened a second front. On "Fox News Sunday," the Illinois Republican insinuated that billionaire financier George Soros, who's funding an independent media campaign to dislodge President Bush, is getting his big bucks from shady sources. "You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where - if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from," Hastert mused. An astonished Chris Wallace asked: "Excuse me?" The Speaker went on: "Well, that's what he's been for a number years - George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there." Wallace: "You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?" Hastert: "I'm saying I don't know where groups - could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know."
After release of all these military records (as USA Today reported Bush is stonewalling the complete release), there is no record that Bush was on duty at his post defending Alabama from attack from the North..(Tennessee)
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Now at the time, a draft dodger had 3 choices
1. deferment 2. use friends in high places to get into the National guard 3. canada
Bush got 1 and 2 I got 1 Cheney got 3 of number 1
Of course if Bush were 21 today, he'd be on a 1 year plus stint gettin his ass shot at for nothing in IraQ
Can we win? I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.
Speaking of 'stonewalling', why is Kerry stonewalling on releasing his military records while GWB has released all of his?
Looks like Kerry is hiding something that would hurt him badly among the electorate. Perhaps having to do with wounding himself to obtain decorations, torturing and killing Vietnamese civilians or something worse.
tom oliphant was on imus this morning lamenting the decline in journalistic standards. he said that in his early days if some doc came to him and said kerry lied about his war wounds and I know because i treated him, oliphant said he would then ask this person for proof...do you have any evidence of such? he would check the public record...who signed the medical form...this guy or someone else? etc. He said in his day, if there were no supporting evidence of the claim, there'd be no story, regardless of if the guy was telling the truth or not. You needed some foundation before you could publish what someone said as a story.
Nowadays, with the press struggling to be 'balanced' they will print whatever either side says and give no background, evidence, or context for the reader. Lies are given the same weight as truth. It all becomes undiscernable to the reader.
I'm sure hastert's smear will be treated by the press as evidence of illegal activity.
Funny, it doesn't seem the economy is cooperating with the bushies:
The Commerce Department said Americans' personal incomes rose a scant 0.1 percent in July -- the slowest growth since November 2002 --compared with a 0.2 percent gain in June. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast an increase of 0.5 percent.
Michael Rubin National Review on Line former CPA advisor
"There is little goodwill left in Iraq. The United States government has managed to squander it. Bush may be sincere about his desire for democracy, but to Iraqis, family matters. Iraqis associate the president with his father, who is notorious among Iraqi Shia for his failure to support their March 1991 uprising"
Now perhaps if Bush had been a decorated war hero and not a war deserter, conservatives would not be deserting his War Presidency as the GOP convention begins.
Why isn't it news that the Speaker of the House said what he did about George Soros? True, right-wingers have been slandering Soros left and right ever since he began funding political ads critical of George W. Bush (See here), but this is the person third in line to the Presidency.
Such a high official making up and slinging such a crude smear would surely seem to be newsworthy. Yet it appears only the Washington Times has mentioned it.
But isn't it our complaint that the Swift Boat Vets got an undeserved amount of attention, Ohio? Do you want to see a front page NYTimes story assessing the possibility of drug money in the Soros fortunes? Do you want to see Soros's policies and practices examined in detail, with "balance"?
They laughed at gore with his incessant "lock box" phrase, but the point was an important one. They jeered Krugman for even suggesting that part of the bush plan was to eventually dismantle the social safety nets as we knew them.
Now comes greenspan, the unelected, letting everyone have a glimpse, if they can discern his point through his convoluted speaking style:
"If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our programmes so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels," he said. "If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful."
I'm working with MoveOn PAC to turn out an additional 400,000 voters for Kerry in the 10,000 most critical neighborhoods in the country. As George Bush prepares to accept the Republican nomination, we need to assemble thousands more volunteers in those neighborhoods.
To do so, we're holding a phone bank to reach out to consistent Democratic voters in these target precincts. On Thursday evening, hours before Bush takes the stage at the Republican convention, we'll call these voters to ask if they'd like to help Kerry win this election by talking to their neighbors.
If you have any time, can you set aside an hour or two on Thursday, September 2 to make these calls? The ideal time is between 5 and 9 PM local time. (Bush's speech is at 10 PM EST, if you want to watch.) MoveOn PAC's phone bank tool makes it easy by walking you through a script as you call. To participate, you'll need the capability to be on the Internet and the phone at the same time.
The true-Ayn Rand-believer in Greenspan pops out from time to time. I'm sure he sincerely believes what he is saying about the costs of supporting a growing host of retirees, but the truth is that he has never been a big supporter of Social Security, Medicare or many other government programs.
In 1956, Soros moved to the United States, where he began to accumulate a large fortune through an international investment fund he founded and managed. Today he is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC.
See, Ohio, what happens? The trouble is that the democrats don't have anyone willing to stand up and say "It could be that Bush vanished from military record keeping because he was in cocaine rehab. Nobody really knows...."
I saw this magazine cover, but didn't notice the dung and broom. The Republicans have decided not to distribute this weekly magazine that focuses on activities in the City.
actually greenspan was on the soc sec commission in the 70s which raised soc sec taxes and kept it solvent for decades to come. Certainly at that point he was willing to keep it going.
"* In recent years, when incumbents have gone on to victory, 52% of voters,on average, said the country was on the right track. Now - 37%"
But roughly 46% are voting for Bush given current polls. So am I to believe, jex, that about 9% of those people actually claim the country is going in the wrong direction, yet still will vote for Bush??
"See?"
thoughtful, again, despite your nice post, it doesn't jibe with my original contention, and that is, namely, that jexster should be plum happy that some people did not fight in Vietnam, because jexster is against all forms of war and the killing they produce. However, jexster - much like Kerry - wants it both ways. Just as Kerry wants to be known as a war hero from Vietnam, yet at the same time decried the war itself, so too jexster wants to claim to be against all war, yet decry certain Repubs who didn't find their way into Vietnam. It is blatant hypocrisy, but birds of a feather you know.
Personally, jexster, I think historical analogies will serve little these days in America when it comes to the electorate. Gone are the days of the majority president, it seems. I think rather than looking back at all those incumbants and the margins, we really need to look back at the 2000 election as our benchmark, and there Gore actually had a substantial lead (about 8-10) leading up to the Repub convention, whereas Kerry has seen his lead virtually disappear. Even the liberal leaning state of California is called close these days.
So my original point still stands. Way back when you had called this election done, and you were simply wrong then. But rather than just admit it, you try to do a spin on it as best as you can, but it just won't stick. "Put a fork in him" was your comment about Bush, and it looks like he will most likely be in the lead after this week. Go figure, jexster, all your ranting and raving for naught.
"Bush has declared Iraq a CATASTROPHIC SUCCESS. Seriously."
Since some here like historical analogies, let's look at a few:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, but...
FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost- an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ...
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
a.. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice presidentin the Oval Office. b.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years. c.. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities. d.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times. e.. The corporation had access to the administration at its highestlevels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease dealsfor it. f.. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enronfor more than $600 million in just one transaction. Scandalous!!
Much of Bush's task this first term was cleaning up the mess left behind by the previous incompetent Democratic administration. 9/11 was certainly the result of that incompetence, as Al Qaida operated for years during the Clinton administration orchestrating the tragic events which resulted in the 9/11 losses.
Bush has done a great deal of good during this term, a fair amount of dirty work that wouldn't have been necessary had Clinton had the balls to do it right earlier.
first of all those certain repubs didn't not "find their way" to vietnam, rather they actively pursued ways of avoiding going despite their lipservice in support of the war. hypocrisy by definition.
second, kerry supported the war, went to the war and once there, found out it to be executed far differently than how he had imagined. he learned from his experience and as a result he changed his mind. In both cases, his actions were consistent with his words. In the beginning he supported the war, joined the service and volunteered for vietnam. Action supported words. Afterward, he learned that the war was not being fought to win, was leading to senseless loss of life, was not being executed in a honorable way and was accomplishing nothing useful. So he spoke out against it, including testifying before congress. Again his actions were consistent with his words. Hardly hypocrisy.
And I certainly won't fault a man for learning from his experiences.
More nonsense : liberated two countries Opinions vary in Iraq as to how liberated they feel.[...] put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot
You sure? If there are nuclear inspectors in iran, that's because of patient negotiation by Europe, in the face of unhelpfully confrontational tactics by the US. If there are nuclear inspectors in North korea, it must be very recent news... you got a link?
thoughtful, I can agree with your point about Kerry to a certain degree, but it ends where Kerry - despite declaring Vietnam an unjust enterprise -still wants us to consider him to be a war veteran from that unjust war. You can't have it both ways, buddy.
Besides, it seems fairly clear that Kerry's take on his heroic efforts is seriously being called into question.
What we are actually seeing the Democrats playing into the hands of the Republicans when it comes to the issue of war. Had Kerry truly been a man of conviction and principles, he would have stuck with his anti-war stance and left it at that. However, what the Dems have attempted to do is falsely paint him as some war hero, when it is not one. In other words, again, they are trying to portray Kerry as something he is not, just to get some votes.
However, thoughtful, back to my original point, which was about jexster and not Kerry. Jexster is a weasel of the first degree who only stands for something when it suits his cause, and is all quite willing to stand for something entirely opposite if he thinks it will win it for him.
"It is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush."
Jerry Falwell, The NYT, July 16, 2004
"I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him....It doesn't make any difference what he soes, good or bad...."
Sure you can. Bush was a coward during Viet Nam and is sitting safely at home sending this country's children to fight in his Iraq war. But he is known as a The War President. He dubbed himself that, in fact. He is a War Presdident so long as he is safe at home.
So he's having it both ways, Kuligin.
And now we know what Kuligin has been doing all this time away from the Mote...soaking up every RNC talking point he can get his hands on.
ktheh, Besides, it seems fairly clear that Kerry's take on his heroic efforts is seriously being called into question.
Yes, it's being seriously called into question by people who weren't even there. Oh yes, they "served" with kerry in vietnam, meaning they were in the same country at some time during the same war, but these are not the people who "served with kerry". The ones who were there, including the man who kerry pulled from the water while under fire and has attested to kerry's heroism. He is able to do that because kerry saved his life. scratch the surface of what these swifties have to say and you find inaccuracies, inconsistancies and outright lies, not to mention direct connections to the bush reeelection campaign.
For the party that was so into condemning clinton for lying, it's amazing that so many devotees of the party are not as equally swift in condemning liars when the lies are what they want to hear. Do you not see a pattern in trashing mccain's service, then max cleland's service, now kerry's service?
"Senior Republican": Financial Times: December 9, 2003: It is an open secret in Washington that White House-blessed campaign strategists have been working quietly for months to compile potentially damaging background on all the Democratic candidates. In the early going, when it appeared Mr Kerry would emerge as the frontrunner, one senior Republican commented wryly: "By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."...
It's maximum chutzpah for a Vietnam avoider to criticize a Vietnam War hero's service to his country. Americans are onto the Atwater/Bush I, Rove/Bush II slimy, big lie technique. It won't work this time.
"Kerry can't have it both ways, buddy!" (i.e., Kerry couldn't be a war hero first and later decide the war was a mistake).
K-man's mind works in simplistic, black-white, right-wrong terms only. Apparently Kerry had an ephiphany about Vietnam as did the majority of Americans, some before Kerry, some later.
Ed Koch, a Democrat, just told Blitzer that he is supporting Bush only on one issue--his record on combatting terrorism. What bullshit! What he really means Bush allowing Ariel Sharon to become a quasi-member of his cabinet.
And I don't recall anyone smearing Poppy's war record...
Well, I certainly do. It was de rigueur among the Left for years to refer to GHWB as a 'wimp', which proves, once again, how clueless Lefties are about such matters.
"soaking up every RNC talking point he can get his hands on"
judith, judith, judith, I absolutely love how quickly you jump to inane conclusions. For starters, I haven't seen anything on the RNC, and in fact just got my Internet connection up and running today. All I know is that the RNC is starting today. That's it.
But if it makes you feel any better, you just keep thinking that all I do is parrot whatever the GOP talking heads have to say. Fact is, I pay very little attention to them, and find out most about what they have to say - believe it or not - from this forum. Of course, all of that is skewed to the biased left of most posters here...
Okay, let's just say that is an amazing coincidence how closely your remarks follow the party line and the talking points the RNC gives to every person making an appearence on TV or talking to the media.
"...jexster wants to claim to be against all war, yet decry certain Repubs who didn't find their way into Vietnam."
kuliginthehooligan, except in the framework of your false logic and contrived premises, Jexter's or anyone's opposition to war is not at all inconsistent with being also opposed to the hypocritical cowardice of Cheney, Bush and all the other unprincipled draft-dodgers.
"We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world." -- George W. Bush July 30th 2004.
"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”
I loved Bush's comment yesterday about the smear-ad: "I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn't so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now." "Us"?? I thought Bush had nothing to do with it.
Looks like the Homophobis Moron has made himself another enemy
Something BIG is about to happen that links the Pentagon Spy and the WH treason scandals
Jexsta,
I don't think the "something big" is either about to happen or even ever come out with a bang into the mainstream press.
However, the implied "something big" was indeed discussed in vague terms by two or three commentators in the wake of the Israel "spy" probe. Briefly, these people - one of whom was former agent Larry Diamond - alleged that this investigation has been an open secret for a year now and started with the strong suspicion (and some evidence) that the so called 'Niger letter' was a forgery provided to Pentagon hawks by Israeli intelligence.
There are some corollary claims, some more fanciful than others. One is that Feith's office has been conspiring to draw the US into another war, this time by launching an Israeli airstrike on Iranian facilities which would draw that country into conflict with the US.
But the stories have not particularly beeen picked up, and I'm not even sure that they should be without detailed evidence. Those are some pretty fucking strong allegations.
But what is clear is the CIA is in fact in open war with the neocons, and that from top on down (including Tenet) they have been complaining privately that Israel has moles in very high places in the US government. It's pretty clear now that Tenet complained about this even up to the day that he "resigned", and never was satisfied by Israeli protestations to the contrary.
I know you lurv him in your manful manner, Jex, but I tire of Josh Marshall's irritating smugness and penchant for being a tease. Why didn't he just come out with what he had to say, in a sensible manner?
Never had read any of these bloggers until I followed some of the links here. Initially, I found the talkingpointsmemo.com stuff kind of novel and the format an interesting one with which to track news. But I haven't read anything half-way interesting or novel or unique on that site (when I check it out, which ain't often) in months.
The other fellow Jex links endlessly, Juan Cole, now that's a different story. He's got some great and unique perspective from his established profession as a Shi-ite expert in academia. It's usually informative to go to his blog.
A Aug. 22-24 survey of registered voters conducted for NPR by Greenberg, Quinlan,Rosen and Public Opinion Strategies found John Kerry Leading George W. Bush 50% to 45% in a two man race and Kerry 47%, Bush 43% and Nader 3% in a three way match-up.
If you had been reading TPM instead of turning up your brick dust twat at it you'd know a few things...
You'd know that Marshall has been working for months on a Washington monthly story which involved neocons, Iran, niger uranium, Iraq, the CIA, the FBI and Plame
You would also know that Newsday scooped him on part of his story last month (the backdoor IraN connection)
YOu would also have noticed how rushed his Washington Monthly piece was..and you would know why..
That's because the surprise leak of the Pentagon spy story scooped another part of the story...
Then since you've been following the Twelfth Imam, you'd have understood what Dr. Cole meant by his pointed admonition follow Josh Marshall on this in the context that Cole has already elaborated and that Marshall is about to burst over..
I am not inclined to criticize Bush for flip flopping on winning the war. His most recent comment is closer to the truth than his continual previous, braggadocio about winning the war on terrorism.
The so called "war on terror" isn't susceptible to winning or losing like WWI or WWII. In reality we are all losers and are likely to continue to be. As long as there are out-of-control Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious fanatics there will be no identifiable end to the conflict.
Kerry and Edwards would have been well-advised to let that one pass.
Saw Elizabeth Dole on CNN briefly explain that Bush didn't really mean he couldn't win the war on "tara." If that was true, she claimed, he wouldn't be in it. "He just meant we aren't winning it right now." She also claimed his greatest strength was "his integrity." Dream on, Libby baby.
Winning the war on terror will take longer than winning the battle against AIDS or malaria or dysentery or poverty. War is a poor term for what is going on, anyway.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Edward L. Schrock abruptly announced Monday that he will not seek a third term in Congress, citing unspecified allegations that have ``called into question'' his ability to serve.
Although Schrock did not comment on why he decided against seeking re-election, several Virginia Republicans said allegations that Schrock is gay have roiled the party since they were posted on a Web log Aug. 19.
Watching the Fascist tent revival in NYC just now, trotting out the 9/11 grievers was nauseating enough but Giuliani's invoking the 9/11 jumpers is a new low, even lower than Robert Dole's recent "your wounds don't measure up to my gimpy-arm standard" smear.
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Ralph Nader (news - web sites)'s bid to be listed as an independent candidate on Pennsylvania's presidential ballot was rejected Monday by a judicial panel, eliminating a political wild card that Democrats had feared would give President Bush (news - web sites) an advantage in a major battleground state.
The three-judge panel said he had forfeited his right to run as an independent by accepting the nomination of the national Reform Party. Pennsylvania law prohibits a person who is affiliated with a political party from running as an independent, and the Commonwealth Court panel dismissed Nader's argument that the ban applied only to Pennsylvania residents.
Separately, officials in Missouri said Monday that Nader won't be on the presidential ballot there.
"KTH, do you agree with Falwell and Robertson that God is a Republican?"
Did Falwell and/or Robertson say that God was a Republican?
Neither party nor its leaders are totally without fault, but on the whole, the Republican party does stand closer to Christian principles and biblical ideals, and closer to the roots of our country, than does the Democrapic Party.
judith, then it is obviously a coincidence, because I don't follow any of the pundits.
I knew all of that stuff about the nexus and Marshall's nosing-around and the implications of this big gangbusters story. Hell, you've posted enough about it here.
My (deep) skepticism tcenters on whether it is something that is either (a) significant enough to hurt the political campaign for Dubya or (b) very likely to even be played as a major national story in the first place.
I submit to you the flurry of national press and TV reports saying variously that Franklin was a low-level flake, Franklin was a wild-card eccentric, Israel has no need to spy so this does not count as espionage and that this whole matter has been trumped up by disgruntled political opponents of the Prez.
Where this story will play and play, and be believed even at the margins of its wildest implications - is abroad.
In watching the speeches yesterday, I was struck by how sincere McCain is and how much not the total pol. He never crossed personal lines, he never took the attack past levels of decency, he has no future in the highest politics of this country and I think he knows it. The Republicans will never rally around him.
But Giuliani, the hard-nosed New Yorker, that is a consummate pol. He clearly wants a future in the Republican Party and despite his natural unsuitability - total ethnic name, NY'er, soft on all social issues - he probably has bought himself one with that speech yesterday.
The most telling thing is the reaction of the Israeli embassy about the whole business -- along the lines of "why would we bother with a spy? If we want to know their policy, we phone them up and tell them what it is".
Say I am curious AC, Pelle, MacN and other auslanders, what do you make of the silliness that we call political campaigns? Compare and contrast kinda thing....
Noticed yesterday at SF State that the Geog Dept has put up an electoral college display in its GIS showcase.
I didn't stop to read the explanatory notes but the map is quite revealing.
Unlike other EV predictors they don't bother forcing recent state polls with results within the MOE into blue or red which of course is highly misleading.
I can't remember the exact numbers but with just three categories the map is something like
Kerry 270 BUsh 180 Tossup 110
That gives a much more accurate picture of the EV race I think
The Myth: The SBVT controversy seriously harmed the Kerry campaign. Bush comes into his convention in much better political shape than he has been for quite a while.
The Reality: The race has changed little since the start of the SBVT controversy. Bush enters his convention with basically the same political vulnerabilities he had previously.
Let's go to the numbers. ....
And another critical thing hasn't changed at all--Bush's ratings in all his vulnerable areas (the economy, Iraq, health care, etc.), as well as voters' sense of whether the country is going in the right direction and whether a different direction is needed. These indicators have all continued to be quite negative (in some cases, have actually worsened) over the course of August, including the period allegedly affected by the SBVT controversy.
This is Bush's problem. He's got to run on something and, unfortunately for him, he has precious little to run on other than being the president of 9/11. The SBVT ads and subsequent media feeding frenzy didn't change that equation in the slightest--and it's not an equation that favors Bush's re-election.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - President Bush (news - web sites) will tell the nation's largest veterans' group Tuesday that "we will win" the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism of his remark aired a day earlier that victory in the anti-terror battle may not be possible, his spokesman said.
AP Photo
Reuters Slideshow: Republican National Convention
Latest headlines: · Artist Promotes 'Patriot' Work in N.Y. AP - 2 minutes ago
· Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War AP - 18 minutes ago
· N.Y. Police Brace for Anti-GOP Protests AP - 23 minutes ago
All Election Coverage
In a speech before the national convention of the American Legion, the president will make it "crystal clear" that America will win the war on terrorism, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
"Not only are we winning it, but we will win it," McClellan said in describing Bush's speech.
That message contradicts Bush's statement, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror.
Look Up in the Sky Its a Bird, Its an Armadillo, Its a Flying Scum Bag
jexster --- I and many commentators here are worried about the extreme polarization of American politics and the implications of that in the long run. I used to ridicule your low voter turn-out but this time I hope it will stay low. It will show that there is a large chunk of Americans who are happy to get on with their lives without getting involved in the shrill going-ons.
One can vote "without becoming involved in the shrill goings on." Voting is a civic duty, especially when the election result is in doubt, and there are big differences in the positions of the candidates on important issues.
A moral dilemma? No. I don't care much about the outcome. It would be nice if Kerry would win, but the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel/Palestine has essentially passed beyond American control because of the foolish policies pursued over the last 3-4 years.
1) It will make an instant difference to specific US relationships, (with the UN, with the major Euro powers) when Kerry is elected. Watch.
2) You should care about the outcome, bud. If Bush is re-elected, it means that the face and the "leadership" of the entire Western world will still be his reviled mug. You Swedes like to hedge your bets, but through the scope of a rifleman in (pick your country) a Swede passes for a crusader just as much as anyone.
3) The Israel-Palestine situation will expressly not improve until and unless the US makes a stand one way or the other. Kerry may not be the man to make that stand (he claims he is not), but you can be assured that Bush is not the man either and can be guaranteed to further roil the waters.
4) You like broad scale war? If Dubya gets in again, no matter how narrowly, these fellows are going to treat it as an American mandate to "correct" the Middle East. No stakes there for you, Swede?
Well, the Democrats continue to wrap themselves in the flag. Its wrong when the Republicans do it and its just as wrong when the Democrats do it.
Here is a quote about the Republican delegate who was handing out "purple heart bandaids."
"It is inexcusable for a delegate to mock anyone who has ever put on a soldier's uniform," said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice."
That is one of the stupidest remarks I have ever heard. I don't believe that Kerry exaggerated his injury to get a purple heart. But if he did do it then he should indeed be mocked. There are good people and there are bad people who are soldiers. They certainly aren't above the rest of us, as in a special class of citizen who are immune from criticism.
Voting in 2004 is looking more and more like an exercise in futility. Bush, Kerry, or Nader -- what a choice!
5) I consider it highly arguable that the Bush-led actions in Afghanistan have not led to a net improvement for Afghans, for the region, and for the world.
They were half-assed, they diverted resources, they made stupid mistake after stupid mistake. But fine, it's still quite an achievement to have made the country safe enough for the return of millions of refugees. And as Safire pointed out yesterday, Karzai expected (very hopefully) to have seven of the nine million potential voters to register for the upcoming elections show. Slightly embarrasingly, nine point nine million registrations have been recorded.
So the republican smear campaign is working on you. That's what they want you to do, throw up your hands and stay home. They want you to say that they're all the same, that publishing lying smears is the same thing as publishing accurate information on a candidate's past and a candidate's policies. It's all "just partisan politics," which has become a dirty, reprehensible exercise, and so, why vote?
This is precisely why the republicans run these poisonous campaigns--to get the records off the table, and make the swing voter stay home.
Yes..indeed..the functional nature of apathy Dahl used to call it.
But I was more interested in what you guys think of the style, the content, the length, the "debate", the obsession with polls and endless spin cycles...in short how we do it v. how you guys do it..
Given all the protests and the internet, i'm hopeful that for the first time in years the younger crowd will get out and vote this time. They could be a huge factor in this election...especially if the dems can get their back room boys to float the rumor that if bush is reelected, he'll institute a draft.
Unlike pelle, i find it most heartening to see people getting their backs up over the election and hope it drives involvement up like crazy. no point in having a democracy if no one votes.
Thoughtful..that is the GOP scam...control the government and convince the people that the government cannnot do anything for them so don't bother voting so that they can control the government so that fewer people will percieve they have a stake, so that fewer people vote so that the GOP can wrest more power so that...
You are overstaitng your case, Marj. Yes, there would be a change in relations with UN and Europe but it would, I think, be change of style rather than of substance. The American mindset has changed after 911 and it will not swing back in the short term. I don't think Kerry can count on a groundswell of support for a multilateral foreign policy.
"In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table. But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win," Bush said, pausing to grin slightly. "We will win by staying on the offensive, we will win by spreading liberty."
Four days ago, retired naval Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. seconded accusations made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam. But since then, Democrats have discovered that Schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.
"So the republican smear campaign is working on you. That's what they want you to do, throw up your hands and stay home."
This is pure nonsense. Again, if Republicans can truly drum up their evangelical base of support and get them out to vote, this wouldn't even be close. In the 2000 election, only one in four evangelicals took the time to vote, yet evangelicals vote 87% of the time for a Repub candidate.
But Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, has made increasing Christian conservative turnout a top priority this election, saying that he believes the president nearly lost the election in 2000 because about four million conservative Christian voters failed to go to the polls.
Annenberg:
White evangelicals and born-again Christians are 26 percent of all registered voters—that’s quite a big chunk—and the survey shows they are quite happy with Republicans,” said Adam Clymer, political director of the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey, which polled 3,715 registered voters nationwide July 1 to 21, with a margin of error of 1 percentage point.
Facts, Kuligan? I'm getting tired of having to do this, though.
Just to make it clear, there were 205.8 million registered voters in 2000 (FEC).
That puts the evangelical count at over 50 million. Rove's missing 4 million indicates (as did the turnout by relgious grouping) that they turn out at the same rates as other religious groups. His failure was not generating more than the usual turnout with a religious right candidate. This time they are pursuing those votes more vigorously, since the old "compassionate conservative" centrist strategy is no longer available; there is a record now.
Two-thirds of registered voters turned out. About half of eligible voters turned out.
AlD's Schacte Slime's Gone the Way of His Big Horsie Theory of Moslem Control; His Richard Clarke Slime; His Memory of 1969, and the Do Do Bird
This is a story about Swift boats and FastShip BUSH-SHIT Four days ago, retired naval Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. seconded accusations made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam. But since then, Democrats have discovered that Schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government.
