Kerry carries the day in Iowa

[E40FDNYL35]

Comeback kid trumps Dean; Edwards second
DES MOINES - John Kerry flattened Howard Dean last night, pulling off a storybook upset on Iowa's political field of dreams.
Kerry, the patrician Bostonian whose political obituary was written weeks ago, was the No. 1 choice of Iowa Democrats who trooped to their neighborhood caucuses in subzero temperatures.With about 98% of the precincts reporting, Kerry had 38%, John Edwards had 32%, Dean was a distant third with 18% and Dick Gephardt was fourth with about 11%."Thank you, Iowa, for making me the Comeback Kerry," said the Massachusetts senator after winning big in the first contest on the road to the Democratic nomination. "Iowa, I love you. You've set me on the way to the Super Bowl."

Dean gave a speech that was less a concession than a frenzied call to arms."We have just begun to fight!" Dean bellowed, shocking even the biggest fans of the pugnacious candidate with his style, not his speech's substance. "We want our country back for ordinary Americans."

Noting that he was only recently still considered a quirky dark horse, Dean tried to put a happy face on: "If you had told us one year ago that we would come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that." The former Vermont governor's aides said they spent so much time battling Gephardt that they let the other two candidates blindside them. Both men were the front-runners for weeks, but last night voters abandoned them for the two underdogs: Kerry and Edwards.

The results scrambled the primary race, putting new pressure on Dean to win big in New Hampshire next Tuesday, where he has led the polls for months.The margin of his defeat suddenly marks him as vulnerable - and gives Kerry the big momentum - just as the campaign enters a crucial phase.
Gephardt, a veteran congressman from Missouri and former speaker of the House, was utterly routed and will drop out of the race today.Edwards, whose sunny, Clintonesque persona won over many late-deciding voters, surged from single digits last week to a remarkably strong second place."We were the little engine that could," the North Carolina senator told supporters, and said his campaign proved that voters "believe in a positive, uplifting view to change America."

Kerry, known for his come-from-behind victories, had largely been written off last month as his support sagged and he fired half his staff.

He literally bet the house on a strong Iowa showing. Kerry mortgaged his Boston mansion to pay for ads showcasing his war heroism, legislative experience and sober presidential demeanor.The Iowa win will put rocket thrusters on his reviving campaign in New Hampshire.The results upended all the conventional wisdom about the caucuses and delivered a major blow to organized labor, which was widely touted to guarantee victory. Gephardt had the support of 21 industrial unions and Dean had two of the most politically important labor groups in his camp.

Dean also had imported 3,500 volunteers and had the backing of Iowa's most popular politician, Sen. Tom Harkin, as well as Al Gore and Bill Bradley, and a nod from former President Jimmy Carter.

But Iowans apparently did not care.

The battle now shifts to New Hampshire, where retired Gen. Wesley Clark, sailing smoothly up in the polls as other candidates squabbled in Iowa, is about to become the bull's-eye at the center of the dartboard. It remains to be seen whether Clark can hold his temper and his support better than Dean once the campaign trail gets crowded and the elbows start hitting Clark.
At Clark's campaign headquarters in Manchester, N.H., last night, aides intently watched the Iowa results as Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, swamped his rivals.
Asked about battling another candidate with a military background, Clark said, "It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer - he's done that and I respect him for that. But I have military leadership at the top as well as at the bottom." Asked if he still considers this a "two-man race" in New Hampshire, where Dean holds a narrow lead in the polls, Clark said it was up to the voters.

He paused, then added, "I don't know what to call it now."

[E229Lt]

George?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I liked seeing all those yellow t-shirts on television.

[TillerMan25]

I almost lost control of my bladder while laughing at that Idiot Howard Dean and that speech he made.

Howard Stern had a parody of it this Morning with AC/DC's "For Those About to Rock....." playing in the background. It was hilarious. I am no fan of Kerry, but I would rather see anyone other than Dean in the White House if the Democrats can win. But I don't think they will, maybe in 2008?

The yellow shirts were a farce. They need to say "Union Firefighters for Kerry." Not every Firefighter is for Kerry. More appropriately, they should read "IAFF Executive Board and PAC Fund Members for Kerry." Because most of the Line FF's I know in this neck of the woods on the career side are Bush Guys.

[DaSharkie]

I have to go with Tillerman on this one. I remember in 2000 it was estimated that 40 percent of IAFF members were for Bush, or said they were.

I laughed out loud when I heard Kerry yell that the special interest groups in the Bush white house should not let the door hit them on the way out, last night. Behind him was the president of the IAFF, oh lookie a special interest group. Typical hypocracy from either party that insults my intelligence.

Though I am a Republican, I have yet to decide who I will vote for, it will not be Kerry, and I highly doubt that it will be Dean.

Personally, I couldn't care less who a union supports, because it is the membership of the union that matters not the E-boards. Their support means nothing to me, because they are concentrating on one issue, and one issue only. To prove my point I received a hillarious letter from the PFFM (Professional Fire Fighters of MAssachusetts) a few weeks ago telling me that I needed to get out and stump for Kerry. After I finished laughing, I continued to read that the only issue that should matter to me was that Kerry was and has been behind firefighters and that I should only vote this way and not other issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun control, and others cloud my judgement because they each had their own powerful adn vocal supporters / critics. After laughing even more histerically I had to be repulsed by the use of union dues to pay for this letter to be sent out. After further realizing that my intelligence had been insulted by thinking that I should only vote for a candidate because of one issue I was repulsed by the PFFMs actions. A voter should be educated and vote for the best candidate to lead a nation, regardless of the party or their stance on one issue. A decision should be based on teh best candidate overall, I may not agree with all of their views but I will certainly not vote for a candidate because of one issue. The IAFF looks out for its membership and makes a decision based upon that one narrow focus, I have worry about what is right for my nation and fellow citizens.

[TCFire]

The best thing about Kerry winning was that he allowed Dean to show what a wingnut he is with his 'hey, how come I finished third?' speech afterwards. Must've been his going to church with Jimmy Carter.....yeah, that's it!

[Dalmatian90]

I think the real story is Bill Clinton's, um, Edwards, victory here.

I've been pegging John Edwards to be in position to take the White House in '08 when it'll be wide open race with no incumbent and no VP incumbent running.

I figured this year was for Edwards like '76 was for Reagan -- the year to build your organization, learn from your mistakes, and get ready to rumble with the big boys in '80.

I suspect Kerry just served as an ice-breaker. Dr. Arrogance Dean, General Arrogant-SOB Clark, and Gephardt all tearing into each other (yes I know Clark didn't run in Iowa...). Kerry pushes them aside...but suddenly Edwards has a lot more visibility.

Curious if Edwards will make an alliance to get the VP nomination or figure none of the Democrats will knock off Bush, and he'll leave this year with a strong 2nd/3rd place showing overall and plan to win it all in 2008.

Just my random prediction/thoughts...

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

The shirts read IAFF firefighters for Kerry.

[ChiefReason]

The headline should have read "TOP DEMOCRAT KERRYS THE DAY!"
I should get paid for these.
CR

[E40FDNYL35]

;)

[stm4710]

Kerry,Dean,Gephardt,Edwards in 04'.

[DaSharkie]

To come to Tiller's defense here, if you watch the footage, all you see is "Firefighters for Kerry", from the camera angle and distance you can barely, if at all, make out the IAFF and you can only see the front so you do not know that the IAFF made the shirts.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Sharkie, I understand you are repulsed. I am repulsed too. When I see the Labor Department offer "suggestions" for employers to avoid paying overtime I am repulsed. When I see Our Vice-President duck hunting with a Supreme Court Justice when there is a major ruling involving the oil industry on the line, I am repulsed. I dont see how you think its wrong for our General President to bring our great Union to the front and center of a presidential campaign. I saw with my own eyes our Brother firefighters on the stage with Kerry. He looked and sounded very presidential. I do agree that ALL politicians are tied to special interests. I would like to think that MY special interest will be served with a labor-friendly president.

[Scoop422]

Firefighters are not a "special" interest group. They are a special group with GENUINE needs. If the IAFF helps to get someone elected all firefighters reap the benefits not just the union ones.

[Cellblock776]

As usual I'll be voting the Libertarian ticket this year.
Here's the URL to the Louisiana Libertarian Party- http://www.la.lp.org/
The national site is at- http://www.lp.org/

[engine1321]

Dean's going downhill!

Is that the OU Sooners two losses in row? No, that's the legs of the bandwagoners breaking as they are jumping off of the Dean bandwagon...

They sound the same though... hehe

[TillerMan25]

I saw with my own eyes our Brother firefighters on the stage with Kerry. He looked and sounded very presidential.

Give a Bum a cheap suit, shave and 100 bucks for a few bottles of Wild Irish Rose and I bet he could look and sound presidential too! :rolleyes:


I did not see the shirt close up until now. Thank you for the pic Mikey. I still think most Firefighters in the trenches are with Bush. Kerry is too White Collar for most Blue Collar people. And most Firefighters are Blue Collar guys. Maybe I just don't get it, but Overtime is not a right. And if I were a City Manager or Business owner I would do what I could to curb unnecessary OT as much as I could. Firefighter Shift work is inevitably going to cause OT, and thats just something you gotta do to ensure your people are protected 24/7. However when you have Backstep Fireman making more than a Big City Mayor or County Executive, you gotta wonder, Why in the Hell is this guy Whoring on Overtime? If you need money that badly, get a part-time job! And if your department needs to fill that much OT just to make minimum staffing levels, than that City Administrator or Alderman or whayever needs to get his head out of his arse and hire some more people!!!!

