Charles Lindsey Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 As we get closer to the election all news sources will start pulling records and posting voting records and give informed opinions on the two candidates stance on issues. By comparing the two you can make up your mind on who you like. Hopefully. Right now it's just a bunch of flaming from both sides.
Steve Schacher Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 quote:As we get closer to the election all news sources will start pulling records and posting voting records and give informed opinions on the two candidates stance on issues.That used to be the way it was done, but don't count on it this time around. The media wants Kerry to win -- managing Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said so two weeks ago. Thomas said that favorable Kerry coverage will amount to 15 points in the polls by the time the campaign is over. Don't expect a fair reporting of Kerry's voting record in the Senate, since he was scored the most left-leaning of all Senators by all who score those things. Furthermore, he was more absent from the Senate than most, and in all his years in the Senate, no legislation that he has sponsored was passed into law. Bush's record is pretty well-known, given that he has been president for four years. I expect that he will run on his four years as president. I expect that, just like last time, this election will come down to who does best in the three debates.
Steve Schacher Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 quote:As we get closer to the election all news sources will start pulling records and posting voting records and give informed opinions on the two candidates stance on issues.That used to be the way it was done, but don't count on it this time around. The media wants Kerry to win -- managing Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said so two weeks ago. Thomas said that favorable Kerry coverage will amount to 15 points in the polls by the time the campaign is over. Don't expect a fair reporting of Kerry's voting record in the Senate, since he was scored the most left-leaning of all Senators by all who score those things. Furthermore, he was more absent from the Senate than most, and in all his years in the Senate, no legislation that he has sponsored was passed into law. Bush's record is pretty well-known, given that he has been president for four years. I expect that he will run on his four years as president. I expect that, just like last time, this election will come down to who does best in the three debates.
Terran Marine Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: Street You just don't get it, and saddly you never will The moment you elect Kerry, EVERYTHING will go down the hole His Runningmate? Edwards? oh my god... John Kerry and John Edwards are the TWO MOST LIBERAL Senaters! The thing is, I'm not going to say much more, you're incapible of compreheading the matter at hand. And don't go off and say that you keep an open mind cause you don't, you're just as brain washed as these other people who are voting for Kerry That's why I say this When Kerry is elected, and we suddenly lose our military (IE Kerry cuts back on military spending) I will be laughing my ass off saying "Yep, The American people have only helped the devil.. god help us" So, don't come crying to me when our military is cut back considerably and you make this sudden discovery "Hey! What happened to our defense?!" I'm not saying you're liberal, you claim that you're not. But the fact that you're not heeding Jaguars trueful advise points that you are a liberal with no open mind Like I've said to others "You can't talk to a liberal, they have a one tracked mind" Do us all a favor Street, how about instead of listening to Jag, how about you turn on the radio and listen to two TRUE AMERICAN patriets, True Hokuns and Michel Savage (and keep an open mind in the process) Cause trust me, what they say will blow you're mind apart. Trust me, I was once liberal, but after listening to these two guys I suddenly discovered that I was working for the devil, so I changed my ways You elect Kerry, you're electing doomsday for America You elect Bush, you're electing at least 4 more years of our military staying together and a possible chance of this war being over. *recalls something about Kerry being a true veterian.. then laughs his ass off, Kerry? A true vet? A true vet wouldn't flip other vet's off, or insult the american people... yea.. true vet my freaking foot* Other way around Kalshion. You elect Bush, electing doomsday for America. BUSH is the one destorying this country bit by bit. You elect Kerry than America is saved for the moment at least.
Terran Marine Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: Street You just don't get it, and saddly you never will The moment you elect Kerry, EVERYTHING will go down the hole His Runningmate? Edwards? oh my god... John Kerry and John Edwards are the TWO MOST LIBERAL Senaters! The thing is, I'm not going to say much more, you're incapible of compreheading the matter at hand. And don't go off and say that you keep an open mind cause you don't, you're just as brain washed as these other people who are voting for Kerry That's why I say this When Kerry is elected, and we suddenly lose our military (IE Kerry cuts back on military spending) I will be laughing my ass off saying "Yep, The American people have only helped the devil.. god help us" So, don't come crying to me when our military is cut back considerably and you make this sudden discovery "Hey! What happened to our defense?!" I'm not saying you're liberal, you claim that you're not. But the fact that you're not heeding Jaguars trueful advise points that you are a liberal with no open mind Like I've said to others "You can't talk to a liberal, they have a one tracked mind" Do us all a favor Street, how about instead of listening to Jag, how about you turn on the radio and listen to two TRUE AMERICAN patriets, True Hokuns and Michel Savage (and keep an open mind in the process) Cause trust me, what they say will blow you're mind apart. Trust me, I was once liberal, but after listening to these two guys I suddenly discovered that I was working for the devil, so I changed my ways You elect Kerry, you're electing doomsday for America You elect Bush, you're electing at least 4 more years of our military staying together and a possible chance of this war being over. *recalls something about Kerry being a true veterian.. then laughs his ass off, Kerry? A true vet? A true vet wouldn't flip other vet's off, or insult the american people... yea.. true vet my freaking foot* Other way around Kalshion. You elect Bush, electing doomsday for America. BUSH is the one destorying this country bit by bit. You elect Kerry than America is saved for the moment at least.
LostInSpace Posted July 25, 2004 Author Report Posted July 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Terran Marine: You elect Kerry than America is saved for the moment at least. And pray tell, what do you base your analysis on?
LostInSpace Posted July 25, 2004 Author Report Posted July 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Terran Marine: You elect Kerry than America is saved for the moment at least. And pray tell, what do you base your analysis on?