On Aug. 27, Schachte issued a statement saying that after he "avoided talking to media" for months, he was reluctantly stepping forward to challenge Kerry's award of one of his Purple Hearts on Dec. 2, 1968. "Kerry had himself in charge of the operation, and I was not mentioned at all," he said. "He also claimed that he was wounded by hostile fire. None of this is accurate. I know, because I was not only in the boat, but I was in command of the mission."
Kulligan is as usual....Off Base and now he's caught in a run down
In a dead-even election, of course, every vote matters. But the odds that Bush is going to prevail by ignoring undecided voters and winning the turnout wars fall somewhere on the scale that leads from slim to none. If the President's wizards really believe the crap they're saying on the subject {that the Evangelicals can save the Liar-in-Chief}, it's a sure sign of a campaign in deep denial, and deep trouble.
jay, the difficult is precisely in the terminology. I've already posted the data on this issue, and you chose to ignore it then obviously. One cannot simply look at one source and then claim to really know what he or she is talking about. My data has come from CNN, Gallop polls, Christianity Today, The Barna Group, and so on. Adherents.com is a very thorough website that is most helpful in this regard.
Go look at it and look at the difference in numbers between "evangelical" and "evangelical (theologically)." Again, the problem is in the definition of terms. Some people, for example, claim to be self-professed "evangelicals" according to Gallop, but when theological meaning is given to the term, such as in polls conducted by Barna, CT, and so on, the numbers drop fast.
Back in July, I posted figures for evangelical in America that were above 100,000. Of course, all I got was kneejerk reactions from the rabble here, because most are just too lazy to question the lies they have been fed.
So I'll just keep on doing this, posting facts and watching the morons here make their ignorant comments about them. That's pretty much what you guys do in here each and every day.
Back to the main point. Evangelicals simply did not turn up and vote in 2000, yet the vast of majority of evangelicals vote Republican. As I said back in July, if the evangelicals turn out and vote like they should, this election won't even be close, nor would have the 2000 election.
Contest it all you like, jay, but I'm not even sure you know what 'evangelical' means. You have already, in the Religion thread, shown complete ignorance on it.
So quick, go look it up and come back and pretent to know what you are talking about. You do that so well.
Also in July I suggested that the US do something akin to Australia, which is either to make voting mandatory, or to provide financial remuneration for doing so. I'd love to see numbers like Australia, with voter turn-out in the mid 90s, because then the Repubs would win by landslides.
Kuligan, your claim was nonnsensical on its face. No group of registered voters has 25% turnout in a presidential election. Ever. You claim to have provided evidence, but don't bother to say where it is. The 87% number is also ridiculously high, as the results from the election show.
And I wasted fifteen minutes proving that, to get the typical handwaving nonsense from you. What is it about conservatives that force them to distort the truth and just flat lie? Of course, on this one, they're the victims--they're lying to themselves. That should tell me something, but I can't figure out what it is.
Stop bellyaching about your 15 minutes of wasted time, jay. I've already posted this data before, in this very thread, and it was just ignored. Now you want to act like you know what you are talking about, when all you've done is spend fifteen minutes looking into it!!
Thanks for the admittance of the short shrift you give these things, yet claim to know what you are talking about. Helpful to know for future reference.
Here's an interesting comment from Slate, of all places:
"But Bush's political folks view this as a huge target of opportunity. They were able to increase turnout among religious conservatives in the 2002 congressional elections through aggressive get-out-the-vote efforts. The 2004 election may turn in part on whether religious Christians behave more like they did in 2000 or 2002."
In other words, the religious conservatives did not turn out and vote in 2000 like they did in 2002.
Again, this debunks your inane notion, jay, the the Repubs just want people to stay home. As this Slate article points out, it was actually a get-out-and-vote Repub mentality that worked effectively in 2002 for them.
Kill-a-Goon, the fact that that comment bothers you so much speaks volumes for it's accuracy in describing GOPer strategy. Make the potential Kerry voter complacent and stir up your own base.
You fool no one, but yourself, Brother Hypocrite. Go kneel and ask your God-Of-Vengence for more reprisals of the poor and the weak.
the Republican delegate who was handing out "purple heart bandaids."
This is a disgusting "joke" played by disgusting people. It's very junior high. And I daresay none of the conventioneers who are sporting those bandaids were ever in the military.
I just hope none of their family members were, either.
Consumer Report Part 1: Look at this -- the Diebold GEMS central tabulator contains a stunning security hole
Issue: Manipulation technique found in the Diebold central tabulator -- 1,000 of these systems are in place, and they count up to two million votes at a time.
By entering a 2-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created. This set of votes can be changed, so that it no longer matches the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the bogus vote set. It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully mitigate the risks.
This program is not "stupidity" or sloppiness. It was designed and tested over a series of a dozen version adjustments.
"So the republican smear campaign is working on you. That's what they want you to do, throw up your hands and stay home."
To point out the obvious to those too obtuse to see it; the inference is clearly that they want you to stay home only if you are not Republican. But they go much further than just trying to turn people off with negative ads. In Florida, they are well into their usual attempt to intimidate black voters. But these tactics may now be obsolete. The Republicans in Florida seem pretty blase about the Diebold "voting" machines and some even seem to grin when the subject comes up.
The use of negative advertising to drive down turnout is electoral politics 101, kuligan. The guy who is behind uses the technique in the hopes that his supporters will not be affected. Republicans, who traditionally benefit from low turnout have used negative campaigns for pretty much ever. You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of how electoral politics works-while making absurd, unsubstantiated claims.
Karl Rove says he lost 4 million votes, not 36.5 million.
The use of negative advertising to drive down turnout is electoral politics 101, kuligan. The guy who is behind uses the technique in the hopes that his supporters will not be affected. Republicans, who traditionally benefit from low turnout have used negative campaigns for pretty much ever. You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of how electoral politics works-while making absurd, unsubstantiated claims.
Karl Rove says he lost 4 million votes, not 36.5 million.
"What are the democrats saying that is bothering you, greystoke?"
I was complaining about the Democrats wrapping themselves in the flag every time someone criticizes John Kerry.
Specifically:
"It is inexcusable for a delegate to mock anyone who has ever put on a soldier's uniform," said Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is inexcusable to mock service and sacrifice."
I had to turn off NPR when they were interviewing some dittohead who was saying that Bush went in and dug the terrorists out of Iraq. I wanted to shake the journalist more than her Ask her why she still believes the lie that they were even there in the first place, you twit!!!
I like Bill's suggestion in the Suggestions thread, but I don't know if my bloodpressure can take it.
Soros has written this letter to Hastert, asking him to put up or shut up, or, more specifically "either substantiate these claims --which you canont do because they are false -- or publicly apologize for attempting to defame my character and damage my reputation."
Whatever you think of Soros, this is the sort of slur that only comes from a real pig. And to think that the author of it is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and out in the light of day.
NEW YORK - David Tayman is a registered Republican who thinks the economy is turning around, a defense industry worker who considers Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) to be "flippy-floppy." Sounds like a vote for President Bush (news - web sites).
But the 31-year-old LaPlata, Md., resident is angry about the war in Iraq (news - web sites), and finds the Republican incumbent to be more conservative than compassionate. "So I'm undecided," Tayman said Monday night as he turned on his television in search of the GOP convention. "What am I going to do?"
Wouldn't Bush and Kerry like to know? Whether fence-sitters like Tayman break for the Democrat in a thirst for change, stick with Bush and the comfort of status quo or stay home Election Day out of disgust, so-called "persuadable voters" may well determine the election. Conventional wisdom gives Kerry the edge among these wavering voters, but interviews with dozens of them suggest the incumbent has advantages, too.
Undecided voters account for just four to five percent of the electorate, according to most polls, though the universe of persuadable voters ranges up to 20 percent when pollsters include people who say they lean toward one candidate and still might vote for another. By any measure, the number of voters still open to persuasion is smaller than normal.
AP-Ipsos polling shows that persuadable voters are more disappointed than others with Bush's job performance. Their negative views track almost every issue, from Bush's handling of the war in Iraq to his foreign policies, the economy and domestic initiatives. Nearly seven in 10 of them believe the country is headed on the wrong track.
They're eager for a new direction, even in a time of war, if Kerry can convince them that it's safe to change. ....
EDITOR'S NOTE — Ron Fournier has covered the White House and national politics since 1993.
Imagine a President Schwarzenegger facing a decision in the interest of the USA that might well do harm to the family back in the Fatherland. Would he hesitate a moment too long? The Founding Fathers obviously thought of such things, and we should trust them in this instance. Put him on the Supreme Court; we all know what Sandra Day O'Connor really needs.
Why did I watch even one minute of the Republican National Convention ???? My gag reflex is in hyper drive and I think of myself as a politically sophisticated person... the kind of person who refrains from screaming back at the television set. America can't possibly buy this bait and switch routine I tell myself and yet . . .
God'sOwnParty B/C Campaign Hold Closed Religious Rally
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer NEW YORK - The Bush-Cheney campaign held a rally for religious conservatives behind closed doors Tuesday, as the GOP shifted public focus toward its more moderate representatives at the Republican convention.
The "Faith, Family & Freedom Rally" drew hundreds to the Grand Ballroom at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Among the leaders who were introduced but did not speak were the Rev. Jerry Falwell, conservative activist Gary Bauer (news - web sites), and Tony Perkins, head of the conservative Family Research Council, according to several people who attended the event.
The campaign also distributed written endorsements from evangelical leaders including the Rev. Jack Graham, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a Colorado ministry.
I don't know. I'd think it'd be refreshing not to be bored to distraction by lies about 'helping' our middle class by raising taxes or becoming 'independent' of foreign oil without developing our own resources or Kerry's everlasting mantra about his medals.
Swift Boat Attack: Democrats Pounce On Bush For Declaring 'War On Terror' Unwinnable Edwards on the .50 cal John Edwards bashed Bush for being defeatist while on the campaign trail in North Carolina. 'After months of listening to the Republicans base their campaign on their singular ability to win the war on terror, the president now says we can't win the war on terrorism,' Edwards said in a speech in Wilmington. 'This is no time to declare defeat,' he said...
[Wesley] Clark said that the war on terrorists 'motivated by Islamic extremist ideology is winnable, by going after, attacking and defeating the specific groups that attack us, cutting off their ability to recruit, (and) defeating the claims of their ideology.' It was also important to strengthen homeland security and keep militants from accessing weapons of mass destruction, Clark said, adding that the Bush administration's approach to the problem 'is fundamentally flawed.'...
'Imagine if President Truman had responded to the Iron Curtain with a wall of indifference?,' Edwards asked."
Well, I can at least see how Herr Ahhhnoold would appeal to the Nazi in connie . . . was it the Grecian Formula or the Nazi Party Ring that did it, concerned-about-dying-soon?
Conservatives have sought to discredit Soros by attacking his foreign and Jewish roots and his support of liberal causes, and by saying that his currency speculation actually hurt the very people he claims to want to help.
“No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the embodiment of the Merchant from Venice,” wrote GOPAC, an organization that helps elect GOP candidates, on its website last year.
UNFIT FOR COMMAND' STAYS #1 BOOK IN NATION WITH 45,069 SCANNED FOR WEEK [133,221 SINCE RELEASE]... OVER FRANKS 'AMERICAN SOLDIER' 30,952 SOLD [166,333 TOTAL] ... OVER CLINTON 'MY LIFE' 19,639 [1,058,232]... OVER NYT MAUREEN DOWN 15,742 SOLD FOR WEEK [64,688 TOTAL]... OVER JAMESON 'MAKE LOVE LIKE PORN STAR' 14,219 TOTAL... DEVELOPING...
When is the Kerry campaign going to highlight the Bush administration's manifest unconcern and lack of preparedness for a terrorist attack in the US before 9/11?
Who is jexster to be claiming anti-Semitism among conservatives? IMO, jexster is among the two or three most anti-semitic people in the Mote. (And the other candidates are LW, btw.)
My point being that the Dems have a big advantage on all domestic issues and even the advantage on IraQ. They should hit Bush where he least expects to be hit and do it hard.
The counter is attack where Bush is weakest.
Now that IraQ is a weak spot use that as the lever to the failed war on terror and the Regime's criminal 911 thing...the spy scandal fits this too..
Maybe that's too complicated a strategery to put into soundbite???
That's a non-starter, since any such attempt will instead highlight Xlowntoon's far greater unpreparedness (as, say, WTC #1) and actual coddling of terrorism.
If Xlowntoon hadn't been a total failure against terrorism, he would have had bin Laden in custody in the '90's, there wouldn't have been a '911' and almost certainly no requirement for the wars against the Taliban and Saddam.
All I am doing is putting the blame where it belongs.
It is easy enough to contrast unpreparedness in 1993 and ineffectiveness (and Republican noncooperation contributing to it) later in the Clinton administration with the willful ignoring of the threat by the Bush administration, which was conducting its foreign policy and counterterrorism "policy" based on doing the opposite of what Clinton did.
Your response is perverted by that 'it's really all the Republicans' fault regardless of who holds power in the executive and legislative branches' horseshit again.
If Xlowntoon hadn't been a total failure against terrorism, he would have had bin Laden in custody in the '90's, there wouldn't have been a '911' and almost certainly no requirement for the wars against the Taliban and Saddam.
So if clinton's failure was so obvious, why didn't w make getting OBL and stopping terrorism a priority on day one? Why did they ignore info by berger et. al. on the importance of al qaeda? why did they focus on iraq instead of al qaeda on day one? why did condi say after 9/11, iraq was off the table and afghanistan was on? why didn't they react to the briefing memo saying OBL determined to attack within the US? why was rummy so focused on reinvigorating sdi when the terrorists were attacking with rubber dingies and rented vans? why was counterterrorism not even on ashcroft's priority list on 9/10/01? Why did ashcroft include budget cuts for counterterrorism funding for the states and fbi? etc etc
you can hold wjc responsible for what he did while in office, but once he was out, there was ample opportunity for the bushies to change priorities as they did on so many other issues. the fact remains their eye was not on al qaeda. they willfully ignored all advice from the prior administration as they fully believed all things clinton were evil, and as a result they gave short shrift to the terrorist threat. they dropped the ball and bear the responsibility for doing so.
So if clinton's failure was so obvious, why didn't w make getting OBL and stopping terrorism a priority on day one?
As everybody knows who actually bothers to stop and think about this for a moment, in the time frame from 1998 to 2000, bin Laden succeeded in strongly influencing and getting full support from the Taliban government, moving his permanent base of operations there.
Therefore, GWB was faced with a much more difficult situation wrt Al Qaeda and the Taliban when he took office than Xlowntoon enjoyed throughout most of his two terms.
Why did bin Laden get such uncompromising support from the Taliban at this point of time? Because he had demonstrated to radical Islamists around the world throughout Xlowntoon's two terms in office that he could plan and execute his terrorist agenda with near impunity for over six years. This is Xlowntoon's fault.
It's actually pretty complicated, concerned. You should read the book I'm reading now, By Steve Coll, called Ghost Wars. Clinton was actively trying to get bin Laden from about 1997 on, but faced formidable obstacles, obstacles much more formbidable than those faced by the current administration.
But that's neither here nor there. The guy hit us on Bush's watch. We still don't have him. We've expended enormous eums on a side issue, and completely screwed that pooch in the process.
But at least you're on message. Nothing that has happened in the past four three and a half years is Bush's fault. Things just happened. He did all he could. But, in assessing his performance, apparently results don't matter.
Perhaps Concerned would care to address Conservative Republican opposition to surveillance measures--now enshrined in the Patriot Act--that the Clinton administration tried to get through Congress after the Oklahoma City bombing. This peculiar alliance with the usual Liberal suspects most likely had less to do with libertarian conscience and more to do with the ideological affinity that some Republican congressmen felt with McVeigh's political philosophy.
Concerned can then describe the Republican reaction had Clinton attempted to insert troops into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden. He could use the Khartoum strike and Kosovo as examples.
He could then discuss the political price that Clinton would have paid had he met the Sudanese government's conditions for handing over Bin Laden, given their continued and continuing use of genocidal strategy against people in the south of Sudan and Dharfur.
But in the end, Concerned would still have to address the fact that the Bush administration had other priorities when it took office, priorities that--as a matter of public record--did not rank terrorism very high, even though the Bush administration had received specific warnings as to the threat that Bin Laden posed.
10:45 PM Alan Keyes: Reading of List of Black Republicans -- Twice 10:46 PM Seminar #2: Education: A Drain on our Nation's Economy 11:10 PM Hilary Clinton Piñata 11:20 PM Second John Ashcroft Lecture: Evolutionists: The Dangerous New Cult 11:30 PM Acceptance Speech of Presidential Nominee (Joint Appearance, Not Under Oath): George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
11:50 PM Closing Prayer, Last Round and Final Bet, William Bennett 12:00 AM Nomination of George W. Bush as Holy Supreme Planetary Overlord
He could then discuss the political price that Clinton would have paid had he met the Sudanese government's conditions for handing over Bin Laden, given their continued and continuing use of genocidal strategy against people in the south of Sudan and Dharfur.
This book I'm reading says that American officials deny such an offer was made, and that Tenet testified to that effect, under oath, to a Congressional committee.
There were failed deals involving the Saudis that are undisputed, I believe.
and i would argue that scaife and starr & co also had a role to play. how much of wjc's time in office was chewed up dealing with multimillion dollar investigations into whitewater, foster's death, lewinsky, paula jones, cattle futures, impeachment, etc. And when he did try to get obl, he was accused of doing it just to divert attention away from lewinsky. wjc had a plan to create the department of homeland security...a plan that looked very much like the one bush has instituted but he never even tried to get it through as he knew congress would never agree to it arguing "big government". The same way that congress stalled and then significantly watered down clinton's proposed counter-terrorism bills he presented.
And this brought to you by the party that said the president is to be respected. even if you can't respect the man, you should respect the office. it is unpatriotic to question a president in a time of war. it is unpatriotic not to stand behind the president when the country is attacked.
The next HUGE window of opportunity - the Porter Goss confirmation hearings in October where (and during floor debates) we will hear inter alia:
- Why Goss voted for 5 billion more in Intel Cuts than Bush faults Kerry for - How his Intel Committee bought into lies on WMD and the IraQ/Al Qaeda connection - how Bush screwed up North Korean nukes - how IraN has a nuclear program and IraN gave free passage to Al Qaeda - how the US is losing the War Against Islamist Terror - how Israel spies inflitrated the US government - How Ahmad Chalabi plied Bush with bogus intel and got paid for doing so - and how Bush tried to kill the 911 commission investigation which exposed his regime's gross negligence in the deaths of 3000 US citizens on 911 while Bush read "my Pet Goat"
But for now Kerry is off to an excellent start before the American Legion
"Republicans sold us out with a generation of trickle-down economics that blew the deficit sky-high, drove poverty through the roof, and squeezed the middle class like a lemon at a county fair. They gave themselves the goldmine, and they gave the rest of us the shaft."
But, in assessing his performance, apparently results don't matter.
Sure they do. How many Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil have we had since 9/11? Even you could count them with your brain cell tied behind your back.
Concerned can then describe the Republican reaction had Clinton attempted to insert troops into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden. He could use the Khartoum strike and Kosovo as examples.
My point is that Xlowntoon allowed the window of opportunity to close when he could have easily have taken bin Laden out of circulation. Bush never had any such option, thanks to x42. I'm thinking particularly when Xlowntoon refused the offer by the Sudanese government to turn over Osama bin Laden, but there were others throughout the '90's, all of which Xlowntoon obdurately refused to take advantage of.
From James Fallows in the Atlantic via delong's web site:
I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history—or only the worst since Vietnam.... "Let me tell you my gut feeling," a senior figure at one of America's military-sponsored think tanks told me recently, after we had talked for twenty minutes about details of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. "If I can be blunt, the Administration is full of shit. In my view we are much, much worse off now than when we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves. We are playing to the enemy's political advantage. Whatever tactical victories we may gain along the way, this will prove to be a strategic blunder."...
Contrary to Xlowntoonian whingeing, the US government already had accumulated more than enough evidence to arrest and convict bin Laden by 1996 when they turned down the opportunity to take him into custody upon his exile from the Sudan for his involvement in the following terrorist acts in which the lives of US citizens were lost:
February 26, 1993
Bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six and injuring 1,042 people.
October 3-4, 1993
Eighteen American servicemen killed—reportedly by Al-Qa’ida-trained fighters—in a firefight in Mogadishu, Somalia.
November 13, 1995
Bombing outside Saudi Arabia’s National Guard Communications Centre in Riyad, killing two Indians and five American servicemen.
June 25, 1996
Bombing of the U.S. military housing complex, Khobar Towers, in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen.
Tenet said under oath that no such offer was made. Seriously, concerned, you need to get more solid facts behind your claims. Bin Laden is and always has been very security conscious, and is constantly surrounded by guards he has known for years. The CIA was, for example, able to get recruit a guard at one of his safe houses in 1998-99, but the guy never had enough warning of bin Laden's arrival to get word to the CIA.
They also had a commando team in country, as well as constant surveillance of his routes. bin Laden knows this and behaves accordingly. But they were working through the ISI, which was running them around. It doesn't matter though. Everything that's bad right now, the employment picture, the large and growing deficit, the raised terrorism threat, the debacle in Iraq, increased number of people with no health insurance, increased number of people in poverty, and bin Laden on the loose--these are all Clinton's fault.
Bush couldn't help it. Nothing he could do. Results don't matter.
Reputable sources attribute the Khobar Towers bombing to Iran. The Ramzi Youssef link to Bin Laden was not apparent in 1996, and the Mogadishu link was even less so--assuming there really was one.
So Republican nerd on CNN just said earnings had increased by 10% since Bush took office. First off, I don't believe that but if it's true, it must be Clinton's fault since everything else is.
Remember when everyone kind of agreeed that the memory of 9/11 was sacrosant and should not be used for political gain? Remember when even the Republicans pulled early ads because victim family groups complained about the use of the event for such purposes? Remember when politics still had shreds of decency?
The GOP was saving it all up for this week, it now is clear. The first day, 9/11 wall-to-wall. The second day, 9/11 still the theme with Dubya as "humanized" terminating avenger. Today, well, today is going to be 9/11 all over again as Cheney will pound the theme and then -shamelessly - Bush is going to photo-op and meet-and-greet with firefighters in his first NY appearance.
It's a charade, a nasty and exploitative and tawdry spectacle.
The Ramzi Youssef link to Bin Laden was not apparent in 1996,
And it is still pretty tenuous. The embassy bombings provided the bright red flag. But still, you know, there were some scary issues in the air, like nuclear weapons in the possession of hostile neighboring states. And the one we were working through had plenty of intelligence people in support of bin Laden and the Taliban.
I have this from the Center of Cooperative Research - as the 9/11 Commission Report (mentioned within) makes clear, there at least was an offer by the The Sudan to turn over bin Laden to the Saudi government, and, as other documentation indicates, probably to the US also.
The US pressures Sudan to do something about bin Laden, who is based in that country. According to some accounts, Sudan readily agrees, not wanting to be labeled a terrorist nation. Sudan's Minister of Defense engages in secret negotiations with the CIA in Washington. Sudan offers to extradite bin Laden to anywhere he might stand trial. Some accounts claim that Sudan offers bin Laden to the US, but the US decides not to take him because they don't have enough evidence at the time to charge him with a crime. [Village Voice, 10/31/01, Washington Post, 10/3/01] Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for both Clinton and Bush Jr., calls this story a “fable” invented by the Sudanese and Americans friendly to Sudan. He points out that bin Laden “was an ideological blood brother, family friend, and benefactor” to Sudanese leader Hassan al-Turabi, so any offers to hand him over may have been disingenuous. [Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, 3/04, pp. 142-143] Saudi Arabia is discussed as a possibility, but the Saudi Arabian government doesn't want him, even though bin Laden has pledged to bring down the Saudi Arabian government. The 9/11 Commission later claims they find no evidence that Sudan offers bin Laden directly to the US, but they do find evidence that Saudi Arabia is discussed as an option. [9/11 Commission Report 3/24/04] US officials insist that bin Laden leave the country for anywhere but Somalia.
One US intelligence source in the region later states: “We kidnap minor drug czars and bring them back in burlap bags. Somebody didn't want this to happen.” [Village Voice, 10/31/01, Washington Post, 10/3/01] Bin Laden leaves under pressure two months later (see May 18, 1996). CIA Director Tenet later denies Sudan made any offers to hand over bin Laden. [Senate Intelligence Committee 10/17/02]
Seriously, jay, you need to get more solid facts behind your claims. -snerk-
look, for most of us, we've already decided and so those of us against will say shameless exploitation and those of us for will say what great leadership.
those who haven't decided yet probably won't until the minute before they hit the voting booth, if they decide at all, and that will be based on something that happened in the day or 2 before the election as that's how far their memory will reach.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you go by the rich dowagers in my gym class, it not can it work, it has engendered new enthusiasm for Bush just this past week.
Of course, these are women who needn't work or worry about health insurance. Or anything else involving the economy.
Given the multiplicity of terrorist acts that bin Laden was responsible for by 1996, to assert that the Xlowntoon administration didn't have 'sufficient' evidence that bin Laden was behind any of them as much as five years after the fact is far more damning of the Xlowntoon administration than any of the allegations regarding GWB Administration intelligence shortcomings in the wake of 9/11.
Did you just fall off the turnip truck, Jay, or is your condition congenital?
If Tenet's denial of any Sudanese 'offer' is all encompassing, would you accept his word against everybody elses and all evidence? Think: 9/11 Commission, grasshopper.
"The first day, 9/11 wall-to-wall. The second day, 9/11 still the theme with Dubya as "humanized" terminating avenger. Today, well, today is going to be 9/11 all over again as Cheney will pound the theme and then -shamelessly - Bush is going to photo-op and meet-and-greet with firefighters in his first NY appearance."
Well, at least it is something in our more recent history. The Democratic National Deception was all about Vietnam, ad infinitum, a war that ENDED thirty years ago.
9/11 is quite appropriate for this, the first presidential election after it.
The safety of our country has indeed become a real issue for this the first presidential election since 9/11. And whereas the Republicans are making it an issue as it should be, the Democrats talked about a war that ended thirty years ago. Fairly easy to see the difference on this one. We have a current administration that has a determined will to confront the terrorist issue head-on, and a challenging party that hasn't a clue what to do about it.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. And the result was clearly counter-productive. It fueled the fires of terrorism and it diverted resources needed to finish the job in Afghanistan which was a hotbed of terrorism. Bush was led down the primrose path by pro-Israel neocons.
Moreover, Bush's massive tilt toward Israel is also counter productive to dealing effectively with terrorism. As is his alienation of other democratic industrial nations whose cooperation and assistance is essential to dealing effectively with terroism. Bush's grade on dealing with terrorism--D+ or C- at best.
I guess it is persuaive to call people liar and asshole for some of you, but for me it lacks substance. At least two Viet Vets have said they were on the boat with Kerry and his story is far from accurate. For people to keep claiming only those who praise Kerry were with him justs doesn't hold water. I like to think that when one brags about his heroic deeds in war that he is telling the truth. Now, I will admit that I would not vote for Kerry even if he were the greatest war hero ever.