[Bones42]

I didn't even notice the shirts until I saw this thread yesterday. Then I saw some replays and did notice the IAFF shirts.

I will admit I have not paid much attention to them. I'll wait for when the decision is made on who will run against Bush and then look at that one. I'm not a Democrat, so I won't be picking who is going to run.

[DaSharkie]

Firefighters are not a "special" interest group. They are a special group with GENUINE needs.

As are law enforcement, nurses, teachers, oil businesses, defense contractors, environmentalists, auto manufacturers, teamsters, ambulance chasing lawyers, NAACP, AARP, or any other group. Your point is still moot.

If the IAFF helps to get someone elected all firefighters reap the benefits not just the union ones.

Ah, my problem is with the PFFM using union funds to do so. I understand that the FIREPAC exists and this is where every bit of money should come from. Not a single penny should come from regular union dues. The IRS is beginning to rip into union finances, especially the teacher's unions, to determine how money is being spent, where it is being spent, and where it comes from. Other than being insulted by the assumed ignorance I posess, I have a problem with the spending of union money for this and other political information the PFFM / IAFF has spent.

[DaSharkie]

Watching over the unions
Linda Chavez (archive)


January 21, 2004


Howard Dean wasn't the only loser in Monday night's Iowa caucuses. Big Labor gambled big -- and lost even bigger. Some 21 unions endorsed fourth place candidate Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), who ended up with only 12 percent of the caucus votes. While two of the nation's biggest, most politically powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Union (AFSCME), endorsed Dean.

AFSCME and SEIU are estimated to have spent $2.6 million in Iowa trying to win the state for Dean, who ended up with only 18 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, the unions backing Gephardt put more than 900 organizers in the state, made 2,000 phone calls a day on Gephardt's behalf and knocked on more than 20,000 doors, according to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund. But while almost one in four Iowa caucus goers was from a union household, most ignored their leaders' recommendations and voted for Sen. John Kerry, the big winner Monday night with 38 percent of the vote.

Unions have traditionally refrained from backing candidates in hotly contested Democratic presidential primaries, but this year was different. The Teamsters Union, which flirted with President Bush during the early days of his administration and has endorsed Republicans for president on occasion, decided to back Gephardt early, as did many industrial unions. Gephardt's protectionist trade policies and pro-labor voting record made him a favorite among the AFL-CIO's old manufacturing and industrial unions. The more left-leaning, public employee unions decided to go with Dean, mostly because of his aggressive anti-war stance and populist rhetoric.

But none of these unions could turn their dollars and manpower into votes -- even from their own members and their families. Perhaps this should come as no surprise since unions don't poll their members on what they want or whom they support. Decisions about such important matters are left up to union bosses, who are often accountable to no one. Yet these same union officials freely spend their members' dues on politics -- with little recourse on the part of the members. According to Fund, "some unions now routinely deplete their entire treasury in election years.

There's nothing wrong with unions becoming involved in the political process and nothing wrong with unions donating money to candidates -- so long as it is collected voluntarily from union members. But the union cash that was flowing in Iowa was almost entirely dues-funded, not voluntary contributions made to the unions' political action committees. Unions are allowed to spend dues on politics to get out the vote and promote union-endorsed candidates among union members and their households. But there's little doubt that the money spent in Iowa went beyond union households to the general public, which isn't legal if it exceeds the limits on campaign donations, as it always does.

The press doesn't bother keeping tabs on such activity, so it goes largely unnoticed, unreported and unpunished. And even if unions follow the rules and spend dues only in legitimate get-out-the-vote efforts among union households, they are still required to report this spending on their tax returns. Yet few unions comply. The National Education Association (NEA), for example, spends literally millions each year on politics, yet reports no political spending on its tax returns.

As tax-exempt organizations, unions must pay taxes on that portion of their revenues which are used for politics. Landmark Legal Foundation has recently filed complaints with the IRS on the NEA's refusal to obey the law, but, so far, the unions have managed to get away with massive tax evasion on their political spending.

Recent efforts by the Department of Labor to force unions to file more detailed reports on how they spend members' dues have now been held up. A Clinton-appointed judge imposed an injunction in December blocking the Department's new regulations, which would have allowed more scrutiny of unions' activities, until well after the 2004 elections. For the time being, at least, unions will be able to keep wasting their members' dues and ignoring their wishes -- with absolutely no consequences.


Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Townhall.com member organization.

[ChiefReason]

Well, if you watched any of the Iowa "Cau-cau" wrap ups, you got to witness Howard Dean's meltdown. Couldn't even remember the rest of the 50 states.
And then the exclamation point was the good ole boy "yeeeeeeaaaahhh" at the end.
Rumor has that many were asking for refunds on their political donations to him! :p
Kerry and Edwards for the Dems.
Can either beat Bush?
Will Hilary leave Bill?
CR

[Firefighter1219]

George Bush all the way!!!!!

[Scoop422]

Sharkie,
Law enforcement, teachers, nurses, firefighters etc. are not special interest. They are the foundation services of society. They are not rich corporations or wealthy business people looking for tax breaks. They are groups that need a voice for safer working conditions and funds that municipalities fail to provide. How many times do we hear that municipalities are threatening layoffs and cutting budgets? Isn't backing a candidate a good way to take these problems further?

[DaSharkie]

How many times do we hear that municipalities are threatening layoffs and cutting budgets?

And this is a federal government problem why? (I was really hoping to avoid this responsibility argument.)

Isn't backing a candidate a good way to take these problems further?

Again, why is this important at the national level? Again, I couldn't care less who a union supports, becu\ause it is not the membership supporting them, only the E-board.



Law enforcement, teachers, nurses, firefighters etc. are not special interest. They are the foundation services of society. They are not rich corporations or wealthy business people looking for tax breaks.

Ah, but they have their own agenda and desires and use political unfluence and contributions in order to get them. Ergo, they are a special interest, whether they are "foundation services" or not. Just to clarify, I am only speaking of the union organizations and associations that "represent" the individuals who work for the municipalities.

They are groups that need a voice for safer working conditions

This is why we have OSHA, and labor standards. Obtained by the above stated unions and associations- A.K.A. the special interests.

and funds that municipalities fail to provide.

Why should I, living in Backwoods, Massachusetts, have FEDERAL tax dollars spent on services to a local community in Podunk, Arizona? As I and others have said on numerous board posts here before, it is not a FEDERAL government to provide local services.

They are not rich corporations or wealthy business people looking for tax breaks.

But they are looking out for what is best for themselves, and their membership, just as a business, or individual is looking out for what is best ofr themselves. Do I like the system? Not really, but when you allow these special interest groups, of any sort, to manipulate the system this is what we get. And so you know, those same tax benefits that wealthy individuals are able to use, are available to all people in this country, should yo uavail yourself of the breaks. The same benefits for large companies are available to smaller firms. Just as the IAFF pushes benefit all firefighters, call, volunteer, union, non-union. Thus, a special interest.

[ChiefReason]

Thought this was kinda funny:
From Jay Leno:Good news for Howard Dean’s wife; it looks like she’s going to get the privacy she wanted. .... Did you see that speech Howard Dean gave last night? I heard that the cows in Iowa are now afraid of getting mad dean disease. I’m not an expert in politics, but i think it’s a bad sign when your speech ends with your aides shooting you with a tranquilizer gun. .... I tell you something fascinating -- John Kerry’s victory over Howard Dean has completely changed the presidential race around. Now instead of the rich white guy from Yale who lives in the White House facing off against the rich white guy from Yale who lives in Vermont, he may have to face the rich white guy from Yale who lives in Massachusetts. It’s a whole different game. .... John Kerry said in his speech last night that this is the beginning of the end of the Bush administration. I agree, hey, it might take 5 years, but it will be the end of the Bush administration. .... Of course the big surprise -- John Edwards came in second. Edwards was quite eloquent. He said, "We have two Americans, one for the rich, one for the poor. Two countries with two tax systems, two school systems and two medical systems." Today President Bush said, "Why don’t you become president of the crappy one?" .... Dick Gephardt dropped out of the presidential race today. He said apparently the country isn’t ready for a really, really white president. .... Senator Joe Lieberman skipped Iowa and is devoting all his energies on losing in New Hampshire. .... How about Dennis Kucinich? He finished behind Martha Stewart.
For the record; I have no special interest in the problems of the Democrats! ;)
CR

[E40FDNYL35]

WASHINGTON -- A unified labor movement packs a political punch. A fractured one looks like Iowa.

Some unions are taking a hard look at their political influence and voter turnout operations after the two labor-backed candidates expected to dominate Iowa's caucuses sank instead. Leaders of industrial unions that formed a coalition supporting Dick Gephardt, called Americans for Economic Justice, decided Wednesday to carry on without the candidate, who dropped out a day earlier after a poor fourth-place showing. "We want to make sure the issues of jobs, health care and trade are being talked about even though the main champion of those issues is out of the race," said Bret Caldwell, spokesman for the Teamsters, a coalition member.

But a new endorsement isn't likely.