Kalshion Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Right Terran, keep telling yourself that. Don't come crying to me though when you find out just how much of a mistake you've made And I'll also ask the same question, what make's you THINK Kerry will save us? edit: Just noticed you're from California, no need to explain Terran, California is THE most liberal state in the US so it's completely understandable on why you've said that [ 07-25-2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Kalshion ]
Kalshion Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Right Terran, keep telling yourself that. Don't come crying to me though when you find out just how much of a mistake you've made And I'll also ask the same question, what make's you THINK Kerry will save us? edit: Just noticed you're from California, no need to explain Terran, California is THE most liberal state in the US so it's completely understandable on why you've said that [ 07-25-2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Kalshion ]
Guest Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 A few of you guys have claimed that you are conservative, yet you are going to vote for Kerry. Ding, ding, ding, the alarm bells in my head go off and I tell you that you are liberals and you get all PO'd at me and STILL claim that you are conservative, and are going to vote for Kerry...ROFLMAO!! His performance tonight was LESS then stellar, same old Kerry, same old lies and distortions, and did you see him lying to get to the middle and get those undecideds? WOW, how could he lie like that with a straight face? No wonder he was sweating..... Well, here are some FACTS for you "conservatives" amd if you STILL vote for Kerry, yep, you'tr liberals, no if's and's or but's. You will be known by the company you keep, or the man and his record that you vote for. Here it is. Demsextrememakeover.com quote: Thursday, July 29, 2004 RESPONSE "It's disappointing that John Kerry's frank talk stopped with a discussion of his complexities and failed to include an explanation of his inconsistencies and contradictions on the central front in the War on Terror. John Kerry missed an opportunity to help the American people understand his vote for the war in Iraq based on the same intelligence that the President viewed, his description of himself as an anti-war candidate and his subsequent vote against troops on the front lines. He's right, America can do better." - Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot Even before John Kerry has spoken, he is working to distort his own record and the President's. He is engaged in an extreme makeover of his out of the mainstream record. My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high. We are a nation at war -- a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before. And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends; they're working two jobs, three jobs, and they're still not getting ahead. BusinessWeek: Economy Creating More High-Paying Jobs Than Low-Paying Jobs. "According to BusinessWeek's analysis, 40% of American workers belong to occupation/industry groups where the median pay is $559 a week or more. Yet employment growth in those higher-paying groups accounted for well over half of total job growth during the past year. Average monthly employment in the higher-paying groups was 744,000 higher in the 12 months ended in June, 2004, than in the previous 12-month period. By contrast, only 408,000 jobs were added in groups whose median pay was $553 a week or less, even though they account for 52% of total jobs." ("Another Look At Those Job Numbers," BusinessWeek, 7/26/04) Average GDP Over Most Recent Three Quarters 1996: 3.1% 2004: 5.6% The Prescription Drug Bill Signed By President Bush Offers A Prescription Drug Benefit Under Medicare For The First Time In History. Kerry Voted 98 Times For Tax Increases Totaling More Than $2.3 Trillion. Kerry Voted At Least 126 Times Against Tax Cuts Totaling More Than $5.3 Trillion. Kerry Has Voted 73 Times To Reduce The Size Of A Tax Cut. Kerry Voted 67 Times For Smaller Tax Cuts (Democrat Alternatives). Kerry Voted 11 Times Against Repealing Tax Hikes. --- We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people. And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves -- and we can do it again. In The 1990s, Kerry Voted For The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History. Jan-June Average Unemployment 1996: 5.5% 2004: 5.6% 30 year fixed rate conventional mortgages 1996: 8.32% 2004: 6.29% June Consumer Sentiment 1996: 92.4 2004: 95.2 Kerry Says America Is "In The Worst Job Recovery Since The Great Depression." (Sen. John Kerry, "Statement by John Kerry on New Jobs Numbers," Press Release, 5/7/04) --- As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to. Kerry Was On Senate Select Intelligence Committee For Eight Years (1993-2000). While On Committee, Kerry Missed 38 Of 49 Intelligence Committee Hearings. During John Kerry's eight years of service on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, there were 49 open, public hearings. Of these 49, John Kerry attended just 11 (22.4%). Among the most notable of those he missed is the June 8, 2000, hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism, which warned about the terrorist threat we now face and recommended numerous steps to address that threat (few of which were adopted prior to 9/11/01). While On Committee, Kerry Proposed Over $7.5 Billion In Across The Board Cuts To Intelligence Budget, All Of Which Were Rejected By Democrats And Republicans Alike. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95) A Look At Kerry's Legislative Record During That Same Time Period Finds No Legislation That Kerry Proposed (Wrote And Sponsored) To Increase Funding For Human Intelligence Or Reform Intelligence Community To Focus Resources On Human Intelligence Gathering. Kerry Touted Being "Way Ahead" Of President Clinton, His Senate Colleagues And Much Of Country In His Support For Regime Change, By Ground Troops If Necessary. ABC's GEORGE WILL: "Senator Kerry, given the fact that we say, on the one hand, he's like Hitler - the most evil man since Hitler, the secretary of state said this week - yet he's not worth fighting for on the ground, fighting against on the ground, is it perhaps time for the United States to quit obsessing about him, say this is a problem we can't solve, and think about other things?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Well, first of all, George, I don't believe it's not worth fighting for on the ground. And I think that's your last position, and there are many things you can do. And I'm quite confident you can make his life sufficiently miserable and deprive him of the ability to survive without necessarily having to reach that level. But I'm prepared to go to the level. And the reason is very simple believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post- Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future." WILL: "Senator Kerry, you're way ahead of the commander in chief in this regard." KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC's "This Week," 2/22/98) --- I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military. 1990-2003: Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military. Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Senators Kerry And Edwards Are Two Of Only Four US Senators Who Voted For The Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq And Against The $87 Billion Funding Bill For Our Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided "Extra Money For Body Armor For Soldiers ..." ("Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03) Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Increased Combat Pay For Troops. ("Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03) Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Health Benefits For Reservists And Guardsmen Called To Active Duty, As Well As Support For Their Families. ("Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03) Kerry Had Characterized A Vote Against The Funding As "Irresponsible." (CBS, "Face the Nation," 9/14/03) Kerry Later Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Richard W. Stevenson and Adam Nagourney, "Bush's Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War," The New York Times, 3/17/04) Kerry Said He Was "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers. (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04) Kerry Then Said His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04) Kerry Even Said His Vote For The War And Against Funding For Our Troops Was "Not A Flip-Flop." (CBS' "Evening News," 7/21/04) Kerry Adviser On Vote Against The $87 Billion Appropriation: "Off The Record, He Did It Because Of Howard Dean. On The Record, He Has An Elaborate Explanation." (Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04) --- In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals. Kerry's Storied Career Of Opposing A Strong National Defense: 1972: In Congressional Race, Pledged To "Bring A Different Kind Of Message" By Voting Against Defense Funds. ("Candidates For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72) 1982-1984: Used Lieutenant Governor Position To Lobby Against Reagan Defense Build-Up And Supported Nuclear Freeze Movement. (Senate Candidate Questionnaire, Massachusetts "Freeze Voter '84," 5/25/84) 1984: Running For Senate, Pledged To "Fight To Cut The Overall Defense Budget." Opposed "annual increases in the military budget above the rate of inflation," and proposed cutting "$200 billion from the defense budget over four years ..." (John Kerry, Letter To U.S. Senate Campaign Supporters, 6/84; "Senate Candidates' Positions," The Boston Globe, 7/8/84; Chris Black, "Kerry Asks Cuts In Defense Outlay," The Boston Globe, 5/30/84) 1993: Sen. Kerry Proposed Numerous Defense Cuts. Included cuts in number of navy submarines, Army light infantry units and air force tactical fighter wings, plus the immediate retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the armed forces. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93) 1994: Sen. Kerry Proposed $45 Billion Cut In Defense And Science Programs Vital To National Security. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94; Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/94, p. S807) 1996: Sen. Kerry Questioned Defense Budget Size: "What Is It That We Are Really Preparing For In A Post-Cold-War World?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061) 2001: Sen. Kerry Opposed Push To "Spend More Money On The Military, Which Bush Is Going To Do ..." (CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," 2/25/01) 1985-2001: Voted At Least 38 Times To Cut, Transfer Or Otherwise Decrease Overall Defense Budget. --- And the front lines of this battle are not just far away - they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America. Overall Homeland Security Funding Tripled: Since 2001, President Bush has nearly tripled the amount of funds devoted to homeland security. In his 2005 budget, President Bush has called for a $3.6 billion (9.7%) increase over funding levels for DHS from 2004. () President Bush Will Take Action "Within Days." "President Bush is preparing executive orders and a speech detailing his initial plans for revamping the nation's intelligence services, administration officials said Wednesday. He is likely to begin his announcements within days, the officials said." (Mike Allen And Dan Eggen, "Bush May Move Soon On 9/11 Report," The Washington Post, 7/29/04) First Responders Funding Up 680%: President Clinton's last budget (FY 2001) provided $456 million for state & local funding. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $3.561 billion to states & locals. That is a $3.1 billion increase (680%) in funding levels for President Clinton's last budget. President Bush has allocated more than $13 billion since 2001 to state and local law enforcement for use in counter-terrorism preparedness efforts. Assistance To Firefighters. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants - a 400 percent increase since taking office. Assistance to Firefighter Grants go directly to local firehouses to increase the effectiveness of firefighting operations, firefighter health and safety programs, new fire apparatus, emergency medical service programs and fire prevention programs. President Bush has already awarded over $1.1 billion in firefighter grants in the last three years. The President's budgets have provided 900 percent more funds for firefighter grants than the previous administration's budgets. ("USFA: Assistance To Firefighters Grants Program Fiscal Year 2003 Recipients," U.S. Fire Association, , Accessed 5/28/04) --- For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. And it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families. Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry's Votes Most Liberal In Senate For 2003. Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Sens. Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, "How They Measured Up," http://nationaljournal.com,, 2/27/04) Kerry Voted Against The Laci Peterson Law, Known As The "Unborn Victims Of Violence Act." This new law acknowledges a common-sense proposition: When a crime of violence against a pregnant woman kills or injures her unborn child, there are two victims, and two offenses that should be punished. Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Money To Be Used To Distribute The Morning-After Abortion Pill In America's Schools. --- We value jobs that pay you more not less than you earned before. We value jobs where, when you put in a week's work, you can actually pay your bills, provide for your children, and lift up the quality of your life. We value an America where the middle class is not being squeezed, but doing better. Kerry Is No Friend Of Middle Class: Kerry Voted Against Amendment To FY 2004 Budget Resolution That Would Extend $1,000 Child Tax Credit Until 2013. Kerry Sponsored And Voted For Motion To Kill Marriage Penalty Relief For Couples Earning Less Than $50,000 Per Year. "Kerry, D-Mass., motion to table (kill) the Gramm, R-Texas, amendment -- The Gramm amendment would allow couples with combined incomes under $50,000 a year to claim an additional $3,300 income tax deduction, thus eliminating the so-called marriage penalty for those in that income bracket." Sen. Gramm's marriage penalty relief would have saved taxpayers $46 billion over 10 years. The amendment also would allowed self-employed individuals to deduct health insurance costs on their income taxes. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Voted Three Times Against Repealing The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase On Social Security Benefits. Kerry Voted Against The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Clinton-Instituted 4.3-Cent Tax On Transportation Fuels. In 1995, Kerry Voted For A Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise. The sense of the Senate amendment, killed on a motion by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said, "reducing the deficit should be one of the nation's highest priorities, and that a middle-class tax cut would undermine and be inconsistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget." (H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #67: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 49-3; D 17-29, 2/14/95, Kerry Voted Nay) Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sponsor Of Resolution, Said Senators Need "Will" To Resist Middle Class Tax Cut. (Sen. Russ Feingold, Congressional Record, 2/14/95, p. S2617) If you ACTUALLY vote for Kerry, you are saying that you agree with just about EVERY vote he ever made.... That makes you a liberal, oh, and you are also saying that he said the truth when he said Vietnam veterans were war criminals. Including himself. Hmm, yeah, like I am gonna vote for that...ROFLMAO!!! Kerry lost the election with this convention, his wife, Edwards, Clinton, OMG, this has been a political disaster, and they are celebrating... It's fricking hilarious......
Guest Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 A few of you guys have claimed that you are conservative, yet you are going to vote for Kerry. Ding, ding, ding, the alarm bells in my head go off and I tell you that you are liberals and you get all PO'd at me and STILL claim that you are conservative, and are going to vote for Kerry...ROFLMAO!! His performance tonight was LESS then stellar, same old Kerry, same old lies and distortions, and did you see him lying to get to the middle and get those undecideds? WOW, how could he lie like that with a straight face? No wonder he was sweating..... Well, here are some FACTS for you "conservatives" amd if you STILL vote for Kerry, yep, you'tr liberals, no if's and's or but's. You will be known by the company you keep, or the man and his record that you vote for. Here it is. Demsextrememakeover.com quote: Thursday, July 29, 2004 RESPONSE "It's disappointing that John Kerry's frank talk stopped with a discussion of his complexities and failed to include an explanation of his inconsistencies and contradictions on the central front in the War on Terror. John Kerry missed an opportunity to help the American people understand his vote for the war in Iraq based on the same intelligence that the President viewed, his description of himself as an anti-war candidate and his subsequent vote against troops on the front lines. He's right, America can do better." - Campaign Chairman Marc Racicot Even before John Kerry has spoken, he is working to distort his own record and the President's. He is engaged in an extreme makeover of his out of the mainstream record. My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high. We are a nation at war -- a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before. And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends; they're working two jobs, three jobs, and they're still not getting ahead. BusinessWeek: Economy Creating More High-Paying Jobs Than Low-Paying Jobs. "According to BusinessWeek's analysis, 40% of American workers belong to occupation/industry groups where the median pay is $559 a week or more. Yet employment growth in those higher-paying groups accounted for well over half of total job growth during the past year. Average monthly employment in the higher-paying groups was 744,000 higher in the 12 months ended in June, 2004, than in the previous 12-month period. By contrast, only 408,000 jobs were added in groups whose median pay was $553 a week or less, even though they account for 52% of total jobs." ("Another Look At Those Job Numbers," BusinessWeek, 