Also, when Kerry spoke of his deep feeling for the Bible, what did he see in John 16:3 that made it his favorite verse?
Also, it is Bob Kerrey, not Kerry. I know because I made the same mistake above.
Al, whatever the truth, at least Kerry was in Vietnam while your guy was goofing off in the National Guard and very possibly skipping his physical so they wouldn't detect that he was snorting coke. You have a lot of chutzpah, as a Bush supporter, to criticize Kerry's service in Vietnam. Why don't you focus on the issues for a change? E.g., the looming multi-trillion dollar national debt, the sluggish economy, Ashcroft's depredations of our Constitutional rights, the mess in Iraq, the alienation of our allies, the despoliation of the environment, etc.
Wonkers@ First I want to congradulate you on being honest and objective as to Bush's comment "we can't win the war." fine job, may man, proud of you.
Pleaase don't attempt to poing out my criticism of Kerry war record, for it doesn't exist. I don't believe anyone could top in denegration of Viet Nam vets the Kerry you are no doubt voting for. I certainly have never heard Bush denegrate Kerry War record. I do suggest that Kerry may not having a cumpuntion against playing fast and loose with the truth. Not that lieing is a big deal.
The Georgia Democratic Party has put up a video that you might want to watch before watching tonight's Zell Miller speech. Even I had forgotten the strong parallels between Miller's 1992 attack on George H.W. Bush and Kerry's critique of his son today. DLC
Also, when Kerry spoke of his deep feeling for the Bible, what did he see in John 16:3 that made it his favorite verse?
Why not ask him...I won't pretend to know. But you could just as easily ask why Bush thinks God chose him to serve as President, something he has claimed. So why is hard to believe Kerry has a favorite verse in the Bible and not hard to believe Bush was anointed by God?
You think Kerry lied. I don't. You think Bush will be a good president for four more years. I don't. So what? Does either of us have to shut our traps because we don't agree? I thoughht that was one of the founding precepts of this country, the freedom to express oneself through speech.
Zell's Problem The problem, of course, is that Zell's return engagement in the Garden raises a pretty obvious question about what, exactly, happened between '92 and now to convert him from a Bush-bashing partisan Democrat to a Kerry-bashing supporter of Bush the Younger. And as I assume at least someone in the media will remind viewers tonight (maybe CNN's Paul Begala, who ghosted much of the '92 speech), Miller did everything short of kicking Millie the First Dog to promote the eviction of W.'s dad from the White House back then.
Miller could obviously tell delegates he was wrong then, and right (not to mention Right) today. But at a time when much of the Convention is devoted to branding John Kerry as a flip-flopper, it probably won't be helpful if the man once mocked by Georgia Republicans as "Zig-Zag Zell" suggests it's possible to change your mind about anything.
Moreover, Miller has repeatedly rejected the apology route up until now. In his recent book, which many of his new right-wing friends probably haven't actually read, he doesn't for a moment apologize for supporting Clinton in '92 or even in '96. He suggests, instead, that the Democratic Party lurched off in a leftwards direction some time around 1998--roughly the same time that Miller moved to Washington and lost his bearings.
Call it a psychic flash, but I somehow don't think Republican delegates are quite ready to applaud a speech that says: "If you liked Bill Clinton, you ought to love George W. Bush."
My guess is that Miller will allude to his '92 gig with a brief joke, and then spend the rest of his time churning out every anti-Kerry talking point he can download from the BC04 web page, nestled in a lot of faux-populist "humor" about the opposition of Democrats to the ownership of pickup trucks.
Either Bush has lied hundreds of times or he hasn't.
Lies have consequences.
Now I have been invited to sit in on a 16 week seminar on SF Politics given by the Urban Institute (as a luminary on the subject dontcha know) so Father Jex (SJ) won't be able to hear confessions today.
There are at least four possible explanations for the different approaches of the two parties on negative rhetoric:
1) The GOP truly has given up on undecided voters, and is truly concentrating on energizing its conservative base and maybe raiding a few conservative Democrats.
2) Voters hold a double standard whereby Democrats can't get away with criticizing the Leader of the Free World, while it's okay for the President's party to call John Kerry a lyin' liberal flip-flopper, so long as the invective does not come directly from the Compassionate-Conservative-in-Chief himself.
3) Republicans have become intoxicated by their belief that the Swift Vote Veterans ads have hurt Kerry, and have decided to throw out the rule book.
4) Rove and Co. know going negative is risky, but don't think they have much choice at this point.
Of course, it's also possible that today's Republicans are just mean and nasty people who do this stuff because they enjoy it. But hey, I wouldn't want to say anything that negative about them.
judith Why do you seem so outraged by my question about Kerry love of John 16:3? I looked the verse up and was just curious why he choose it. It seems obvious that someone lied about what happened on those boats. In your mind, is it impossible that Kerry bent the truth? Where have I ever even implied that people should not speak out? I think you should speak out, I think Kerry should speak out, I think Viet Nam Vets who love Kerry should speak out, I think that Viet Nam Vets who do not support Kerry should speak out, I think Usama Bin Ladin should speak out, I think jexster should speak out, I think that Ace should come back on the Mote and speak out, and I feel sure you would support my thinking.
Trouble at the polls Wednesday, September 1, 2004 The results are finally in after a computer snafu made the tabulation of votes in Hillsborough County a slow and painstaking process Tuesday night.
Workers at the Supervisor of Elections Office were at the county center until this morning trying to figure out why their computers were taking so long.
"There is nothing to be alarmed about at this point, nothing that we see," Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections Buddy Johnson said. "No lost data, nothing of that nature. But it's just slow and frustrating."
He said the problem is with the server that counts the votes from data cartridges, which every touch screen voting machine has. "Much like at your home when your system at home slows down," Johnson said.
The system slowed down to one-twelfth of its speed. Johnson said he didn't want to bother with diagnosing the problem until every vote was counted.
This is his first real test as Supervisor of Elections. Governor Jeb Bush appointed him when Pam Iorio won Tampa's mayoral race last year.
Al D, as CalGal used to say, it was the "tone" in which you posted that set me off. ;-)
I am in other forums and you will have to forgive me if I seem rather testy this evening. I have just about had it with this orgy of Republicanism today. sorry!
I do indeed agree with you that we should all be free to speak our minds. And I cannot wait for this election to be over. And unfortunately, I fear your prediction that the least qualified to serve will win. (I would move to Costa Rica by Thanksgiving if I could.)
I just have one more thing to say and then I am going to open some wine and wait for Keoni to fix the salmon we're having for dinner: yes, everyone lies at times and I think we've had enough evidence of Bush lying that he is not immune from that charge. And yes, I do believe Kerry...a man is known by the enemies he makes and he seems to have made the right ones.
Ooops...I lied: one more thing. I think it was very foolish of Dennis Hastert to make unsubstantiated slurs on Soros' money-making abilities without absolute proof. This man is third in line to be President and he is about to have his ass sued by one of the richest men in the world. Smooth move, Mr. H.
I don't suppose Hastert has enough money for Soros to bother with. There is no doubt that Hastert's comments can be taken as anti-semitic, but they may just be simply anti-shylocking. Soros makes his money by tadeing in money, and it is said he almost busted the Bank of England. What he does is legal, while usuary, unless done by an institutional lender, is not legal in most states. If there is a federal law, I am not aware of it. Enjoy the wine and the salmon. Evie has a great receipe, which I will get from her and Post in a different Thread.
Swamp dweller?? Soros is a classy guy. He made his pile and is now devoting it to helping introduce democratic, free enterprise institutions in Russia and the former USSR countries (and the U.S.).
The theme of the Republican National Convention yesterday was "People of Compassion." The Nader/Camejo Campaign has done a review of the compassion evidenced by the Bush administration's term in office. Below is a brief review of the lack of compassion he has shown for millions of Americans and for people around the world—it is not a pretty record.
Below are just a few examples of many. Is this what President Bush meant by compassion?:
For three years in a row, poverty has increased in the United States. Today, 35.9 million Americans live in poverty, up 1.3 million people in a single year and accounting for 12.5% of the U.S. population.
Poverty increased for minors aged 18 or younger to 12.9 million, representing 17.6% of American children. The definition of poverty by the Department of Labor’s definition, for example, applies to a family of four making under $18,000 a year. Clearly poverty can be experienced in reality at considerably higher levels of income by a family of four. Clearly many more families are poor than the official criteria embrace.
Yep, the handlers couldn't dress him up at all. Why they bothered to have him appear, I don't know. IMO, he wasn't impressive or added anything at all.
Half listening to Cheney. Same old same old, with flat affect.
I don't know, this reminds me of how wrong I was about how America would see the Bush/Gore debates and how I told myself then that I really don't know my adopted country that well after all.
See, when I even hear someone like Miller come into earshot, with that nasty hateful sting in his voice, I start to look for the 34" Easton metal baseball bat that is weighted just right, and kept in the closet just in case.
And by the time one of these fuckers comes into range, I like to have it close by. Because, not that I'm a violent person, but when the inevitable scumbag bigoted hatefulness comes, you know, there should be something that hits back besides words.
But here, what am I supposed to do? Whack the flat-screen?
Isn't America repelled?
No, the answer is not just that much of America is not repelled but this reptile is considered representative enough to be uncaged on this national platform.
But we haven't seen the reaction yet. The Republicans haven't directly embraced this stuff until now. And it helps if you're an attack dog to actually know what you're doing. He simply doesn't. When asked questions he falls apart into complete incoherence.
Also, I knew at the time of the Gore/Bush debates that the format favored Bush and Gore didn't do nearly as well as he should have. Kerry should do better. I think they're more important than the conventions anyway, but I will be very interested in seeing where the polls go the next few days.
I don't agree with the advice of some that Kerry should get into the mud. He should keep to the high road, but more forcefully--defensively and offensively--than he has, and I think he's already doing that. If he shifts gears too abruptly it will seem like a reaction to Republican strategy.
And on another subject, this incessant Reagan Worship is nauseating.
Bush want to grab the Reagan brass ring. Best he could do was bring on Michael Reagan who tried for so long to be part of the Reagan family inner circle. Never quite made it. Ron Reagan made a much better appearance at the dem. convention.
The conventions are only "pep rallies." I agree, Arky, the debates will be telling.
The commentators are now being heard from. David Gergen, former advisor to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton just pointed out that Miller began his career working for Lester Madoxx and has always spoken with hate.
The widow of a Bush family confidant says her husband gave the future president an Alabama Senate campaign job as a favor to his worried father. Did they see him do any National Guard service? "Good lord, no." ..................................................
Sept. 2, 2004 | NEW YORK -- Before there was Karl Rove, Lee Atwater or even James Baker, the Bush family's political guru was a gregarious newspaper owner and campaign consultant from Midland, Texas, named Jimmy Allison. In the spring of 1972, George H.W. Bush phoned his friend and asked a favor: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W. Bush?
"The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing,"
Good grief, who the hell writes speeches for these people. I'm surprised the entire conference didn't actually die laughing at this sort of crap.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel, the man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
Good grief, who the hell writes speeches for these people. I'm surprised the entire conference didn't actually die laughing at this sort of crap.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel, the man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
CR poll has Kerry up by 7 points An August 25-29 poll by ICR/EXCEL shows John Kerry with a substantial 51-44 lead over George W. Bush among registered voters and a lead roughly double that among independents.
Note: ICR is International Communications Research. The poll was conducted over the telephone as part of ICR’s twice weekly consumer omnibus study, EXCEL. ICR also polled the presidential race in 2000 and did about as well as Gallup in predicting the final margin (both organizations were off by 2 points).
Posted by EDM Staff at 08:46 PM | link | Comments (6)
My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.
He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.
Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."
John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.
John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America
Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
Wolf Blitzer interviewed Kerry campaign official Tad Devine to get his comments on the Miller and Cheney speeches, but took pains to explain to the audience CNN's justification for letting a Democrat speak. Musn't be accused of "liberal bias", you know! Wolf stopped just short of begging Ed Gillespie for forgiveness.
Andrew Sullivan (www.andrewsullivan.com) on Zell Miller:
"Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. . . . The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude."
By giving Miller a platform from which to spew his hate, the Republicans have branded themselves fairly well. This is what they mean by uniting, not dividing...anyone with hate in his heart is welcome to their big tent.
Apropos of your question as to when is Kerry gonna wax Bush for being a national security disaster area aka Failed War President, see this from Josh Marshall which answers the question "Why?" but not "When?"
Josh is on the RNC floor so he may have missed what I hope is the beginning...
The message is straightforward and explainable in ascending levels of specificity.
...
Keep the focus on the president's manifest record of failure and he loses this election. Simple as that.
That's why this whole Republican convention has come down to Zell Miller with a shotgun in hand, out in the front of the mountain homestead, holding the A-rabs and other outsiders at bay until President Bush can come save the day. Save the womenfolk. Cherish the household gods. I may die but if I do my finger will be clenched to this trigger.
Blogger Matthew Yglesias (http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew) on Zell Miller's speech:
"I don't believe I've ever heard a more disgusting speech delivered in the English language. The fact that I couldn't see a single person on the floor who seemed to feel anything less than the utmost enthusiasm for that lunacy was, well, a bit disturbing."
Do you think the Republicans' selection of Miller as keynote speaker was done with the idea that through him they could smear Kerry and Democrats with impunity? E.g., envision a Democratic Party campaign ad with a split screen showing in turn excerpts from the Democrats' keynote speaker (the uplifting Obama) and the Republicans' (the raging, smearing Miller).
Would the Repubs respond to such an ad with, "Hey, Miller's one of YOURS!"? Do they think they can get away with that?
jex, time to get your dem strategists to revive that "it's the economy, stupid." time for them to run on all those issues that the bushies won't mention as their record is so poor. Here they are proclaiming to examine kerry's senate record and refusing to address their own.
W's dad was on imus the other a.m. and imus asked him if he was better off than 4 years ago. 41 said of course he is because of his family...how proud he is of his sons and his grand children and all about the importance of family. oh he was a little worse off because he was older with a few more aches and pains, but he was truly better off.
Those issues are ours and can be weaved domestic, intl, and national defense into the simple theme that Marshall outlines above and that I proposed over a year ago..
Lies and incompetence Incompetence and lies..
You kill Bush on his weakest spot...the so-called War on Terror which is about as effective as a spastic gorilla trying to eat a bunch of bananas.
And extra added value..you have a shitload of high power surrogates ready to join the attack...
Gen Hoar Gen McPeak (supported Bush openly in 2000) Gen Clark plus about 20 other big name retired military plus an angry and motivated cadre of defense, foreign policy and intel professionals.
The man has been a disaster on the so called WOT from the day he took office...
Supporting evidence in the headlines every damned day for the past year...the trick is KISS - Keep it Simple Stupid
nope, jex. war on terror is good only for those who follow such things, but considering most americans can't even find the middle east on a world map, but know they've lost their job and can't find a new one, or their neighbor has been out of work for a couple of years, or see their mini federal tax cut get eaten up by higher state & local taxes and see interest rates rising cutting off their hopes of a new home or a cheaper mortgage and you'll hit them where it counts.
And don't forget to have them start the rumor that if bush is reelected, he'll institute a draft. All kerry has to do is start talking about when i'm president, i won't institute a draft. that'll turn out the youth vote for sure.
Moreover, yours is the same sad sack approach that led to the Dems losing an election in Nov that they had won in August.
The Dems kept waiting for the chance to talk about domestic issues (and nothing I have said diminishes their place NB) and they kept waiting..and waiting..
Failure of will and courage on this could well cost Kerry the election at worst and almost certainly will make the race closer than it need be.
The spillover is this - the public is looking to fire Bush...the public knows that Iraq is a mess...the public is ahead of the curve and is waiting for any excuse to dump Georgie...
They want someone they can trust to lead..."presidential" an over worked word, won't come easily to mind to the casually attentive voters you speak of if Kerry doesn't lay into Bush decisively on this.
nuh uh. the economy and all those other issues won't even be on the table if no one is talking about them. just like no one is talking about laura's homicidal driving or w's dui. not talked about then off the table. you need to have that memorable sticky bite in the craw of someone's throat as they're reaching for that lever. right now it's going to be kerry lied about his medals, flipflopper, anti-defense vs. bush steady leadership, didn't run from terror, accomplished a bunch of what he said he would and still has more work ahead so he needs at least another 4 years....
kerry needs to make that sticky bite be jobs, jobs, jobs, and i'll bring our boys home from iraq.
bud suggested the dems need to get as nasty as the gopers as it works...that kind of lowlife stuff sticks. he said the dems should plaster the media with pictures of gay republicans, cheney and his daughter to shake the xtian homophobic base. he even suggested smears a la hastert like, some say lesbian daughters result from having overbearing and controlling fathers...then show a picture of cheney and his daughter.
too drastic for me, but then again, the other side wouldn't think twice about doing it.
A reminder and entreaty to fellow hacks that the Salon exclusive on dubya's missing year is absolutely worth your time and trouble. Yes, the day pass routine is annoying...just go heat up your coffee and let it run.
The story comes from the widow of a one-time Bush family ally who ran the Alabama Senate campaign dubya was sent to assist. Kool-Aid addicts can be comforted by this confirmed sighting of dubya in Alabama.
A reminder and entreaty to fellow hacks that the Salon exclusive on dubya's missing year is absolutely worth your time and trouble. Yes, the day pass routine is annoying...just go heat up your coffee and let it run.
The story comes from the widow of a one-time Bush family ally who ran the Alabama Senate campaign dubya was sent to assist. Kool-Aid addicts can be comforted by this confirmed sighting of dubya in Alabama.
What a great speech by Zell Miller, who hammered away at Kerry's voting record. It echoed entirely what I said right after the Democratic National Deception, that Kerry's voting record over the past twenty years is the telling thing, not these new lies, um, promised he made during his acceptance speech.
I also admire Miller who has taken the very hard step of criticizing his own failed party, after having served it faithfully for so many years. Of course, there will be the naysayers, those bitter people who just don't know better, but Miller has made a decision on principle.
No need to go nasty...no innuendo..no half truth..no need to do it with venom and bile...no need to abandon the positive ...but no message should go out that does not hit hard, that isn't issue negative on every issue that is available and there are none that are untouchable....
good piece in the new yorker by herzberg including a nice list of w's accomplishments:
...its mania for shovelling cash to the very rich at the expense of families of middling means, its servility to polluters and fossil-fuel extractors, its reckless embrace of fiscal insolvency, its hostility to science, its political alliances with fanatic religious fundamentalisms of every stripe except Islamic (and of that stripe, too, when the subject is family planning or capital punishment), its partisan exploitation of our city’s suffering after the attacks of September 11, 2001, its transubstantiation of the worldwide solidarity that followed those attacks into worldwide anti-Americanism, and its diversion of American blood, treasure, and expertise away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to a bloody occupation of Iraq that appears to have done nothing to weaken Islamist terrorism and may have done more than a little to strengthen it.
jex, this is all well and good, but you need to understand that there are a bunch of people out there who see the world differently than you do...it's a question of how do you reach them? what will they hear the first time that will stick in their craw sufficiently to change their minds? Awol...old hat. Iraq...better than that chicken-livered kerry.
you got to hit 'em where it counts...below the belt...right in the wallet! jobs jobs jobs
The spillover is this - the public is looking to fire Bush...the public knows that Iraq is a mess...the public is ahead of the curve and is waiting for any excuse to dump Georgie...
You have a higher opinion of the public than do I, Jex. Thoughtful is right.
Look no further than Kuligin's praise of Zell Miller...no cognizance of the fact Dick Cheney voted the same way as Kerry on most of those issues when Cheney was in Congress. Praise for Miller, a self-hating coward who has been a Republican all these years in his votes and his beliefs but has been too chickenshit to just switch parties. Kuligin thinks like most of that "public" you are giving credit to...they want Bush back in for four more years. They are blind to what is in their best interest, almost psychotically so.
It's understandable that some on the Left is upset by Zell Miller's criticism of Kerry's priorities regarding US efforts against terrorism, but what they should remember is that Zell is speaking from conviction here.
Here you go, Concerned, this joke is a perfect example of your mindset:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude & spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am." The man consulted his portable GPS & replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees 14.97 minutes north latitude & 100 degrees 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes & said, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct but I have no idea what to make of your information & I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled & responded, "You must be a Republican"
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep & you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met but somehow now it's my fault."
Rest easy thoughtful..with that rabid frothing performance last night, Kerry can kick Bush up one end of the country over to the other and look like Mother Theresa
Read Beimart Thoughtful....There a deep fissures in the GOP base on foreign policy. He focuses on the midwest isolationist republican who does not buy into the Bush Democratic Revolution garbage...
The neocons too are at each others throats as the catastrophe unfolds.
Kerry does not have to go over the top..steady relentless firm pressure on the security issue will not only capture independent votes but fracture the Bush campaign internally.
Same with social issues..all that fag bashing...that shit gets visible, Kulligan will be running marathons butt naked in Beijing
Zell Miller might not be the most disgraceful politician in America, but last night he delivered the most disgraceful piece of political rhetoric in years
Could the Evil Kerry have embedded a double agent?
I shoulda watched! I bet Jon Stewart is having fun...
As if all of this wasn't lunacy enough for one night, the program also featured an absurd short film. Because it is the closest we will ever come to seeing Ionesco's idea of a campaign movie, it demands close scrutiny. Andrew Card and Karl Rove are spotted outside the White House poring over some printouts. Rove is concerned about securing "the canine vote." Card allows that this is serious. They decide to enlist Barney, the Bush family pooch.
Decades from now, scholars will replay the next scene to try to pinpoint exactly when the country lost its mind. Here we see the White House chief of staff and the President's chief political advisor, two not-unserious men, giving a pep talk to a small, confused dog. Cut to a doggy dream sequence in which Barney debates Kerry's dog, an effete French poodle sock puppet named Fifi. A caption spells out Fifi's economic plan: "Raise taxes on everyone!!!" Barney, looking increasingly uneasy, pledges to "Make the tax cuts permanent!!!" Cut now to Karen Hughes whipping up some raw eggs for Barney, per his training regimen, and slapping a headband on the poor beast. Cut now to the White House lawn. The Rocky theme is playing. Barney is running in slow motion. Rove and Card are running with him. It's hard to be sure, but it looks like he's fleeing the White House, as fast as his stubby legs will allow. After last night's foul theatrics, can you blame him?
"Praise for Miller, a self-hating coward who has been a Republican all these years in his votes and his beliefs but has been too chickenshit to just switch parties."
This is sad language coming from you, judith. I'm sorry to see you paint Miller in this manner.
However, you reveal your error perfectly nonetheless. You say Miller "voted Republican" (to paraphrase) all these years, while in the other party. Mind you, Miller is a conservative, something the Democratic party had much, much more of, say, twenty years ago. That you equate voting conservatively with being "Republican" says much for your view of the Demo party. In other words, you implicitly admit that the Demo party has come a long way from where it once was.
And that is Miller's point exactly. The party he fought so long and hard for has lost its way. It has, in essence, betrayed itself. And what is most humorous is that you and Miller actually agree!!
Could it be that you recognize yourself in Miller??
My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.
He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.
Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."
John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 – when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.
John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America
Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
It is clear now what I have been saying for a year...that idiot Rove thinks he has an army of SewerRats like Kully out there ready to storm the pearly fuckin gates and the WH on the way...
sorry jex, but unlike mencken, you underestimate the taste of the american public and will lose money. Those slanders are hated, reviled, disgusting, low, dishonorable and extremely effective.
while you see zell as delivering a raving screed, others see it as 'telling it like it is', to wit ktheh's comments. And while disagreements may be building in the party over iraq and fiscal policy, none of it and I mean none of it is sufficient to get gopers to vote for that lily-livered, lefty massachusetts liberal, friend of the chappaquiddick killer, flip flopping, gay loving, tax-the-rich, regulate-the-hell-out-of-business-while-destroying-free-trade, abort-our-babies, troop-hating rabble rouser and his gold-digging wife.
ohio, what changed? I dunno...as far as i can tell, unlike the way ktheh described it, the dems became more centrist as the gopers flowed further to the right, picking up zell in the backwash.
"Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
March 1, 2001"
Yep. Three and a half years ago. A lot has changed since then, just in case you missed it jexster. For one thing, Kerry is running for the presidency and is acting like a cameleon to do it. Miller has seen through his charade, fortunately.
Also, keep in mind the context. Miller certainly does have good opinions about Kerry on certain issues. Those things not withstanding, in a two-man race between Kerry and Bush, Miller prefers the latter. This doesn't entirely negate all the good he might have said about Kerry beforehand. Again, in context of Miller's speech, his main criticism was Kerry's stand when it came to the military.
"Zell Miller would have us believe the Democratic Party "left him" about 2 years ago. What changed?"
Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn't Miller say that once he went to DC in 2000, he realized things are going off track in the party?
Regardless, here is my take on the matter. Much like it happens in churches. The church begins to trod on the wrong path, but there are denominational faithfuls who stick it out, hoping that it is only temporary, or that they can positively affect reform or change for the better. But in time, they see the writing on the wall and realize that there will be no reform forthcoming, so they leave the church altogether.
I think Miller has traveled a similar path. Clearly the Demo party is not as open to diversity of opinion as it was, say, during Jimmy Carter's term as Prez. It has become much, much more narrowminded and intolerant.
The Repub party, on the other hand, is actually more open to diversity, as has been seen in the speakers so far at the convention.
Martin Luther had a similar experience. He saw the errors in the RCC and wanted reform. He began to voice his problems, but the RCC didn't listen to them. Rather, they labeled him a deserter and a heretic, and called him an outlaw.
Miller has done the same thing. I am fully convinced that, had the Demo party not become so beholden to leftwing nutcases and special interest groups, that they would have been able to listen to Miller's objections and actually made positive reforms in the party. In that case, Miller wouldn't have had to speak at the present convention.
But the Dems didn't listen, and decided to decry him instead, all the while ignoring their own roots and continuing down the wrong path, a path that is wrong for our country.
"the dems became more centrist as the gopers flowed further to the right, picking up zell in the backwash"
This could only be correct if the dems moved from right to center, which they clearly have not done. Had they moved from left to center, Miller would have no objection. He'd actually be tickled to see his party moving toward him.
But they haven't. They've moved away from him, very far away. And the man has decided on his principles to point that out. Just like McCain at times points out the errors of the Repub party. I admire that in both of them.
The fact is, over the past thirty years, the Dem party has moved considerably to the left, and currently, to the far left. And as they move further and further to the fringe, they will alienate more and more people.
The Repub party, on the other hand, still allows for diversity to a degree far greater than the Dem party.
Personally, I am very encouraged by the Dem move. It will only work against them in the long run, because they are becoming more and more out of touch with mainstream America.
Keep in mind that not even Bill Clinton, as popular a president as he is painted to be, won a majority of the popular vote. In Clinton you probably had the best possible portrayal of a modern Democrat that you could have, and still he couldn't appeal to the majority.