The coalition wants to influence the remaining Democrats, and will be active with ads, fliers and member education in upcoming primaries, especially in labor-dense states such as Missouri on Feb. 3, where more than 13 percent of the work force belongs to a union, and in Michigan on Feb. 7, where more than 21 percent of the work force is a union member. In Iowa, about 11 percent of workers are union members. Organized labor's manpower and money are important political weapons for Democrats. But Iowa showed that a disorganized movement, even in a state where union support was considered crucial, isn't nearly as impressive.
Of the AFL-CIO's 64 unions, less than half have endorsed a candidate. Those that endorsed were mostly split between Gephardt and Howard Dean, who, despite the backing of two of the largest unions in the country, finished third behind John Kerry and John Edwards.
Gephardt and Dean couldn't even get the bulk of the union household vote, which went to Kerry, whose only labor support was the small International Association of Fire Fighters.
"We found members that were highly supportive of Dick Gephardt and would have walked across the Mississippi River to help him if they could," said Rick Sloan, spokesman for the International Association of Machinists, which endorsed Gephardt. "But we also had members who were turned off by the process, and there were members who supported other candidates. That's their right."
Labor isn't likely to reunite until Democrats select a nominee to challenge President Bush in November.
In fact, hard feelings remain for some Gephardt unions over the decision by the large public and service sector unions to support Dean over the Missouri congressman, a longtime labor ally. With Gephardt out of the race, Dean isn't likely to pick up much of his union support.
"I don't anticipate us arriving at another candidate," said Donald Kaniewski, political director of the Laborers' International Union of North America, a coalition member. "We've got plenty of work to do on jobs, health care and trade, and that work will continue."
But Kerry and Edwards are working hard to lure Gephardt's union support, even if it didn't win him Iowa.
Union members and their families were outnumbered by new caucus-goers probably turned off by the negative campaigning between Dean and Gephardt, union leaders say. And Gephardt failed to expand his base of support beyond labor.
Fewer than one-fourth of participants in the caucuses were from union households, according to entrance polls conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. In 2000, one-third of Iowa voters were from union households.
"I've had a number of conversations with several union presidents in the last 30 hours," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which endorsed Kerry.
Several are "currently evaluating and taking a pretty serious look," he said. The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday, and Schaitberger said he is telling his colleagues that "if you want to have some impact on the journey to the White House, you need to get on board now."

[stm4710]

As I have said before--Howard Dean is an idiot,this just furthers my case.

Dean's Raucous Iowa Speech Lives On


By WILL LESTER

WASHINGTON (Jan. 21) - Howard Dean is trying to get past the speech he delivered after the Iowa caucuses, but the image lingers on the Internet, late-night talk shows and in what could be a serious problem for the campaign - among New Hampshire voters.

Political analysts and pollsters are watching to see if Monday night's enthusiastic, fist-pumping speech becomes one of those famous presidential campaign moments etched indelibly in the public's mind.

In the three days leading up to the Iowa caucuses, Dean's favorable rating among New Hampshire voters dropped from 59 percent to 39 percent in a sample of 302 voters Tuesday night, according to Dick Bennett of the American Research Group of Manchester. The size of a one-night sample is small enough that such results have to be viewed with caution, however.




In several tracking polls out Wednesday, Dean and John Kerry were locked in a statistical tie, with Wesley Clark close behind. Dean was once far ahead. A tracking poll is an ongoing poll with totals from the last two or three nights combined to produce a nightly result.

Bennett said his phone operators heard from voters who said they were surprised by Dean's speech. "That thing has legs," he said.

"I think it crystallized a lot of the concerns voters in Iowa had as well as voters in New Hampshire had about Dean's potential temperament as a president," added Andrew Smith, a political scientist and pollster at the University of New Hampshire. "My sense is that this will go down with Edmund Muskie supposedly crying in front of the (Manchester) Union Leader (in 1972) and Bob Dole telling George Bush to `stop lying about my record.' (in 1988)."

Gerry Chervinsky, who is polling New Hampshire for The Boston Globe and WBZ-TV, said Dean's favorable rating had dropped 11 points, from 67 percent to 56 percent, in the last week. He said the drop wouldn't all be attributable to Monday night's remarks, but added: "That speech could not have helped him in any way."

Dean, the one-time Democratic front-runner grinned, rolled up his sleeves and tried to rally supporters in Des Moines by shouting out a list of primary states.



Getty Images
Following his speech, Dean's campaign aides are trying to show a softer, dignified candidate. Details

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire ..., we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York," he said. "And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. To take back the White House. Yeah."

Dean explained the enthusiastic speech Tuesday by saying: "You've got to have some fun in this business." Supporters said he wanted to offer encouragement to volunteers who worked hard for him in Iowa, only to be disappointed by his third-place finish.

Democratic consultant James Carville, who was in New Hampshire attending campaign events, said of Dean's Iowa speech, "It hurt him."

Pat Buchanan, a former Republican presidential candidate, said: "Dean's Iowa defeat was a real setback to him, but his post-game commentary was a disaster. That tape will be on every national talk show, I don't think it's survivable."

Late-night comedy shows provide campaign news to growing numbers of people, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. One-fifth of young adults said they regularly learn about the campaign from such programs.

When David Letterman rolled the video Tuesday, Dean's head appeared to explode at the end of the speech. "Did you see Howard Dean ranting and raving?" he asked the audience. "Here's a little tip, Howard: cut back on the Red Bull."

On his program, Jay Leno quipped: "I'm not an expert in politics, but I think it's a bad sign when your speech ends with your aides shooting you with a tranquilizer gun."

Jon Stewart introduced the clip on his show by saying, "That whole 'Dean anger thing,' it's a bum rap. The guy has his emotions under control."

Charles Jones, a presidential scholar, said Dean's speech contributes to the notion that he's not quite ready for prime time.

"Some have compared it with the over enthusiastic reaction of (Dan) Quayle" when he was picked as George H.W. Bush's running mate, Jones said.

[Dalmatian90]

For those who haven't seen it, theres a link from here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040122-9999_1n22dean.html

Political moments that'll rank right up there with Dukakis in an M-1...

[Dalmatian90]

http://homepage.mac.com/lileks/.Public/Yeagh.mp3

So, is this a new word for Dean's war cry: "Yeagh" ???

[stm4710]

Well my wonderful girlfriend just broke my heart.:( She registerd to vote and is now a registerd democrap.:( :o :rolleyes:

Acourse she thinks the dem's are pro-life like she is.......oye vey I wish she atleast found out what the partys stand for before picking one----women.:rolleyes:

[Duffman]

Again, why is this important at the national level? Again, I couldn't care less who a union supports, becu\ause it is not the membership supporting them, only the E-board.

A mere speculative generality. If you don't like what your E-board is doing, how about getting yourself elected to the board. If the membership doesn't agree with the current board, you should win in a landslide. Your later statement shown below, seems a bit contradictory.But they are looking out for what is best for themselves, and their membership,

At least you recognize some of the good unions have done.
This is why we have OSHA, and labor standards. Obtained by the above stated unions and associations- A.K.A. the special interests.

By your definition, just what groups are not special interests?

Why should I, living in Backwoods, Massachusetts, have FEDERAL tax dollars spent on services to a local community in Podunk, Arizona? As I and others have said on numerous board posts here before, it is not a FEDERAL government to provide local services.

Do you feel the same when the Federal funds are being used for law enforcement, roads and other local infrastructure?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

By your definition, just what groups are not special interests?

Very good question.

Kerry's definition is any organization who does not support him. He doesn't think the NEA, trial lawyers and NOW are special interests.

[E40FDNYL35]

January 22, 2004 - President George W. Bush addressed the nation on January 20 with his 2004 State of the Union speech before a joint a session of Congress. The 58-minute speech outlined the President’s vision for America and his priorities for the second session of the 108th Congress.
While the President repeatedly lauded America’s police officers and law enforcement community and promised to support their mission, he never mentioned fire fighters or first responders. The comprehensive speech made no reference to supporting any program or initiative to address the pressing needs of fire fighters.
“It is regrettable that the President chose to ignore our profession and its needs, “ commented IAFF General President Harold A. Schaitberger.
The administration has opposed IAFF initiatives such as the SAFER Act to hire 75,000 new fire fighters with federal funds and has refused to fully fund the Assistance to Fire Fighters Grant Program in three successive budgets (FIRE Act). “Even though budget cuts have forced layoffs, brown-outs and station closings across the country, the administration has taken a laissez-faire approach to ensuring the nation’s safety and security, as evidenced in the State of the Union speech,” Schaitberger said.
“We have battled this administration before and we will continue to work with our friends in Congress---both Republicans and Democrats---to make sure the needs of our fire fighters are met,” continued Schaitberger.

[DaSharkie]

If you don't like what your E-board is doing, how about getting yourself elected to the board. If the membership doesn't agree with the current board, you should win in a landslide.

Seeing as how I am no longer a member of the IAFF I can't get elected to the E-board. My original point is still the same. Unless the general membership votes in a majority to put the union's support behind a candidate, then it means nothing to me.

Your later statement shown below, seems a bit contradictory.

I don't think so. This is what the e-board states. This is what union leadership states. They support, or choose to, a candidate that is going to do what is best for them, the union / membership, not the greater picture of the country, just their particular area / areas of interest.

By your definition, just what groups are not special interests?

Well, let us see.....

If you have a political action committee, then you are a special interest. If you solicit, as a group, organization, or corporation, any elected official to receive benefits for you or to curry favor, then you are a special interest. If you do not buy this, then I will say this to you:

After the Supreme Court chose to strip my first ammendment rights to support a candidate away from me last month, anyone or any group is considered a special interest under the auspices of campaign finance reform. As an individual, I, as an individual, cannot run an add on my local TV station in support or against a candidate, neither can the NRA, IAFF, NARAL, NAACP, AFL - CIO, or any other group. We are considered a special interest. I do not like it, but the 9 people in black robes in DC have decided it as such.

Do you feel the same when the Federal funds are being used for law enforcement, roads and other local infrastructure?