7/26/04) Average GDP Over Most Recent Three Quarters 1996: 3.1% 2004: 5.6% The Prescription Drug Bill Signed By President Bush Offers A Prescription Drug Benefit Under Medicare For The First Time In History. Kerry Voted 98 Times For Tax Increases Totaling More Than $2.3 Trillion. Kerry Voted At Least 126 Times Against Tax Cuts Totaling More Than $5.3 Trillion. Kerry Has Voted 73 Times To Reduce The Size Of A Tax Cut. Kerry Voted 67 Times For Smaller Tax Cuts (Democrat Alternatives). Kerry Voted 11 Times Against Repealing Tax Hikes. --- We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people. And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves -- and we can do it again. In The 1990s, Kerry Voted For The Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History. Jan-June Average Unemployment 1996: 5.5% 2004: 5.6% 30 year fixed rate conventional mortgages 1996: 8.32% 2004: 6.29% June Consumer Sentiment 1996: 92.4 2004: 95.2 Kerry Says America Is "In The Worst Job Recovery Since The Great Depression." (Sen. John Kerry, "Statement by John Kerry on New Jobs Numbers," Press Release, 5/7/04) --- As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to. Kerry Was On Senate Select Intelligence Committee For Eight Years (1993-2000). While On Committee, Kerry Missed 38 Of 49 Intelligence Committee Hearings. During John Kerry's eight years of service on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, there were 49 open, public hearings. Of these 49, John Kerry attended just 11 (22.4%). Among the most notable of those he missed is the June 8, 2000, hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism, which warned about the terrorist threat we now face and recommended numerous steps to address that threat (few of which were adopted prior to 9/11/01). While On Committee, Kerry Proposed Over $7.5 Billion In Across The Board Cuts To Intelligence Budget, All Of Which Were Rejected By Democrats And Republicans Alike. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/1994; S. Amdt. 1452, Introduced 2/9/94; S. 1290, Introduced 9/29/95) A Look At Kerry's Legislative Record During That Same Time Period Finds No Legislation That Kerry Proposed (Wrote And Sponsored) To Increase Funding For Human Intelligence Or Reform Intelligence Community To Focus Resources On Human Intelligence Gathering. Kerry Touted Being "Way Ahead" Of President Clinton, His Senate Colleagues And Much Of Country In His Support For Regime Change, By Ground Troops If Necessary. ABC's GEORGE WILL: "Senator Kerry, given the fact that we say, on the one hand, he's like Hitler - the most evil man since Hitler, the secretary of state said this week - yet he's not worth fighting for on the ground, fighting against on the ground, is it perhaps time for the United States to quit obsessing about him, say this is a problem we can't solve, and think about other things?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Well, first of all, George, I don't believe it's not worth fighting for on the ground. And I think that's your last position, and there are many things you can do. And I'm quite confident you can make his life sufficiently miserable and deprive him of the ability to survive without necessarily having to reach that level. But I'm prepared to go to the level. And the reason is very simple believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post- Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical. It has implications for a Qaddafi, for a Sudan, for other countries in the world in the future." WILL: "Senator Kerry, you're way ahead of the commander in chief in this regard." KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC's "This Week," 2/22/98) --- I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military. 1990-2003: Voted At Least 12 Times Against Higher Pay For America's Hardworking Volunteer Military. Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Senators Kerry And Edwards Are Two Of Only Four US Senators Who Voted For The Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq And Against The $87 Billion Funding Bill For Our Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided "Extra Money For Body Armor For Soldiers ..." ("Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03) Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Increased Combat Pay For Troops. ("Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03) Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Health Benefits For Reservists And Guardsmen Called To Active Duty, As Well As Support For Their Families. ("Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03) Kerry Had Characterized A Vote Against The Funding As "Irresponsible." (CBS, "Face the Nation," 9/14/03) Kerry Later Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Richard W. Stevenson and Adam Nagourney, "Bush's Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War," The New York Times, 3/17/04) Kerry Said He Was "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers. (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04) Kerry Then Said His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04) Kerry Even Said His Vote For The War And Against Funding For Our Troops Was "Not A Flip-Flop." (CBS' "Evening News," 7/21/04) Kerry Adviser On Vote Against The $87 Billion Appropriation: "Off The Record, He Did It Because Of Howard Dean. On The Record, He Has An Elaborate Explanation." (Philip Gourevitch, "Damage Control," The New Yorker, 7/26/04) --- In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals. Kerry's Storied Career Of Opposing A Strong National Defense: 1972: In Congressional Race, Pledged To "Bring A Different Kind Of Message" By Voting Against Defense Funds. ("Candidates For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72) 1982-1984: Used Lieutenant Governor Position To Lobby Against Reagan Defense Build-Up And Supported Nuclear Freeze Movement. (Senate Candidate Questionnaire, Massachusetts "Freeze Voter '84," 5/25/84) 1984: Running For Senate, Pledged To "Fight To Cut The Overall Defense Budget." Opposed "annual increases in the military budget above the rate of inflation," and proposed cutting "$200 billion from the defense budget over four years ..." (John Kerry, Letter To U.S. Senate Campaign Supporters, 6/84; "Senate Candidates' Positions," The Boston Globe, 7/8/84; Chris Black, "Kerry Asks Cuts In Defense Outlay," The Boston Globe, 5/30/84) 1993: Sen. Kerry Proposed Numerous Defense Cuts. Included cuts in number of navy submarines, Army light infantry units and air force tactical fighter wings, plus the immediate retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the armed forces. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93) 1994: Sen. Kerry Proposed $45 Billion Cut In Defense And Science Programs Vital To National Security. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94; Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 2/3/94, p. S807) 1996: Sen. Kerry Questioned Defense Budget Size: "What Is It That We Are Really Preparing For In A Post-Cold-War World?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061) 2001: Sen. Kerry Opposed Push To "Spend More Money On The Military, Which Bush Is Going To Do ..." (CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," 2/25/01) 1985-2001: Voted At Least 38 Times To Cut, Transfer Or Otherwise Decrease Overall Defense Budget. --- And the front lines of this battle are not just far away - they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America. Overall Homeland Security Funding Tripled: Since 2001, President Bush has nearly tripled the amount of funds devoted to homeland security. In his 2005 budget, President Bush has called for a $3.6 billion (9.7%) increase over funding levels for DHS from 2004. () President Bush Will Take Action "Within Days." "President Bush is preparing executive orders and a speech detailing his initial plans for revamping the nation's intelligence services, administration officials said Wednesday. He is likely to begin his announcements within days, the officials said." (Mike Allen And Dan Eggen, "Bush May Move Soon On 9/11 Report," The Washington Post, 7/29/04) First Responders Funding Up 680%: President Clinton's last budget (FY 2001) provided $456 million for state & local funding. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $3.561 billion to states & locals. That is a $3.1 billion increase (680%) in funding levels for President Clinton's last budget. President Bush has allocated more than $13 billion since 2001 to state and local law enforcement for use in counter-terrorism preparedness efforts. Assistance To Firefighters. President Bush's FY 2005 budget request allocates $500 million for Assistance to Firefighter Grants - a 400 percent increase since taking office. Assistance to Firefighter Grants go directly to local firehouses to increase the effectiveness of firefighting operations, firefighter health and safety programs, new fire apparatus, emergency medical service programs and fire prevention programs. President Bush has already awarded over $1.1 billion in firefighter grants in the last three years. The President's budgets have provided 900 percent more funds for firefighter grants than the previous administration's budgets. ("USFA: Assistance To Firefighters Grants Program Fiscal Year 2003 Recipients," U.S. Fire Association, , Accessed 5/28/04) --- For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. And it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families. Nonpartisan National Journal Scored Kerry's Votes Most Liberal In Senate For 2003. Kerry scored a Senate-high 97% liberal rating for 2003, beating out Sens. Barbara Boxer (91), Hillary Clinton (89), Ted Kennedy (88), and Tom Daschle (80). (National Journal Website, "How They Measured Up," http://nationaljournal.com,, 2/27/04) Kerry Voted Against The Laci Peterson Law, Known As The "Unborn Victims Of Violence Act." This new law acknowledges a common-sense proposition: When a crime of violence against a pregnant woman kills or injures her unborn child, there are two victims, and two offenses that should be punished. Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Money To Be Used To Distribute The Morning-After Abortion Pill In America's Schools. --- We value jobs that pay you more not less than you earned before. We value jobs where, when you put in a week's work, you can actually pay your bills, provide for your children, and lift up the quality of your life. We value an America where the middle class is not being squeezed, but doing better. Kerry Is No Friend Of Middle Class: Kerry Voted Against Amendment To FY 2004 Budget Resolution That Would Extend $1,000 Child Tax Credit Until 2013. Kerry Sponsored And Voted For Motion To Kill Marriage Penalty Relief For Couples Earning Less Than $50,000 Per Year. "Kerry, D-Mass., motion to table (kill) the Gramm, R-Texas, amendment -- The Gramm amendment would allow couples with combined incomes under $50,000 a year to claim an additional $3,300 income tax deduction, thus eliminating the so-called marriage penalty for those in that income bracket." Sen. Gramm's marriage penalty relief would have saved taxpayers $46 billion over 10 years. The amendment also would allowed self-employed individuals to deduct health insurance costs on their income taxes. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea) Kerry Voted Three Times Against Repealing The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase On Social Security Benefits. Kerry Voted Against The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Clinton-Instituted 4.3-Cent Tax On Transportation Fuels. In 1995, Kerry Voted For A Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise. The sense of the Senate amendment, killed on a motion by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said, "reducing the deficit should be one of the nation's highest priorities, and that a middle-class tax cut would undermine and be inconsistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget." (H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #67: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 49-3; D 17-29, 2/14/95, Kerry Voted Nay) Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sponsor Of Resolution, Said Senators Need "Will" To Resist Middle Class Tax Cut. (Sen. Russ Feingold, Congressional Record, 2/14/95, p. S2617) If you ACTUALLY vote for Kerry, you are saying that you agree with just about EVERY vote he ever made.... That makes you a liberal, oh, and you are also saying that he said the truth when he said Vietnam veterans were war criminals. Including himself. Hmm, yeah, like I am gonna vote for that...ROFLMAO!!! Kerry lost the election with this convention, his wife, Edwards, Clinton, OMG, this has been a political disaster, and they are celebrating... It's fricking hilarious......
street228 Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 why dont you go on the campaign trail for bush, Jag, all the PRO-BUSH rhetoric, along with all the degrading remarks and character assassination; toward anyone who disagrees with your political perspective, has really become monotonous, and is frankly, just irritating. The republican right's, slanted propaghanda,you continue to post, has become extreemly tiresome....to the point, most of us, who disagree, have stopped responding to the twisted versions, of your perspective; and consequently, to your post. quote:If you ACTUALLY vote for Kerry, you are saying that you agree with just about EVERY vote he ever made....That makes you a liberal, oh, and you are also saying that he said the truth when he said Vietnam veterans were war criminals. Including himself. That is absolutely absurd reasoning!!....DUH...take a smart pill jag...you need one!! .. I,(a CO"NSERVATIVE by it's TRUE definition) agree with MANY of Kerry's decisions(based on the ratiional, at the times he made such decisions) and DISAGREE with many others. SAME as with BUSH. And because one decides:" a Lieing, murdering,communist,mooney(i.e.follower of Reverend MOON),and a criminal by EVERY moral principle,does NOT deserve continued support"; by no means, depicts one to be an EXTREME liberal, in regard to EVERY issue, which you choose to present. And by the twisted perspective, you DO present them. You obviously do NOT understand the TRUE definitions of either word(i.e. liberal or conservative) and drawing conclusions for others is nothing but BLATANT LIES. so, yes...I am saying your as much a lier as the man you worship(i.e. BUSH) quote: Hmm, yeah, like I am gonna vote for that...ROFLMAO!!!your opinion, and VOTE means NOTHING..why continue attacking those who disagree with your ignorance?? I do not see them ATTACKING you, but only your perspective. quote: Kerry lost the election with this convention, his wife, Edwards, Clinton, OMG, this has been a political disaster, and they are celebrating... sorry to bust your bubble;your opinion is'nt the final tally. quote: It's fricking hilarious...... You may find your warped perspective ironic, I do not. I personally find Most of your remarks quite offensive,as they are aimed at any who disagree with you, rather than the ACTUAL events within the political field.... but dont stop on my account...KEEP AT IT...After all; NO ONE would expect you to DEBATE, a political issue, with objective character, or moral principle...much LESS any LOGIC or reason!!(after all...just look at who you admire: Bush!!ROFLMAO) [ 07-30-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: street ]
street228 Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 why dont you go on the campaign trail for bush, Jag, all the PRO-BUSH rhetoric, along with all the degrading remarks and character assassination; toward anyone who disagrees with your political perspective, has really become monotonous, and is frankly, just irritating. The republican right's, slanted propaghanda,you continue to post, has become extreemly tiresome....to the point, most of us, who disagree, have stopped responding to the twisted versions, of your perspective; and consequently, to your post. quote:If you ACTUALLY vote for Kerry, you are saying that you agree with just about EVERY vote he ever made....That makes you a liberal, oh, and you are also saying that he said the truth when he said Vietnam veterans were war criminals. Including himself. That is absolutely absurd reasoning!!....DUH...take a smart pill jag...you need one!! .. I,(a CO"NSERVATIVE by it's TRUE definition) agree with MANY of Kerry's decisions(based on the ratiional, at the times he made such decisions) and DISAGREE with many others. SAME as with BUSH. And because one decides:" a Lieing, murdering,communist,mooney(i.e.follower of Reverend MOON),and a criminal by EVERY moral principle,does NOT deserve continued support"; by no means, depicts one to be an EXTREME liberal, in regard to EVERY issue, which you choose to present. And by the twisted perspective, you DO present them. You obviously do NOT understand the TRUE definitions of either word(i.e. liberal or conservative) and drawing conclusions for others is nothing but BLATANT LIES. so, yes...I am saying your as much a lier as the man you worship(i.e. BUSH) quote: Hmm, yeah, like I am gonna vote for that...ROFLMAO!!!your opinion, and VOTE means NOTHING..why continue attacking those who disagree with your ignorance?? I do not see them ATTACKING you, but only your perspective. quote: Kerry lost the election with this convention, his wife, Edwards, Clinton, OMG, this has been a political disaster, and they are celebrating... sorry to bust your bubble;your opinion is'nt the final tally. quote: It's fricking hilarious...... You may find your warped perspective ironic, I do not. I personally find Most of your remarks quite offensive,as they are aimed at any who disagree with you, rather than the ACTUAL events within the political field.... but dont stop on my account...KEEP AT IT...After all; NO ONE would expect you to DEBATE, a political issue, with objective character, or moral principle...much LESS any LOGIC or reason!!(after all...just look at who you admire: Bush!!ROFLMAO) [ 07-30-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: street ]
Guest Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Poor Street, wouldn't know a conservative if they came up and bit him. As for facts, I got Plenty, and I have sources, 2nd sources etc that state, categorically that your facts about Bush are mostly nonsense. I would say that you are the one that cannot and will not change his mond. You are a liberal Bush hater, that claims that they are voting for Kerry because he's NOT Bush. Well, I am voting for Bush because A: He is Bush, and B: He is NOT at all like Kerry. You poor misled boy. I feel for you, I really truly do.