Just read a very interesting article in Newsweek about Tony Blair and who he'd vote for in this election, if he could. Conventional wisdom would be Kerry, just because that is, generally speaking, how Blair's party would fall. However, as the article articulated, those closest to Blair think that he'd vote for Bush, because he has come to trust Bush implicitly. Blair views Bush as a man of conviction whose word is trustworthy. So said the article.
It went on to say that politically it would probably be better for Blair for America to have another four years of Bush, followed by another Clinton (Hilary) presidency. Personally, I can't wait to see Hilary run and I hope she gets the Dem nomination next time around, after Bush has finished his second term in office of course.
(and why is it distressing for me to use a profane term when you consistently call me names and denigrate my intellignce? Maybe I was driven to it by your example?)
Here's a comment in it that made me think of several in this thread, particularly jexster:
"The charge that leading Democrats wish that American forces fail in the hopes that it will help their political chances is well founded."
Every time there is difficult, jexster licks his chops at the possibility of exploiting it for political advantage. As I've said earlier, had America been entirely successful in its recent military compaigns, and had there been no loss of American life therein, I get the sense that jexster wouldn't be too pleased.
How much money on spam did you make this week, jex?
"For someone who eschews the pundits and the talking points of the RNC, you certainly stumble on their exact words often enough."
Perhaps it is because their position is well made and consistent. Of course, I'm assuming you are correct in your analysis here, but from what I see the Dem party standing for, especially socially, they are moving further and further away from mainstream America, IMHO.
doggone if i can't find it, but there was a website linked in these pages a couple of years back that examined the movement of both the dems and the reps over time and it clearly showed a recent rightward shift in the reps while the dems also moved rightward toward the center, but the reps moved further right than the dems did, increasing the gap between the 2 parties. Does anyone else recall this?
The website was really cool in that it was animated so you could watch the parties move over time.
thoughtful, from a quick search I just did comes this article, albeit from 2000, saying that the Dem party was moving right (based upon the Gore/Liebermen ticket, and accrediting Clinton with the movement):
concerned, you have it all wrong. That's Kerry showing that neat trick he learned, how to balance his finger on the bridge of his nose. Takes a large amount of skill to master.
Also read in Newsweek today about the little naked protest that Act Up! staged in NYC, blaming Bush for AIDS.
Funny, I thought it was their own fault in practicing unsafe sex that caused people AIDS normally, but I suppose Bush is to blame for it somewhere along the line...
I think you're missing the fact that the media is starting to point out, at last, that these are lies. Salaten in Slate
Joe Klein in Newsweek, via TPM:
"The whole week was double-ply, wall-to-wall ugly. The tone was set early on ... Allowances should be made for rhetorical excess ... But, even so, the Republican Party reached an unimaginably slouchy, and brazen, and constant, level of mendacity last week ... [President Bush] is in "campaign mode" now, which means mendacity doesn't matter, aggression is all and wall-to-wall ugly is the order of battle for the duration."
Act Up! is the perfect example of wrongheadedness. All the while they are practicing behaviour conducive to their self-destruction, and blaming someone else for the resultant problems! Yet another example of our victim society where someone else is to blame for my own poor judgment and behaviour.
this is not the link i was looking for but it has some charts illustrating the movement of the parties over the past few decades. It suggests that the left has moved a little left of center but no where near the extent that the gop has moved to the right of center, resulting in more polarization of the parties. here.
It further illustrates that the % of centrists among both parties in congress has deteriorated significantly.
would that i were missing that point jay, but what % of joe six-packs read salaten? what % of joe six-packs see or hear about the swift boaters saying kerry is a liar even bother to delve into the truth of those ads? the polls are already showing the swifties are having an impact. The truth of the statements are irrelevant. The fact that the statements were made, heard and repeated multiple times by the media are all that count...just like the attorneys in court who make the statement and then say "withdrawn" after the other guy objects...you can't unring the bell.
And don't forget the whole passel of people who hear what they want to hear. Take conc'd as an example. WJC is a rapist and always will be regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence. W never went awol, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence. Kerry lied about his medals, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence...and regardless of the pattern the gopers have of trashing the records of other vets such as mccain and cleland...and regardless of statements made by gopers to the effect that, by the time where done with him, no one will know what side of the war kerry fought on.
The hell of it is, smear campaigns work, and no one smears like the gop.
the dems need to learn to write short phrases that would fit on a bumper sticker that could easily be followed by nyah nyah. it's phrases like those that stick.
massachusetts liberal nyah nyah clinton is a rapist nyah nyah edwards is a trial lawyer nyah nyah liberal elite nyah nyah hollywood type nyah nyah most liberal senator nyah nyah activist judges nyah nyah not a real american nyah nyah
and so on...you know those phrases as well as i do....we all know them. they're nasty. their truth is irrelevant because they stick. that's all that counts.
And the mainstream media (eg Blitzer) keeps the lies going by acting like they are entitled to equal time in the interest of fairness and sucking up to the Bush administration.
Women such as Juanita Broaddrick do indeed say the WH Rapist is exactly that, 'thoughtful'. There's not the least doubt that he's sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey and he had to pay Paula Jones $900,000 because he abused the prerogatives of his office to grope her.
Your ostrichlike performance has not the least effect on these facts, 'thoughtful'. They're out there, and they're not going away.
No kidding...and now, NPR is ceding everything to the GOP. Just now, Bill Frist was able to say that Bush has been decisive in everything he's done in four year and in those same four years, Kerry has flip-flopped on every issue. The spineless interviewer never even tried to ask "What about all the changes in Bush's statements about why we went to war with Iraq? What about Bush changing his mind on whether the war on Tara can be won? What about what about what about......"
massachusetts liberal nyah nyah clinton is a rapist nyah nyah edwards is a trial lawyer nyah nyah liberal elite nyah nyah hollywood type nyah nyah most liberal senator nyah nyah activist judges nyah nyah not a real american nyah nyah
Wouldn't be more accurate to say "accused of rape by Juanita Broaderick if that is indeed the case? Your position is analogous to calling Bush a cokehead.
Concerned, you are truly naive. There was a guy who not only snorted with Bash but sold it to him, too...and do you know how he is referred to now? The late Mr. whatever his name was. Because he was decisively done away with.
Mr. Hatfield was the author of Fortunate Son, an unauthorized biography of George W. Bush. The book detailed Bush's cocaine use and cover up of a cocaine arrest. He was found Wednesday, July 18, in a motel room, an apparent suicide."
first of all, it was $850,000 and there was no admission of guilt or apology...only a payment to make her go away. secondly, there wasn't even the suggestion that he'd groped her at all. In fact in the dismissal of the case the first time, the judge found, "There are no genuine issues for trial in this case." He was alleged to have made a crude proposition which she rebuffed and there was no evidence that she was punished in the workplace at all as a result. Therefore, the charge of sexual harrassment had no merit.
And again I ask, if broaddrick and willey were raped as you suggest, why was there never a criminal prosecution? perhaps because these charges weren't believable on their face. Certainly rapists have a pattern of behavior, and given clinton's sexual misadventures, the pattern suggests exactly the opposite...that he took no for no and was able to find sufficient other willing partners who said yes. Was clinton a cheater? absolutely. Did he lie about it? yes. But that hardly constitutes rape.
Unlike the gropinator who demonstrated a clear pattern of sexual assault and harrassment and had lots of women over many years come forward to say he had groped them.
But no point in rehashing all this yet again. As i said in my post, nothing is going to change your mind on this, as nothing you say will change mine either.
No matter how you try to discredit Xlowntoon's accusers, you cannot really dismiss their accusations. To rely on a series of inferences as you have to conclude that 'nothing happened' is weak when even one such allegation is made. To use this approach to excuse the lifetime of serial sexual abuse by this predator is truly irresponsible.
The book detailed Bush's cocaine use and cover up of a cocaine arrest.
You don't find it odd that the man who had all the facts of the case ended up dead?
Funny how you absolutely believe without question all the bad things said about Clinton and Kerry but balk at even entertaining the slightest bit of credibility to remarks about Bush.
I'm sure all those women Thoughtful mentioned who came forward about Arnold were just liars, too, right? Or women who were upset that he didn't give them what they wanted?
If you want to try to put a shine on it. Of course, I post this in light of the never ending circus the Left tried to make out of Clarence Thomas's personal life.
To rely on a series of inferences as you have to conclude that 'nothing happened' is weak when even one such allegation is made. To use this approach to excuse the lifetime of serial sexual abuse by this predator is truly irresponsible
Applies to Clinton? Applies to Schwartzeneger? After all, his movie was called Predator.
Well, Concerned, you've devoted you life on the Mote to screaming about Clinton and I don't recall you holding forth on what a slime Arnold was when all the allegations that he is a serial molester came out.
I expressed serious reservations in the Mote as to whether Schwarzenegger was a suitable candidate for the California governorship, at least for the Republican Party, even though he seems not to be liable to being impeached or sued over his past indiscretions.
Speakers at this week's Republican convention make their remarks at a wooden podium that some Jewish groups find offensive because its decorative panels appear to form the shape of a Christian cross.
A cross is even more visible in a waist-high gavel stand adjacent to the podium, leading some to question whether the party is trying to send a subtle message to its base among conservative Christians.
"It is the very height of insensitivity for the Republican Party to feature a cross at the center of the podium of this convention," Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said in a statement.
"This wooden cross must be at least three feet (one meter) tall, and it sends a signal of exclusivity loudly and clearly."
Speaking of easily exploitable personal weaknesses, the widow of the Alabama Senate campaigner said that her impression was that Bush came to Alabama because his family wanted to get him out of Texas because he was getting "into trouble" and that she recalls no sign that Bush was in the National Guard while he was in Alabama. And former Texas Lieutenant Governor says "When I was Lt. Governor, I got a young man named George Bush into the Air National Guard, and I'm not necessarily proud of that." [The latter statement may appear in an interview on Sixty Minutes this Friday.]
Of course, I personally considered California a political basket case, so I didn't really care too much one way or another. Grayout Davis was pathetic - corrupt and incompetent. At least certain sorry Illinois Republicans weren't the latter, but IMO, they were instrumental in handing the state over to Blagojevich and the Democrats. Blagojevich, to his credit, hasn't been as bad as I'd feared, but now he's talking about doubling highway tolls and is in bed with special interests about expanding O'Hare airport that already exceeds EPA noise levels by several decibels in surrounding communities.
Peter Fitzgerald was a pretty good Senator, but he seems to have lost interest in filthy politics. I hope Alan Keyes wins, but I fully expect to see an old-time Jim Crow lynching party by Illinois 'Rats develop before election time.
"As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, 'When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.'" --Joseph McCarthy, speech to Ohio County Women's Republican Club, February 9, 1950
"Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief." --Zell Miller, speech to Republican National Convention, September 1, 2004
A critic could credibly describe Senator Zell Miller's speech to the Republican Convention as angry, misleading, or both. But to dwell on either the tone or veracity of Miller's text somehow misses the point given the scene that unfolded at Madison Square Garden last night. In an address originally billed as a critique of John Kerry's national security credentials, Miller essentially branded the Democrats as traitors because they haven't fallen in line with President Bush on all matters of national security.
It was one of the most vile political speeches in recent American history, every bit as offensive as Pat Buchanan's infamous call in 1992 for "religious war" and, perhaps, a little more disturbing. Buchanan's speech, after all, was an assault on decency. Last night Miller declared war on democracy.
Connie, I truly hope you aren't counting too thoroughly on Keyes winning. The fact you "hope he wins" scares me beyond belief. Even the people who lured him up there are backing away from his campaign. They were horrified at his remarks about Cheney's daughter.
Nobody can deny that Keyes is his own man, a concept that Lefties seem to find incomprehensible in politics. Because of this alone, it's laughable to pretend that he's part of some 'right wing conspiracy'.
I don't think Zell Miller's vitriol will help Bush. American voters will see through Rove's transparent strategy of getting an alleged Democrat to do Bush's diry work while Bush portrays himself tonight as a compassionate uniter and a resolute defender against terrorism.
I never said he was some right eing conspirist...take a gander at what his own peopke think of him, though.
Quotes (printed in the Tribune) from the IL GOP leadership on Alan Keyes' remarks about Mary Cheney:
"I think those views are not only extreme but offensive," former Gov. James Thompson told reporters during a state delegation breakfast Wednesday. "I think the people of Illinois will find those remarks offensive, and I think it's an offense to the political process that we have to suffer a candidate on our ticket who says things like that."
"I wish those comments weren't made," said state Sen. Dave Syverson, a Rockford Republican who pushed to get Keyes on the ballot. "Those were personal comments and better kept to himself."
Judy Baar Topinka, the state party chairwoman, called Keyes' remarks about Cheney "idiotic."
"I think it's nasty, and I don't like nasty politics," she said. "You don't pick on people's kids. Kids are off limits."
State Rep. Tom Cross, the House Republican leader, joked about the length of Keyes' lease on his Calumet City apartment.
"My suspicion is we will see and hear from candidate Keyes for the next 60 days, and after that he'll probably be out of Illinois," Cross said.
(These are the people who asked him to come to Illinois and run for Senate.)
Well, most Illinois Republicans are half Democrat anyway:) Keyes is well to the right of myself, but let's be real - he made a verbal gaffe and he probably is aware of that by now. Best to move along and deal with real issues, IMO.
Bush's shallow and superficial and lazy mind allowed him to be taken advantage of by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Sharon. Cheney's remark just today that "Bush doesn't agonize over decisions" is revealing. The Commander in chief SHOOULD agonize over decisions of war and peace.
It'll be interesting to see what percentage of the African-American vote each of the candidates gets. It will be a test of how many minorities will vote for an Uncle Tom like Keyes. Not many, I'll bet.
Alan Keyes is a religious extremist, a hard-liner from the fringe of Catholicism.
But it is baffling, and on the offensive side of absurd, to call him an Uncle Tom. Rather, he is a genuinely principled religious conservative and I don't see that he lacks integrity at all. In fact, he distinguished himself - as far as I am concerned - by consistently being (along with McCain) completely, ruthlessly, honest and straight-talking during the Republican primaries in 2000. Is every Republican of color by definition a race-traitor?
Is he a religious wacko? Yes. But is he inconsistent, or hypocritical, or a liar, or a mendacious opportunist? No.
An Uncle Tom? Patently ridiculous - is everyone here aware that he is the only mainstream politician in this generation who supports massive reparations to the descendants of slaves?
By the way, hateful as his comments about gays are, it is an example of his integrity in extremism that he minced no words when he labelled even Cheney's daughter whatever he did.
There is a case that can be made, Concerned, but it is not a compelling one and the vast majority of my "fellow travellers" do not buy it.
People can owe their highest loyalties to different aspects of identity, I can totally see why a black religious conservative would be happier with Republicans despite the awful record that party has in race matters.
Because, dig, we all know which is the party most hostile to all kinds of minorities, which is the party with an unsubtly shadowed cross in the actual podium of its 2004 convention, which is the party most tolerant and receptive and promotional of the nasties kinds of bigotry.
I wasn't aware that Keyes is an advocate of reparations. Most mainstream blacks gave up on that a long time ago. Be that as it may, he has aligned himself with the GOP which most blacks see as antithetical to their interests. For that reason it is not innacurate to call him an Uncle Tom. If he favors reparations, is is of no consequence, because hardly anyone supports reparations, financial ones at least.
As I hear it, most pundits agree that Keyes was brought in to "bloody-up" Obama in the debates. IMO, unless he just wants to show off, Obama should strip him of that weapon and decline to debate. They aren't needed to inform the public of anything it doesn't already know. Why insult the good folks of Illinois by providing a forum for his repellent invective? The "afraid to debate" taunt can easily be laughed off in this instance. Why risk even a bruise from this lowlife?
Might it help the party as a whole if he did and got much attention? He's so impressive, an opportunity to get clips of him in that kind of setting might get broad positive media attention.
Fighting back, Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) called President Bush (news - web sites) "unfit to lead this nation" because of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and his record on jobs, health care and energy prices. He lashed out at the incumbent and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) for avoiding service in the Vietnam War.
"I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq," Kerry said in prepared remarks issued as the Republican was poised to accept his party's nomination for a second term.
Cheney and Sen. Zell Miller (news, bio, voting record), D-Ga., led a chorus of Republicans who challenged Kerry's credentials to be commander in chief, arguing that although they respect his decorated Vietnam War service, his 20-year voting record in the Senate on national security issues made him unfit for the nation's top job.
Kerry answered his critics with a blistering statement.
"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief," Kerry said. "We'll, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."
Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard. Cheney received five deferments and never served in the military.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s U.N. ambassador took a slap at Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) on Wednesday after the heavily muscled actor-turned-politician ridiculed the United Nations (news - web sites).
"I can only say that when President Bush asked me to do this job, he said that the United Nations is very important, and that this was a very important job," Ambassador John Danforth told reporters when asked about Schwarzenegger's jab.
Schwarzenegger, who had no experience in politics before being elected California's Republican governor last year, electrified the Republican National Convention on Tuesday evening with a speech blending quips from his movie-star past with somber stories about his immigrant upbringing.
At one point, seeking to define the beliefs of his political party, he stated, "If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican."
Asked about the comment, Danforth, a former U.S. senator from Missouri and an Episcopal [priest], said the United States was "a bastion of democracy and is a great beacon for the world."
"But working through the U.N. and working with other countries and working on a multilateral basis is clearly the strategy that we have in our country and it is very important," Danforth said.
Blitzer just doesn't get it. He just gave Cheney a big pass for his four Vietnam deferments because "plenty of other Americans" did the same, "as did Bill Clinton." However, there is one big difference in Cheney's case--Cheney has always been a major league hawk. He never met a war he didn't like. Yet when he had a chance to serve he sought and received four deferments. There is a big difference between Cheney seeking a deferment and, for example, a Quaker seeking a deferment, or someone who who moved to Canada who objected to the war on grounds of conscience. Cheney, I'm sure loved the war, but sought deferments to save his own skin.
Porter Goss Bush's pick for CIA director chides the Senate's Abu Ghraib investigators. His comment about the abused prisoners: "You're breaking my heart." More here.
The biggest applause he got was for his comments on abortion and the proposed marriage amendment, before he got onto the Iraq stuff.
I know I'm biased, but it doesn't seem like a very strong speech to me, especially considering his detailed (especially economic) plans for the next four years aren't very convincing.
Kerry Says Republicans Distorted His Record - Candidate Belittles Cheney for Avoiding Vietnam Service By Howard Kurtz
NEW YORK, Sept. 2 -- John F. Kerry came out swinging Thursday night, denouncing the Republican convention for its "anger and distortion" and belittling Vice President Cheney for avoiding the military draft during the Vietnam era. In his sharpest and most personal remarks of the presidential campaign, Kerry responded to the rhetorical assault on him at the convention by accusing the Republicans of attacking "my fitness to serve as commander-in-chief. Well, here's my answer: I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq."
Say, J F'in. How did Boy Edwards avoid service?
"I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty," Kerry said. Cheney received a series of deferments from 1962 to 1966 for college and graduate school and then for having a child.
It certainly appears that J F'in hasn't done shit since Vietnam that he wants to talk about.
NEW YORK — In what has been described by Navy officials as a routine process, the Pentagon's inspector general's office on Thursday referred to the secretary of the Navy a request to investigate medals won by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) during the Vietnam War.
Government watchdog group Judicial Watch (search) submitted the request for an investigation. Navy sources said the service will probe the medals, but added that most questions have arisen because of what appear to be errors in processing records.
Kerry received five medals during his four months in combat in Vietnam. Judicial Watch asked the Pentagon to investigate Kerry's receipt of the Silver Star with a "Combat V" designation (search), which stands for valor under fire.
Kerry's campaign Web site includes military records listing the Combat V citation. Navy procedures show that the Silver Star cannot carry a Combat V designation because part of the reason the medal is awarded is for valor under fire — the added designation would be redundant. The findings of the probe, therefore, will not change the record of Kerry's Vietnam service.
Uh oh. We wouldn't want Kerry pulling a Jeremy Boorda, would we, 'cause then who would Lefties vote for?
Resources 2004 GOP Platform Convention Speakers Latest news from the War Room Zell Miller on George Bush Unemployment - 0 Uninsured - 1 Outsourcing - 0 Premiums - 0 Middle-income families - 1 Iran - 0 North Korea - 0 Osama bin Laden - 0 Al Qaeda - 3
Ulgine gets my write-in vote. Except, we don't have that privilege in Hawaii. Hawaii is not yet a democratic republic state, because the Democrats have been in power here for more than 40 years straight.
That is quite a pic with the shark, concerned. Clever.
I made comments on Kerry's acceptance speech so will now do the same with Bush. Unfortunately, I was not able to see Bush deliver his speech, but could only read it on the Net. This is limiting, because some of my critique of Kerry was that he looked old, tired, and haggard. He sweated profusely, and he constantly licked his dry lips.
So perhaps Bush did much the same sorts of things, I don't know, but I do know that a speech which looks good on paper can be delivered poorly and that can have a dramatic effect on the hearers.
As for the substance of the speech, I think it started slowly and ended strongly. I thought the idea of creating "zones of opportunity" was a bit hokey. But as the speech went on (and from the length of it, it must have been quite a long one), I can only applaud it. Bush did several things well, I think:
1) He made a stark constrast between himself and Kerry, and this by using Kerry's voting record. As I noted earlier, Kerry was virtually silent in his own acceptance speech about his twenty years in Congress, and for good reason. Bush hit some key issues.
2) Bush was not afraid to make fun of himself. I like that. His comments about Ahnold correcting Bush's English was great, lighthearted, and portrays Bush as able to go with the punches.
3) Bush is clearly the right man to face down the threats against America. When he speaks you can be sure that he will go right out from there and attempt as best as he can to deliver. You don't ever have to doubt where he stands, because he is, as he blamed his mother, a blunt man at times. This does, of course, work against him at times, but over all, I think it is a net positive for him as president.
Again, I did not see the delivery and can only read the text, but if I were undecided, that speech would certainly have swayed me toward Bush. If I could have both acceptance speech side by side, there is no question that Bush wins out. Kerry talked ad infinitum about things that happened over 30 years ago, and Bush has spoken of things much more relevant. There is no question that Bush wins out on substance. Really, a very good speech.
"A presidential election is a contest for the future," Bush argued. "Tonight I will tell you where I stand, what I believe, and where I will lead this country in the next four years." So, Bush told us where he stood: "I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers." And he told what he thought: "I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country." But standing and thinking are not doing. Beliefs and promises are what you talk about when you have no progress to report. Bush pointed to the wars he had launched and the bills he had signed, but he couldn't point to the benefits those laws and wars were supposed to deliver. The benefits haven't happened yet. They "will."
My favorite moment was when Bush touted the No Child Left Behind Act. No more social promotion, he promised. "We are transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results. We are insisting on accountability."
Wasn't this speech, full of unfulfilled promises and appeals to good character, basically a plea for social promotion? Isn't that the message of the entire Bush campaign? Shouldn't the president have to show results, too?
As several pundits noted, Bush's father carried on the family tradition of slime politics last night in his extended softball appearance on Larry King Live. When asked about Kerry's military service and the swift boat controversy, Bush responded with an anecdote linking Kerry to Jane Fonda and castigating him for his remarks about Vietnam atrocities. Bush Sr. is much smoother than Georgie. He slips the knife in so smoothly that you don't even feel it.
If this election were about the economy, President Bush (news -web sites) would be in trouble. If it were about the war in Iraq (news - web sites), the bag is decidedly mixed. If it were about progress in the war on terrorism, he would be on firmer but hardly solid ground.
I don't know where George Soros gets his money," one man said. "I don't know where - if it comes from overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." George Soros, another declared, "wants to spend $75 million defeating George W. Bush because Soros wants to legalize heroin." After all, a third said, Mr. Soros "is a self-admitted atheist; he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."
By William S. Lind - Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation and former LA to Sen Taft (R-OH)
When President Al Gore was inaugurated in January 2001, few Americans imagined that before his first term ended, our country would be at war with Sweden. Indeed, Mr. Gore's campaign suggested he would reduce American commitments abroad, avoid foreign adventures and forgo "nation building," which American voters long ago realized costs heaps of money and does not work.
That may have been what American voted for, but it is not what we got. What we got was the wildest, most adventuristic and most disastrous foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson—who won the 1916 election with the slogan "He kept us out of war" —led America into World War I a month after his inauguration.
How did it happen? The answer is to be found not in Washington, but in Copenhagen....
Thankfully, the monstrous folly of America's enslavement to a Danish political party will soon end. This year sees another Presidential election, and Republican candidate Bob Taft is stumping the country demanding an end to the Swedish war,
Yes, folks, in America democracy still works. When issues like war and peace are on the line, the system offers American voters a clear, unambiguous choice. Everyone knows that the neo-barbs' real slogan is, "Four More Wars." The contrast with Bob Taft's foreign policy for an end to wars for foreign interests could not be clearer. Once again, in a time of national peril, our democratic system has brought forth a candidate of genuine conviction, moral courage and unwavering principle.
When asked about Kerry's military service and the swift boat controversy, Bush responded with an anecdote linking Kerry to Jane Fonda and castigating him for his remarks about Vietnam atrocities. Bush Sr. is much smoother than Georgie. He slips the knife in so smoothly that you don't even feel it.
Sounds like Concerned. After the speech from his boy that should have rocked the rafters, all he could do was slam John Kerry. Except Connie's knife slipping isn't nearly as smooth as George Sr.'s.
Hey, Edwards talked off the cuff for almost half an hour last night and he had the crowd in the palm of his hand...that boy is a great speaker and the things he said weren't on any cue card screen.
And he didn't sound like he was reading it, either. He has life and animation and a brain. Get ready...he's not lost in the shuffle AT ALL! In fact, he may be your worst nightmare by warrant of the fact he isn't hooked to a heart monitor or battery...the guy is healthy and smart and besides, he's adorably cute. Quite a contrast to the snarling old coot who doesn't know what a smile is.
"The KKK has always been tied to the Democratic Party."
Rip Van Winkel, wake up. Now, the remains of the KKK are all card-carrying members of the GOP and/or even farther extremist right (hard to imaging) groups.
when I was standing on the floor amidst the balloon drop, and a friend of mine who worked for Gore came up to me and said: "Whaddya think? Ground Rule Double?"
Like Gore's 2000 speech, Bush's effort tonight struck me as tactically successful, but strategically questionable. To stretch the baseball metaphor, it was a Ground Rule Double, and not a home run, because it went over the fence thanks to the peculiar dynamics of the home park. These dynamics revolved around a convention where Bush's explanation of his record and agenda were held to the minimal standard associated with world-historical figures like Reagan and Churchill, who had bigger fish to fry than such trivial matters as keeping their countrymen employed or managing the aftermath of "liberation" struggles.
Lest we forget, Churchill lost his first post-war election, and Reagan left office before the messy residue of his policies could interfere with his generally successful legacy.
For all the triumphalism and rhetorical overkill of this convention, it's still unlikely that a majority of Americans revere George W. Bush enough to give him a pass on his domestic or international policies, or his meagre plans for the future.