Yes I do. With the exception of interstate highways, which support interstate / international commerce, federal tax dollars should not be dispensed to local communities in order to pave my road.

Local money should be used to pay for local police officers, firefighters, teachers, DPW, etc. It is not the federal governement's responsibility to provide for the local government. Unfortunately, the feds will not reduce the tax intake and shift the tax burden to more local collection, i.e. reduce the federal tax burden, and shift to local and state burdens.

As for the infrastructure, well I will point you the Big Dig, in Boston. A boondoggle if I have ever seen one. Granted it is for an interstate, but because of the mismanagement of federal funds in Boston, the state budget has had to absorb increases and a diminishment of federal tax dollars for other highway projects. The rest of the state is suffering through crumbling roads and bridges for a 15 BILLION dollar hole in the ground, that froze up last week, yes it froze and 2 lanes had to be shut down. This for a road that only benefits those who live immediately North or South of the city of Boston, not benefiting the rest of the state.

The administration has opposed IAFF initiatives such as the SAFER Act to hire 75,000 new fire fighters with federal funds

The SAFER act will not add 75,000 new firefighters. It will be like the COPS grants for the police. No new police officers were added in the long run. When officers retired, they were not replaced because there were additional officers on the rosters and no additional costs were accrued by the city to hire / train new officers. Very few police departments that hired officers under the COPS programs have seen an increase in officer ranks. The same will happen for firefighters. If a local community needs new firefighters, it is up to that community to hire them, not the federal government.

and has refused to fully fund the Assistance to Fire Fighters Grant Program in three successive budgets (FIRE Act).

Again, it is not a federal responsibilty to ensure that you have bunker gear, radios, PASS devices, new fire engines, fire prevention, etc.. It is the local government's responsibility.

[Duffman]

After the Supreme Court chose to strip my first ammendment rights to support a candidate away from me last month

A ridiculous interpretation of campaign finance reform on your part. I watched the Iowa caucuses. Over 100,000 people were out supporting their candidate. Millions across the country do the same.

The SAFER act will not add 75,000 new firefighters. It will be like the COPS grants for the police. No new police officers were added in the long run. When officers retired, they were not replaced because there were additional officers on the rosters and no additional costs were accrued by the city to hire / train new officers. Very few police departments that hired officers under the COPS programs have seen an increase in officer ranks.

Once again you have contradicted yourself. First you say no new police officers were added, then you say "very few departments" added to their ranks. Where are the fact? I know of two departments off the top of my head who added six, and ten officers to the ranks.

[DaSharkie]

A ridiculous interpretation of campaign finance reform on your part. I watched the Iowa caucuses. Over 100,000 people were out supporting their candidate. Millions across the country do the same.

But why am I not allowed to do so 60 days prior to the general election? This restricts free speech and the free exercise thereof, a law passed by congress. Do I need to quote verbatim the first amendment to you?

Once again you have contradicted yourself. First you say no new police officers were added, then you say "very few departments" added to their ranks. Where are the fact? I know of two departments off the top of my head who added six, and ten officers to the ranks.

In the overall scheme of things, has the roster (the number) of officers increased from the period prior to the grants? I know of two departments where this is the case. I used to work for one as a dispatcher and there are no more officers on the streets than before they took the grants.

I suppose it is a contradiction due to my poor choice of words. In general, I believe most (the vast majority) of departments that did take the grants had no net increase in officer numbers after 3 - 5 years.

My point is still the same, or my opinion is, that it is not the federal government's responsibility to fund the positions of teachers, firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement officers, DPW workers, etc. at the local level. If you want them, increase the LOCAL tax base / rate to provide for adequate protection / service, do not pawn off the security / service of one community onto another.

[Duffman]

But why am I not allowed to do so 60 days prior to the general election? This restricts free speech and the free exercise thereof, a law passed by congress. Do I need to quote verbatim the first amendment to you?

You can support your candidate whenever the hell you want. Placing restrictions on how campaigns are financed does not violate your freedom of speech. Don't insult my intelligence by offering to recite the first amendment, or by trying to argue that campaign finance reform violates it.

[DaSharkie]

I may support my candidate, but I may not run an advertisement in support of my candidate, as an individual citizen, or part of a group, for 60 days prior to the election. I cannot run an add on TV or on the radio. Neither can any group or "special interest" to which I contribute money in order to support a candidate. This is wrong and does violate the free speech clause.

Even the candidates cannot place ads on TV or the radio. All candidate information for 60 days prior to a general election will come from teh media, and we know straight forward adn unbiased they all are don't we.

I never had a problem showing my support for a candidate, only running advertisement notices in support of a candidate by any INDIVIDUAL or group. This is a violation of free speech. Every court ruling, with this exception, was in support of INDIVIDUAL rights. Now my INDIVIDUAL right to run those supportive / non-supportive ads is gone.

You have your opinion, and I have mine. We disagree, and that will probably not change. And there will be further challenges to this pathetic law. If anyone thinks that these yutzes in Washington really wanted to clean up elections they are out of their mind. It is a manner for these people to continue to be elected and stay in office for decades, a la Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, John McCain, or Richard Byrd. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me otherwise.

[Duffman]

It is a manner for these people to continue to be elected and stay in office for decades, a la Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, John McCain, or Richard Byrd. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me otherwise.

The American public is to blame for keeping these people in office for decades. See, if they don't get the votes, they don't stay.

The apathy in this country astounds me. I don't need TV or radio ads shoved down my throat to be aware that there is an election and decide who to vote for. In fact, I don't base my opinion on them at all.

What is wrong with individuals educating themselves on the candidates? We should not be electing officials based on television commercials.




Sharkie, I did not mean to insult your intelligence.

[CaptainGonzo]

Sharkie...

Campaign reform was passed by both the House and Senate and signed by President Bush... what political affliation are the majority leaders?

I think they have an "R" after their names....

[E229Lt]

It is a manner for these people to continue to be elected and stay in office for decades, a la Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond, John McCain, or Richard Byrd. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me otherwise.

Who's Richard Byrd?

[Steamer]

That's Robert Byrd's Conservative Republican brother. ;) :D

[DaSharkie]

Sorry, Robert Byrd. I was dead tired this morning, I haven't been sleeping well lately. Thank you for the correction.

Campaign reform was passed by both the House and Senate and signed by President Bush... what political affliation are the majority leaders?

I understand this. Sadly it is true. Again, many, myself included, feel that this law benefits only the incumbents, by restricting criticism of voting records, past actions. I was upset when the President signed the legislation saying something like I sign this legislation hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn it. If you don't agree with it WHY THE HELL ARE YOU SIGNING THE DAMNED THING? I may be a Republican, but that does not mean I am happy with what they do all the time nor that I cannot criticize them. I will say that there are problems when both houses of congress and the executive branch are "controlled" by the same party, it is usually not the best of instance to be in. Remember, a whole lot of Democrats voted for this bill as well. The majority may be Republican, but not enough are in either house to pass the bill without a whole lot of help.

The American public is to blame for keeping these people in office for decades. See, if they don't get the votes, they don't stay.

I totally agree with you. This is why I have a problem, and usually do not vote for anyone who has been in an office for 10 years. You have become part of the problem, and are too ensconched in the system. Therein lies a major problem I would / will have voting for Kerry, Lieberman (Who I actually like very much), or Gephardt.

The apathy in this country astounds me.

Again, I agree with you totally. The incumbents and political hacks like it that way though. Not a conspiracy theorist, but the fewer voters, the easier it si to get elected, you have to focus on fewer fringes, and fewer problems.

I don't need TV or radio ads shoved down my throat to be aware that there is an election and decide who to vote for. In fact, I don't base my opinion on them at all.

Understood, I don't necessarily either, I do research many facts and histories gleaned from ads. Unfortunately, here are HUGE numbers of voters that do rely upon those ads. I am astonished at how many people do not know who they will vote for until they actually get into the booths. The other thing, is that if some candidate makes a mistake or new information is found, it cannot be brought ot light unless the media brings it forth. Again, it benefits incumbents.

I have always enjoyed listening to people criticize the politicians and yelling and screaming about the government, and then you ask them whether they voted in the last election, local, county, state, or federal, and they say no. Then don't complain. Your lack of voting for ANY candidate is part of the problem as well.

Sharkie, I did not mean to insult your intelligence.

I understand that. I only wished for you to understand where I was coming from, not necessarily agree with me. I only want you know and understand where a differeing opinion is based.

[E40FDNYL35]

:cool:MANCHESTER, N.H. - Sen. John Kerry bagged his second straight impressive victory yesterday, cruising past Howard Dean with another double-digit win.

[TillerMan25]

Is it just my eyes this early in the morning or does Harold S--tburger and the lady to Kerry's left look like they were super-imposed into the picture?

I am not a Kerry fan at all, but I am so glad to see Howard Dean losing his arse off in these primaries. I think the only thing he has won so far was the DC Fake Me Out Primary. And we all know that aside from the Federal Government property and a few neat galleries, DC is nothing but a 3rd world ghetto in the United States.

[engine1321]

He still won't top Bush though

[ThNozzleman]

Again, it is not a federal responsibilty to ensure that you have bunker gear, radios, PASS devices, new fire engines, fire prevention, etc.. It is the local government's responsibility.
I think we've been through this before. Obviously, local governments either can't, or won't, do what needs to be done for their fire departments. Hence, the need for federal help. Grants like these ultimately help the people, not just fire departments.

[DaSharkie]

And again, it is our fault for not pushing our local politicians for the proper equipment. When they won't give it to us, it is our fault for not telling the public that they are endangering our lives, and theirs. Not D.C.'s problem to take care of me or my department / agency.