Guest Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Poor Street, wouldn't know a conservative if they came up and bit him. As for facts, I got Plenty, and I have sources, 2nd sources etc that state, categorically that your facts about Bush are mostly nonsense. I would say that you are the one that cannot and will not change his mond. You are a liberal Bush hater, that claims that they are voting for Kerry because he's NOT Bush. Well, I am voting for Bush because A: He is Bush, and B: He is NOT at all like Kerry. You poor misled boy. I feel for you, I really truly do.
LostInSpace Posted July 31, 2004 Author Report Posted July 31, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: You poor misled boy. I feel for you, I really truly do. Like we've said before, the only proof these guys will need is when Kerry is voted in. But then it will be a pity that everyone else will have to suffer for the experiment.
LostInSpace Posted July 31, 2004 Author Report Posted July 31, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: You poor misled boy. I feel for you, I really truly do. Like we've said before, the only proof these guys will need is when Kerry is voted in. But then it will be a pity that everyone else will have to suffer for the experiment.
Steve Schacher Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Mark Steyn: He was complacent, arrogant and humourless. How they loved him: quote:It was interesting to see Ben Affleck emerge as the Hollywood mascot of the Democratic Convention. The week reminded me of Ben's movie Pearl Harbor: wall-to-wall evocative military imagery, a cast of thousands, superb production values, but a huge gaping hole where the star performance was supposed to be. On TV the other night, young Mr Affleck offered a pearl of wisdom to Mr Kerry and his consultants: "You have to enervate the base," the Hollywood heartthrob advised solemnly. If it's enervating the base you're after, John F Kerry would seem to be the perfect candidate. On Thursday, for his first big moment in the national spotlight, his only concession to the occasion was to speed up his delivery, in order to cram a 90-minute address into the hour of primetime the networks were prepared to give him. But otherwise it was classic Kerry: verbose, shapeless, platitudinous, complacent, ill-disciplined, arrogant, and humourless. On the other hand, despite Ben Affleck's advice, the Boston crowd wasn't in the least bit enervated. They were deliriously happy. The Kerry campaign seems to be the political equivalent of what they call on Broadway a "snob hit": the longer it is, the more boring it is and the worse time you have at it, the more you feel it must be good for you. To his numbed, buttock-shifting listeners, the great sonorous self-regarding orotund bromidic banality of Senator Kerry and his multitude of nuances is proof of how much more serious he - and therefore they - are. This is a profoundly un-American attitude and, from the so far bounce-less post-convention polls, it doesn't seem to be resonating with "swing voters". At one level, what's happening is very unfair. Three-quarters of Democratic voters opposed the Iraq war; 86 per cent of convention delegates opposed it. But they've wound up with a presidential ticket comprised of two Senators who both voted in favour of it. And, after being for-and-against the war for the last year according to political necessity, Kerry seems to have settled on a position of doing pretty much what Bush is doing while simultaneously spending more time on the blower to Kofi, Jacques and Gerhard. If I were a principled anti-war Democrat, I'd be furious. But they're not. Because the real distinction is not between pro- and anti-war, but between September 11 Americans and September 10 Americans. The latter group is a coalition embracing not just the hardcore Bush haters - for whom, as the opening of Fahrenheit 9/11 makes plain, it all goes back to chads in Florida - but the larger group of voters who've been a little stressed out by the epic nature of politics these last three years and would like a quieter life. That's what John Kerry's offering them: a return to September 10. He doesn't quite put it like that, of course. He talks about an America "strong" and "respected" and all the other poll-tested words, while the Democratic platform asserts that Republicans "do not understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you". Say what you like about Bush, but on Iraq he stood by his principles and rallied the British, Australians, Poles, Italians, etc, to join him. He also rallied Kerry and Edwards to join him. They voted for his war, as the columnist Debra Saunders of The San Francisco Chronical drolly pointed out: "Kerry and Edwards followed. Bush led." Kerry now says that Bush "misled" him on Iraq. But, if he was that easily suckered by a renowned moron, how much more susceptible would he be to such wily operators as Chirac. They would speak French to each other, and Jacques would blow soothingly in his ear, and Kerry would look flattered, and there'd be lots of resolutions and joint declarations, and nothing would happen. We'd be fighting the war on terror through the self-admiring inertia of windbag multilateralism. As for the home front, Kerry says: "As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that [the 9/11] commission." Whoa, hold on there. There's a ton of recommendations, and some of us don't like the part about concentrating all US intelligence under one cabinet secretary who serves not at the President's pleasure but for a fixed term. That effectively institutionalises the groupthink resistance to alternative ideas that led to the 9/11 failures. Leadership is about hearing different viewpoints and reaching a judgment. But Kerry gives the impression that, as long as he enjoys the perks of the top job, he's happy to subcontract his judgment to others. He moans endlessly about the "outsourcing" of American jobs but, when it comes to his own job, he's willing to outsource American foreign policy to the mushy transnational talk-shops and to outsource homeland security to some dubious intelligence tsar. There's no sense of any strategic vision, no sense that he's thought about Iran or North Korea or any of the other powder kegs about to blow. I tried to ask him about some of these matters during the New Hampshire primary and he intoned in response, "Sometimes truly courageous leadership means having the courage not to show any leadership." (I quote from memory.) In another perilous time - 1918 - Lord Haig wrote of Lord Derby: "D is a very weak-minded fellow I am afraid and, like the feather pillow, bears the marks of the last person who has sat on him." It's subtler than that with Kerry: you don't have to sit on him; just the slightest political breeze, and his pillow billows in the appropriate direction. His default position is the conventional wisdom of the Massachusetts Left: on foreign policy, foreigners know best; on trade, the labour unions know best; on government, bureaucrats know best; on defence, graying ponytailed nuclear-freeze reflex anti-militarists know best; on the wine list, he knows best. Sometimes these default positions have to be recalibrated to take account of various political pressures - hence his current kinky Vietnam macho nostalgia, after two decades of voting against every important weapons system for the US military. But there's no sense - other than the blurry abstract nouns he shoveled off the stage on Thursday - of what Kerry stands firm on. Last year, I was at a Kerry campaign stop in New Hampshire chatting with two old coots in plaid. The Senator approached and stopped in front of us. The etiquette in primary season is that the candidate defers to the cranky Granite Stater's churlish indifference to status and initiates the conversation: "Hi, I'm John Kerry. Good to see ya. Cold enough for ya?" Etc. But Kerry just stood there nose to nose, staring at us with a semi-glare on his face. After an eternity, an aide stepped out from behind him and said, "The Senator needs you to move." "Well, why couldn't he have said that?" muttered one of the old coots, as Kerry swept past us. That's how I felt after the Convention: all week Senators Biden, Lieberman and Edwards made the case that the Democrats were credible on national security. Why couldn't Kerry have said that? Because in the end he's running for President because he feels he ought to be President. That's his message to George W Bush: "The Senator needs you to move." And even then everyone else says it better.