We'll see what the polls say, but I still believe this election is John Kerry's to lose. Bush needed a big rally in New York, but it's not clear he's got a lead, and it is clear he doesn't have a lead that's safe going into the late innings.
There was some radio bloviator on the local CBS affiliate radio station this morning named Dave Ross who took the opportunity to play JF'inK's frantic denunciations of the Bush Administration last night. This individual prefaced all that with a lying assertion that GWB himself had previously claimed that JF'inK was not 'fit for command', showing that this Ross person is quite comfortable spewing blatant falsehoods.
Of certain types. For instance, I understand that the legal system is being exercised to obtain corporate reparations for wrongdoing related to slavery and I have no objections to that.
You shouldn't worry. You guys have Byrd and Miller for the forseeable future. And Jimmuh Cahtuh too, who I understand served in the Jawjuh statehouse with his good buddy Lester Maddox.
The 'Rats still have their full KKK credentials, AFAIC.
WASHINGTON - America's payrolls picked up in August, with the economy adding 144,000 jobs, slightly less than economists were forecasting and highlighting the slow and uneven recovery in the labor market that jobseekers have braved.
I thought the Dem.Con. was bad, and the Rep.Con. was just as bad, maybe worse actually.
I cannot see, how people can take seriously anyone who drags their children to the cameras to spout some gushing nonsense about how great/downhome/kind hearted/brave-but-retiring kind of person their old daddy is, all given in "he'll hate me saying this but I'm gonna anyway!" pretend coyness.
And that "my daddy's the president" from Jenna Bush, holy god in heaven help us! And then there is GW's particular difficulties with the english language, that nobody can help him with, that, perhaps more than anything else, makes him look like a low intellect kind of guy to the rest of the world.
"Instead of trying to improve your english Mr.Pres, we think we'll script you some self depreciatory stuff, get a few laughs, make the haters feel small for ridiculing you for speaking the language of the people"
And it works!
Just felt like having a bit of a rant there, its over now, carry on.
I am particularly intrigued by the Imbecile's connections with the Iranian Intel Service and international pro-fascists myself...and the fact that no one knows what the full scope is except that its growing like a weed..
The broader investigation is also looking into the movement of classified materials on U.S. intentions in Iraq and on the Arab-Israeli peace process, sources added.
U.S. officials said the alleged transfer of classified intelligence to Chalabi has been part of the FBI investigation at least since a raid in May by Iraqi officials on the Baghdad compound of Chalabi's party, the Iraqi National Congress. Classified U.S. intelligence material was found in that raid, a senior official said.
This spring, U.S. officials alleged that Chalabi and a senior Iraqi National Congress official had passed critical intelligence to Iran, including extremely sensitive information about recent U.S. intercepts of official communications within the Iranian government. The intelligence allegedly shared by Chalabi's group with Tehran also included information on how the United States had deciphered encrypted Iranian messages, U.S. officials said.
As a result of that leak, the U.S. intelligence community has been forced to undertake costly and extensive repairs to U.S. signal capabilities, another senior U.S. official said.
Possibility that someone might ask Porter "Cut Intel/Show me a cum stained dress" Goss about this in OCTOBER???
Schwarzenegger criticized for Austrian history gaffes VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Austrian historians are ridiculing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968. Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes." No way, historians say, challenging Schwarzenegger's knowledge of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state. "It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier...
The lies and incompetence of the Bush regime are nowhere more apparent than in the Mess-O-potamian Catastrophe..
No getting around it...and Kerry's not about to try...
Who's Unfit for Duty?
"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthy care makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions in government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit."--John Kerry, at a midnight rally in Springfield, OH, September 3
I suspect that the people who post here know about how to register and where to vote.
Election Day: Tuesday, November 2, 2004 Consolidated General Election Deadline to Register to Vote: Monday, October 18, 2004 Deadline to Request an Absentee Ballot: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 * written request must be received at the Department of Elections by 5:00pm
Early Voting at City Hall: Begins Monday, October 4, 2004
CNN just reported a Time Magazine survey which gives Bush an 11 point lead over Kerry. The poll was conducted BEFORE Bush's acceptance speech last night.
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
Yeah, both sites I've been using to track the Electoral College now have Bush over Kerry, in one 289 to 249. But I wonder how reliable these things really are. That 11% CNN poll lead for Bush just seems ridiculous.
I see that former Democratic NYC Mayor Koch has endorced Bush. He says bluntly that terrorism is the number one issue and trumps all others, and that his own party doesn't have the stomach to fight it.
No doubt he'll be considered another "sell-out" by the faultering Dem party.
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) leads Democrat John Kerry (news -web sites), 52 percent to 41 percent, while independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) got 3 percent in a national poll taken during the Republican National Convention that ended Thursday.
AP Photo
AP Photo Slideshow: Elections
Latest headlines: · Poll: Bush Leads by 11 Points During RNC AP - 3 minutes ago
· Bush, Kerry Clash Over Latest Jobs Report AP - 4 minutes ago
· Kerry Says Bush Broke Promises From 2000 AP - 17 minutes ago
All Election Coverage
The Time magazine poll of 926 likely voters was taken Aug. 31-Sept 2, during the convention and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Bush had 46 percent, Kerry had 44 percent and Nader 5 percent in a Time poll taken just before the convention.
Zogby Poll of Likely Voters Shows Bush 46%, Kerry 44% A Zogby poll conducted August 30-September 2 showed George W. Bush leading John Kerry among likely voters by 2%. The poll also found, however, that, by 48% to 46%, the respondents wanted "someone new" rather then agreeing that Bush "deserves to be reelected"
I tried to catch up, but could only get to 8350, but I felt a great need to make a post expressing my deep sympathy for most of you. Hate and anger are not healthy emotions; held long enough, dire problems can occur in a person.
I probably should have read every post between 8350 and 8608. I'm sure such reasonable people as banks, jay, alister, and arky, maybe even wonkers2 too, would have presented excellent rebuttal to Miller diatribe, which, when you think about it, was not much more than a recitation of Kerry's voting record. I felt so sorry for banks that Miller'speech actually made him want to bash the man's head in with a metal bat.
It is really too bad that most Americans are not up to the intellectual level of the Liberals on the Mote and seem to have been moved by many of the things said during the convention. Of course, even the American Liberals must admit, they are not on an intellectual par with those from France, Ireland, New Zealand, and by all means those dwelling in Pelle's homeland
These calculations are based on state polls from RealClearPolitics and other sources, and are meant to be an objective statistical analysis. The three most recent polls for each state are averaged and the standard error of the mean is used to calculate the probability of every combination of possible state results.
Results for Friday, September 3, 2004
Today's median (expected) outcome: Kerry 274 EV, Bush 264 EV
Kerry 95% confidence band: 243-306 EV
Kerry Electoral College win likelihood: 61%
So even after the high water mark of the RNC Kerry/Edwards are looking pretty damn good.
The potential effects of bias or opinion shift are as follows. Probabilities greater than 99.99% are given as 100%.
3 points to Kerry: Kerry 342 EV (95% confidence 300-375 EV), win 99.99%. 2 points to Kerry: Kerry 317 EV (95% confidence 280-357 EV), win 99.4%. 1 point to Kerry: Kerry 294 EV (95% confidence 262-332 EV), win 92%.
1 point to Bush: Kerry 254 EV (95% confidence 231-284 EV), win 17%. 2 points to Bush: Kerry 236 EV (95% confidence 216-265 EV), win 1%. 3 points to Bush: Kerry 223 EV (95% confidence 199-248 EV), win 0.02%.
Hate and anger are not healthy emotions; held long enough, dire problems can occur in a person.
Tell it to the Republicans, Al. They were the ones denigrating soldiers who had won Purple Hearts. They were the ones cheering Zell Miller. He put up Kerry's "against" record but failed to mention Cheney was against many of those very same things when he was congressman. And he failed to mention how many never came up for a vote.
But that's just fine with Republicans. They are thrilled to hate...they do it as well as they cheat and commit adultry. They do it as well as they sail through life laughing at people less well off than they. They do it oh so naturally! It's the one thing of which they can claim mastery.
While Kerry is busy slinging his accusations against the Bush Administration, I have one for him. I accuse Kerry of misleading the US wrt his Vietnam medals (which are now under Navy investigation).
Probably not so good for him that x42 is out of action for a while, too.
How can Republicans cheering Zell Miller be anywhere near as bad as Democrats cheering, say, Child Molester Flynt, for instance.
Whatever you think about him, Zell's criticisms of Kerry's voting record are on message and relevant to the campaign, while Flynt was never anything better than a pornographer, bottom feeding smear artist, liar, character assassin and profiteer motivated by nothing but greed, hate and ignorance. Yet, the Left couldn't get enough of kissing up to Flynt. Ya think maybe there's a clue as to their problems in that?
What's with Kerry trying to put it across that an abbreviated Vietnam stint thirty five years ago with three bandaid days trumps being Sec Def during the Gulf War regarding being able to handle national defense? Either Kerry has really lost it or he thinks people likely to vote for him are total morons.
I suspect that we're not hearing much from Edwards because he won't touch the kind of rhetorical lunacy Kerry regularly indulges in with a ten foot pole. His instincts probably are screaming that the jury will return an unfavorable verdict in the court of public opinion:)
Perhaps an argument can be made for making a difference as such:
person A - known to support America's war struggle, comes from a party that has in the past 25 years consistently argued for a strong military and more spending on it
person B - come from a party that has in the past 25 years consistently looked to cut military spending, and decries the other party's desire to consistently increase it
Project XYZ - both persons vote against this project, but the former does so coming from a position and record which supports a strong military, while the latter person comes from a position which constantly questions the military and looks to cut it down.
I think that criticism leveled against person B is justified given the consistent record and position of that person, when it comes to consistently voting against new military spending and programs designed to make our military better.
".. . consistently voting against new military spending and programs designed to make our military better" is not an accurate description of John Kerry's Senate record.
That's right. And, just about everybody, except for the military-industrial complex, agreed that the dissolution of the Soviet Union justified reductions in U.S. military expenditures.
Several law enforcement officials have said in recent days that the FBI had initially considered making rapid arrests in the Franklin probe when it became clear that news of the investigation was about to become public last week. But, these officials said, prosecutors urged caution, arguing that investigators needed more time to gather evidence and assess the case.
Kerry trying to put it across that an abbreviated Vietnam stint thirty five years ago with three bandaid days trumps being Sec Def during the Gulf War regarding being able to handle national defense
A life time of service to the nation v. 3 1/2 years of incompetence and lies????
I bet even you are bright enough to figure that one out.
Peter Beinart** put the matter of the SleazeBucket Vets for Smear as a matter of conservatives wanting to dodge the uncomfortable truth that Vietnam was an immoral and a losing war for this country.
That's true as far as it goes but there's a second motive at work...
They don't want to answer for the debacle that their Bungling Butcher of Baghad hath wrought.
Well I am here to ask both questions (the current and the 30 year barrel aged bile one )answer or not.
It's just the most recent example of the longstanding Bush family slime politics that originated with Bush 41 and Craig Atwater. (But for all I know it may have originated with Bush's grandfather.)
".. . consistently voting against new military spending and programs designed to make our military better" is not an accurate description of John Kerry's Senate record.
Chris Mathews in fact mentioned this very canard in his appearance on the Daily Show...It one of the lies ZigZagZell told from the Podium of the Holy Cross of Jesus on Wednesday night...one that nearly caused ole Zell a stroke when Mathews put it to him on Hardball
WASHINGTON - Two former Vietnam prisoners of war who appear in ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) were appointed by the Bush administration to a panel advising the Department of Veterans Affairs (news - web sites).
The former POWs in the ad, Kenneth Cordier and Paul Galanti, serve on the VA's 12-member Former POW Advisory Committee. VA Secretary Anthony Principi appointed Cordier in 2002 and Galanti in 2003.
There is profound irony in people who believe the Viet Nam, not just a wrong war, but an immoral war, fought with immoral methods (excuse the profound irony of those words), and yet extolling the virtues of one who seemes to admit committing atrocities in that war. In what way was Kerry's actions in Viet Nam in defense of America? Yes, he followed orders like a good soldier. We have heard those words before.
When I marched against the war in 1965, when it was not as popular to do as it was in 1971, I would have argued that in no way was America being defended by that war.
I have often said that life is a mystery to me; I am forced to say it once again.
I THOUGHT I recall you telling me that when the wine loosened your tongue to confess the sins of your youth!
Hat's off to you Al...I marched against the war in 1969-70...of course I was too young to do it in 1965 but probably wouldn't have even if old enough..
That took guts even in NoCali..I remember my family saying at the time I decided to oppose the mess "What are you thinking? My country right or wrong but my country"
That is what Zell was saying in so many words the other night.
Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida: ONE
Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defense in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein: ONE HUNDRED FOUR.
Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses: ZERO
Number of Times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his acceptance speech: ZERO
Yesterday in the Dallas paper, there was a picture of an older man in NYC wearing a sign that said "Bush Lied And My Son Died" and he was surrounded by pairs of empty combat boots on the steet...hundreds of pairs.
George W. Bush is a man who loves Jesus. He loves him so much that when he was governor of Texas he signed a proclamation to give him his own day - apparently two birthday celebrations a year (Christmas and Easter) just weren't cutting it - wishing to make June 10 "Jesus Day" for Texans.
And now, in the name of Christian compassion, President Bush will deliver us from an "axis of evil" and lead us into war.
Bill, theree is an HTML thread here where you can practice making links with the formula Wabbit posted for you. You can also find instructions under the posting box; a link is posted there in bright red: HTML Hints
NEW YORK—For $2.4 trillion, guess what word—other than "a," "and," and "the"—occurs most frequently in the acceptance speech George W. Bush delivered tonight.
The word is "will." It appears 76 times. This was a speech all about what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president.
Except he already is president. He already ran this campaign. He promised great things. They haven't happened. So, he's trying to go back in time. He wants you to see in him the potential you saw four years ago. He can't show you the things he promised, so he asks you to envision them. He asks you to be "optimistic." He asks you to have faith.
Don't worry about answering the question Kulligan, I think I just found it...
Recession. Unemployment. Corporate fraud. A war based on false premises that has cost us $200 billion and nearly a thousand American lives. They're all hills we've "been given to climb." It's as though Bush wasn't president. As though he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted. As though he didn't bring about postwar Iraq and authorize the planning for it. All this was "given," and now Bush can show up, three and a half years into his term, and start solving the problems some other president left behind.
It's all downhill from here, he assures us.
And here we are explaining to Moron TD how it is that the United States Navy ordered Kerry to two tours in Vietnam and gave him 5 medals for valor
Jeezaleezzus! Another double-digit poll! dubya will be so excited he's apt to start pissing on cars again...
Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush leads his Democrat opponent John Kerry by 11 percentage points according to a poll immediately after the Republican National Convention in New York, Newsweek magazine reported.
Bush is supported by 54 percent of the 1,008 registered voters surveyed Thursday and Friday, compared with 43 percent support for Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator. Independent candidate Ralph Nader polled 3 percent. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points, Newsweek said.
You are such a putz, jexster. Of course, Bush is going to talk about what he plans to do in the coming term if elected President. His speech MUST cover this. He is running for ANOTHER term, you moron.
His speech also did cover what he has already done as well.
Just face it, jex, your boat is sinking fast and you know it. So you grasp at straws. Weren't you the same guy that said this wasn't even going to be close, that Bush was dead in the water months ago? And what did I keep telling you? "It is no where near over. Bush is going to make a comeback." And I was dead right.
Face it, bud, you've been wrong, wrong, wrong up to this point. All your pouting and spouting has amounted to nothing.
Well, not entirely nothing. Obviously, you are still pocketing some coin from your slime machine.
"Bush will win by the hair of his chinny, chin chin." That's what I said, while you were saying "put a fork in him." My goodness, your predictions are almost as bad as marjoribanks when it comes to the Red Sox!!
Bush will do exactly what Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove tell him to do. He has absolutely no interest in the details or merits of public policy issues beyond their political effect and of course whether they will help his rich buddies get even richer.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a seesaw campaign, President Bush has opened a lead over John Kerry in their drive to White House victory by making gains in the Midwest and solidifying his Southern base.
The race is spread over 19 states, with the fiercest competition in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, according to state polls and interviews with strategists in both parties.
Two months before Election Day, the president has 20 states firmly in his column and eight leaning his way, for a total of 237 electoral votes. It takes 270 to win the White House.
The Democratic challenger has 11 states plus the District of Columbia in hand, with five states leaning his way. That puts Kerry at 211 electoral votes.
Bad news in Michigan too. Courts ruled yesterday that Nader will be on the ballot, and so will a Michigan Constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriages and casting doubt on civil unions and provisions for benefits for same sex partners. Otherwise Dem votes for Nader and the expected additional turnout of social conservatives due to the anti-gay amendment proposal could spell trouble for Kerry who has been expected to win Michigan this year.
It's a bump from the convention, nothing more. He can't sustain an 11 point lead when the economic news starts to be the only thing left to report on...after the hurricanes, conventions, Russian hostages etc.
When Tuesday rolls around and all the AARP people bother to read the paper, find out that their medicare is going up by 17+%, and realize who got them to this point, they aren't going to happy with Bush. When the quarterly investment reports arrive and once again, like last quarter, the bottom line shows a loss, people aren't going to be so sure Bush's MBA is working in the plus column for them, the polls are not going to reflect double digit leads for the cowboy.
Ralph Nader is going to chortle about getting a few measley points in this election and he will be royally paid off by BushCo with some offer of chairing a fangless committee on road safety or something.
But I'm sure Osama will captured mid October ad that will be that...without something like that, it won't be a cake-walk for Bush. Even if Kerry pulls up in the polls, Bush is probably going to win and Kuligin will get his wish. Of course, he won't realize the disaster of what that means until he returns to the states to live and sees what a fine mess we're in. I hope he can adroitly explain to his children why this USED to be a great country until daddy's hero bankrupted it and left the debt in their hands.
Oh, I think I'm right, Wonkers but it will all be for naught. While I am confident the polls will become more close, I am not confident people will refrain from voting for Bush.
Look at Andrew Sullivan. He says there isn't a lick of difference in Bush and Kerry but he supports Bush. He is a gay man and he supports Bush, the man who would rather see him die a horrible death just because he thinks his God damns Andrew's soul to hell for something he can't help. But rather than vote for the candidate of the party that wants the best for him, he chooses Bush, who wants the worst.
There are millions out there who are doing the same thing. They've bought into the TARA scare...and Bush is strong on tara.
"Ralph Nader is going to chortle about getting a few measley points in this election and he will be royally paid off by BushCo with some offer of chairing a fangless committee on road safety or something."
I trust you have some proof for those ill considered remarks, Judith...
Bush supporters have been collecting signatures to get Nadir on the ballot in Michigan. They brag about it publicly. Some of Nadir's biggest financial supporters are Texas Bush supporters.
"Courts ruled yesterday that Nader will be on the ballot" = G-O-O-D N-E-W-S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Dems and Reps are not interested in the American people. If they were, they wouldn't be taking bribes from the rich to screw the middle class and poor.
Kerry couldn't care less about money. He has more than he'll ever need. He has always been motivated, not by money, but by political ambition. His entire career has been in public service.
...and all either cares about is M-O-N-E-Y and P-O-W-E-R for themselves.
This is bunk.
If you think Nader votes help the country rather than risk doing it great damage when only one or the other of the two major party candidates will win and the race has been tight for weeks, you need your head examined.
The differences between Bush and Kerry are simple. One's policies are domestically and internationally dangerous and the four years he's had to amass more national power and wealth behind him make those policies an imminent threat.
The Republicans will do what they have to do to pull out the votes of their base, who have always been as dependable as Charlie Brown when Lucy holds the football (a football labeled "gays" or "abortion" or whatever knee-jerk issue they know will work), then they'll put those issues away for another four years. It's the anti-system, cynical people like you who have such simplistic views of the current situation (a simple choice between Bad and Badder--vote principle!) who will make or break the next four years come November.
Ironically, Republicans are putting their total faith in their base and Naderites to vote on principle alone and leave them to four more years of completely ignoring those same principles.
" when only one or the other of the two major party candidates will win "
It is that way it is for every election, and has been for many decades. We accomplish nothing by electing Democrats and Republicans. Just more of the same crap of helping the rich to become richer and the middle class and poor to become poorer.
MARCH, 2005 A Marine, in tattered fatigues, goes up to the White House gate, and asks to see President Kerry. The guard replies "Sir, Kerry is not the president, and does not live here." The Marine moves on.
Next day, the same Marine goes up to the White House gate, and asks to see President Kerry. The same guard replies "Sir, as I told you yesterday, Kerry is not the president, and does not live here." The Marine moves on.
Next day, the same Marine goes up to the White House gate, and asks to see President Kerry. The same guard replies "Sir, as I told you yesterday, Kerry is not the president, and does not live here. Why do you keep asking?"
The Marine replies: "I just like hearing the sound of it".
And the next month, the Marine is mustered out of the service and finds out his retirement benefits have been done away with and that he doesn't qualify for veteran's health care because the hospitals have all been closed. And his retirement pay is cut in half but that's okay, because he's been recalled to duty to fight in Iran.
I absolutely love all this whining about Nader. Where were you guys when Clinton beat Bush only because Perot ran?
Fact is, it's a free country and hopefully will remain that way, despite all the whining of the liberal Democrats. If a person wants to vote for Mickey Mouse, that's his right. And as we've seen in recent polls, Mickey is slowly slipping behind George W, despite all that money he's gotten from his turncoat wife.
" the middle class historically has prospered greatly in this country. "
Correct, but that has changed dramatically, especially since Bush I/Clinton/Bush II. The middle class is slowly sinking into the abyss of neglect.
Due to the bribery of CongressCritters, middle class jobs are shipped overseas and performed by the slave labor of children and adults. Jobs in America are getting more and more to be the McDonalds and Walmart type jobs.
"If a person wants to vote for Mickey Mouse, that's his right."
In most states, yes. In some states a voter cannot write-in a name. Not every state is yet a democratic republic.
You do realize, we hold 50 seperate elections, with each state holding its own election. A few states even have different rules as to how their Electoral College votes will be cast, which is their right.
When are you going to stand up and defend our civil justice system from the vicious, corporatist, insurance industry battering by their mouth pieces, George W. Bush, Bill Frist et al., day after day?
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans are injured, made sick or lose their lives by corporate recklessness, deception and cover-up every year. Why can't John Edwards and John Kerry stand up for these defenseless people against the wrongdoers, their lobbies and their insurance industry profiteers?
The truth must be told. The lies must be exposed. The doors to our courts must be kept open. Our judges and juries must not have their hands tied. People should have their full day in court.
This is the American way, since our forebearers fought King George III in 1776, and our founders gave us our constitutional right to trial by jury. Speak and speak expansively about this pillar of our democracy.
The number of people filing for jobless benefits jumped last week, the government reported Thursday, as the latest reading on the strength of the labor market came in far worse than Wall Street forecasts.
The Labor Department reported that 362,000 people filed for initial unemployment benefits in the week ended Aug. 28, up from the reading of 343,000 the previous week. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast that 340,000 filed for benefits.
Friday morning the Labor Department will release its eagerly anticipated August employment report, and many economists and investors believe the figures will give some guidance as to whether the Federal Reserve will again move to raise interest rates when it meets Sept. 21.
Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.
Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.
On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity."
I know, I know, I'm vieing with Bill for longest string of posts now but I wanted to get these links in while I could.
It looks as though Andrew Sullivan is leaving the fold...read his blog in this link from the top down, from the first E-mail of the Day. It would seem Bush, Miller, and Cheney did a number on Andrew and drove him out of the fold by their actions and words.
Where were you guys when Clinton beat Bush only because Perot ran?
I was for Clinton, so I was happy as hell. Were I hoping Clinton would lose, a vote for Perot would have been stupid. If I had seen no difference between Clinton and Bush and voted for Perot in protest I would have been equally stupid.
Challenging the government's declaration that no more documents exist, the AP identified five categories of records that should have been generated after Bush skipped his pilot's physical and missed five months of training.
Since shredders were uncommon in those times I suppose they had to burn stuff.
"On Nightline, Ted Koppel broadcast part of an exchange he had with the Daily Show's Jon Stewart. . . . The putative Dean of serious journalism, Koppel received from Stewart, the "fake news" guy, a refresher course on how journalists should do their jobs. In one incredible exchange, after Stewart got Koppel to agree that essentially every claim by Swift Boat Veterans for truth "appeared to be" contradicted by the facts, Koppel averred that Kerry really brought this on himself.
"This canard, repeated often in recent days, asserts that because Kerry made so much of his Vietnam service, he really allowed this into the public domain. . . ."
"Like a teacher instructing a student, Stewart said that, yes, Kerry's trumpeting of his service allowed for scrutiny of that service. However, Stewart added, it did not follow that lying about it was acceptable. Koppel had no answer for that point other than to repeat the charge that Kerry brought this on himself. Koppel then explained the difference between facts and the truth, noting that it is factual to report that someone is making these charges, though the charges may well be untruthful. Koppel explained this as if it were a bemusing conundrum, about which nothing could conceivably be done, as if news people don't use editorial discretion every second of every day to determine what merits reporting and what doesn't."
I saw some of this on early morning ABC news, and also wish I had a transcript. I recall that in response to Stewart pointing out that the Swift Boat vets' assertions were lies, Koppel pontificated something like, maybe so, but they still wouldn't have as much "resonance" had Kerry not trumpeted his military service. In response, Stewart noted, with sadness and frustration, that the media rewards the candidate who plays the political game more skillfully.
Jon Stewart is on the money again. It's sad that the most (the ONLY?) honest political journalism on television has to come from a late night funnyman.
The pundits' current criticism of the Kerry campaign is that Kerry didn't respond quickly enough or strongly enough to the Swift Boat charges regarding his combat record. (Never mind that these charges are lies, and that they were immediately disputed by Kerry crewmates who were there.)
Is the Bush campaign responding with pundit-satisfactory quickness to reports about Bush's Vietnam-era military service (e.g., the article linked by robertjayb in Message # 8720)? Based on past experience, President Bush will ignore the charge and the media will lose interest and drop it.
The Kerry campaign was forced to acknowledge, after much hoopla, that John Kerry was not in Cambodia in December 1968 (rather, it was sometime in January or February 1969), but the Bush campaign has never even been questioned (to my knowledge) on the false claim in Bush's autobiography that after completing flight training he continued to fly with his unit "for several years" (it was 22 months, then he was suspended).
If the Kerry campaign has to swim upstream against this double standard for the next two months, it's going to be tough.
Well the bait and switches of the Bushies have been very effective. Before the Democratic Conventiion, they were touting "The War President's" ability to lead and keep Americans safe.
They shrewdly boasted and drew Kerry into fighting on there turf and distracting the press and everyone else from Bush's glaring limitations and blunders, foreign, and domestic, economic and social, strategic and diplomatic.
Kerry has been a political dunce . . . and the real Dunce has not.