Is it just my eyes this early in the morning or does Harold S--tburger and the lady to Kerry's left look like they were super-imposed into the picture?

That lady on his left is his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, as in Heinz ketchup. Used to be married to Sen. Heinz from Pennsylvania until he died in a plane crash. The picture does make it look so though.

[firemedic53]

MIKEYLIKESIT
Those t-shirts look even better in person, as do the signs and bumper stickers. You can really see the IAFF.....someday maybe they'll be at the inaugural....

[TillerMan25]

Here are some interesting facts about "The Union Fireman's Friend," John Forbes Kerry.



http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm


I am glad he is the IAFF's Buddy, because he sure isn't the buddy of any Soldiers. What a LOSER!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by TillerMan25
Here are some interesting facts about "The Union Fireman's Friend," John Forbes Kerry.



http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm


I am glad he is the IAFF's Buddy, because he sure isn't the buddy of any Soldiers. What a LOSER!

I think:
1. No man should be disrespected because he served in our military in a foregin war. It is by the grace of God that he wasn't killed.

2. No man who served should ever disrespect the US Military and use a distortion of fact and/or the bravery of others to advance his own ambitions.

3. This guy could only get elected as a Senator in MA or NY. He is a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear and will be an embarrassment to this country.

4. The GOP National Committee has probably adopted the slogan of the Wicked Witch of the West when it comes to bringing all this stuff to the forefront; "All in good time, my pretty. All in good time".

[TillerMan25]

George, I had read some stuff about him in the American Legion Magazine that my dad gets, but I didn't know it was as bad as that website exposed!

I would not disrespect the man because he served, and as minor as his wounds may have been, he earned his decorations. However he did the equivalent of Spitting on a Soldier and calling him a "Baby Killer." I hope this is brought to light in a national spectrum prior to the General Election.

[DaSharkie]

If it is brought to light, it will be interesting. One can only imagine who will come out of the woodwork in defense or support of him and his past actions. Sadly, most people have forgotten about his actions in Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the left wingers will just eat that action up as we fight this new war that we are in. It proves he is still one of those radical anti-war people, , and has been all along. This plays right into the hands of many people in Hollyweird and you will see all of them come flying out of the woodwork to speak in support of him.

Unlike many, I think GWB has a pretty tough fight ahead of him, whether he faces, Dean, Kerry, or Edwards. I don't feel he has too much of an advantage, there are too many angles for him to be attacked by the Dems.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Unlike many, I think GWB has a pretty tough fight ahead of him, whether he faces, Dean, Kerry, or Edwards. I don't feel he has too much of an advantage, there are too many angles for him to be attacked by the Dems.
I absolutely think you are right. But the fight will be with the media.

He will have an uphill battle on Iraq. He will have to get the message out that the intelligence that he was provided with sucked and that was the basis for his decisions. He didn't lie.

He will have a good fight on the war on terror as long as our anti-terrorism efforts continue to be sucessful.

He will have the easiest time with the economy. Their best argument seems to be that there weren't "enough" jobs created. OK. He's working on that. Low inflation, low interest rates, cos. starting to hire again, high consumer confidence, huge real estate market, all bode well.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Wanna go toe to toe? Web link to web link?Lets compare past history. (http://www.hereinreality.com/commander.html)

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Jeepers. Just saw a news story that reported that workers' wages and benefits went up 0.7% in the last quarter. Was Kerry responsible for that?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
Wanna go toe to toe? Web link to web link?Lets compare past history. (http://www.hereinreality.com/commander.html)

That's the best you can do?

You would be insulting a whole lot of people if you try to insinuate that service in the National Guard is any less honorable than other types of military service.

The DUI thing is history. He acknowledged it, admitted his mistake, apologized and moved on.

He was honorably dicharged. Period. So was Kerry. I, for one, refuse to disparage Kerry's military service. What I take great exception to is Kerry's treatment of his serviceman brothers after he was discharged.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

You can post "opinion based web pages" all you want..It's 2004 ..Not 1974. I dont know if any of these things are true. Do you?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I re-read the link I posted, and I dont see where it says anything about the National Guard being "less honorable" and if you think I AM insinuating that is the case, you are wrong George.

[TillerMan25]

..It's 2004 ..Not 1974.

The facts presented in that link go up to as recently as 1996 and has a picture of Kerry and Teddy "DWI driver of the year award winner" Kennedy in a 2002 picture.

Yes, Kerry has an outstanding service record. But it stopped when he got out of the Military, he then began spitting on the very people he was charged with leading. He is a Crock.

You vote for Lurch and I will vote for Dubya, I am feeling that the IAFF members who support Kerry are going to be sorely disappointed in November (as you were in Nov. 2000, and Nov. 1996 and so on and so on...) And to the members who do not support Kerry, you should sue the Union for your $$$ back that went to his failure campaign.

[FireLt1951]

I don't post often anymore but this is one post that I felt the need.

I still remember a lot of the things Kerry said and was involved with after his return from Viet Nam. I also remember the devastation a lot of us felt with the rhetoric of Hanoi Jane and her followers (such as Kerry & others). I spent 16 months hearing about and reading the garbage that was being spewed out. I even had to hear it upon returning home and thinking, how could this veteran attack us as pure evilness and wanton murderers.

Kerry had every right to do what he did but I personally felt betrayed and that feeling has never left me and probably never will. It would be a FREEZING (not just cold) DAY IN H#!! before I would even consider this man as Presidential material.

To all those that have served and are serving, I salute you.
To all those that have given their lives and the POW's, MIA's. You will never be forgotten.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Kerry had every right to do what he did but I personally felt betrayed and that feeling has never left me and probably never will. It would be a FREEZING (not just cold) DAY IN H#!! before I would even consider this man as Presidential material.

Absolutely! Well said.

I just listened to this guy speak on TV in SC today. Errrrr....Kerry supporters????

THIS MAN IS TELLING YOU HE IS GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES! THIS MAN IS TELLING YOU HE IS GOING TO DOWNSIZE OUR MILITARY WHEN WE ARE AT WAR! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?

[Duffman]

THIS MAN IS TELLING YOU HE IS GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES! THIS MAN IS TELLING YOU HE IS GOING TO DOWNSIZE OUR MILITARY WHEN WE ARE AT WAR! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?

He isn't going to raise MY taxes, Howard Dean would however. As for the military, I will get back to that when I have a chance to read the comment myself

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

He isn't going to raise MY taxes

How is he not going to raise your taxes? Where do I sign up to opt out? :D

[EFD840]

How is he not going to raise your taxes?

Hopefully by not getting elected! :D

The tax issue might just be the most interesting one to watch. Kerry and almost everyone else is running with a "repeal the Bush tax cut" as a central plank in their platform.

Somewhere along the way, folks may figure out that repealing a tax cut means a tax increase. If so, the question is how will the general majority react. Walter Mondale ran on a platform of increased taxes to fix the budget and it went over like a lead balloon. Funny thing is his plank just called for an increase in taxes for those making over $60k a year (a really good income in 1984 and not bad today). Repealing the Bush tax cut will mean a tax increase for everyone.

I find it hard to believe that there is a winning message in telling people that the economic recovery an illusion because wages haven't grown and jobs haven't been created, and if you elect me I am going to take even more money out of your pocket.

[Duffman]

How is he not going to raise your taxes? Where do I sign up to opt out?

He has stated he will not roll back the middle class tax cuts. Not changing the child tax credit. In any case the "T" word doesn't alarm me. I would rather pay the federal tax I was paying before and have a balanced budget, or even a surplus, remember the surplus?

The tax cuts amounted to a tax shift. By the way, now that Bush passed his medicare BS, the cost has suddenly risen by a third. Brilliant plan. Reduce revenues and spend spend spend. Even conservatives are ticked about that.

Jan. 29, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost one-third more than previously estimated and will predict a deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush's 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill's cost at about $540 billion, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bush will submit on Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts next Oct. 1.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

He has stated he will not roll back the middle class tax cuts. Not changing the child tax credit. In any case the "T" word doesn't alarm me. I would rather pay the federal tax I was paying before and have a balanced budget, or even a surplus, remember the surplus?

The tax cuts amounted to a tax shift. By the way, now that Bush passed his medicare BS, the cost has suddenly risen by a third. Brilliant plan. Reduce revenues and spend spend spend. Even conservatives are ticked about that.

First things first. The Medicare plan was not a wise plan. I think it, as well as the immigration fiasco (which is not as big of a fiasco as Nancy Peliosi's plan would be) will be poor public policy. Yes, I am still voting for him.

"Rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy" is political, election year rhetoric. Using their definitions, you're wealthy.

The surplus is being spent in Iraq. If George Bush hadn't been courageous enough to adopt an economic stimulus plan while still engaged in Iraq, we would not be in a recovery now. Assuming that we win the war and bring the troops home, the surplus will be back soon after w/GWB at the helm.

[Duffman]

I have a few observations on the democrats seeking their parties nomination for president.

1. Given the format of the debates, Al Sharpton may well be the best debator of the bunch.

2. While Edwards says he is not running for VP. He sure sounds like it when he begins numerous responses by noting his agreement with Kerry.

3. While it is important to show a united front. Someone had better start aiming shots at Kerry's bow soon or he will wrap things up in short order.

4. No matter what Dean says in public, Joe Trippi was fired.

5. Wes Clark may well be finished. His mouth moves way faster than his brain

6. Kucinich won't play well in the south....at all.

7. Who could Joe Lieberman choose as a running mate who would not overshadow him? Then again I don't think we have to worry about Lieberman choosing a running mate.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Your right about that aspect of Rev. Al.