Steve Schacher Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Mark Steyn: He was complacent, arrogant and humourless. How they loved him: quote:It was interesting to see Ben Affleck emerge as the Hollywood mascot of the Democratic Convention. The week reminded me of Ben's movie Pearl Harbor: wall-to-wall evocative military imagery, a cast of thousands, superb production values, but a huge gaping hole where the star performance was supposed to be. On TV the other night, young Mr Affleck offered a pearl of wisdom to Mr Kerry and his consultants: "You have to enervate the base," the Hollywood heartthrob advised solemnly. If it's enervating the base you're after, John F Kerry would seem to be the perfect candidate. On Thursday, for his first big moment in the national spotlight, his only concession to the occasion was to speed up his delivery, in order to cram a 90-minute address into the hour of primetime the networks were prepared to give him. But otherwise it was classic Kerry: verbose, shapeless, platitudinous, complacent, ill-disciplined, arrogant, and humourless. On the other hand, despite Ben Affleck's advice, the Boston crowd wasn't in the least bit enervated. They were deliriously happy. The Kerry campaign seems to be the political equivalent of what they call on Broadway a "snob hit": the longer it is, the more boring it is and the worse time you have at it, the more you feel it must be good for you. To his numbed, buttock-shifting listeners, the great sonorous self-regarding orotund bromidic banality of Senator Kerry and his multitude of nuances is proof of how much more serious he - and therefore they - are. This is a profoundly un-American attitude and, from the so far bounce-less post-convention polls, it doesn't seem to be resonating with "swing voters". At one level, what's happening is very unfair. Three-quarters of Democratic voters opposed the Iraq war; 86 per cent of convention delegates opposed it. But they've wound up with a presidential ticket comprised of two Senators who both voted in favour of it. And, after being for-and-against the war for the last year according to political necessity, Kerry seems to have settled on a position of doing pretty much what Bush is doing while simultaneously spending more time on the blower to Kofi, Jacques and Gerhard. If I were a principled anti-war Democrat, I'd be furious. But they're not. Because the real distinction is not between pro- and anti-war, but between September 11 Americans and September 10 Americans. The latter group is a coalition embracing not just the hardcore Bush haters - for whom, as the opening of Fahrenheit 9/11 makes plain, it all goes back to chads in Florida - but the larger group of voters who've been a little stressed out by the epic nature of politics these last three years and would like a quieter life. That's what John Kerry's offering them: a return to September 10. He doesn't quite put it like that, of course. He talks about an America "strong" and "respected" and all the other poll-tested words, while the Democratic platform asserts that Republicans "do not understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you". Say what you like about Bush, but on Iraq he stood by his principles and rallied the British, Australians, Poles, Italians, etc, to join him. He also rallied Kerry and Edwards to join him. They voted for his war, as the columnist Debra Saunders of The San Francisco Chronical drolly pointed out: "Kerry and Edwards followed. Bush led." Kerry now says that Bush "misled" him on Iraq. But, if he was that easily suckered by a renowned moron, how much more susceptible would he be to such wily operators as Chirac. They would speak French to each other, and Jacques would blow soothingly in his ear, and Kerry would look flattered, and there'd be lots of resolutions and joint declarations, and nothing would happen. We'd be fighting the war on terror through the self-admiring inertia of windbag multilateralism. As for the home front, Kerry says: "As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that [the 9/11] commission." Whoa, hold on there. There's a ton of recommendations, and some of us don't like the part about concentrating all US intelligence under one cabinet secretary who serves not at the President's pleasure but for a fixed term. That effectively institutionalises the groupthink resistance to alternative ideas that led to the 9/11 failures. Leadership is about hearing different viewpoints and reaching a judgment. But Kerry gives the impression that, as long as he enjoys the perks of the top job, he's happy to subcontract his judgment to others. He moans endlessly about the "outsourcing" of American jobs but, when it comes to his own job, he's willing to outsource American foreign policy to the mushy transnational talk-shops and to outsource homeland security to some dubious intelligence tsar. There's no sense of any strategic vision, no sense that he's thought about Iran or North Korea or any of the other powder kegs about to blow. I tried to ask him about some of these matters during the New Hampshire primary and he intoned in response, "Sometimes truly courageous leadership means having the courage not to show any leadership." (I quote from memory.) In another perilous time - 1918 - Lord Haig wrote of Lord Derby: "D is a very weak-minded fellow I am afraid and, like the feather pillow, bears the marks of the last person who has sat on him." It's subtler than that with Kerry: you don't have to sit on him; just the slightest political breeze, and his pillow billows in the appropriate direction. His default position is the conventional wisdom of the Massachusetts Left: on foreign policy, foreigners know best; on trade, the labour unions know best; on government, bureaucrats know best; on defence, graying ponytailed nuclear-freeze reflex anti-militarists know best; on the wine list, he knows best. Sometimes these default positions have to be recalibrated to take account of various political pressures - hence his current kinky Vietnam macho nostalgia, after two decades of voting against every important weapons system for the US military. But there's no sense - other than the blurry abstract nouns he shoveled off the stage on Thursday - of what Kerry stands firm on. Last year, I was at a Kerry campaign stop in New Hampshire chatting with two old coots in plaid. The Senator approached and stopped in front of us. The etiquette in primary season is that the candidate defers to the cranky Granite Stater's churlish indifference to status and initiates the conversation: "Hi, I'm John Kerry. Good to see ya. Cold enough for ya?" Etc. But Kerry just stood there nose to nose, staring at us with a semi-glare on his face. After an eternity, an aide stepped out from behind him and said, "The Senator needs you to move." "Well, why couldn't he have said that?" muttered one of the old coots, as Kerry swept past us. That's how I felt after the Convention: all week Senators Biden, Lieberman and Edwards made the case that the Democrats were credible on national security. Why couldn't Kerry have said that? Because in the end he's running for President because he feels he ought to be President. That's his message to George W Bush: "The Senator needs you to move." And even then everyone else says it better.
Takvah Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Blah... blah... blah. I want checks and balances back... that's what American government is; you want something done but there is always some bastard in your way... so you negotiate. George Bush doesn't have to negotiate, he doesn't even have to consult and the free ride needs to end. Even with a stacked Congress, a Court and the office of President of the United States of America, this guy has done next to nothing... other than war and spend us into near ruin. I am a long time Republican and I always have known that as the shrill increases so does the power of the GOP's opponents. Luckily for the past two weeks or more Rush Limbaugh has been LIVID, using curse words on air (ass) and incrwasing the whine in his tenor. This can only bode well for me ... the guy that wants his checks and balances back. The guy that wants gridlock that sparks debate before half cocked response. As the power slowly ebbs from the hands of the my party I expect that the wardrums will sound and the half hearted attacks will become an overture of personal assaults on Kerry. Let's take for instance the "flip-flop", the biggest one being that Kerry supported the $87 billion war budget and then voted against it. Well does anybody bother to address the fact that Biden and Kerry added an amendment to the first bill that said that there could be no corporate profiteering from the $87 billion in the first version of the bill that he agreed to? Does anyone bother to mention that the second bill, the one Kerry said no to, removed the language regarding corporate profiteering from the legislation? No. So I do love when the critical complaints of Kerry's Convention speech are relegated to, "he spoke too fast", it just seems like desperate people are grasping at straws. Goodbye George... we hardly knew ya... and for that you have to go. Fraud, liar, corporate shill... you're all of these things... but REPUBLICAN... HELL NO. McCain/Giuliani in 2008! yEAH BABY... now those are Republicans! I can hardly wait! Later
Takvah Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Blah... blah... blah. I want checks and balances back... that's what American government is; you want something done but there is always some bastard in your way... so you negotiate. George Bush doesn't have to negotiate, he doesn't even have to consult and the free ride needs to end. Even with a stacked Congress, a Court and the office of President of the United States of America, this guy has done next to nothing... other than war and spend us into near ruin. I am a long time Republican and I always have known that as the shrill increases so does the power of the GOP's opponents. Luckily for the past two weeks or more Rush Limbaugh has been LIVID, using curse words on air (ass) and incrwasing the whine in his tenor. This can only bode well for me ... the guy that wants his checks and balances back. The guy that wants gridlock that sparks debate before half cocked response. As the power slowly ebbs from the hands of the my party I expect that the wardrums will sound and the half hearted attacks will become an overture of personal assaults on Kerry. Let's take for instance the "flip-flop", the biggest one being that Kerry supported the $87 billion war budget and then voted against it. Well does anybody bother to address the fact that Biden and Kerry added an amendment to the first bill that said that there could be no corporate profiteering from the $87 billion in the first version of the bill that he agreed to? Does anyone bother to mention that the second bill, the one Kerry said no to, removed the language regarding corporate profiteering from the legislation? No. So I do love when the critical complaints of Kerry's Convention speech are relegated to, "he spoke too fast", it just seems like desperate people are grasping at straws. Goodbye George... we hardly knew ya... and for that you have to go. Fraud, liar, corporate shill... you're all of these things... but REPUBLICAN... HELL NO. McCain/Giuliani in 2008! yEAH BABY... now those are Republicans! I can hardly wait! Later
Guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 McCain a Republican? ROFLMAO!!! And EVERYone of those things, Fraud, BS, Liar, BS, and Corporate Shill, OMG, you have GOT to be kidding me. Yeah, right, You're a REPUBLICAN, I DON'T think so...ROFLMAO!! You are a liberal, you spout the liberal lies as if they are facts, you actually believe the propaganda. You probably LOVED Farenheit 911 too....ROFLMAO!!! A sucker is born every minute I suppose.... Moore saw you coming....LOL
Guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 McCain a Republican? ROFLMAO!!! And EVERYone of those things, Fraud, BS, Liar, BS, and Corporate Shill, OMG, you have GOT to be kidding me. Yeah, right, You're a REPUBLICAN, I DON'T think so...ROFLMAO!! You are a liberal, you spout the liberal lies as if they are facts, you actually believe the propaganda. You probably LOVED Farenheit 911 too....ROFLMAO!!! A sucker is born every minute I suppose.... Moore saw you coming....LOL
LostInSpace Posted August 1, 2004 Author Report Posted August 1, 2004 Have a read (it's an article from february)Political oxymoron weigh-in. If President Bush's challengers continue to shout "jobless recovery," then Republicans need to shout back "visionary Democrats" because their ability to grasp the economy at hand is too near-sighted for common sense. ------------------------------------------------ Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, introduced the Jobs for America Act, seeking to punish American firms that take jobs offshore. Ironically, the Democrats leading presidential hopeful, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, had a small outsourcing scandal of his own uncovered in Wisconsin recently when alert voters noticed on their caller-ID that his campaign's telemarketing calls were coming from Canadian numbers. Is there no shame? ------------------------------------------------ While companies may not be adding traditional jobs as they have in the past, self-entrepreneurs are creating entire businesses for themselves from the work that is being generated by companies ÔÇö large and small ÔÇö in the midst of the recovery. The Bush administration needs to change the terms of the debate and trumpet the rapid growth of the contingent work force, where work and wealth are being created for individuals, while improving the economic competitiveness and fortunes of citizens and companies alike. And what was that war drum beat he spewed at the convention about keeping jobs in America? [ 08-01-2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]
LostInSpace Posted August 1, 2004 Author Report Posted August 1, 2004 Have a read (it's an article from february)Political oxymoron weigh-in. If President Bush's challengers continue to shout "jobless recovery," then Republicans need to shout back "visionary Democrats" because their ability to grasp the economy at hand is too near-sighted for common sense. ------------------------------------------------ Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, introduced the Jobs for America Act, seeking to punish American firms that take jobs offshore. Ironically, the Democrats leading presidential hopeful, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, had a small outsourcing scandal of his own uncovered in Wisconsin recently when alert voters noticed on their caller-ID that his campaign's telemarketing calls were coming from Canadian numbers. Is there no shame? ------------------------------------------------ While companies may not be adding traditional jobs as they have in the past, self-entrepreneurs are creating entire businesses for themselves from the work that is being generated by companies ÔÇö large and small ÔÇö in the midst of the recovery. The Bush administration needs to change the terms of the debate and trumpet the rapid growth of the contingent work force, where work and wealth are being created for individuals, while improving the economic competitiveness and fortunes of citizens and companies alike. And what was that war drum beat he spewed at the convention about keeping jobs in America? [ 08-01-2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now