But the media pretty much forced that, as Ohio's post points out. When all you've got is yellow journalism to go by there comes a point when the allegations-cum-news has to be addressed. The media hasn't been doint the same thing with all the Move On and Farenheit 9/11 material that they did with the Swiftboat ads.
"Is the Bush campaign responding with pundit-satisfactory quickness to reports about Bush's Vietnam-era military service"
What you folks seem to forget is that this issue was already addressed the first go-round when Bush ran against Gore. In other words, it is old, old news. Kerry's news is new news and makes for more interesting pondering. Did this guy who earned medals of valor really do what he said he did? And how can a guy come back from the war critical of his own compatriots and yet still demand to be considered a war hero himself?
The two matters are not apples and apples, and given that Bush's situation has already been played - and the Dems lost doing it in 2000 - it is a tired, old story and won't get the same treatment as Kerry's new and much more interesting story will get.
"The republithugs know how to provoke and win dirty."
Such statements always amaze me when they are coupled with a implied belief that only one party plays these games. They both do. Politics is dirty, period.
Currently, the tide seems to be turning the way of the Repubs, but I'd be just as stupid as your liberal nutcases have been to declare that this is over. It isn't. I'm sure Kerry will pull back to even and this will go down to the wire.
Bush will win by the hair of his chinny chin chin.
I agree with Kuligin except I think Kerry will win. I have to in order to sleep at night.
I think he will win because turnout will be much higher than expected among groups that will vote for him.
And I'm sorry, but any political concert tour like what Springstein is leading needs to target someone besides the yuppies. Liberals are bad about preaching to the choir when the Republicans know only to call them in for the final chorus.
The Republicans invented and perfected attack, slime politics. Georgie's father reminded us of that on Larry King the other night when he said he respected Kerry's war record and then equated him with Jane Fonda.
I'm in a charitable mood, so I'm going to say something in defense of Dick Cheney. Yes, you heard me.
Cheney gets flack for his five deferments from the draft as a young man. However, they appear to be legitimate (i.e., not the result of special favors to the well-connected). Born in 1941, Cheney attended college and grad school, which at the time constituted grounds for draft deferments. Then he wife Lynne's pregnancy and the birth of daughter Elizabeth got Dick safely to age 26, beyond draft age.
Unless you think that the portion of the population that supports a war has a greater duty to enlist in it than those who oppose it - and I don't - it was no moral flaw in and of itself for the young Cheney to play by the rules (even if slanted towards the wealthy) that had been written. In particular, Cheney's situation is not identical to that of George W. Bush, who evaded those rules.
Everything you said about Cheney's deferments is true. However, people had different motives for seeking deferments--some because they were conscientous objectors; some because they objected to the Vietnam War for various reasons; and some apparently like Cheney who never met a war he didn't love but didn't want so serve himself. In my book, that puts him almost on a par with Bush as an avoider of military service in wartime. And miles behind John Kerry on my morality scale.
Former President Bill Clinton, in a 90-minute telephone conversation from his hospital room, offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy, as Mr. Kerry enlisted more Clinton advisers to help shape his strategy and message for the remainder of the campaign.
In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said.
The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry's campaign and criticism that he had been too slow to respond to attacks on his military record or to engage Mr. Bush on domestic policy. Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said.
"The republithugs know how to provoke and win dirty."
Such statements always amaze me when they are coupled with a implied belief that only one party plays these games. They both do. Politics is dirty, period
Yes politics isn't paddycake but not all electoral politics is dirty and not all dirty politics is as filthy as Bush family politics.
The GOP beginning with BushI through to the present is without peer in modern US politics. BushI defined the modern negative campaign and BushII has refined it. Indeed Bush I is not only the Pater Familia of Modern Putrescence, his campaign in 1988 sired now the familiar news media fact check feature, and a shitload of academic research into the subject.
And for the record, I for one never ever said, thought, dreamnt, hallucinated, that Kerry could mail this election in.
I have always maintained and still do that this race is Kerry's to lose and the Big Dog is right
- Kerry waited far too long to hit back at the SleazeBoat SlimeVets and as a result had to spend far too much time talking about Vietnam
- Kerry above all needs to vigorously attack Bush's stunning record of ineptitude and mendacity..soup to nuts..domestic AND foreign policy especially IraQ.
That last is tough because thanks to Mister No-Results-No-Matter, the US options fall somewhere between ghastly blunder to historically proportioned catastrophe...
The lies, the ineptitude, consequences for the US at home and abroad make the case for competence.
The election still looks to me like Bush. There are more women voters than men voters by far, and most of these women are "Christians", and most "Christians" will vote for Bush, since they wrongly think he is a good Christian.
James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg may be able to turn things around for Kerry. They play dirty and lie better even than the Republicans. They got BJ Clinton elected twice with their lies.
Wait a second Billy Boy..if women voters turnout in higher number than MEN, the opposite is to be expected.
Fewer women vote for Bush...called the gender gap and besides the church going gap which it preceded by 20 years or so, is largely bogus when you really look closely at the number breakdown
But it is key to Kerry that this race maintain high visibility and interest plus little real movement in the polls
Both factors work against Bush. High levels of interest in a close race (most sentient beings Bill percieve high stakes at issue) could boost turnout 10%. Young voters, Hispanic and Asian minorities, weak identifier Independents and other low turnout groups are solidly Kerry.
A tight race works against the Inevitability of Incumbency; scatters Bush efforts more than Kerry, and presages a late October break toward the challenger whereas the reverse tends to be the case where the incumbent has significant early leads that he holds steady. In that case, turnout drops, many who do vote go for the "winner" and the partisans of the challenger fade fast.
Clinton was elected because most women voters voted for him both times (check the exit polls and election statistics), due supposedly to the Clinton 'charisma', and they liked his looks (don't ask me why, cuz I don't know).
They seem to like Bush, because Bush is better looking than Kerry, and they think Kerry betrayed America, when he opposed the Viet Nam War.
As I said, there are far more women voters than men voters. On election day many men are out drinking beer and watching sports, and don't bother to vote.
The Gender Gap wasn't just Bill Clinton's. It began with Carter Raygun and has continued ever since even to the present time.
There has been a slight narrowing and during the 9/11 Trifecta and National Coma it evaporated but this is due to women placing higher value on terror security and having a g=more emotional reaction to the First Bush Bungle...
Kerry has had the lead among women just as every democrat since 1980...24 not 20 years
The US election system is woefully, embarassingly antiquated and inadequate.
One would have thought that the 2000 scare would have been enough to enable a bipartisan reform to modernise it. But no, the idea doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone.
Scenario du jour, from reading www.electoral-vote.com : Iowa and Colorado, currently tied, go to Kerry; Arkansas, currently Bush 47/Kerry 47, goes to Kerry too.
"One would have thought that the 2000 scare would have been enough to enable a bipartisan reform to modernise it. But no, the idea doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone."
Here's a quote from George Will on "This Week" yesterday, during a discussion of how the John Kerry campaign needs to get the public to understand that the war in Iraq is not part of the "war on terror":
"It's very difficult to get the country to make this distinction between Iraq and the war on terror because all they see is an eveloping sense of violence in the world and they don't distinguish."
Okay, George, the public is stupid. It's not that Bush, Cheney and others have made numerous false statements regarding the alleged connection between Iraq and terrorist attacks. And it's not that they're being misled by right-wing media outlets (e.g., FOX News displaying the misleading graphic "WAR ON TERROR" with every report on the Iraq war). The voters are just dumb, and it's John Kerry's tough luck.
From A Fellow Brother The Holy Order of the Razor (Occam)
But I the Elder Brother..
Been saying this for over a year..LES AND INCOMPETENCE, INCOMPETENCE AND LIES, LYING INCOMPETENTS
Keep it simple stupid:
The notion that the campaign was settling on a new message for the fall came as news to some senior staff members.
"That's really groundbreaking," one senior aide said sarcastically when told about the focus on Mr. Bush's policies outlined by Mr. Johnson. "I think our negative frame should be that George Bush is a liar. He misled the country on Iraq. And then everything else that he lies about, bring it back to that."
"I think our negative frame should be that George Bush is a liar. He misled the country on Iraq. And then everything else that he lies about, bring it back to that."
Yep, but few are listening. Too busy doing alcohol, drugs and shopping 'til dropping.
Of course many others now have to hold two jobs just to have food, clothing and shelter. And with the wife working also, the kids are essential without parents.
Bush promised today that he would bring prinicple to policies..
RESPONSE ABOVE
Bush promised on Thursday nite to bring heatlh care costs down
On Friday morning he announced an unprecedented 17% increase in Medicare premiums...
Bush promised Congressmen who balked at his feed the rich drug benefit that it was affordable and at the very moment threatened to fire the SSA actuary who was prepared to testify to a 150 Billion buck lie..
Now to be fair, the Bush bashing in the Demo primaries probably tempted Kerry to bid against himself with his nicey nice strategy and he needn't be vicious...
The public is very aware...they just need the memory refreshed..like daily
I think we have to brace ourselves for four more years with Bush. Look at it. The lies about the WMDs and the Iraq-Al Qaida connection, the Abu Ghraib scandal, the general bungling in Iraq, the toadying up to Sharon, the alienation of the European allies, the enormous budget deficit, the failure to create jobs and much, much more. But still he is at least neck-to-neck with Kerry in the polls, and he is the incumbent.
Even in "battleground states" where job losses have hurt, the race is still neck and neck. I think the reason why is because Bush cannot be rightly blamed for the economic woes, and most reasonable people see that.
Had Bush gone and done what his father did, namely, raise taxes in his term and then see the economy tank, I think more people would hold it against him like they did his father. But George W actually gave people a tax break, and as is well known, the economy tanked because of a worldwide recession and then 9/11. Companies like United and others are still reeling from 9/11.
It would be a false claim that Bush's policies have created job losses. In fact, he's done everything he could do to allow people to keep money in their pockets despite two incredibly bad economic breaks, over which he had no power to control.
Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, served honorably, saw what was happening there first-hand and came to recognize that the war was a tragic mistake [as did most Americans including Robert McNamara and Lyndon Johnson] returned home and campaigned against the war. What could be more admirables? Yet, now Bush and Cheney, the draft dodgers, are sliming Kerry for his actions. What could be more unjust?
"The lies about the WMDs and the Iraq-Al Qaida connection, the Abu Ghraib scandal, the general bungling in Iraq, the toadying up to Sharon, the alienation of the European allies, the enormous budget deficit, the failure to create jobs and much, much more."
1) no lies about WMDs. There was very credible evidence that Saddam still had them. 2) the real possibility that Iraq and Al Qaida had connections was not made up. 3) Abu Ghraib isn't Bush's fault. 4) There is no "general bungling" of Iraq. All things being considered, it is going well, much better than I actually thought it would go. Again, we are only 18 months past the initial invasion. 5) Is he really toadying up to Sharon? I actually thought that Bush's admin toward Palestine was more "liberal" than previous Repub admins. 6) Europe schmurope. Who really cares about those nambypambys anyway? I mean, really, if they aren't going to back up their tough words with tough actions... And besides, the UK, Spain, and other smaller nations were on our side. It wasn't as if all of Europe were against us. 7) Budget deficit will be fixed as it always is. Recall Reagan and his huge deficits? 8) failure to create jobs - how could Bush have created more jobs? He has actually freed up more money in the economy with tax breaks. I suppose he could have hedged off the worldwide recession, or stopped 9/11 because we all know he knew it would happen, right? Unemployment sits at 5.4%. Not bad given all the negative things happening around the world. What's the average unemployment rate in the EU today, pelle?
Yes, and praising his war record AND equating him to Fonda is quite fair. That is, in fact, what Kerry did as you have noted.
Kerry has always played both sides of an argument. He's made his political career on it, and more Americans have seen that during his campaign. They are starting to open their eyes. Kerry is basically untrustworthy.
If not Bush personally, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION lied about WMD. He is the titular head of the administration. Therefore, he is responsible for the lies.
"And don't think for one second that the news media is any better. Is 5.6% unemployment low or high? According to CNN it's both. In 1996, when Clinton was president CNN reported 5.6% as "low", but in 2004, when Bush is president CNN reported as a "weak job market". It's the same value in the same country. Is that the liberal press at work or sloppy reporting?"
You are right, pelle. When Reagan came into office, he had to deal with the mess left behind by the previous Dem administration, unemployment at levels higher than any time after 1941, over 10%, etc. etc. Those figures dropped consistently throughout his two terms in office. Lots of mess to fix there.
Not at all, judith. For starters, there was a WORLDWIDE recession that hit, then came 9/11. The vast majority of job losses during Bush's first term were entirely out of his control, and we are still feeling the effects of the latter incident.
5.4% unemployment, given the dramatic events that have occurred during Bush's first term, isn't that bad at all. Again, during Clinton's first term he never had numbers better than that, and we didn't face a worldwide recession or and event like 9/11 during his first term in office.
Well Bill it's not all slave labour by a long chalk. The fact is that many countries, mine included, give generous taxbreaks to multinationals. Also, many eastern european, and eastern countries have different standards of living, hell even cost of living, therefore construction, labour and running costs will be lower than in the U.S.
An american pharmachem will not be running a sweatshop in Singapore. It will run the same business it would do at home albeit with reduced cost, simple as that.
Buy U.S. manufactured goods, and be prepared to pay a bit more for them, that's about the only thing that can be done. Blaming politicians for outsourcing? Free trade is exactly that, free with no nationalistic preconditions.
judith, all I do is look things up on the Net. You could do it just as easily. What I am saying is just reasonable, nothing less. You can bellyache all you want to, but you simply cannot blame the President -any President - for a global recession and the events of 9/11 and the dramatic effect they had on our economy and governmental budget.
Bush has done admirably given the dramatic events which have occurred during this first term in office.
Monday September 06, 2004--The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 48% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 47%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.
Yea RoBo Polls are junk in the main but they do a better job than poorly TIMED or Newsweeked Thursday night specials when it comes to discerning trends....
A more charitable view of GOP Politics of Smear and Lie Drive By is about to appear in the Confessional.
Lies have consequences though the Poppy Dynasty are our Impressarios of Innuendo, US Lords of the Half Truth there the problem has deeper roots than the two grubby inconsequential little bushes of Texas prairie scrub brush....
You will see in the Lies Thread...The GOP didn't invent modern political filth they were politically more astute..It will become clear that Kulligan's point is not entirely bogus for a change...
This old ruse isn't really accurate. For starters, 2 out of 3 Nader voters claimed in exit polls that they would have voted for Gore had it been a two-man race, the other one-third said Bush.
Nader got 2,882,955 total votes in 2000.
Pat Buchanon also ran in 2000 and he received 448,895. It is a fair guess to say that there were virtually no Gore potential votes in those cast for Buchanon.
Analyzing the numbers, the Nader votes did very little in terms of "winning the election for Bush," given the entire scope of the election, as well as those measly votes spread over a 50-state electoral college.
Given the vote totals for Nader, and given the 2/3 leaning of those votes for Gore, two states could have potentially gone for Gore had people not voted for Nader, Florida and New Hampshire, Buchanon votes not withstanding. In all other states, the Nader votes were immaterial toward the outcome.
However, even after saying that, in Florida for example there were 97,488 votes cast for Nader, 17,484 for Buchanon, and 23,005 for all other candidates. So depending on how all those other votes fell, it is uncertain how that state would have faired.
In New Hampshire, it looks a little less likely that Bush would have won had Nader not run, but again, how all the others votes would have fallen would be needed to know first before definitively stating that Gore would have won.
Without looking at the chart, can anyone name the one state that actually had a closer vote tally between Gore and Bush than Florida? Gore actually won the state by less than 400 votes.
The GOP apparently thinks that a vote for Nadir is a vote for Bush. They are among Nadir's biggest contributors. And in Michigan the GOP was his biggest collector of signatures on petitions to get him on the ballot.
TD, if Bush had told you 3 years ago that God told him to the IraQ to install in power a coalition of Communists, Islamists and ex-Baathist nationalists would you have:
a) Laughed b) Puked c) head to the nearest Mosque for conversion???
"Hell Bush is the best thing that's happened to Osama since Raygun financed Jihad Inc."
Um, don't forget Clinton. Osama orchestrated numerous attacks during Clinton's eight years in office, and the vast majority of the planning and training - even on American soil - of the 9/11 attacks came during Clinton's presidency.
After 2001 at least Since the 9/11 attacks, there have been eight audio and videotapes with messages attributed to bin Laden.
According to German intelligence, 70,000 went through al Qaeda's Afghan training camps; many became terrorists and are likely operating worldwide with recruitment continuing. Other al Qaeda leaders such as Ayman al-Zawahiri continue to issue pronouncements and directives over the Internet.
The propaganda has found resonance in the Muslim world following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to the 2003 Pew Global Attitudes Project, solid majorities in the Palestinian Authority, Indonesia and Jordan – and nearly half of those in Morocco and Pakistan – say they have at least some confidence in Osama bin Laden to "do the right thing regarding world affairs" with 71 percent of Palestinians saying they have confidence in bin Laden in this regard.
Results matter
D's mattered at Yale, Harkin Oil, Texas Rangers, Texas State Hous and in the Oval Office
High-risk gamesmanship on other people's dime, cutting ethical and legal corners, blaming it on someone else when the racket goes south... Sound like anything else Mr. Perle's been associated with recently?
Bush Cheney Chalabi? Not Condomima, she'll whore anything any time for anyone
You can't tell the Lying Incompetents without a score card.
" Hell Bush is the best thing that's happened to Osama since Raygun financed Jihad Inc."
What Americans want to forget and don't want to admit is:
American foreign policy under Herr Bush has been carried out with the advice and consent of the Democrats in the USA Congress. And now Kerry wants to continue that same policy.
"So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled," Edwards said on Hardball with Chris Matthews on October 13, 2003. When Matthews asked Edwards directly if he got an "honest reading on the intelligence," the junior senator from North Carolina seemed to place much of the blame on the intelligence community. "I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee," he said. "So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there." Edwards's rhetoric was in some respects more alarmist than that of the Bush administration, describing the threat from Iraq as "imminent" and calling for the overthrow of Saddam long before Congress voted to authorize war.
The report from the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't help Kerry either. Whatever one thinks of the report in its entirety, its specific findings helped Bush politically by pouring cold water on the Bush-lied myth. It exposed Joe Wilson as a fraud, found that Iraq had actually increased its anti-U.S. terror planning in 2002, and provided a detailed account of how the intelligence community had reached its consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Kerry's own history on Iraq also complicates his making the case that Bush lied. It's tempting, but we won't return here to the list of hawkish Kerry statements on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. What we can say is this: From 1996 through the Iraq war last year, John Kerry regularly advocated the use of force, unilaterally if necessary, to remove the Iraqi dictator. He did so before the Bush administration even began to make its case for war. He was such a strong advocate of regime change throughout the late 1990s that Paul Wolfowitz once singled Kerry out by name as a Democrat who understood the Iraqi threat. Those days of consistency disappeared, however, with the election of George W. Bush.
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.
concerned, it is amazing how much Kerry and Edwards encouraged the US to go into Iraq, and now, when it becomes politically advantageous to them, complain that the US did just that.
Good news for Kerry and other pro-choice Democratic candidates: Cardinal Ratzinger give a green light to Catholics to vote for pro choice candidates if they agree with their positions on other important issues! More here.
Before the Republican convention, 86 percent of the population thought Zell Miller was a professional golfer. After the convention, 92 percent of the population would not like to be in his foursome.
Answer 2 - Why does Bush run for cover his lies and his abysmal failure in Iraq from Democrats?
Answer 3 - Why doesn't he take responsibilty for his mistakes?
Answer 4 - Why does he continue to lie?
Answer 5 - Why did not Condo Rice and Co when informed of an Israeli spy op in the pentagon probably involving #1 Bush ally and intel source Chalabi of Iran, not shut down the intel cookery factory of Doug Feith
Answer 6- Why does Bush claim that Kerry knew all that Bush did about Iraq when in fact he didn't and because the info is classified, he can't be proved a liar easily? I answered that myself!
Answer 7 - Why does Bush lie when he says Kerry supported the war when all Kerry did was give Bush the authority to go war?
Answer 8 - Why did Bush oppose the Lautenberg Amendment that Kerry voted for which would have required Bush to exhaust peaceul means and return to Congress to report before he launched his war?
Answer 9 - The War Powers Resolution as Kerry correctly said does NOT AUTHORIZE Bush to lie. Yet when he signed the order on March 18 2003, he said without any evidence whatsoever, after having cynically killed the UN inspection process that would have revealed that there were no WMD at all, contrary to the lies told by Powell at the UN and this BY HIS OWN WORDS would have enabled Saddam to stay in power
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces battled insurgents loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City on Tuesday, in clashes that killed 34 people, including one American soldier, and wounded 193, U.S. and Iraqi authorities said.
U.S. tanks moved into the neighborhood and armored personnel carriers and Bradley fighting vehicles were deployed at key intersections. Ambulances with sirens wailing rushed the wounded to hospitals as plumes of black smoke rose over the mainly Shiite neighborhood.
11. Bush never intended to permit UN weapons inspectors to do their job. As I said continually during 2002 and supported detailed information, the entire thing was a charade
12. We now know from Bush lastest lies about why he made war for nothing that he wanted to get rid of Saddam. That was NEVER his position before the war. His position before the war was that he would NOT INVADE if there were no WMD.
14. At the time of the vote, I opposed Kerry's decision to support Bush because I believed that Bush could not be trusted and that Kerry made a mistake believing that he could
15. Kerry trusted Bush. Bush lied and the US is paying the price.
16. Bush just as he did with the 911 commission first tried to kill all investigations into his Iraq crimes. The Democrats fought and out of it salvaged the semi-investigaion of the Roberts Intel Committee which revealed a massive intelligence fraud on the US people. None of this info was available to the Committee. Bush lies
17. Bush has postponed the remaining investigation until after the election but there ample fact already known to conclude that Bush cooked intelligence for political purposes and this should have been suspected by Kerry and Edwards - THEIR MISTAKE - but in any event it is yet more proof that Bush intentionally misled this nation into a war that he could not win and that is disaster for this country
So why doesn't he be a MAN and take responsibility for once
And you will NOW answer my question...if you have the balls
If Bush had told YOU in 2002 that he was going to war not to protect the US but to install a government of Communists, Islamic fundamentalists, and ex-Baath nationalists would you have
a) laughed b) puked c) Run to the Nearest mosque to convert and buy one of those funny knit hats
Note the Weakly Standard's cowardly tactics here. Paul Wolfotwitz says Kerry understands iraq. Therefore Kerry supported invasion without cause???
Are these people HIGH?
Kerry understood IRAQ so he knew like BUSH's FATHER WROTE you don't waltz willy nilly into Baghdad for no good reason
THAT is knowing Iraq
You see Kerry's position is consistent throughout.
Its only Bush's lies that keeep changing
That's why we this pile of crap from the Nations Number 1 apologists for the biggest bungle in 30 years.
They can't say anything in their defense other than "John said we were real honest real smart people. He didn't think were lying incompetent crackpots back then"
You will also see in Lies several very interesting items on that last subject as the NeoCon rats hasten their scurry off of the sinking SHip of FOols..they can't get their stories straight
I'd be very curious to hear the backstory on this article in the Times. It's a follow-on piece on the Franklin investigation at the Pentagon, entitled 'Spy Case Renews Debate Over Pro-Israel Lobby's Ties to Pentagon.'
It might have been better titled -- All Neocons Get to Place Quotes Saying They Were Framed By CIA, FBI, Other Establishment Wusses.
Whenever the neocons come under investigative scrutiny their defense is always that the investigations are a put-up by their bureaucratic enemies. And this piece seems almost entirely devoted to their unsubstantiated claims of the same.
Bureaucratic infighting happens of course. But these investigations are far more frequently the result of their recklessness, indifference to procedure and simple bad-acts.
On a deeper level, the defense is related to a mindset we often see in their analysis of intelligence. Just as they tend to discount the idea of disinterested intelligence analysis -- i.e., analysis that is not simply a cover for ideologically-driven opinion -- they are similarly unable or unwilling to see investigations such as these as anything other than a manifestation of ideological turf wars inside the executive branch.
Needless to say, I don't impute such views to all who could be classed as having 'neo-conservative' ideas or foreign policy views. But it is very much the case with this particular crew of neoconservative national security street-fighters who circulate in and out of government.
Along those lines, there is also a veritable smorgasbord of schadenfreude contained in this Times article on Richard Perle's latest troubles in the multiple investigations into Hollinger Inc.
Last we left this story, the report into the looting of the corporation had found that Hollinger was "an entity in which ethical corruption was a defining characteristic." And having found the management of the company to be such a model of integrity, the report went on to reserve its harshest criticisms for Perle, accusing him or "putting his own interests about those of Hollinger's shareholders" and "repeatedly breach[ing] his fiducicary duties."
Some passages seem worth quoting in their entirety ...
With the notable exception of Perle, none of Hollinger’s non-Black Group directors derived any financial or other improper personal benefits from their service on Hollinger’s Board. Unlike Black and Radler, Hollinger’s independent directors did not enrich themselves at the Company’s expense, did not misappropriate corporate opportunities belonging to Hollinger, and did not in any other way engage in self-dealing ... It is, of course, possible for a conflicted board member to act at least somewhat responsibly. As a conflicted executive committee member, however, Perle did not. Rather, his executive committee performance falls squarely into the 'head-in-the-sand' behavior that breaches a director's duty of good faith and renders him liable for damages. In the latest turn of events, Perle has turned on Conrad Black. In a statement Perle released from his redoubt in the south of France, he now says that the conniving Black pulled the wool over his eyes. Perle of course was duped and given millions of dollars in the process, unlike the shareholders in the company who were duped and fleeced of their assets. So it seems things could be worse for him.
Along the lines noted at the head of this post, when I first heard about this, I was almost tempted to wonder when we'd hear that the Breedon Report -- the one which points such a finger of blame at Perle -- was actually a put up job by the Arabists at the CIA. But apparently this is a case where humor can't outrun sorry reality. In the words of the Times, "Mr. Perle's friends say that he is the victim of unjustified attacks that are motivated more by policy vendettas than substance."
And one other passage from the Times article that is worth noting ...
But others who have known Mr. Perle over the years say that he has been a consummate risk taker in both his business dealings and in some of the foreign policies he advocated, and that he ultimately may have been lured by millions of dollars in compensation and benefits to put aside ethical considerations, as the Breeden report concluded. "Richard has always been willing to take the highest risks, playing for the highest stakes on policy issues over the years and often winning, but this is also really a story of being seduced by money," said Mr. Gelb, a former official at the State and Defense departments and a former columnist at The New York Times. "People in the foreign policy world do not make a lot of money. They go to think tanks, government, academe, and generally get $125,000 to $150,000 a year. When you are touched by lightning and manage to get into the inner sanctum to make money, the opportunities are delicious."
High-risk gamesmanship on other people's dime, cutting ethical and legal corners, blaming it on someone else when the racket goes south... Sound like anything else Mr. Perle's been associated with recently?
concerned, it is amazing how much Kerry and Edwards encouraged the US to go into Iraq, and now, when it becomes politically advantageous to them, complain that the US did just that.
Exactly. Which I'd say alone makes them 'Unfit for Command'.
Oh please, are you saying Bush IS fit for command? Of what? He certainly isn't fit for command of the economy. Or fit for command of the English language.
If Bush had simply done what Kerry really VOTED FOR, and let Blix do his job, 1000 thousand Americans would be alive, 7000 American bodies would be whole, the US would not be an international paraiah, the US would not be another 200 Billion in debt and all of this with no end in sight
Kerry's responsibility for Bush's war extends NO FURTHER than what I excoriated him for then and you now
He was stupid to have believed Bush
As for you your cupidity is much greater for as little excuse there may have been in 2002 has long since vanished.
1 - Number of Bush administration public statements on national security issued between 20 January, 2001, and 10 September, 2001, that mentioned Al Q'aida.
104 - Number of Bush administration public statements on national security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 - Number of Bush administration public statements on national security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 - Number of Bush administration public statements on national security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 - Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 - Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 - Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
$ 1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.
1,700 Percent increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.
79 Percentage of the September 11 hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.
3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" program.
140Number of Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.
14Number of Immigration and Naturalization Service agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where Al Qa'ida is active.
$ 3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.
$ 0The amount approved by Bush to hire more of these special agents.
$ 10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.
$ 50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia shuttle crash.
$ 5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalized gambling.
7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US Army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.
This is an edited extract from "What We've Lost, by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September
There is no reason to believe that Blix and Co. have been any more successful than the earlier UN inspectors in having Saddam get rid of WMDfor my actions
What kind of Orwellian Bullcrap is this?
Do you think we are idiots?
There is no reason to believe that Blix would have been successful in getting rid of WMD that didn't exist?
"Last week, a New York Times reporter got in to a Bush-Cheney-sponsored, invitation-only meeting for religious conservatives, and wrote a story. A GOP campaign director criticized the Times for covering an event that "was closed to the press," saying it was "not professional or appropriate" to write about it, according to the Times story.
It was instructive, though.
The rally featured Sen. Sam Brownback, who had apparently been relieved of the Stepford Senator control chip he wore for Tuesday night's official convention talk. The Brownback rolled out for press and public consumption talked about equality and justice in inclusive tones.
The Brownback who spoke to the faithful at a presumed closed-door event said, "We must win this culture war." Victory, as he defined it, is measured by such things as easing the separation between church and state. Brownback told the religious right crowd, "You are the heart and soul of the party."
So why hide them under a barrel?
The answer has to do with George Bush's desperate need to look like something he's not. He reveals himself in secret liaisons and love-letter platform promises to his core supporters.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski has issued an impassioned plea to the administration of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) to be "flexible, open and gracious" in what amounted to a veiled criticism of US foreign policy
Only a fool and a coward refuse to admit mistakes...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit will balloon to $2.29 trillion over the next decade, congressional analysts said on Tuesday, a worse outlook than previously forecast and one likely to stir election-year debate about President Bush (news - web sites)'s economic policies.
The forecast from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) compares to the outlook for a $2.01 trillion deficit for 2005-2014 it provided in March under current economic policies.
I think that most of us remember the Reagan-Mondale debates for the good humor and quips coming from Mr. Reagan. As I saw it, Reagan beat former Vice President Walter Mondale because of his attractive appearance - although Mr. Mondale's tax-increasing position didn't help the Minnesotan.
And now comes Bush vs. Kerry. One could argue that John Kerry, known to be an outstanding debater, will make Bush look bad. Indeed, Senator Kerry's supporters are convinced that their man possesses the better intellect and the better command of logic, and they are demanding as many debates as they can get.
But lest we forget: While Gore was making a less-than-good appearance in those debates, Bush, the underdog, remained cool as he defended himself or presented his case. He may not understand or deal with nuance the way Kerry does; but he has a knack for getting to the heart of an issue.
Bush also has a good sense of humor - which, when used right, can be a tremendous asset in these debates. Kerry hasn't struck me yet as being much on humor, although he just might fool us all by being the funnyman in these debates.
Nader is actually running a campaign full of good humor and crowd-pleasing punchlines, especially in the last few days.
In Austin on Wednesday night, for example, Nader announced apropos of nothing in particular that he was launching an initiative to reduce the classical seven-second soundbite to a single second ... by transforming them into "soundbarks."
Whereupon he answered a mythical question about Alan Greenspan raising interest rates by letting out a mangled-sounding canine scream.
And of course the debates are between two candidates of essesentially the same Political Party. All others are locked out and have been, ever since Perot won those debate.
The entrenched Parties cannot allow that to happen ever again.
John Kerry released the following statement on Sunday about the profound differences in his approach to handling Iraq compared to President Bush:
“George W. Bush wishes he and I had the same position on Iraq but wishing doesn’t make it so. “I have said repeatedly that when it comes to Iraq, I wouldn’t have done just one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently. George Bush’s wrongheaded, go-it-alone Iraq policy has created a quagmire, costing us $200 billion and counting. As a result, George Bush is shortchanging America on everything from education to health care to job creation – making it more difficult to meet our needs here at home.”
" George Bush is shortchanging America on everything from education to health care to job creation – making it more difficult to meet our needs here at home.” "
More than that. Bush is shortchanging the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq and god only knows who is next on his list.
Will Kerry be any less warlike? I don't think so. The American empire is alive and well under both Democrats and Republicans.
And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack And you may find yourself in another part of the world And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife And you may ask yourself: Well...How did I get here?
Letting the days go by; let the water hold me down Letting the days go by; water flowing underground Into the blue again; after the money's gone Once in a lifetime; water flowing underground.
And you may ask yourself How do I work this? And you may ask yourself Where is that large automobile? And you may tell yourself This is not my beautiful house! And you may tell yourself This is not my beautiful wife! Letting the days go by; let the water hold me down Letting the days go by; water flowing underground Into the blue again; after the money's gone Once in a lifetime; water flowing underground.
Same as it ever was...
And you may ask yourself What is that beautiful house? And you may ask yourself Where does that highway lead to? And you may ask yourself Am I right?...Am I wrong? And you may say to yourself MY GOD!...WHAT HAVE I DONE?
only have a minute but wanted to be sure no one missed bush's latest bit of wisdom:
Mr. Bush then turned to another point he has been making lately to appeal to women - that among those doctors being driven from the business are many obstetricians and gynecologists.
But Mr. Bush seemed to get derailed on the way to his point.
"Too many good OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their" - he paused a split second, as if searching for a word, then continued - "their love, with women all across this country," he said.
One has to be a lowbrow, a bit of a murderer, to be a politician, ready and willing to see people sacrificed, slaughtered, for the sake of an idea, whether a good one or a bad one. -
could be he fried too many brain cells with the drinking and drugging?
apparently someone is coming forward saying she saw w high on cocaine at camp david while his dad was in office. doubtful story will go anywhere as it is apparently not verified.
Saw a snippet from Kerry today on the campaign trail. He was emphasizing that this whole election can be boiled down to one letter, 'W'.
"Wrong war, wrong time, wrong way." And so on.
But didn't he vote for this war?
Here is a classic case of Kerry looking for a political angle, any angle, and attempting to exploit it. He's just becoming another Howard Dean, and that's why his numbers are starting to fall.
But there is one big difference. Kerry supported this war, and Dean never did. So this makes Kerry even worse.
Kerry voted to authorize the administration to use force in order to give the WMD inspectors maximum leverage, with the understanding--based on assurances from the Bush administration--that while war would be a possibility, it would not be a certainty. Kerry rightly did not want to limit the President's options preemptively.
This may be a little "complex" to the simpletons who put out or believe the Bush administration's line.
If Gore was President would he have gutted US environmental regulations? Would he be advocating privatizing Social Security? Would he have abandoned the Kyoto Accords? Would he be seeking to drill for oil in the Tongass? Would he have invaded Iraq? Would John Ashcroft be attorney general? Would we be running massive deficits? Would we have government by and for cronies?
Whatever. Kerry voted to authorize force, despite what the UN had to say about the matter, and now is complaining that Bush used force despite what the UN had to say about the matter!
He is just a political opportunist. Has been ever since Vietnam.
But no need to be bitter about things, Wombat. All the leftwing nutcases in this forum were declaring Bush dead in the water just a couple of months ago. Now you can't find them anywhere. Go figure.
While I voted for GHWB in '92, it took a couple of years and a boatload of scandals for Xlowntoon to really start bothering me. And, starting out of the gate, Xlowntoon had some advantages over Kerry on paper, having at least been in a statewide executive position for several years. Kerry has never run anything or even held a real job in his life.
Jexster's Gems, gleaned from the past eight months of posts, mainly said while the Dem nominee had a commanding lead in the polls against Bush:
"the Democratic Base...none of us has ever seen anything like it in our entire lives"
"That's the Fat Lady...One Note Rove"
"I submit that none of the fundamental assumptions on which the Bush 2004 election strategy is based, none of the fundamental strategic assumptions or objectives that the gold plated field operation -planned, bought and paid for down to fleets of vans chasing down apathetics - none of it is sound..."
Hapless is as Hapless Does Ma Mama Always Usta Say The Trials and Tribulations of a Real Life Forrest Gump
Bush's 2 point bounce from his convention (which, remember, is defined as the change in a candidate's level of support, not in margin) is the worst ever received by an incumbent president, regardless of party, and the worst ever received by a Republican candidate, whether incumbent or not (see this Gallup analysis for all the relevant historical data). In 2000, Bush received an 8 point bounce. And even his hapless father received a 5 point bounce in 1992.
In terms of whether the Republican convention made voters more or less likely to vote for Bush--the real point of the convention after all--there were almost as many saying the convention made them less likely to vote for Bush (38 percent) as said it made them more likely (41 percent).
This is actually quite a poor performance. The Democratic convention this year had a substantially better 44 percent more likely/30 percent less likely split. In fact, looking back to 1984, which is as far back as Gallup supplies data, no candidate has ever had a more likely to vote for/less likely to vote for split even close to as bad as Bush's this year.
Now that Kerry has joined issue on the biggest foreign policy and military bungle since James Madison let the Brits burn DC and the porkpie centerpiece of the most deceitful, incompetent President this country has seen in modern times, we have arrived at the tipping point and lynchpin of the election..
We have the theme
Lies and incompetence Incompetence and lies
Incompetent liars...
Kulligan and TD are very familiar with this theme already
and I am as happy as an armadillo on the lower forty of the Fake Rancher's Fake Ranch
Now that Kerry has joined issue on the biggest foreign policy and military bungle since James Madison let the Brits burn DC and the porkpie centerpiece of the most deceitful, incompetent President this country has seen in modern times, we have arrived at the tipping point and lynchpin of the election..
We have the theme
Lies and incompetence Incompetence and lies
Incompetent liars...
Kulligan and TD are very familiar with this theme already
and I am as happy as an armadillo on the lower forty of the Fake Rancher's Fake Ranch
Now that I see that AP and others are actually doing some real journalism and reporting on the documentary evidence that Bush was the deserter and coward 30+ years ago that we said he was in 200o and that we know his remains, I am as happy as an armadillo on the lower forty who has just seen a hunky boydillo
The challenger, especially a Democratic challenger enjoys serveral advantages not the least of which is, as my protege Charles Cook has pointed out again and again...the undecided and persuadable vote (not same) breaks about 70-30 for the challenger...Democratic numbers always come up late as independent weak leaners and actual registrants come to the party
In addition:
Bush has to fight to keep states he won in 2000 more than Kerry has to fight for Gore's
No candidate has ever won with such bad poll numbers
The voters believe by substantial margins that the country is on the wrong track
The Nader vote is neither holding nor materializing in numbers sufficient to make a difference
Bush has basically kissed off and alienated independent voters
and the lies, distortions and extreme right wing policies of this administrattion continue to unravel as they have all year in this the most visible point in US political cycle
This is now as it has ever been Kerry's election to lose
George Bush has spent tens of millions of dollars to make people believe that John Kerry flip flopped on the $87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq. But George Bush and the Republicans made the same flip flop in reverse. Not supporting it on the first vote and then supporting it on the second vote. So what was the difference?
First of all, George Bush flip flopped on his promise to pay for the war with Iraqi oil. But then when the Republicans illegally took the money for bullet proof vests and armor for the troops out of the first $89 billion dollars to fund the war in Iraq, they found a way to steal an additional $87 billion dollars from our children, while continuing to steal and use Iraqi oil to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Bush and his greedy horde tacked the bullet proof vests and armor onto the second large request so they could accuse anyone who opposed it of being unpatriotic. So what happened when the $87 billion first came up for a vote in the Senate? John Kerry and John Edwards voted for it. They said sure, let’s pay for it. But George Bush and Dick Cheney opposed the first vote and the Republicans defeated it.
The Republicans off-loaded the entire cost of $87 billion dollars onto our children and brought the request up for a second vote. John Kerry and John Edwards said no, you can’t continue to steal from our children. After hundreds of billions of dollars of reckless deficit spending and doubling the national debt to over $7 trillion dollars, it was outrageously irresponsible for George Bush and his radical agenda to pile this debt on our children. John Kerry and John Edwards wanted only the wealthiest 2% of Americans, like themselves, to pay the cost, not steal the money from our children.
Frankly, I'm less worried about polls right now than about the bad advice some Democrats are offering Kerry in panicked reaction to the polls, and to the GOP Convention: Stop talking about national security, they say. That's Bush's issue. Talk about Medicare and jobs.
More generally, he needs to hammer away on Bush's entire record. But that doesn't mean conceding national security to the GOP. That's the Mother Of All Democratic Delusions, dating back for decades.
The truth is that Bush is as vulnerable on national security as he is on domestic policy. He's squandered the pricesless strategic asset of the good will America enjoyed around the world after 9/11. He let Osama get away at Tora Bora. He made no real effort to get international support for the invasion of Iraq, and then, in a dumb and ideologically driven decision, gave the "go" signal without any post-war planning, and without committing enough U.S. troops to secure the country. He was dragged kicking and screaming into a half-assed commitment to homeland security, and now he's being dragged kicking and screaming into a half-assed commitment to intelligence reform. At some point, if we're lucky, he'll be dragged kicking and screaming into a half-assed commitment to do something about the unsecured nuclear materials floating around a dangerously unstable former Soviet Union.
He should unleash that platoon of brass including but not limited to Gens. Clark, Gen Hoar and major Bush 2000 supporter Gen. Tony McPeak, and have them hound that bonehead poseur and deserting coward from now to his inglorious end. Amen.
Page 1 feature on Charmaine in Sunday Houma Courier:
BELLE CHASSE -- The Oyster Festival Queen worked the Catfish House here like there was no tomorrow. She shook hands, smiled widely and nodded knowingly as voters complained about health care and taxes.
Charmaine Caccioppi was in her element. For many that know her, Caccioppi will always be the little girl from Raceland who wore the Oyster Festival crown many moons ago; whose daddy was a state trooper and momma was a beautician. More than any other platform or philosophy in her bid for the 3rd Congressional District, Caccioppi touts her roots.
"There’s one thing about Cajuns," Caccioppi explained, "not only do they know their own, but they know authenticity. They are direct and they will challenge you. They know who I am. After all, the Oyster Queen can’t be from anywhere else."
A CAJUN LADY ... Even her leisure time is grounded firmly in south Louisiana values. She reads the Bible every night, but the most recent novel she finished was "Cajun Woman: Pure & Simple" by Janet Foret Lococo.
"Cajun women are strong and they have a lot of courage," Caccioppi said of lessons learned from the book. "And to have a local author talk about the strengths of Cajun women, well, I find that extremely exhilarating." .... "The best thing about campaigning is actually touching and listening to people, asking them about their ideas," Caccioppi said. "Learning about what the challenges are that they face and trying to better understand them. "Because, in America, we’ve got a lot of challenges but there’s hope and opportunity that exists for somebody who can think out of the box and create the kind of synergy to be able to tell them that there is a way we can maximize the potential of this district and help them." The primary election is scheduled for Nov. 2, with a runoff on Dec. 4, as needed.
On Labor Day, neither the Republican or Democratic Party candidates focused on the crisis in our workforce—high levels of unemployment and underemployment, low wages, the right to organize undermined, no job security, losing competition to the world market.
Yesterday, Ralph Nader called for a civil rights movement for workers; today he highlights the downward trend for US workers and the need for Congress to take action.
Labor Day comes and goes—but Congress does little to improve the plight of workers in our country. In the last three decades our elected officials have too often chosen to side with big corporations rather than the working people in the United States.
In the face of aggressive employer demands for concessions, the downward pull of international competition, weak and barely enforced labor and workplace safety laws, relatively high unemployment rates, and a struggling labor movement, most workers have seen wage rates stay practically flat over the past several decades—even as CEO salaries and profitability have skyrocketed.
The executive class has captured almost all of the gains in wealth from the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) in recent decades. And George W. Bush’s recession and jobless recovery has only worsened the problem.
A Wall Street analyst said in March of 2004: “We’d thought that the labor share of national income was in the process of bottoming out, but whether we’re talking outsourcing or just old-style downsizing, the effort by US business to pare costs (and extract productivity gains in services) continues apace.” Meanwhile, employers have slashed benefits for those workers lucky enough to retain a job. And workplaces remain far more hazardous than necessary.
" The Nader vote is neither holding nor materializing in numbers sufficient to make a difference "
WE don't know what the 'Nader vote' will be and in which key states, and the pollsters don't know either.
I think most Americans cannot get very excited about either of these two candidates. Many may decide (logically):
A pox on both your houses.
OTOH, the complacency of Americans seems to know no bounds. Many may just forget about voting, since the outcome will make little difference in their lives in any case.
President Bush may skip one of the three debates that have been proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in Missouri // audience of 'undecided voters' for second debate was to be picked by Gallup.
Bush officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans, WASH POST planning to report in new editions..
65 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 10 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and eight Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of September 7, 2004 (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. At least 6,916 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. The Pentagon does not report the number of non-hostile wounded. This list is updated regularly.
A - B | C - D | E - H | I - L | M - O | P - T | U - Z
Further to the points I raised earlier about Fork Stickin, BushShittin and other Porkpies...
Kerry Widens Lead in Battleground States! Now that's a headline you're not likely to see in the mainstream media, consumed as they are with the storyline du jour about Bush's Big Mo' from the convention.
But that's what the internals of the latest Gallup poll tell us. Prior to the Republican convention, Kerry had a one point lead among RVs (47-46) in the battleground states. After the Republican convention, now that battleground voters have had a chance to take a closer look at what Bush and his party really stand for, Kerry leads by 5 in these same states (50-45)! Note that Kerry gained three points among battleground voters, while Bush actually got a negative one point bounce.
I say it's time to rip Bush and Cheney new ones with an overwhelming and unrelenting ad barrage on just how corrupt this meretricious, self-serving bunch of bastards have been. Start labeling the Iraq War for what it is--a scheme for power, profit and exploitation,
If they want to play the doubt game, then let's oblige them by putting the doubt in the American voter for all the billions being funneled into the Bush-backing corporations abusing this trumped up escapade of empire.
If the Kerry campaign combines an offense of "They're corrupt and we're not--we're for the middle class and they're not!" with how they're still blundering in Iraq without ever dealing with genuine safety at home, Kerry has a good chance of winning. They have to stop responding to Bush's allegations with a deluge of their own.
The only way at this stage, to make it effective is to convince the press to start doing their job and investigating all the clandestine links to war profiteering of Bush and Cheney's crony network.
What's worse--being a flip-flopping war hero or a corrupt puppet of crony corporations?
President Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, the BOSTON GLOBE is planning to front on Wednesday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.
The 1,500 word expose on Bush's records comes just hours ahead of an exclusive CBSNEWS interview set to air Wednesday night with a man who secured for the 22-year-old Yale graduate Bush a coveted place in the Guard -- a man who now claims he regrets helping Bush.
The GLOBE claims: "Twice during his Guard service - first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School - Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.
"He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show."
After laying dormant for most of the summer, big media picks up where it left off on the Bush national guard issue in a post-Labor Day filing frenzy.
In the next hours and days, the ASSOCIATED PRESS, CBSNEWS, BOSTON GLOBE and NBCNEWS [who will host Bush author Kitty Kelley on Monday] will revisit Bush National Guard.
The upcoming reexamination of Bush's records by the GLOBE show that Bush's attendance at required training drills "was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been "satisfactory" - just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months."
On reflection, it looks pretty clear that the Republican strategists have concentrated their efforts in three directions. One, they have given up any semblance of aiming for the center and have indeed made that ballyhooed calculation that if they maximize the turnout of their base (particularly evangelical Christians) they win. Two, they have given up trying to keep the media on their side by toeing an ethical line - instead they will continually cross the threshold of decency and bash the media when it objects. Three, it's all out warfare on Kerry's record - the veteran-based ads "worked" so we will see them non-stop until November.
The second of these angles is the most significant. In retrospect, we see that many of these tactics (like, a vote for Kerry will bring on a terrorist attack) were floated as trial balloons over the course of the past year. The 9/11 stuff, for example, was aired briefly many months ago - then the victims families objected - and the ads were immediately pulled. The calculation was obviously made that these meretricious tactics could not be sustained for long periods of time. Instead, the Republicans saved them up for the short hectic sprint to the finish-line, when the Kerry campaign and the media are too pressed and too distracted to properly rebut, ridicule and debunk.
So, now, lucky us, we are in the serious shit-slinging stage. And in the GOP we see the modern masters of negative campaigning in action - breathtakingly effective, stunningly comprehensive and skilled.
Bush officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans, WASH POST planning to report in new editions..
I almost snorted coffee through my nose on reading this. I guess Bush's practice of vetting attendees to all his public appearences and making them sign loyalty oaths gave him the vague hint that the other side might try that at the debates. What a jerk.
He doesn't want to do that debate because he can't prep for it. And if he can't be prepared thoroughly, he will look like himself when caught off guard.
The Bush administration was demonstrably asleep at the wheel concerning the Al Qaida threat before 9/11, have mishandled not one but two military campaigns afterward, have not provided adequate resources for US homeland security, and they claim that Kerry will endanger the country?
Yes. And it seems to be working. Results don't matter.
By turning every issue into a personal attack on Kerry, they have been pretty successful in getting people to view criticism of Bush's policies, and illustrations of his manifest failure as "partisan politics." Kerry says "You've failed." Bush says "We have had stunning successes, despite tremendous obstacles," while ads smear Kerry. Consequence: voters don't know who to believe, and so they vote on personality, where Bush does seem to have an advantage (although I don't see why that is--he makes my teeth ache everytime he opens his mouth.)
We'll see whether Kerry's vaunted ability to drive an election home in the last six weeks holds in this one.
But the democrats have to stop making it worse. When Bush was cratering, the R spokespeople remained sunnily confident. That helped hold their base through some trying times. Now that the "sovereignity" transfer and the election have gotten Iraq off the front page, they've turned those numbers around. As jexster has said, ad nauseum, Kerry can turn them back, but he's gotta hammer.
So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible.
We haven't done any of those things to date. The US said today that it had lost control of the Sunni section of Iraq, and cannot expect to regain it before the end of the year. The progress from the time of the fall of Baghdad forward hsa been almost uniformly negative. Now, according to the CSIS
The results are grim. "Iraq is not yet moving on a sustained positive trajectory toward the tipping point or end state in any sector," they write. When the survey's authors graph their findings from June 2003 to July 2004, the lines skew confusedly and double back to where they began: "In fact, in every sector we looked at, we saw backward movement in recent months." To paraphrase the president, csis has found that not only haven't we turned the corner, we are very likely going back.
Do you have ANYTHING substantive that this president has accomplished?
Jay, you lying whore. Name one personal attack that any member of the Bush Administration has made against Kerry. Only the Bush Administration, remember. Bringing anybody else up automatically concedes that you've just been lying again.
Can you name ANYTHING substantive that any Democrat president since Truman has accomplished? Besides getting 50,000 of our troops killed in Vietnam, I mean.
Calling me names doesn't change facts concerned. Nor does the use of front organizations to spout your smears change their nature.
But, in any case, today's WaPo:
Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.
Yeah. Democrats need to calm down and stay the course. They have truth on their side. They just have to keep telling it, and not get distracted. This (shortened) week's news cycle is gonna revolve around Bush's service. It'd be nice if some 527 would run an ad with the various lies Bush has told about his service over the years.
Now the Bush campaign wants to skip one of the proposed debates for fear that their man might get exposed to questions that might require something more than a recitation of talking points. The moral cowardice of the campaign--and the candidate--continues.
But you have to admire the sheer chutzpah of Cheney saying that. The biggest terrorist attack in the history of the country, struck at the heart of our economic and political institutions took place during this administration. But the "danger is we will be hit again" under any other adminstration. We've been "hit again" hardest and most frequently during this administration.
Like Bush said, concerned, results matter. And the results of the past four years have been uniformly awful.
The moral cowardice of the campaign--and the candidate--continues.
But the audacity continues. Where's moveon when you need them?
Maybe they can get Will Ferrell to sit in the other chair on the day they wanted to skip. (Actually, a stunt like that, with a celebrity, might bring viewership. Wondering further, if they staged such an event, could it be televised legally over the networks? Could it be televised on, say, Comedy Central?)
WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion this year and $2.3 trillion over the next decade even if Congress does not enact any of the additional tax cuts President Bush (news - web sites) is seeking, the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) said Tuesday.
Making Bush's previous tax cuts permanent would nearly double the 10-year shortfall to $4.5 trillion, the nonpartisan agency said. Proposals to partially privatize Social Security (news - web sites) and scale back the alternative minimum tax, both of which have been endorsed in principle by the president, would add even more red ink.
There is an article in the globe. It's a rehash and summary. But that's the story of the week. The media has been really shameful during this election.
See Jay this media problem you mention is really a problem of the sharp decline in political involvement that I tried to explain in Lies over the weekend.
The data in Putnam's Bowling Alone II details the consequences of an electorate that no longer pays regular attention to politics. Whether its voting, direct involvement or just keeping up with political news, civic engagement has dropped dramatically and steadily since the 1960's, since the Greatest Generation's peak...
That's why, among other things, Drudge's blessing on a rehash of old news really is news.
I was away over the weekend and there was too much traffic for me to read. Cause and effect in this realm is difficult to ascertain. The shift from grassroots, local campaigning for president to television advertising is part of this phenomenon.
So is the meaninglessness of most votes, because of the deals cut between the parties to create safe congressional seats and the power of Senate incumbency. So is the profound corruption that permeates the Senate and House, where deals are about contributions, not about votes.
Report Shows Bush Was AWOL This is what I understand will be the lede story on 60 Minutes II
Revenge is a Dish Best Served Cold Ancient Romulan Proverb, "The Wrath of Kahn"
Earlier this year, President Bush told the nation "I did my duty" in the National Guard in 1972 when he was supposed to report for service.1 But according to a major new report, that is not true.
As a new examination of documents by the Boston Globe shows, "Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation." Twice during his Guard service - first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School - Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. But "he didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show."2
Bush also has claimed "I did show up in Alabama"3 in 1972 when he was supposed to report there for duty. But as the Globe notes, "Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year." Furthermore, "even that service is in doubt" as "no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973."
A new group called Texans for Truth will begin airing 0:30 second television ads featuring a National Guardsman who in 1972 served in the very same Alabama unit Bush was supposed to have joined. That Guardsman testifies that he never saw Bush show up for service - a story corroborated by others. See the ad here.4
Sources: Transcript for Feb. 8th airing on "Meet the Press", MSNBC, 2/13/04. "Bush fell short on duty at Guard," Boston Globe, 9/08/04. Transcript for Feb. 8th airing on "Meet the Press", MSNBC, 2/13/04. TexansforTruth.com, 9/04.
...The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. It's not fair to say Mr. Bush deserted. My sense is that he (like some others at the time) neglected his National Guard obligations, did the bare minimum to avoid serious trouble and was finally let off by commanders who considered him a headache but felt it wasn't worth the hassle to punish him. .................................................
Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh.
Wednesday September 08, 2004--The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 48% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 46%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.
Senator Kerry has not been ahead in the Tracking Poll since August 23. President Bush leads 88% to 10% among Republicans. Senator Kerry leads 79% to 17% among Democrats. As for those who are unaffiliated, 45% prefer Kerry and 44% Bush.
An aspect of dubya's ANG adventures that had escaped me was mentioned briefly, very briefly, on CNN this morning. The claim is that dubya had an unfulfilled service obligation when he left for Harvard and that he signed a document acknowledging his duty to seek out and affiliate with a new unit in which to serve out the balance of his commitment. There apparently is no record of his having done so.
Ever-reliable Wolf Blitzer went immediately to his GOP-issued auto-response generator and offered up the undisputed claim that dubya had received an honorable discharge.
Truman accomplished a lot. He integrated the armed forces, for example. He brought WWII to a successful conclusion. The Marshall Plan was conceived and implemented on his watch. The U.S. economy was successfully converted from war to peace under Truman.
It's odd that the defense for not serving in a post that was obtained by pulling strings is that a discharge, which could easiliy have been obtained by pulling strings, was issued is considered reasonable, even by Wolf.
jex, i've changed my mind....i think you're right. kerry needs to come down hard on how under bush we are less safe than ever from terrorism. i think they need to harp on the fact that 9/11 was on bush's watch...that they did nothing before to prevent it and since then the stupid things they've done. besides the obvious iraq diversion, things like not given all the $$ promised to nyc, not funding first responders, the idiot way of divvying up the money so that the per cap $ is something like $500 in wyoming and only 2 cents in nyc, the way mccain and lieberass have had to create a special task force to see the 9/11 commission recomendations get enacted, bush' unwillingness to testify before the commission without cheney holding his hand, etc etc
Apparently dubya has withdrawn his objection to giving full budget authority to the head of whatever new intelligence entity will be created. This is a backdown that accepts the recommendation of the 9/11 commission.
Isn't it true that Bush was having alcohol and drug problems during this period before he was born again? ............................................................
This Salon article (previously linked) concerns an earlier time but it idicates dubya's fondness for his glass whilst he either was or was not doing dual ANG/political duty in Alabama: George W. Bush's missing year...
Did anyone hear Terry Gross interviewing the guy who wrote Bush'd Brain, the book about Karl Rove? It was on NPR this morning and the guy said Karl Rove will go down in history as the best political operative ever. He made Bush out of whole cloth...it was a fascinating interview.
DIES irae, dies illa, solvet saeculum in favilla, teste David cum Sibylla.
THAT day of wrath, that dreadful day, shall heaven and earth in ashes lay, as David and the Sybil say. Quantus tremor est futurus, quando iudex est venturus, cuncta stricte discussurus!
What horror must invade the mind when the approaching Judge shall find and sift the deeds of all mankind!
Tuba mirum spargens sonum per sepulcra regionum, coget omnes ante thronum.
The mighty trumpet's wondrous tone shall rend each tomb's sepulchral stone and summon all before the Throne.
Lacrimosa dies illa, qua resurget ex favilla. iudicandus homo reus: huic ergo parce Deus.
Full of tears and full of dread is that day that wakes the dead, calling all, with solemn blast to be judged for all their past.
Pie Iesu Domine, dona eis requiem. Amen.
Lord, have mercy, Jesus blest, grant them all Your Light and Rest. Amen.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A majority of people in 30 of 35 countries want Democratic party flagbearer John Kerry in the White House, according to a survey released showing US President George W. Bush rebuffed by all of America's traditional allies.
On average, Senator Kerry was favored by more than a two-to-one margin -- 46 percent to 20 percent, the survey by GlobeScan Inc, a global research firm, and the local University of Maryland, showed.
HANAU, Germany (AFP) - A US army captain charged with murdering an Iraqi follower of a radical Shiite Muslim cleric has claimed that he shot dead the man as an act of mercy, a military hearing was told.
GWB: Silver Coke Spoon Medal For Desertion into the Line of Coke
CBS has now gone live with its online promo for the Ben Barnes interview that is running tomorrow evening. But, as I noted earlier, that's not what the headline will be after the segment runs.
The big news won't be how Bush got into the Guard but how he blew off his duties once he got there. Again, new documents -- stuff that is clear and straightforward and apparently puts beyond any debate or doubt that the now-President blew off the duties that he said, as recently as this year, that he fulfilled.
If one were to fault Zell Miller, it would be to point out that there is such a Democrat who put his country above his party. His name is Joe Lieberman. As a former vice presidential candidate and the conscience of his party during the Clinton impeachment, Joe Lieberman was the Democratic heir apparent. An acknowledged statesman and much larger figure than any of his Democratic rivals, Joe Lieberman should have won the nomination. But unlike John Kerry, who turned his coat in mid-course, Joe Lieberman refused to back away from his support for the war to liberate Iraq. He sacrificed his bid to be president because he preferred the epitaph of “here lies one who contributed to saving freedom.” Today, Joe Lieberman is the invisible man of the Democratic Party and that is why Zell Miller’s charge is so telling and so true: “Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.”
The above is from article by David Horowitz on Frontpage.com answering Andrew Sullivan's critique of Zel Miller's speach. I doubt that any of you would enjoy or bother reading Horowitz's article, but I think he is right on. If anyone does read the article and wants to tell me where he is off base, I'll be happy to listen. Plese don't bother with the usual charge that I'm an asshole and an idiot for even reading crap from Horowitz.
Well, ald, imho, lieberass, besides being the most self-righteous jew I've ever heard, and besides being a weasel (how can you be orthodox jew AND divorced?) shot a lot of his cred when he joined al gore and turncoated his own fervent stands on key issues to become a go along, get along guy...very similar to the way mccain shot a lot of his cred by hugging and kissing w. He shot the rest of his cred when he was vying for the nomination this year and adamantly denied that he turncoated at all. Maybe DC ends up turning everyone into a weasel, eventually....
thoughtful I guess it is about the same as being a devout Catholic, divorced and in favor of abortion and late term abortion. (now Al, that's not really fair, 'cause it's reasonable to be against abortion and not against outlawing it, and you know it). Do you intend to read the article, which is really about how wrong Sullivan is in his remarks about Miller's speach?
I think Horowitz point, though, is that Liebowitz has stayed steady in his support of the liberation of Iraq. Of course, he is first and foremost a good Democrat, so he is forced to criticise Bush, though he might actually vote for him. He does have a great love for Israel, as I also do.
This was the first time in the campaign that any speaker on the Republican side had summoned the courage to hold the Democrats to account for what they had actually done: for their feckless flight from the field battle the moment Baghdad was liberated; and for the disgraceful campaign they waged for an entire year to defame and discredit, and ultimately cripple, the commander-in-chief of America’s forces, still fighting terrorist armies in Iraqi streets. This is what made Zell Miller angry; this is what should make anyone who cares about the outcome of the war in Iraq, or the security of 300 million Americans, or the American future, angry as well. This is why Miller got the ovation he did. And this is why he has been so savagely and vilely attacked by anti-war “liberals” who can’t handle the truth.
God, what dreck. Al, I'm amazed you can't see through it. Horowitz is trying to give the Zell Miller an excuse for acting like an insane jerk and the Republicans an excuse for applauding him for acting like an insane jerk. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well, Al, at least judaism offers the choice of being a reformed jew which would make his divorce less weasely. And one can certainly be personally against abortion, say, yet recognize that not everyone believes as you do and recognize that within limits, it could be appropriate for others and that you have no right to stop them from exercising their choice and that isn't weasely. However, that's diverging from the main point.
No i don't intend on reading the whole article. reading what magos posted above is more than sufficient. What I don't understand is how the blatant hypocrisy isn't clear.
First of all, I don't consider pointing out disagreements in policy choices and arguing about issues, and discussing facts that are not supportive of the administration's pov defaming and discrediting. Rather I consider it an essential part of government to ensure both sides of an issue are heard and are fleshed out, preventing serious policy errors from being made.
Second, rather than defaming and discrediting, this pres enjoyed spectacular kid-glove treatment by the press and even the dems fell in line as everyone bought into the gopers accusations that not standing behind the pres in a time of war is unpatriotic and unamerican. Had questions about the pres policy on iraq and the quality of the intelligence around it been raised, we might not now even be in this quagmire and there'd be 1,000 more men and women at home, alive, with their families...let alone thousands more unwounded.
Third, do you even remember how hard a handful of radical gopers managed to coerce the party into impeaching a sitting president? They weren't just defaming and discrediting but they were actively trying to oust a duly elected president for the entire 8 years of his term! They nearly succeeded! They not only discredited and defamed, but legally persecuted and prosecuted him and his administration. For example, the FBI had 1,000 agents combing every record looking for campaign finance irregularities, the result of which was not one single conviction. You may consider that all well and good, but measure that up against the fact that that was 4 times as many agents as they had investigating the 1st bombing of the WTC! Consider too how legally so many of these investigations were left...we can't prove our case, we don't have enough evidence, but we're sure he's guilty. That is NOTHING but defamation.
I don't think I need to point out all the money spent on whitewater, cattle futures, travel gate, file gate, etc etc. The worst being 4 separate investigations into vince fosters death, sure that clinton acting like a mobster, had him rubbed out. If that isn't defaming the president I don't know what is.
And it hasn't stopped yet. Get a load of the counter clinton library! People are actually spending money trying to institutionalize clinton smearing. If that doesn't constitute zell miller's 'manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief' even after he's out of office, I don't know what does.
No, the more I think about it, the more i realize that gopers today have no choice but to support all the clinton hating and now kerry smearing activities of the gop operatives. If they don't, they'd have to admit that not only are party members displaying a most detestable, low-life morality, but much more than that....
...they'd have to admit they've been duped by a handful of nasty clinton haters. Scaife and co duped them into believing all this evil about clinton. Now rove and co is duping them into believing all this glorious stuff about bush. They'd have to admit they've been manipulated, and they fell for it.
No shit. I detest this Democratic tendency to be its own worst enemy and I'm amazed CLinton overcame it twice. He should have fought harder to change it rather than just riding the storm out, though.
Of course Bush takes the high road...he always has because that is how Karl Rove trained him. Stay above the fray and Karl will do all the dirty work for him, behind the scenes.
He did this from the very beginning, when Karl decided Bush would be president. He would bring in people to explain everything to Bush and he would prep him and send him out on the stump and always have him take the high road.
In the race for Governor, when he ran against Ann Richards, Karl had an ad ready to go should Richards ever attack Bush "on a personal level" because Rove knew he could stir enough shit in the background to push her buttons and sure enough, she did and the NEXT DAY, the ad hit the media...poor old George, woefully staring into the camera and saying "My opponent has attacked me personally".
Karl Rove is a masterful political campaigner...he has literally made George Bush into the man he is today. In fact, I think Karl Rove would be a better president than Bush, if you like that type of evil, because Rove has an absolutely brilliant mind and it never sleeps.
Bush does not take the high road. When he says that Kerry's been on every side of every issue, he's not taking the high road. (What ticks me off is that BUSH has been on every side of more than a few issues, and is not called on it by the media.)
"STATE DEPT. STUDY FORESAW TROUBLE IN IRAQ" (Headline, "The New York Times, October 19, 2003)
Before the war some working groups at State Predicted problems certain to await The occupying forces in Iraq. But at Defense the neocons held sway. They had contempt for viewpoints on the fray That didn't come from them or from their claque.
They paid no mind to such defeatist talk. They knew for sure the cakewalk that we'd walk Would tame the Middle East with one great blow. Iraq would pay its reconstruction bill. Risistance, once we'd won, would soon be nil. And what could striped-pants cookie-pushers know!
Still looking for one subtantive achievement of this administration.
Jay -
AFAIC, you've demonstrate an unlimited and rather foolish propensity to revise your standards in these matters.
Let's just agree, in the area of anti-terrorism that the Bush Administration has been many times more successful than the Xlowntoon administration, of which you have never made particular criticism.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A key group of gay Republicans said it had withdrawn support from US President George W. Bush in November's election and vowed instead to work to defeat the party's "radical right."
The Log Cabin Republicans the party's largest gay and lesbian bloc, which backed Bush's 2000 election, said it was withholding its endorsement this year, accusing Bush of allowing anti-gay right-wingers of "hijacking" the party and marginalizing gay members.
"Log Cabin's National Board has voted to withhold a presidential endorsement and shift our financial and political resources to defeating the radical right and supporting inclusive Republican candidates for the US Senate and House of Representatives," group chairman William Brownson said.
The group's board of directors voted 22 to 2 on Tuesday not to endorse the re-election of Bush, who they accuse of selling out his "compassionate conservative" stance to capture the Christian right vote.
The vote marked the first time since the group was founded in 1993 that it has refused to endorse the Republican nominee for US president.
"Certain moments in history require that a belief in fairness and equality not be sacrificed in the name of partisan politics; this is one of those moments," Log Cabin's Executive Director Patrick Guerriero said.
"There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one president," he added.
The group warned earlier that Bush and the party's move to ban gay marriage through a federal constitutional amendment and their explicit opposition to the practice in the party's platform unveiled at its convention last week could cost the Republicans millions of votes.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Police officials from across the country on Wednesday warned that dangerous assault weapons will flood U.S. streets if the ban on those guns expires next week but Republican congressional leaders expressed no concerns about letting the restriction lapse.
"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, and so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters.
Asked why Congress wanted to legalize the military-style weapons again when public opinion polls found broad public support for keeping them illegal, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican said, "We don't do things by polls."
"Lets agree that on terrorism the Bush administration has been many times more succesful than the Clowntoon administration."
WRONG! Under Bush the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked and more than 3000 killed. Bush attacked Afghanistan then bailed out before the job was done and invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with terrorism. This invasion was based on lies to the American people, the UN and to the world. Our invasion of Iraq wrecked the economy, alienated our allies, fanned the fires of anti-Americanism and served as an effective recruiting tool for Al Qaida. Bush failed to listen to good advice from Powell and didn't plan adequately for post-invasion Iraq, and now we have a first class mess on our hands.
Clinton perhaps could have done more about Osama bin Laden. But he avoided war and kept the heat on him as best he could. There is no doubt that Clinton would have been far to smart to have been sucked into the morass of Iraq.
I sure don't see signs of sucess..for as we know from the Lies discussion that TD was too afraid to engage in Bush is losing the war against Al Qaeda and radical Islam by any objective measure including reports of his administration
In all likelihood, 3000 Americans would be alive today if Bush had done his job as he should have.
The terrorism war begins to sag. The perpetrator we were meant to bag Remains at large, and wartime fervor fades. Then Bush and all his hawkish White House aides Drop sanctions as the way to tame Iraq And say, "Without delay, we must attack." If that war sags, there's still a backup plan. It's war without delay against Iran. And when the zest for that war, too, has faded? That's easy: North Korea gets invaded. But then it's hard to think of what to do. Destroy Bahrain? Bomb France? Invade Peru?
BOSTON (Reuters) - President Bush fell short of meeting his military obligations during the Vietnam War and was not disciplined despite irregular attendance at required training drills, The Boston Globe said on Wednesday.
In a probe of the president's service in the Texas Air National Guard, the newspaper said Bush appeared to have broken his contract with the U.S. government by not joining an Air Force Reserve unit when he moved to Massachusetts from Texas in mid-1973.
The White House pointed to five previously released documents to show Bush was assigned to an Obligated Ready Reserve unit in Denver, Colorado, and was not required to report to duty in Massachusetts.
"These documents show the president fulfilled his obligations," said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan.
The military records of Bush and of his Democratic opponent John Kerry who was decorated for service in Vietnam, have featured prominently in the campaign for the presidential election on Nov. 2.
Republicans have made Bush's leadership of what he calls a global war on terrorism central to his campaign.
In February, the White House released hundreds of pages of Bush's military records that showed he was absent for long periods of his final two years of National Guard duty but said nonetheless he met service requirements.
However, the Globe focused on documents Bush signed in 1968 and 1973 in which he pledged to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.
The Globe said in July 1973, before Bush left Houston to attend Harvard Business School, he signed a document saying: "It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... "
Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post in 1999 that the future president had served at a Boston-area Air Force Reserve unit after leaving Houston. But Bush never joined a Boston-area unit, the Globe said.
"I must have misspoke," Bartlett, now White House communications director, was quoted as telling the Globe in a recent interview.
Addendum for Concerned on Bush v. Clinton on terrorism:
Clinton made a major effort for peace in Palesting and, while supporting Israel did not tilt toward the Israelis in an obvious way. Bush has neglected Palestine and has jumped into bed in a very public way with Ariel Sharon which has greatly inflamed Muslims all over the world, contributing greatly to our terrorism problem.
Based on the TV pundits today, Cheney stepped on his dick yesterday with his comment about America not being safe if Kerry is elected president, because terrorists would be more likely to attack under a Kerry presidency. Bush was silent but his spokesmen backed away from Cheney's statement because it was "too blunt."
That's right..Silver Shot Glass, Brown Coke Spoon, Coward of Crawford...failed War President, Failed Peace President, Failed Culture War President, Fake Rancher, the Reformer Without Any Results That Matter
Great little story on CNBC. A couple of sheet metal workers sat on of a would-be GOP heckler at at rally for Kerry. When he stood up and started interrupting Kerry a the sheet metal workers grabbed him and appeared to lay him down and sit on him.
Oh but no Wonk we have refined torture at Abu Ghraib, brought new sophisticated methods to corruption in government, turned over the country to Commies, Jihadists and ex Baathists but above all we are a humane Imperium ...we do mercy killings and bomb with smart bombs not gas.
On Oct. 1, 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in order to move to Boston and attend the Harvard Business School, where he was still obligated to find a unit in Massachusetts to fulfill his remaining nine months of duty, or face being placed on active duty. Once again, Bush made no such effort. But the Air Force in Denver, acting retroactively, in effect overturned Bush's honorable discharge and placed him on "Inactive Status" effective Sept. 15, 1973. When Bush left Texas, his personnel file was sent to Denver for review. The ARPC quickly realized Bush had failed to take a required physical exam, his Texas superior could not account for his whereabouts covering nearly a 12-month period, and due to absenteeism Bush had failed to "satisfactorily participate" as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Bush's "Inactive Status" meant his relationship with the Air Force (and the Guard) was severed and he was therefore eligible for the draft. Soon afterward, large gaps began appearing in Bush's paper trail. Lukasiak concludes that only last-minute intervention, likely from Bush's local Houston draft board, saved him from active duty, as well as finally securing his honorable discharge, removing his "Inactive Status." Ironically, that means strings were pulled to get Bush out of the Guard in 1973, just as they were pulled to get him enrolled in 1968.
Unfortunately for your protesting, you can't link 9/11 to any GWB policy failure. If the 9/11 Commission says there wasn't a GWB policy failure here, why should I believe you?
Conned, if you re-read my post I didn't say that 911 was "linked to a GWB policy failure."
What I said was "Under Bush the WTC and Pentagon were attacked and more than 3,000 Americans killed." That is factually correct. If pressed I will concede that the attack could easily have occurred under Clinton and would no doubt have occurred had Gore been president instead of Bush.
" If the 9/11 Commission says there wasn't a GWB policy failure here, why should I believe you? "
Government commissions are not known for placing any blame on high officials. They always protect each other. If Herr Bush were to receive any blame for anything, it might require impeachment procedures, and neither Party wants that so soon after the Clinton fiasco.
I'm not quite that cynical. Even if there had been a policy failure of some magnitude, why would impeachment proceedings be considered the first recourse? What ultimately got Xlowntoon impeached was not his manifest incompetency but the fact that he perjured himself hard, long and repeatedly to Federal investigators, Congress and the nation as a whole.
" What ultimately got Xlowntoon impeached was not his manifest incompetency but the fact that he perjured himself hard, long and repeatedly to Federal investigators, Congress and the nation as a whole. "
And so, we have learned that our presidents are immune from charges of perjury, as long as you have enough Senators to vote 'no' on removal.
The laws of the USA are made for common Americans, not for presidents and other high officials.
Our government claims "no one is above the law", but the Clinton matter proves otherwise.
Well, FWIW, my preference was that any impeachment proceedings against Xlowntoon should have been for campaign finance wrongdoing in '96 rather that his stupid attempts to cover up his sexual predation, but Stooge Reno wouldn't allow an Independent Counsel to be appointed to investigate that.
CLinton should have been impeached for violating Civil Service and Military laws. The Republicans, however did not want Clinton removed, they just wanted to embarass him and the Democrats.
They wanted him removed badly enough to vote for removal by a large majority within their own party. I've repeatedly pointed out to LWers here in the Mote that what was really peculiar was Democrats' vehement reaction to Republican impeachment efforts. If Xlowntoon had been removed, Bore would have been in like Flint, most likely for two terms.
In August alone, Begala called President Bush a "gutless wonder," said he has a "lack of intelligence," and called Vice President Cheney a "dirt bag." Carville said the President is "ignorant big time" and said "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are a couple of nobodies."
It's not like Bob Shrum needed encouragement to engage in personal attacks. At a Kerry rally Friday morning in Ohio, campaign surrogate John Glenn compared the Republican Convention to a Nazi rally, and Kerry called the President unfit to lead our nation and once again sought to divide the country by who served and how 35 years ago.
Of course, the President was called a "cheap thug," a "killer" and a "liar" at a Kerry-Edwards campaign event in New York, Mrs. Kerry has called the President's policies "unpatriotic" and "immoral" and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe falsely accused the President of being AWOL.
Democratic strategist Susan Estrich outlined the strategy last Wednesday in a column warning Republicans to "watch out." "I'm not promising pretty," she wrote before going on to call President Bush and Vice President Cheney alcoholics, then ask "is any alcoholic ever really cured?" ("I can see the ad now.") She deems the President's service as a National Guard fighter pilot "draft dodging," and says, "a forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the President has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion." (Interestingly, the New York Daily News reported back in February that the Kerry campaign intended to spread such a rumor in pro-life chat rooms late in the campaign.)
When's Child Molester Flynt going to join the circus?
How about an Al Bore/John Kerry rally? What a couple of stiffs. With each trying to outgas the other, they could put an end to the need for sleeping pills.
D'ya think there's maybe a remote possibility that the fact that Ben Barnes is a co-chair of the Kerry campaign might affect his credibility wrt his anti-Bush allegations?
Let's just agree, in the area of anti-terrorism that the Bush Administration has been many times more successful than the Xlowntoon administration, of which you have never made particular criticism.
By what measure? There have been substantially more terrorist attacks throughout the world under his adminstration. 3000 Americans died on his watch. The ultimate perpetrator of that attack is still at large.
Have you read ANYTHING about Clinton's approach to terrorism vs Bush's? Have you read the Commission's report?
If pressed I will concede that the attack could easily have occurred under Clinton and would no doubt have occurred had Gore been president instead of Bush.
I wouldn't make that concession. See, for example, Elizabeth Drew in this week's New York Review of Books. The commission report is clear, if circumspect, on the failure of the administration to engage on this issue.
When the threat level was at its height in July and August, the president receieved a total of two briefings fromn Tenet, vacationing in Crawford most of that time.
Just one lie in the above toxic sludge relates to the physical exam, which was absolutely not 'required'.
From last night's 60 minutes interview with Dan Bartlett:
So you seem to paint that as an option, that he could have taken the flight exam if he wanted to continue to fly, but didn't really have to take it. But this first document, dated 4th of May 1972, specifically says, "You are ordered to report for a physical examination." So he either ignored, or didn't fulfill a direct order, not an option.
The bottom line is, is that President Bush would not have received the honorable discharge that he was granted when he returned from Alabama if he had not met his requirements.
This is Bartlett's line, repeatedly, in the interview yesterday. It's odd that the discharge is sufficient evidence for his national guard service, while Kerry's medals are apparently not sufficient evidence for his heroism.
"It's odd that the discharge is sufficient evidence for his national guard service, while Kerry's medals are apparently not sufficient evidence for his heroism."
Excellent point, jay.
When it comes to discharging, the military bureacracy just wants to get it over with, so they tend to overlook things.
And if they felt that he needed to be called up, or if there was any reason for him to fulfill service or go on active duty, they knew where he was and they knew he could serve.
This is also pretty funny. It brings to mind an image of a secretary sitting at a desk at the post making reminder calls to every Guardsman.
Bush disobeyed an order from his commanding officer. Period. It was a required physical and he had an ORDER to take it. It was part of his duties to obey orders. That means he is guilty of dereliction of duty.
Plain and simple. Some regular GI that blithely blew off his commander's orders in that way would have been put in jail.
Using Gallup historical data back to 1936, The only winning incumbent president who was in a worse position than Bush is this year was Harry Truman in 1948.
TD I am not concerned that Bush was a lying coward in 1968, he might have got religion or somethin..
What bothers me is that he is lying now. If he lies about small things, can we trust him not to lie about the large ones, say what if he tells us we have to go to war?
This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day.
In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true."
If most other government workers got a blowjob from a intern, they'd be fired.
I say so not because I think Bush is so great, but just to point out the inconsistancy in holding some people to strict standards (Bush), while dismissing others from responsibility (Clinton).
The attention paid to terrorism under Bush was substantially less than the previous administration, before 9/11. Since then, the policy has been ineffective and counter-productive, as evidenced by the increase in terrorist activity throughout the world.
Having opposed a 9/11 commission, and then accepted it; opposed cooperation with the commission and then agreed to it; opposed a National Director of Intelligence, and then pretended to propose it; and then opposed giving that director real power over intelligence agencies: the president has now suddenly flip-flopped on this last issue as well.
Republicans like to say you always know where George Bush stands. But on just about everything other than tax cuts, he rarely stands in the same place for very long if it's not to his political advantage.
It was particularly egregious in Clinton's case because he was a longstanding advocate of protecting women from sexual harrassment. After a career of supporting legislation to protect women from exploitation by their bosses, he exploited an employee. The fact that she was willing is irrelevant, according to the standard
> 
Congressman David Scott's 
When President Bush goes on a fishing show, his dog Barney licks his crapy.
8049. thoughtful - 8/29/2004 9:31:28 PM