In '88, I was ready to vote for Jesse Jackson after his speech at the Convention.:)

[ThNozzleman]

If anything, the lies used by the Bush administration concerning Iraq will be Bush's undoing.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman
If anything, the lies used by the Bush administration concerning Iraq will be Bush's undoing.

That's IF it is shown that it was lies and not crappy intelligence. Remember, there are quotes from slick Willy talking about the same threat.

[firemedic53]

Sharpton has nothing to lose so he just says what he wants....I'd never vote for him but I have to admit he's fun to watch. Can you imagine a debate where everyone did that? Actually answered questions instead of making a mini-speech each time?

[EFD840]

If anything, the lies used by the Bush administration concerning Iraq will be Bush's undoing.

The lack of WMD finds could have been an overwhelming issue, but the big problem is that Kerry has been pushing the Saddam/WMD threat for years.

Way back in 1998, he was leading the cheers when President Clinton launched Desert Fox (The December bombing offensive) and he voted in support of this war. He's spent years on the Senate Intelligence Committee looking at the same information both Bush and Clinton used to justify attacks. He may can make an issue about how we're handling the occupation of Iraq, but to use the reasons for the war as an issue would only serve to paint himself as a fellow victim in the eyes of those who blame intel failures or a co-conspirator in the eyes of those suspecting intentional deception. He can waffle and try to reinvent his record but it will come back to bite him badly.

Dean or Edwards could have made this a big issue, but they ain't gonna get the nod. Even the biggest anti-war folks will have a hard time saying that the world isn't a better place without Saddam around.

And Duffman, you're right about Clark. He's way out of his league.

[ThNozzleman]

Even the biggest anti-war folks will have a hard time saying that the world isn't a better place without Saddam around.
Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of other people who are no longer around, either. And the number grows every week.
I thought this was interesting:
http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/remindus.swf

[ThNozzleman]

That's IF it is shown that it was lies and not crappy intelligence.
Oh, I'm sure they'll blame some nameless intelligence...but that won't cut it with me.
Remember, there are quotes from slick Willy talking about the same threat.
Maybe so; but Bill Clinton is not the president...and he didn't invade another nation.

[Dalmatian90]

7. Who could Joe Lieberman choose as a running mate who would not overshadow him? Then again I don't think we have to worry about Lieberman choosing a running mate.

Kucinich :D

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Maybe so; but Bill Clinton is not the president...and he didn't invade another nation.

Clinton never attacked Iraq?

[CollegeBuff]

"There is no doubt in anyone's mind that on the day I left office, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

~Bill Clinton on Larry King Live , 2003

[EFD840]

Noz,

The point of my post wasn't to open a discussion of the war's moral justification, there's already a thread on that subject. I was just posting the Kerry and Clinton info to show how I don't think a Kerry ticket can use the war to score many points against Bush.

I think any effort by Kerry to imply that the war was wrong because we haven't found WMDs will backfire in a big way because for a long, long time he's been saying on the record that Saddam was was a threat because of his WMD program. He can't flip on the issue now, the RNC attack ads will write themselves. The voters will be left with a choice of two candidates, both of which said the same thing but only one willing to admit it now that they've been proven wrong. It just won't work.

You're absoultely right that the war could be a huge liability to President Bush, but I don't think Kerry can score points with it. Dean or Edwards could, but it doesn't look like they'll be the nominee.

Oddly enough, Kerry's biggest help right now seems to be Bush himself. The president seems to be going out of his way to alienate both fiscal conservatives with spending increases and social conservatives with his immigration policy. Not that these folks are going to run to Kerry, but they might just stay home and that's almost as good in a close race. I also think moderates will see these as an attempt to buy their vote, which may backfire on Bush as badly as a war flip-flop would hurt Kerry.

[Duffman]

Clinton never attacked Iraq?

George in the interest of honesty Nozz didn't say that. He said invade. There is a difference.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by Duffman


George in the interest of honesty Nozz didn't say that. He said invade. There is a difference.
That is what I thought someone would say. That is a debate similar to figurubg out what "is" means.

Violating the "sanctity" of another country (if that is your argument-it's not mine) happens if you use one missile or one hundred thousand troops. The only difference is the logistics.

[ThNozzleman]

I'm not here to support or tear down the former President. What he did during his terms is history, and open to discussion. However, my original point was not to turn the thread towards the war; merely to point out that it will be Bush's undoing in the next year. The polls already reflect that, and we haven't seen anything, yet. It is quite obvious that the threat that the Bush administration painted of Iraq was not true. Bush's waffle act on WMD and the ongoing war is hurting him and his bid for re-election. The right-wing push to label anyone who questions the war as treasonous and traitors is just about played out. As I've said before on this forum, there was no justification for invading Iraq, let alone the reasons Bush gave us. He cannot blame "faulty intelligence," for you all know that you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. My mention of all this was simply me reflecting its effect on the upcoming election.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Your opinion is well taken. But as fir your "You have n't seen anything yet" refernce.

Remember, the President has not even started to campaign yet. He is a master campaigner (if that is a word) and whether its Kerry, Dean or you, he will come out swinging.

[ThNozzleman]

Remember, the President has not even started to campaign yet. He is a master campaigner (if that is a word) and whether its Kerry, Dean or you, he will come out swinging.
Aye, but the whole war thing is leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, many of which are not really vocal about it, including his former supporters. I voted for Bush, and against Gore, the last time around. Boy, do I regret it! I thought to my self, "Anything is better than Gore." I couldn't have been more wrong, in my opinion.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Aye, but the whole war thing is leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, many of which are not really vocal about it, including his former supporters. I voted for Bush, and against Gore, the last time around. Boy, do I regret it! I thought to my self, "Anything is better than Gore." I couldn't have been more wrong, in my opinion.

Ask yourself this question...would Al Gore have handled the war on terror (not Iraq), in the aftermath of 9/11 better than President Bush? When you honestly answer that question, you will see why that vote was the smartest move you ever made.

[Duffman]

Remember, the President has not even started to campaign yet. He is a master campaigner (if that is a word) and whether its Kerry, Dean or you, he will come out swinging.

Who are you kidding. He has been campaigning for over a year. How many fundraisers has he attended? For crying out loud he used the State of the Union address as a campaign speech.

I just heard on C-Span that the Bush campaign spent 31 million in 2003. They raised over 130 million. If that isn't campaigning I don't know what is.

A good campaigner, I don't know. Al Gore lost the election by one vote of the Supreme Court. Had Ralph Nader not ran, Gore would have one. I didn't think Gore ran a great campaign. Bush may be on shaky ground.

Ask yourself this question...would Al Gore have handled the war on terror (not Iraq), in the aftermath of 9/11 better than President Bush? When you honestly answer that question, you will see why that vote was the smartest move you ever made.

George, thank you for recognizing that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror as advertised by the Bush administration.

As for how Gore would have handled the pursuit of Bin Laden. To assume that the only "honest" conclusion is that Gore would have done worse is foolish. I can think of about 130,000 troops and a whole lot of $ that would have been at his disposal.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Who are you kidding. He has been campaigning for over a year. How many fundraisers has he attended? For crying out loud he used the State of the Union address as a campaign speech.

I just heard on C-Span that the Bush campaign spent 31 million in 2003. They raised over 130 million. If that isn't campaigning I don't know what is.

A good campaigner, I don't know. Al Gore lost the election by one vote of the Supreme Court. Had Ralph Nader not ran, Gore would have one. I didn't think Gore ran a great campaign. Bush may be on shaky ground.

I'm not talking about private fund raisers. I'm talking about being out on the street, campaigning against Kerry or whoever.

BTW, if we are going to play if, IF Perot hadn't run, Clinton would have never been President and Gore would be a trivia question answer.
George, thank you for recognizing that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror as advertised by the Bush administration.
I'm still rasslin' with that one. I just took it out of play for the purpose of finding some common ground in this debate.
As for how Gore would have handled the pursuit of Bin Laden. To assume that the only "honest" conclusion is that Gore would have done worse is foolish. I can think of about 130,000 troops and a whole lot of $ that would have been at his disposal.
I don't think it would have been foolish at all. I think we can expect that he would have the same policies as his sugar Daddy Clinton and we would still be playing the appeasement game with them.

[ThNozzleman]

Ask yourself this question...would Al Gore have handled the war on terror (not Iraq), in the aftermath of 9/11 better than President Bush? When you honestly answer that question, you will see why that vote was the smartest move you ever made.
I think Gore would have handled it better. In my opinion, the Bush administration has fouled up just about everything they've touched. And I dispute that voting for Bush was smart at all; in fact, it was pretty stupid of me.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

I think Gore would have handled it better. In my opinion, the Bush administration has fouled up just about everything they've touched. And I dispute that voting for Bush was smart at all; in fact, it was pretty stupid of me.
While I respect your opinion, you are definitely in a very small minority. Even many Dems do not believe he would have handled it better. Your hatred for GWB is well known, and that is fine.

[CollegeBuff]

Originally posted by Duffman
Who are you kidding. He has been campaigning for over a year. How many fundraisers has he attended? For crying out loud he used the State of the Union address as a campaign speech.



Talk about a selective viewpoint. Just TRY and name a President who's never done the same in the election year of their first term.

[ThNozzleman]

While I respect your opinion, you are definitely in a very small minority. Even many Dems do not believe he would have handled it better. Your hatred for GWB is well known, and that is fine.
Settle down, my friend. I'm not a hater, nor have I ever stated that I hated GWB (or anyone, for that matter). I hate his arrogance and his attitude. I hate his stupid policy for getting us into a senseless war in a dirty little country. I hate that he and his oil loving, power-hungry cronies have lied through their teeth in order to pursuade the Nation to support this war. As for Democrats not believing that Gore would have handled this issue better; now THERE'S a minority. As for me being in a minority...well, according to some recent polls, that seems to be changing every day. People and the press are no longer afraid to question why the war was really started, for fear of being labeled commies, cowards, traitors, or engaging in treasonous actions.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Is a good old fashioned campaign. A true GOP vs.Democrat debate. Forget the term "special interest" becaue we know THEY ALL HAVE SPECIAL INTERESTS. In Illinois we have lost as many jobs as anywhere in the U.S., probably more then most States. I think if Kerry wins the nomination it would be good for the country. We need discussion and debate. Believe it or not, people support our troops and invading Iraq, but still wont vote for the President. It will be a good race. And like it or not, there are many Democrats who want revenge for the 2000 fiasco.

[EFD840]

Wow, this has been a great discussion! Thanks to everyone for keeping it civil.

according to some recent polls, that seems to be changing every day

I wouldn't put too much stock in ANY poll right now. They will sway with the momentum of the latest primary. The same thing happens after each party convention. If Kerry's poll lead doesn't get to 10 points or better in the next few weeks he had better get worried. Right now he's in a honeymoon period but it ain't gonna last. He's going to get continually hammered with his anti-defense votes. He might also have a problem with his votes to drastically cut intelligence funding.

I've got a question for you northeastern guys. Do you think Rudy on the ticket would be enough to swing New York?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

Settle down, my friend. I'm not a hater, nor have I ever stated that I hated GWB (or anyone, for that matter). I hate his arrogance and his attitude. I hate his stupid policy for getting us into a senseless war in a dirty little country. I hate that he and his oil loving, power-hungry cronies have lied through their teeth in order to pursuade the Nation to support this war. As for Democrats not believing that Gore would have handled this issue better; now THERE'S a minority. As for me being in a minority...well, according to some recent polls, that seems to be changing every day. People and the press are no longer afraid to question why the war was really started, for fear of being labeled commies, cowards, traitors, or engaging in treasonous actions.

I'm completely calm. I am respecting your opinion. But there are two continual flaws in your logic. First, you have never offered at least the tiniest bit of documentation that the war in Iraq is about oil. Because it is not. Second, the war on terror is much larger, arguably seperate from the Iraq war.
I've got a question for you northeastern guys. Do you think Rudy on the ticket would be enough to swing New York?
YES! And hopefully NJ, too.

[Bones42]

Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be since I live in NJ and did not follow NYC politics too much, but wasn't Rudy hated prior to 9/11? I seem to remember him not being too fondly spoken of before then.

[Duffman]

Talk about a selective viewpoint. Just TRY and name a President who's never done the same in the election year of their first term.

C-buff there is nothing selective about my viewpoint.

What I said is true. Yes others have done it as well. I responded to a comment on Bush specifically. What other Presidents have or have not done is irrelevent to the comment I responded to.

[CollegeBuff]

What I said is true. Yes others have done it as well. I responded to a comment on Bush specifically. What other Presidents have or have not done is irrelevent to the comment I responded to.


It's hardly irrelevant. You selectively targeted GWB for doing something that you now, when pressed, admit that every other President does. You make it sound that GWB doing it today is somehow worse than other Presidents before him, when it is not.

And like it or not, there are many Democrats who want revenge for the 2000 fiasco.


Wow, what a great reason to elect someone President- revenge. :rolleyes:

[Duffman]

It's hardly irrelevant. You selectively targeted GWB for doing something that you now, when pressed, admit that every other President does. You make it sound that GWB doing it today is somehow worse than other Presidents before him, when it is not.

I was responding to a comment on GWB. I did not "target" anyone. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I was not "pressed" to admit anything. True, he is no worse than anyone else for doing it. George's comment did not refer to anyone else, so my response to it did not refer to anyone else either.

I do agree with the second part of your post however, revenge is no reason to elect a candidate. I do think however that what happened in 2000 will bring some new voters out, on both sides.

[ThNozzleman]

First, you have never offered at least the tiniest bit of documentation that the war in Iraq is about oil.
For fear of dredging up the same thing, it should be obvious to even the most rampant of Bush supporters that the reasons stated for starting this war were not true, or were greatly exaggerated. So, it doesn't take long for one to figure out the reason our government wants control in this part of the world. As for documentation, I'm afraid your side's lack of it is all it takes to enforce my position. Bush has been reduced to saying that we were justified in waging war because Saddam was a very bad person. Cuba is still waiting for us to "liberate" them.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Originally posted by ThNozzleman

For fear of dredging up the same thing, it should be obvious to even the most rampant of Bush supporters that the reasons stated for starting this war were not true, or were greatly exaggerated. So, it doesn't take long for one to figure out the reason our government wants control in this part of the world. As for documentation, I'm afraid your side's lack of it is all it takes to enforce my position. Bush has been reduced to saying that we were justified in waging war because Saddam was a very bad person. Cuba is still waiting for us to "liberate" them.

So.... A + B = D? The argument continues to make no sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be since I live in NJ and did not follow NYC politics too much, but wasn't Rudy hated prior to 9/11? I seem to remember him not being too fondly spoken of before then.
Hated by who? He won two terms as the Republican mayor of a very liberal city. He probably would be a US Senator right now if he didn't contract cancer.

Remember, New york City id pretty much of an anomaly in New York State. Most "up-staters" hate the place due to the fact that they percieve it gets an unfair share of services and money. They are also pretty conservative. Hillary would be hosting a freaking talk show if she had not run against a last-minute substitution.

[ThNozzleman]

So.... A + B = D? The argument continues to make no sense.
Oh, come now! Why is everyone so afraid to admit the real reason ANY western nation is interested in that worthless sh*t-hole called the Middle East? It's painfully obvious that the "reasons" GWB gave us were not legit. What precious commodity from that area of the world has had America and European nations so interested for the last 75 years? That, and the White House being full of oil barons and their stooges, should be enough to convince any rational person of the true motives behind this war. You're a pretty intelligent fellow; I'm sure you'll figure it out. ;)

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

No, revenge is not a good reason to elect a President. But I still believe its something that hardcore Democrat partisans have in the back of their minds.

[TillerMan25]

Oh god, here goes Noz and his "Blood for Oil" crap again. Dude is beginning to sound like a Hollywood Moron.

[EFD840]

Oh, come now! Why is everyone so afraid to admit the real reason ANY western nation is interested in that worthless sh*t-hole called the Middle East?

Everybody isn't. Of course we're interest in the middle east because of the oil (all that keeps it from becoming a "worthless sh*t-hole") and that isn't wrong. Our economy relies on it, and our citizens rely on a healthy economy to enjoy a prosperous lifestyle. You just have to look at the oil crunch of the early 70s and the gas price surge of a couple years ago to see what an impact interrupted fuel supplies can have on our economy. It is the job of the current and every other president to protect our way of life and that includes protecting our fuel supply.

We didn't invent the idea. Prior to WWII, those areas were mostly European protectorates which partly explains the French opposition to our presence, we're the new kids on the block and they don't like us honing in on their turf.

The principal isn't just limited to the middle east. Expansion into the southeast Pacific for rubber, oil, and other resources was a major reason for WWII in the Pacific. The whole concept of ensuring your citizens have what they need to maintain their way of life is the crux of any nation's interest in affairs outside their border.

Foreign policy is no place for social experiments. Jimmy Carter tried to base our foreign policy on what was right and moral (in his judgement) as opposed to what was in our best interests. It was a miserable failure that likely played a part in the our current situation today. There's no doubt the ability of radicals in Iran to hold a US embassy hostage for more than a year served as an inspiration a lot of the folks running today's terror groups.

[ThNozzleman]

Everybody isn't. Of course we're interest in the middle east because of the oil (all that keeps it from becoming a "worthless sh*t-hole") and that isn't wrong.
Starting wars over oil is wrong, though. So is lying about it.

[Duffman]

Condoleeza Rice will "testify" before the commission investigating 9/11, but will not do so under oath, and her "testimony" cannot be made public.

So why bother?

I personally didn't believe the Bush administration had anything to hide beyond the already exposed FBI memo's that no one bothered to read. Yet another example of failure to cooperate with this commission makes me go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[E40FDNYL35]

WASHINGTON, DC – The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Harold Schaitberger, today asked President Bush to restore funding for multiple programs for emergency responders that were cut or eliminated in the FY 2005 Federal Budget.

“With the severe cuts made by the Administration to great programs that help make our country safer, we ask the President to please explain to the American people why he is leaving them more vulnerable to incidents ranging from the threats of terrorism to standard emergencies,” said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. ”The fact remains that firefighters around the U.S. often lack the training, equipment and staffing to adequately respond to calls to save lives and property.”

In the President’s budget, funding for the FIRE Act, the popular grant program that helps fire departments fund equipment needs, was cut by 50%. The proposal reduced the appropriation from $750 million to $500 million. The Administration also designated many useful Fire Act programs for elimination in its request, including initiatives for EMS, wellness/fitness, fire code enforcement, station renovation, and education.

In addition, state and local programs for homeland security purposes were reduced $200 million, from $3.3 to $3.1 billion. Such cuts nearly negate the suggested increase in first responder funding of “high threat urban areas,” which was included in the budget proposal.

The Administration also recommended to eliminate planned funding of the SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) Act, the first-ever Federal program to fund firefighters, which was signed into law by the President in November.

The $7.6 billion program would support the hiring of up to 75,000 firefighters over the next 7 years to help hundreds of communities meet national standards for firefighter staffing. According to the National Fire Protection Association, 2/3rds of America’s fire departments are under-staffed, leading to common vulnerabilities to their varied homeland security and standard emergency response needs.

[Duffman]

Feb. 5, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- On the same day a poison-laced letter shuttered Senate offices, President Bush asked Congress to eliminate an $8.2 million research program on how to decontaminate buildings attacked by toxins.

Buried in documents justifying Bush's 2005 budget proposal released Monday is an Environmental Protection Agency acknowledgment that his proposed cut "represents complete elimination of homeland security building decontamination research."

The agency said in the documents that Bush's proposal will "force it to disband the technical and engineering expertise that will be needed to address known and emerging biological and chemical threats in the future."

The toxin ricin was discovered in Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's office Monday. Intensive testing of the Tennessee Republican's office mailroom in the Dirksen Senate Office Building has so far failed to locate the deadly poison's origin.

[ThNozzleman]

Condoleeza Rice will "testify" before the commission investigating 9/11, but will not do so under oath, and her "testimony" cannot be made public.
Imagine that.

[CaptainGonzo]

Originally posted by Duffman
Feb. 5, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- On the same day a poison-laced letter shuttered Senate offices, President Bush asked Congress to eliminate an $8.2 million research program on how to decontaminate buildings attacked by toxins.

Buried in documents justifying Bush's 2005 budget proposal released Monday is an Environmental Protection Agency acknowledgment that his proposed cut "represents complete elimination of homeland security building decontamination research."

The agency said in the documents that Bush's proposal will "force it to disband the technical and engineering expertise that will be needed to address known and emerging biological and chemical threats in the future."

The toxin ricin was discovered in Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's office Monday. Intensive testing of the Tennessee Republican's office mailroom in the Dirksen Senate Office Building has so far failed to locate the deadly poison's origin.

Sure, why not? Lets just seal off the buildings contaminated with toxins and build new ones at a greater taxpayer expense! :rolleyes:

[Duffman]

It sure has gotten quiet in here.


I guess the Bush backers must be out looking for the "senior white house official" who outed Valarie Plame to Bob Novak. Funny how that investigation is going nowhere.

Just how many "senior" white house officials are there?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

They are out DUCK HUNTING with Scalia.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Oh, I'm sorry. I pretty much had finished what i wanted to say. But since you are concerned...

Have you seen the latest economic numbers?

Didn't stop Democratic posturing. Do you libs realize that you have been reduced to making arguments like; "More jobs were created, but you didn't create ENOUGH jobs". The economy is strong and getting stronger, but it's not strong ENOUGH".

Unless the President does something stupid between now and Nov., (likehis father did with a huge tax increase), the President will recieve the overwhelming support of everyday people like you and me. The economy will be very, very strong. Even the Dem experts do not expect any slowdown in the economic recovery for at least two years.

The flap over the WMD intel will blow over; the new commission will find out that the Clinton-decimated intelligence agencies were ill-equipped to do the job and provided intel that was unreliable. Remember, EVERYONE believed that Saddam had WMD-Clinton, France, Germany, the UN...hell, even Saddam believed it. This will be a non-issue.

The idiotic statements about the Pres. service record will turn out to be a major mistake. It is never a good idea to insinuate that a National Guard member or a Reserve member was any less honorable than regular military.

And finally, the American public will just get plain sick of the hateful smear campaign that they are waging now and will wage in the future. People will not want to hear all the negativity.

I don't make political predictions. But this is not 1992.

[gfowlston]

Oh Boy look at all the great jobs that have been created lets see Burger King, IHOP, Wendys, etc. and they pay how much per hour? Oh and lets not forget all the outsourcing of jobs that have gone to where India, Pakistan etc. I am so glad that my wife,s IT tech job that she made $45,000 a year at went to India where some person who hardly can understand english let alone speak it, trys to tell people at GE over the phone how to fix what is wrong with there computer. Yea the economy is getting better for those who have money cause the big Corporation are turning more profits cause they keep laying of workers. Not as many people on unemployement thats because when the benefits run out they are no longer counted. Hmmmmmmmmmmm On the GWB military issue, I could be wrong but didn't some republican hammer on Kerry about exersing his right of free speech after he served in Nam about it not being a just war. Lets see the claim is that GWB was AWOL from what I have read hmmmmmmmmm. Not sure who I am voting for yet but it will not be Bush this time like it was last time. I could be wrong but in 2000 didn't Gore recieve over whelming support of the people but did not have the electoral college votes needed hmmmmmmmmm.
Have a nice day

[ThNozzleman]

The flap over the WMD intel will blow over; the new commission will find out that the Clinton-decimated intelligence agencies were ill-equipped to do the job and provided intel that was unreliable. Remember, EVERYONE believed that Saddam had WMD-Clinton, France, Germany, the UN...hell, even Saddam believed it. This will be a non-issue.
You're kidding, right? A "non-issue?" We started a war that's killed thousands for nothing...and you call it a "non-issue?"
The idiotic statements about the Pres. service record will turn out to be a major mistake. It is never a good idea to insinuate that a National Guard member or a Reserve member was any less honorable than regular military.
Unless, those that did it did so to avoid the draft and stayed AWOL most of the time. GWB's military record is a joke.
http://www.awolbush.com/
And finally, the American public will just get plain sick of the hateful smear campaign that they are waging now and will wage in the future. People will not want to hear all the negativity.
Gee, where were you when the right wing was bashing merrily away at Clinton during the "Monica" years?

[Duffman]

The idiotic statements about the Pres. service record will turn out to be a major mistake. It is never a good idea to insinuate that a National Guard member or a Reserve member was any less honorable than regular military.

Idiotic statements? He failed to report for duty. No one associated with the unit he was assigned to can recall him ever being there(in Alabama).

You know, you would think that they could come up with at least 1 person who served with him in Alabama if he was there. But they can't. Being a National Guard or Reserve member is not less honorable. That is not the issue. Not showing up for that duty is less honorable. Poor attempt to spin the issue George.


And finally, the American public will just get plain sick of the hateful smear campaign that they are waging now and will wage in the future. People will not want to hear all the negativity.

Yeah, the GOP wouldn't know anything about smearing would they?

I am sure Karl Rove would never participate in something like that.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You're kidding, right? A "non-issue?" We started a war that's killed thousands for nothing...and you call it a "non-issue?"
Read my post again. Who was jumping up and down saying there was no evidence of WMD? EVERYONE was saying that Iraq had them. That was not the disagreement. The disagreement was what to do about them.
Unless, those that did it did so to avoid the draft and stayed AWOL most of the time. GWB's military record is a joke.
He served and received an honorable discharge. The time he missed was made up. He was never declared AWOL and he avoided the draft only in the sense that he, like thousands of others, enlisted first. Avoiding the draft didn't seem to bother you guys when it was Clinton blatantly avoiding the draft. Then, it was a courageous exercise of his rights.
Oh Boy look at all the great jobs that have been created lets see Burger King, IHOP, Wendys, etc. and they pay how much per hour?
So what you are saying is that the only jobs being created are entry level, minimum wage jobs? Go check your facts because you are completely wrong.
Gee, where were you when the right wing was bashing merrily away at Clinton during the "Monica" years?
I guess when we have a President who commits perjury and is dibarred from law practice and generally disgraces the country the facts should bot be discussed, right? That's not smearing.

[E40FDNYL35]

WASHINGTON - Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry swept up two more victories yesterday, handily winning caucuses in Michigan and Washington State.Kerry's win in liberal Washington - wired land of lattes and Internet bloggers - was especially painful for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who finished a distant second.The winner of nine of 11 contests so far, Kerry increasingly appears to have a lock on the nomination.



Side Note:
The Rev. Al took heart even though he finished fourth in Michigan. Kerry only beat him narrowly in Detroit...:rolleyes:

[E229Lt]

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Kelley Kramer

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:
· Ran for congress and lost.
· Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
· Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
· Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
· With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
· Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:
· Attacked and took over two countries.
· Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
· Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
· Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
· Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
· First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
· First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
· First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
· After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
· Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
· In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
· Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
· Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
· Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
· Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
· Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.
· Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
· Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
· Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
· Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
· My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
· Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
· Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.
· Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
· Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
· Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
· First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
· First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
· Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
· Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
· Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
· Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
· First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
· All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
· My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
· Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
· First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
· First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
· First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
· Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
· With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
· Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
· First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
· Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
· Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
· Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
· Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
· In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
· Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
· In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
· Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:
· At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
· AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.
· Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
· All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
· All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
· All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
· Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
· For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Ya know, 229, you have just proved that intellectual honesty is not to be used in this discussion. That is probably the most disgustingly slanted and biased piece I have ever seen posted on these forums. Besides the fact that the majority of it is untrue.

I'm out of this discussion.

[E229Lt]

Besides the fact that the majority of it is untrue.


The "Majority" being 51%, I'd be concerned if it was 20% truth.

[ThNozzleman]

Read my post again. Who was jumping up and down saying there was no evidence of WMD? EVERYONE was saying that Iraq had them. That was not the disagreement. The disagreement was what to do about them.
No, not EVERYONE, I'm afraid. The Bush Administration KNEW Iraq was no threat to anyone, just as I've been saying here on these forums for some time. Instead, Bush went ahead and started his dirty little war.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17522

[ThNozzleman]

What difference an election year makes! Did they ALL LIE???
They're all politicians, aren't they? ;)

[E40FDNYL35]

This may very well be the best thought out item we have read since 9/11/01.


I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan.